FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-
Appellant, No. 08-55998
v. D.C. No.
TROY AUGUSTO, an individual 2:07-cv-03106-
doing business as Roast Beast SJO-AJW
Music Collectables doing business OPINION
as Roastbeastmusic,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
June 7, 2010—Seattle, Washington
Filed January 4, 2011
Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Consuelo M. Callahan and
Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Canby
323
326 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
COUNSEL
Russell J. Frackman, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for the plaintiff, counter-defendant,
appellant.
Joseph C. Gratz, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, Cal-
ifornia, for the defendant-counter-claimant-appellee.
Robert W. Clarida, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New
York, New York, Jason Schultz, Samuelson Law, Technology
& Public Policy Clinic, Berkeley, California, for the amici
curiae.
OPINION
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
UMG Recordings appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment in favor of defendant Troy Augusto on
UMG’s claim of copyright infringement in violation of § 501
of the Copyright Act, which entitles copyright owners to insti-
tute an action for infringement of the exclusive right to dis-
tribute copies of the copyrighted work. See 17 U.S.C.
§§ 501(a), (b), 106(3) (2006). The copies in issue comprise
eight specially-produced compact discs, each embodying a
copyrighted sound recording. UMG, the copyright owner,
used the discs solely for marketing purposes, sending them
unsolicited to individuals such as music critics and radio disc
jockeys. Although Augusto was not one of those individuals,
he managed to obtained the discs from various sources. He
later sold them at auction, an act which UMG contends
infringed its exclusive right to distribute the discs.
Augusto asserts that UMG’s initial distribution of the discs
effected a transfer of ownership of the discs to the recipients,
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 327
rendering the discs subject to the “first sale” doctrine, which
permits one who has acquired ownership of a copy to dispose
of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner.
See id. § 109(a). UMG argues that the statements on the discs
and the circumstances of their distribution granted only a
license to each recipient, not a transfer of ownership (or
“sale”) of the copy. Absent a sale, UMG remained the owner
of the discs and, accordingly, the defense of the first sale doc-
trine would be out of Augusto’s reach. We conclude that the
mailing indeed did effect a sale of the discs to the recipients
for purposes of the first sale doctrine, and we affirm the order
of the district court.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The material facts of the case are undisputed. UMG is
among the world’s largest music companies. One of its core
businesses is the creation, manufacture, and sale of recorded
music, or phonorecords, the copyrights of which are owned
by UMG.1 These phonorecords generally take the form of
compact discs (“CDs”).
Like many music companies, UMG ships specially-
produced promotional CDs to a large group of individuals
(“recipients”), such as music critics and radio programmers,
that it has selected. There is no prior agreement or request by
the recipients to receive the CDs. UMG does not seek or
receive payment for the CDs, the content and design of which
often differs from that of their commercial counterparts.
UMG ships the promotional CDs by means of the United
States Postal Service and United Parcel Service. Relatively
few of the recipients refuse delivery of the CDs or return them
to UMG, and UMG destroys those that are returned.
1
The Copyright Act defines phonorecords as “material objects in which
sounds . . . are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and
from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise com-
municated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17
U.S.C. § 101 (2006).
328 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
Most of the promotional CDs in issue in this case bore a
statement (the “promotional statement”) similar to the follow-
ing:
This CD is the property of the record company and
is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use
only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an
agreement to comply with the terms of the license.
Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and
may be punishable under federal and state laws.
Some of the CDs bore a more succinct statement, such as
“Promotional Use Only—Not for Sale.”2
Augusto was not among the select group of individuals
slated to receive the promotional CDs. He nevertheless man-
aged to acquire numerous such CDs, many of which he sold
through online auctions at eBay.com. Augusto regularly
advertised the CDs as “rare . . . industry editions” and referred
to them as “Promo CDs.”
