Advance Magazine Publishers v. Leach prosecution team Introduction/Background (Dan/Jeremy) Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. own more than 500 booklength stories on record with the United States Copyright Office. Defendant David Leach operates two websites, Blackmask.com and Smartset.com, where he offers distributed electronic copies and reprints of the copyrighted publications. (TBD https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2403338/advance-magazine-publishers-inc-vleach/) Strategy (Maurice) As the prosecution team, we will focus on making it clear that we (Advance Magazine Publishers) did not give up our copyright. We will oppose the point that because the material was published a long time ago that it is legal to reference it without fair use. We will argue that Leach should have been granted permission before using our material even if it has been many years since it was published. We will also strongly state that we did not give Leach any form of verification saying it was fine to use our resource. Team Stance(Eric) Advance Magazine Publishers will prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Leach has violated copyright laws. Leach will argue that Advance Magazine Publishers has abandoned its copyright. That is patently false. According to Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. Cal. 1960) abandonment of copyright laws “...must be manifested by some overt act indicative of a purpose to surrender the rights and allow the public to copy.” Advance Magazine Publishers never took such an act. Mr. Leach purposefully acquired a multitude of works, downloaded them onto his website without our permission. Mr. Leach’s claim that he can possess our stories. Related Laws(Adanna)(Samson) United States Constitution, Article i, Section 8 §102 Subject matter of copyright: In general 28 (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501, et seq 17 U.S. Code § 1301 - Designs protected (a)Designs Protected.— (1)In general.— The designer or other owner of an original design of a useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter. 17 U.S. Code § 1309 - Infringement (a)Acts of Infringement.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be infringement of the exclusive rights in a design protected under this chapter for any person, without the consent of the owner of the design, within the United States and during the term of such protection, to— (1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any infringing article as defined in subsection (e); or (2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any such infringing article Related Cases (Aqeel) A Response about Copyright Violation from Internet Archive! The Author V. S. Anderson found a pdf of the 1989 mass-market paperback of her novel, King of the Roses (originally published by St. Martin’s in 1983). She sent two email notices requesting that the book be taken down, using the free form included in Victoria’s original post. In order to get a response, she did the following, “After sending the two notices and receiving no response, I followed a link in Victoria Strauss’s post to the Internet Archive site. There, on the blog page for the site, I discovered a comment box. Into that box I posted; “I have sent two takedown notices about my book, which is still under my copyright and is available as a self-published Kindle edition, but you have not responded. Please post a link to the “Notice and Takedown” process you reference above on your home page. My next step will be to seek legal advice and, if necessary, take you to court.” ( Anderson, 2018). And within 36 hours, she received the following email, which she paste here in full: Dear Ms. Anderson, Thank you for your emails. To help clarify things regarding the item you have identified (https://archive.org/details/kingofroses00virg) – blind and print-disabled patrons (verified by formal institutions including the Library of Congress) may access special electronic versions of the book that can be used with accessible software. They agree not to make copies or distribute materials. Our program to enable blind and print-disabled access has been in operation since 2010 (our original press release w/links to stories in the media can be seen here). There is no other access available to this item (lending access for general users has been disabled). Please feel free to check the links under “Download Options”. They are all inoperable or include only to metadata (i.e., catalog information about the text, not the text itself). And of course, the Internet Archive offers these texts on a wholly non-commercial basis. Our project, organization, and mission are entirely charitable and oriented towards broad social benefit. Again, thank you for getting in touch with us. Hoping this information is helpful. — The Internet Archive Team ---------------Remaining concerns/questions: 1) How readers qualify for free access to this book is not well explained. 2) The copy of the book on their site is a pdf of the original 1989 paperback, and is of very poor quality. Is there “accessible software” that can actually read this text? 3) Doesn’t the decision of the Internet Archive to retain this version of her book still constitute copyright infringement, since access is being supplied to these readers without my permission? Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. South Carolina, 865 F.2d 1444, 1448 (4th Cir.1989) - The claim of adverse possession is non applicable due to there being no federal law of adverse possession existing. Conclusion (Kimberly) References United states constitution, article i, section 8 §102 · Subject matter of copyright: In general 28; https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf A Response about Copyright Violation from Internet Archive! https://justcanthelpwriting.