Pearson Education, Inc. v. Liu’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 1001 · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 109 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H · Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. · Kinstler v. First Reliance Standard Life Insurance · Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publishing, Ltd. · Graham v. James
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106.” 17 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the author of the work gave the exclusive United States distribution rights— enforceable under the Act — to the publisher of the United States edition and the exclusive British distribution rights to the publisher of the British edition, ... presumably only those made by the publisher of the United States edition would be “lawfully made under this title” within the meaning of § 109(a). The first sale doctrine would not provide the publisher of the British [i.e., foreign] edition who decided to sell in the American market with a defense to an action under § 602(a) (or, for that matter, to an action under § 106(3), if there was a distribution of the copies).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.