Cletus Robert Anderson v. Barry J. Nidorf, Chief Probation Officer Attorney General of the State of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “commercial gain or private profit” element in California’s labeling law, which is nearly identical to section 16 — 8, significantly narrowed the statute’s application
• California statute which criminalizes the selling of recordings without a label did not regulate pure speech
• statute which criminalizes the selling of unidentified recordings did not regulate pure speech
• implicit in its holding was a finding that a state statute criminalizing unauthorized duplication or bootlegging of sound recordings would “ ‘in and of itself ... infringe one of the exclusive rights’ listed in the copyright laws”
• finding the same two goals in California’s labeling law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).