After several unsuccessful attempts at halting the auctions
through eBay’s dispute resolution program, UMG filed a
complaint against Augusto in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging that Augusto
had infringed UMG’s copyrights in eight promotional CDs for
which it retained the “exclusive right to distribute.” The dis-
trict court granted summary judgment in favor of Augusto,
2
Despite the fact that the two types of statements bear little resemblance
to each other, the parties unaccountably agree that both types have the
same meaning (although they dispute what that meaning is). Insofar as the
parties’ agreement purports to establish that the two statements have the
same legal consequences, it does not bind us. See Swift & Co. v. Hocking
Valley Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 281, 289 (1917) (“If the stipulation is to be
treated as an agreement concerning the legal effect of admitted facts, it is
obviously inoperative; since the court cannot be controlled by agreement
of counsel on a subsidiary question of law.”).
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 329
and UMG appealed. We have jurisdiction of the appeal pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. See Bag-
dadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996). We may
affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Video Soft-
ware Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 956
(9th Cir. 2009).
While it is an open question as to whether the plaintiff or
defendant bears the burden of proving the applicability of the
first sale defense, see United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180,
1191-92 (9th Cir. 1977) (government bears the burden of
proof in the criminal context), we need not reach the issue in
this case, because we would reach the same conclusion
regardless of which party were to bear the burden.
DISCUSSION
[1] To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringe-
ment, a plaintiff must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright
and (2) violation by the alleged infringer of at least one of the
exclusive rights granted to copyright owners by the Copyright
Act (the “Act”). See Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072,
1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)). Section 106
of the Act grants copyright owners, such as UMG, the exclu-
sive right, among others, “to distribute copies or phonorecords
of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer
of ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); see id. § 501(a) (“Anyone
who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner as provided by section[ ] 106 . . . is an infringer of the
copyright . . . .”). The district court held that UMG made out
a prima facie case of copyright infringement: UMG estab-
lished that it owned the copyright to the promotional CDs and
Augusto sold the CDs without UMG’s permission.
330 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
Although UMG, as the owner of the copyright, has exclu-
sive rights in the promotional CDs, “[e]xemptions, compul-
sory licenses, and defenses found in the Copyright Act narrow
[those] rights.” Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s
Dept., 447 F.3d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 17 U.S.C.
§§ 107-22). Augusto invokes the “first sale” doctrine
embodied in § 109(a) of the Act. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). He
argues that the circumstances attending UMG’s distribution of
the discs effected a “sale” (transfer of ownership) of the discs
to the original recipients and that, under the “first sale” doc-
trine, the recipients and subsequent owners of those particular
copies were permitted to sell or otherwise dispose of those
copies without authorization by the copyright holder.
In the alternative, Augusto argues that the original recipi-
ents were entitled to treat the CDs as gifts under the Unor-
dered Merchandise Statute, enacted as part of the Postal
Reorganization Act of 1970, and therefore had “the right to
retain, use, discard, or dispose of [them] in any manner [they
saw] fit,” in this case, by selling those CDs to the thrift shops
and second-hand stores where Augusto states he purchased
them. See 39 U.S.C. § 3009(a), (b) (2006); see also Postal
Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-375, 84 Stat. 719
(codified at 39 U.S.C. § 101).
UMG, on the other hand, contends that the promotional
statement effected a license with the recipients and, because
the recipients were not owners but licensees of the CDs, nei-
ther they nor Augusto were entitled to sell or otherwise trans-
fer the CDs. See Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’anza
Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 146-47 (1998) (“[B]ecause
the protection afforded by § 109(a) is available only to the
‘owner’ of a lawfully made copy . . . , the first sale doctrine
would not provide a defense to . . . any nonowner such as a
bailee, a licensee, a consignee, or one whose possession of the
copy was unlawful.”); Am. Int’l Pictures, Inc. v. Foreman,
576 F.2d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 1978) (“[U]nless title to the copy
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 331
passes through a first sale by the copyright holder, subsequent
sales do not confer good title.”).
The Distribution of the Promotional CDs Effected a Sale
The first sale doctrine provides that “the owner of a particu-
lar copy or phonorecord lawfully made under [the Act], 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 or phonorecord.” 17 U.S.C.
§ 109(a). Notwithstanding its distinctive name, the doctrine
applies not only when a copy is first sold, but when a copy
is given away or title is otherwise transferred without the
accouterments of a sale. See 4 Patry on Copyright § 13:15; see
also United States v. Atherton, 561 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.
