put the public on notice that the musical composition had been used and was therefore available for compulsory licensing. The requirement was deleted from the 1976 Act. Infringing acts of the present action occurred after the passage of the 1976 Act, which has no such notice requirement. We have found no cases which suggest that failure to file under the 1909 Act should bar relief under the new, nor can we gee a reason for such a proposition. Therefore, the action is not barred.
Plaintiff requests that she be given possession of the master tapes now held by defendants. The ownership of the copyright is separate and independent from ownership of the material object in which it is embodied, 17 U.S.C. § 202. Harris has no possessory interest in the masters.[1] Ownership of the tapes was properly transferred to and is now held by defendants; at issue here is only the use to which these tangible embodiments may be put. While defendants are hereby precluded from in any way reproducing the masters, they are entitled, to paraphrase the amicus, to listen to them on their own home stereo systems.
Defendants assert that they should be able to offset any monies advanced to Harris by Jay-Gee against royalties owed by defendant to Harris. Because we hold that defendants did not have a mechanical license, they are not entitled to an offset.
After careful review, we find defendant’s remaining arguments to be without merit.
This court will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to appellee upon submission of supporting documentation. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
Affirmed.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 81–4628, 81–4667, 81–4671 and 82–4162.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 10, 1983.
Decided June 7, 1984.
- ↑ In fact Harris had specifically relinquished all rights to the masters by language in the Jay-Gee Recording Agreement which read “All recordings and all records and reproductions therefrom, together with the performances embodied therein, shall be entirely our property free of any claims whatsoever by you….” The 1909 Act only recognized copyrights in the underlying composition, not in a performance. See Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 93 S.Ct. 2303, 37 L.Ed.2d 163 (1973). This language does not constitute an assignment of a copyright interest.
licenses others to do so, to file notice thereof, accompanied by a recording fee, in the copyright office, and any failure to file such notice shall be a complete defense to any suit, action, or proceeding for any infringement of such copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 1(e) (1976).