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/a-response-about-copyrightviolation-from-internet-archive/ Case Brief Defense Team Case: ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC. v. David LEACH Introduction/Background: Plaintiff Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. is the owner on record the United States Copyright Office of more than 500 book-length stories, published in the 1930s and 1940s, in the pulp fiction serial magazines. Defendant David Leach, d/b/a David Moynihan, d/b/a Disruptive Publishing, operates two websites, Blackmask.com and Smartset.net, through which he displays or offers for distribution electronic copies and reprints of Plaintiff’s publications. Defendant operates his business by scanning literary works into electronic form and making them available to the public in a variety of formats, including MS-Reader, Adobe Acrobat, and Rocket eBook. Defendant’s customers may downlad advertiser-supported electronic copies of works directly from his websites, purchase by mail CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs containing compilations of works, or purchase through online booksellers such as Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com,reprints of literary works made by Defendant. Defendant began selling copies of Plaintiff’s publications in 2000. The Plaintiff submitted extensive exhibits documenting its chain of title to the publications, which will be summarized briefly. Strategy: As the defense team, our strategy is to prove that Mr. Leach is not guilty because he changed the content of the books before posting them online. Mr. Leach was unaware that he was the law at the time, and just wanted to provide books for his websites. To prove this, we will claim that he used it under fair use and didn’t mean any harm to the authors or the publishing company in doing so. Team Stance: Our defense team feels that we are not guilty of the claims made by Advance Magazine, for copyright infringement. We feel that our client, David Leach, was able to obtain the copyrights of the published works on his site through adverse possession. Our clients sites offered scanned versions of the Plaintiffs works, but we feel the rights have been transferred to Leach because he had the titles available online for years, and do to the rule of adverse possession we feel that we have specific rights to the copyrights of the publications. Relevant Laws: 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1) “The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession” (United States Copyright Office). First Sale Doctrine: “[T]he owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work may resell or otherwise dispose of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner” (Ferrera). Prima facie (regarding copyright infringement cases): “Once the court has received evidence of ownership and violation of an exclusive right, the plaintiff has met its prima facie (initial) burden” (Ferrera). 17 U.S. Code § 121 (a): “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities” (Cornell). Theft: “There are only two elements to the crime of theft and they are both simple and logical. The elements are that property must be taken from another and that it must be taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property“ (Thompson). Adverse possession: “A doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain common law requirements are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time, as defined by a statute of limitations” (Cornell) Statute of Limitations for Copyright Enforcement (17 U.S. Code § 507(b)): “No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” (Cornell) Relevant Cases: Perfect 10 Inc. v. Giganews Inc This case involved the unauthorized distribution of photos over Giganews’ servers. The court found that Giganews did not engage in the volitional conduct necessary to be guilty for unauthorized display, distribution and reproduction of Perfect 10’s images. Oracle v. Google This is an ongoing case in which they are assessing whether Google’s use of ORacle’s software code was fair use. Gee v. CBS Inc. This case, decided by a federal court, set the precedent of expanding the adverse possession doctrine to copyright law. Conclusion: Mr. Leach is an honest man exercising his right to distribute material he legally possesses. This lawsuit filed by Advance Magazine Publishers is frivolous and an attempt to abuse the courts to make a quick buck off of the labor of a less powerful entity. The publisher hasn’t even met its prima facie of proving that they own the copyright they’re trying to enforce, and their lawsuit should be dismissed immediately. Advance attempts to set a dangerous precedent that will rob American citizens of their rights to distribute the material they own, and will cause irreparable damage to the book industry and the economy as a whole. Works Cited: Cornell. 17 U.S. Code § 121 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities. 15th June 2018. . - Adverse Possession. 8th Sept. 2018. . - 17 U.S. Code § 507 - Limitations on actions. 15th June 2018. - . Daus, Matthew. The Adverse Possession of Copyright. 1992. . Ferrera, Gerald. "Chapter 5: Copyright." CyberLaw: Text and Cases. 3rd. Cengage, 2012. Kupferschmid, Keith. “Copyright Law in 2017: 12 Big Court Cases to Know About | CCC Blog.” Copyright Clearance Center, 18 July 2018, www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-law-2017-12-big-court-cases-know/. Thompson, Brian. What are the elements of theft in Maryland. 6th Jan. 2009. . United States Copyright Office. Chapter 2: Copyright Ownership and Transfer. n.d. . This is the CASE. Comment: from the debate Note from Defense team ( represent Mr. Leach) : • They think that what Mr. Leach done was fair use • Mr. Leach want to provide all books accessible to disable • From the Fair use they want/ have to make any form that is easy to use for people with disability. • They clime that there was no limitation and that Mr. Leach owns the books and stories. Note from Prosecution team( represent Advance Magazine ) • They are suing of copyright • They said that they still own the books that Mr. Leach selling • Mr. Leach copy the book to his website without permission • The Prosecution team asked the defense team “What method Mr. Leach did to inform that people who will get the book online copy is disable?” the defense response “he forgot to check that, Mr. Leach is good person” • The Prosecution clime that Mr. Leach is making money • Mr. Leach ignored the copyright law and made some edit to the books • The Prosecution clime that Mr. Leach reached out to Advance Magazine before he copied the books to his website and his request was declined. Even thou his request was declined he did copied the books and uploaded to his website. Me as a Judge I asked the Defense team: When Mr. Leach had the permission to sell theses book/ stories, Did the permission contain a permission to make these books accessible to disabled people? The defense answer “No, it was mistake and Mr. Leach will get a permission in the future after this court” The Judge jury decision is Mr. Leach is guilty and broke the law. The defense team did not have a strong, valid reason of what Mr. Leach did without permission there argument were he is good person , he owned the books/ stories and he want to provide these to disabled people 
Purchase answer to see full attachment