1977) (“The ‘sale’ embodied in the first sale concept is a term
of art.”). “[O]nce the copyright owner places a copyrighted
item in the stream of commerce . . . , he has exhausted his
exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.” Quality
King, 523 U.S. at 152. The seminal illustration of the princi-
ple is found in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 341
(1908), where a copyright owner unsuccessfully attempted to
restrain the resale of a copyrighted book by including in it the
following notice: “The price of this book at retail is $1 net.
No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at less
price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.” Id.
The Court noted that the statutory grant to a copyright owner
of the “sole right of vending” the work did not continue after
the first sale of a given copy. Id. at 349-50. “The purchaser
of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copy-
right, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new
edition of it.” Id. at 350. The attempt to limit resale below a
certain price was therefore held invalid. Id. at 351.
[2] The rule of Bobbs-Merrill remains in full force,
enshrined as it is in § 109(a) of the Act: a copyright owner
who transfers title in a particular copy to a purchaser or donee
cannot prevent resale of that particular copy. We have recog-
332 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
nized, however, that not every transfer of possession of a copy
transfers title. Particularly with regard to computer software,
we have recognized that copyright owners may create licens-
ing arrangements so that users acquire only a license to use
the particular copy of software and do not acquire title that
permits further transfer or sale of that copy without the per-
mission of the copyright owner. Our most recent example of
that rule is Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.
2010). Others are Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sher-
iff’s Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006); Triad Sys. Corp. v.
Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995); MAI Sys. Corp.
v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993). All of
these cases dealt with the question whether arrangements with
consumers amounted to sales of copies, or succeeded in
awarding only licenses. They recognized that the mere label-
ing of an arrangement as a license rather than a sale, although
it was a factor to be considered, was not by itself dispositive
of the issue. See, e.g., Vernor, 621 F.3d at 1109 (construing
United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1190-92 (9th Cir.
1977)).
The same question is presented here. Did UMG succeed in
creating a license in recipients of its promotional CDs, or did
it convey title despite the restrictive labeling on the CDs? We
conclude that, under all the circumstances of the CDs’ distri-
bution, the recipients were entitled to use or dispose of them
in any manner they saw fit, and UMG did not enter a license
agreement for the CDs with the recipients. Accordingly,
UMG transferred title to the particular copies of its promo-
tional CDs and cannot maintain an infringement action
against Augusto for his subsequent sale of those copies.
[3] Our conclusion that the recipients acquired ownership
of the CDs is based largely on the nature of UMG’s distribu-
tion. First, the promotional CDs are dispatched to the recipi-
ents without any prior arrangement as to those particular
copies. The CDs are not numbered, and no attempt is made
to keep track of where particular copies are or what use is
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 333
made of them. As explained in greater detail below, although
UMG places written restrictions in the labels of the CDs, it
has not established that the restrictions on the CDs create a
license agreement.3
[4] We also hold that, because the CDs were unordered
merchandise, the recipients were free to dispose of them as
they saw fit under the Unordered Merchandise Statute, 39
U.S.C. § 3009, which provides in pertinent part that,
(a) [e]xcept for . . . free samples clearly and con-
spicuously marked as such, . . . the mailing of
unordered merchandise . . . constitutes an unfair
method of competition and an unfair trade prac-
tice . . . .
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsec-
tion (a) of this section . . . may be treated as a
gift by the recipient, who shall have the right
to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any
manner he sees fit without any obligation what-
soever to the sender . . . .
Id. § 3009(a), (b) (emphasis added). The statute defines “un-
ordered merchandise” as “merchandise mailed without the
prior expressed request or consent of the recipient” but leaves
“merchandise” itself undefined. Id. § 3009(d). Although the
statute applies in terms to “mailed” merchandise, the Federal
Trade Commission has applied its prohibitions to other types
of shipment, as violations of § 5 of the Federal Trade Com-
mission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. See 43 Fed. Reg. 4113 (Jan. 31,
1978)).
3
A few of the CDs are returned, and then destroyed by UMG. Needless
to say, they were not the subjects of Augusto’s resales. For the CDs that
are not returned, UMG does not know the recipients’ responses to the dis-
tribution or to the conditions UMG attempts to impose.
