From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McCool

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 15, 1985
751 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1985)

Summary

interpreting similar statutory language in § 1498(b), relating to copyright infringement

Summary of this case from Advanced Software Design v. Fed. Res. Bank of St. Louis

Opinion

No. 84-5090.

Argued and Submitted December 5, 1984.

Decided January 15, 1985.

Carol A. Chase, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Gerald M. Singer, Encino, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS, KENNEDY and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.


Appellants were convicted of one count of copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1)(B), and eight counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The copyright violation arose when appellants distributed videotaped copies of twenty-one copyrighted motion pictures, without authorization from the copyright owner, to various military clubs at bases overseas. The mail fraud counts arose from misrepresentations in the same scheme.

We publish this opinion not because the appellants' principal argument has merit, but simply to insure that it will not be repeated again. Appellants argue there is a defense to the criminal prosecution afforded by a civil statute, which provides, in essence, that a suit against the Government is the exclusive remedy for owners who claim their copyrighted work is infringed either by the Government or by one acting for the Government, such as a contractor. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) (1982). The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) is to free the Government from obstructions raised by its own involvement or involvement of its contractors in private litigation. Windsurfing International, Inc. v. Ostermann, 534 F. Supp. 581, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); Evans v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp., 270 F. Supp. 778 (D.C.Mo. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 395 F.2d 359 (8th Cir. 1968). The statute cannot be construed to afford a defense to one who faces a criminal prosecution for willful infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1)(B). The statute applies by its terms to copyright owners and has no application in a criminal proceeding.

Each of the other arguments made by appellants are likewise devoid of any merit. The convictions on all counts are AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. McCool

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 15, 1985
751 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1985)

interpreting similar statutory language in § 1498(b), relating to copyright infringement

Summary of this case from Advanced Software Design v. Fed. Res. Bank of St. Louis
Case details for

United States v. McCool

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. KEITH C. McCOOL AND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 15, 1985

Citations

751 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

People of Territory of Guam v. Gill

When a civil statute and a criminal statute both address the same subject matter, but have different…

Advanced Software Design v. Fed. Res. Bank of St. Louis

Windsurfing Int'l. v. Ostermann, 534 F. Supp. 581, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). See also United States v. McCool, 751…