Page:Copyright Law Revision (Senate Report No. 94-473).djvu/116

 that it is. Section 301 is not intended to preempt common law protection in cases involving activities such as false labeling, fraudulent representation, and passing off even where the subject matter involved comes within the scope of the copyright statute.

“Misappropriation” is not necessarily synonymous with copyright infringement, and thus a cause of action labeled as “misappropriation” is not preempted if it is in fact based neither on a right within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 nor on a right equivalent thereto. For example, state law should have the flexibility to afford a remedy (under traditional principles of equity) against a consistent pattern of unauthorized appropriation by a competitor of the facts (i.e., not the literary expression) constituting “hot” news, whether in the traditional mold of International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), or in the newer form of data updates from scientific, business or financial data bases. Likewise, a person having no trust or other relationship with the proprietor of a computerized data base should not be immunized from sanctions against electronically or crytographically breaching the proprietor’s security arrangements and accessing the proprietor’s data. The unauthorized data access which should be remediable might also be achieved by the intentional interception of data transmissions by wire, microwave or laser transmissions, or by the common unintentional means of “crossed” telephone lines occasioned by errors in switching.

The proprietor of data displayed on the cathode ray tube of a computer terminal should be afforded protection against unauthorized printouts by third parties (with or without improper access), even if the data are not copyrightable. For example, the data may not be copyrightable because they are not fixed in a tangible medium of expression (i.e., the data are not displayed for a period of more than transitory duration).

Nothing contained in section 301 precludes the owner of a material embodiment of a copy or a phonorecord from enforcing a claim of conversion against one who takes possession of the copy or phonorecord without consent.

Clause (4) provides that nothing in this title annuls or limits the authority of states to prevent the unauthorized duplication of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972. The addition of this clause to the bill was proposed by the Department of Justice to clarify the intent of this title.

At the present time, 32 states prohibit record piracy by statute, and four more do so under common law. The Congress and many states have determined that record pirates unfairly appropriate the property, efforts and capital of the legitimate music industry. There is no justification for exposing pre-1972 recordings to expropriation by record pirates.

Subsection (c) makes clear that nothing contained in Title 17 annuls or limits any rights or remedies under any other Federal statute.

In general

The debate over how long a copyright should last is as old as the oldest copyright statute and will doubtless continue as long as there