334 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
[5] Augusto attempts to invoke this statute directly in his
defense, but the statute in terms confers rights only on recipi-
ents of unordered merchandise. Augusto does not contend that
UMG shipped the promotional CDs to him, nor does he show
that any of his sources in fact treated the CDs as gifts.4 The
significance of the Unordered Merchandise Statute is not that
it applies to Augusto, but that it confers on the recipients the
“right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of [the CDs] in any
manner that [they] see[ ] fit, without obligation to the sender,”
UMG. 39 U.S.C. § 3009(b). This provision is utterly inconsis-
tent with the terms of the license that UMG sought to impose
on the recipients. Because the statute grants to the recipients
the right to treat the CDs as their own, shipping the unordered
CDs to the recipients rendered the recipients owners, not
licensees, of the CDs for purposes of the first sale defense.
This effect of the Unordered Merchandise Statute distin-
guishes this case from those involving computer software,
where the software consumers clearly ordered and paid for the
software licensed to them. See, e.g., Wall Data, 447 F.3d at
774.
UMG contends that the Unordered Merchandise Statute
clearly does not apply to its distribution of free promotional
CDs, because the “main purpose” of the Statute “was to ‘con-
trol the unconscionable practice of persons who ship unor-
dered merchandise to consumers and then trick or bully them
into paying for it.’ ” Kipperman v. Acad. Life Ins. Co., 554
F.2d 377, 379 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting 116 Cong. Rec. 22,314
(June 30, 1970) (statement of Sen. Warren Magnuson)).
Because UMG is not trying to extract payment from the recip-
ients, it argues that the statute does not apply. But the terms
of the statute do not require “bullying” for payment; it is
enough that unordered merchandise is sent. The recipient is
then free to treat it as a gift “without any obligation whatso-
4
We have recognized a private right of action arising under the Unor-
dered Merchandise Statute, but it is a right of recipients. Kipperman v.
Acad. Life Ins. Co., 554 F.2d 377, 380 (9th Cir. 1977).
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 335
ever to the sender.” 39 U.S.C. § 3009(b). In sending its pro-
motional CDs, UMG attempts to obligate the recipient to
confine the use of the CDs to promotional purposes. It serves
the purpose of the statute to permit a recipient who does not
wish to be so obligated to treat the unordered CD as a gift. We
also have no difficulty concluding that the CDs fall within the
meaning of “merchandise.” UMG’s attempt to prohibit their
sale is an indication.5
There are additional reasons for concluding that UMG’s
distribution of the CDs did not involve a consensual licensing
operation. Some of the statements on the CDs and UMG’s
purported method of securing agreement to licenses militate
against a conclusion that any licenses were created. The spar-
est promotional statement, “Promotional Use Only—Not for
Sale,” does not even purport to create a license. But even the
more detailed statement is flawed in the manner in which it
purports to secure agreement from the recipient. The more
detailed statement provides:
This CD is the property of the record company and
is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use
only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an
agreement to comply with the terms of the license.
Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and
may be punishable under federal and state laws.
It is one thing to say, as the statement does, that “acceptance”
of the CD constitutes an agreement to a license and its restric-
tions, but it is quite another to maintain that “acceptance” may
be assumed when the recipient makes no response at all. This
5
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “merchandise”
as “commodities or goods that are bought and sold in business: the wares
of commerce.” Id. at 1413. See also Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625
F.3d 550, 559 (9th Cir. 2010) (“’Merchandise’ . . . refers to movable arti-
cles of value that are bought and sold by merchants.”). Augusto’s many
sales themselves evidence a market, authorized or not.
336 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
record reflects no responses. Even when the evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to UMG, it does not show
that any recipients agreed to enter into a license agreement
with UMG when they received the CDs.6
[6] Because the record here is devoid of any indication that
the recipients agreed to a license, there is no evidence to sup-
port a conclusion that licenses were established under the
terms of the promotional statement. Accordingly, we con-
clude that UMG’s transfer of possession to the recipients,
without meaningful control or even knowledge of the status
of the CDs after shipment, accomplished a transfer of title.
The district court based its decision in favor of Augusto in
part on somewhat different grounds from those we have
adopted. The district court first held that the licensing lan-
guage in the detailed promotional statement did not create a
license because it lacked any provision for UMG to regain
possession of the CDs. In this ruling, the district court relied
upon our decision in United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180
6
Although our result does not depend on the point, there is even doubt
that a license contract could arise from the absence of response of the
recipients. The general rule of contract law is that the “mere receipt of an
unsolicited offer does not impair the offeree’s freedom of action or inac-
tion or impose on him any duty to speak.” Restatement (Second) of Con-
tracts § 69 cmts. a, c. “Nothing in contract law [can] force the parties into
a contractual arrangement when they do not intend to be bound.” Ray-
mond T. Nimmer & Jeff Dodd, Modern Licensing Law § 3:17 (2010).
The commentary on section 69 of the Restatement offers a pertinent
illustration: “A sends B a [book] with a letter, saying, ‘If you wish to buy
this book send me $6.50 within one week after receipt hereof, otherwise
notify me and I will forward postage for return.’ B examines the book and
without replying carefully lays it on a shelf to await A’s messenger. There
is no contract.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 69 cmt. e, illus. 8
(emphasis added). The Restatement does provide an exception to the rule
that silence and inaction do not constitute assent when, “because of prior
dealings or otherwise, it is reasonable that the offeree should notify the
offeror if he does not intend to accept.” Id. § 69(1)(c). The record as it
stands does not suggest that UMG could avail itself of this provision.
UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO 337
(9th Cir. 1977). In Wise, we dealt with several contracts, each
denominated as a license, by which motion picture studios
conveyed films to various recipients.
The issue was whether any of these licenses actually consti-
tuted a sale for purposes of the first sale doctrine.7 We held
all but one of the conveyances to be licenses, pointing out that
they were designated as licenses, reserved title in the studio,
and provided for return or destruction of the prints after use.
See id. at 1191-92. We held one purported license to be a sale,
however, because in addition to the payment of a “cost” price
(which did not alone establish a sale), there was no provision
for return of the print to the studio; permanent possession was
granted to the recipient. See id.
Return of possession is not invariably required in a license,
however. We have since read Wise and our software licensing
cases
to prescribe three considerations that we may use to
determine whether a software user is a licensee,
rather than an owner of a copy. First, we consider
whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is
granted a license. Second, we consider whether the
copyright owner significantly restricts the user’s
ability to transfer the software. Finally, we consider
whether the copyright owner imposes notable use
restrictions.
Vernor, 621 F.3d at 1110-11 (footnote omitted).
[7] This formulation, however, applies in terms to software
users, and software users who order and pay to acquire copies
are in a very different position from that held by the recipients
7
Wise concerned the first sale doctrine as codified in 17 U.S.C. § 27
(1970), the predecessor to § 109(a). See Wise, 550 F.2d at 1183. The two
statutes, however, are substantively identical.
338 UMG RECORDINGS v. AUGUSTO
of UMG’s promotional CDs. As we have already explained,
UMG has virtually no control over the unordered CDs it
issues because of its means of distribution, and it has no
assurance that any recipient has assented or will assent to the
creation of any license or accept its limitations. UMG also
does not require the ultimate return of the promotional CDs
to its possession. Although the failure to require return of the
CDs may not, by itself, conclusively establish a sale under our
precedent, it is one more indication that UMG had no control
over the promotional CDs once it dispatched them. UMG thus
did not retain “sufficient incidents of ownership” over the
promotional copies “to be sensibly considered the owner of
the cop[ies].” Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 124 (2d
Cir. 2005).
Because we conclude that UMG’s method of distribution
transferred the ownership of the copies to the recipients, we
have no need to parse the remaining provisions in UMG’s
purported licensing statement; UMG dispatched the CDs in a
manner that permitted their receipt and retention by the recipi-
ents without the recipients accepting the terms of the promo-
tional statements. UMG’s transfer of unlimited possession in
the circumstances present here effected a gift or sale within
the meaning of the first sale doctrine, as the district court
held.
CONCLUSION
[8] UMG’s distribution of the promotional CDs under the
circumstances effected a sale (transfer of title) of the CDs to
the recipients. Further sale of those copies was therefore per-
missible without UMG’s authorization. The judgment of the
district court dismissing UMG’s copyright infringement
action against Augusto is therefore
AFFIRMED.