Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.868 (2026)

Unlawful labeling of a sound recording

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      164.868 Unlawful labeling of a sound recording. (1) A person commits unlawful labeling of a sound recording if the person:

      (a) Fails to disclose the origin of a sound recording when the person knowingly advertises or offers for sale or resale, sells, resells, rents, leases, or lends or possesses for any of these purposes, any sound recording that does not contain the true name and address of the manufacturer in a prominent place on the cover, jacket or label of the sound recording; and

      (b) Possesses five or more duplicate copies or 20 or more individual copies of recordings produced without consent of the owner or performer and the recordings are intended for sale or distribution in violation of this section.

      (2) Unlawful labeling of a sound recording is a Class C felony. [1993 c.95 §7]

 

      Note: See note under 164.864.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2012 · leading case: McLaughlin v. Commonwealth, 629 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
McLaughlin v. Commonwealth, 629 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 14:223.6 (2005); Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1053 (2005); Mo.”
State v. Oidor, 292 P.3d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “865, and unlawful labeling of a sound recording (the unlawful-labeling count), ORS 164.868. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the sound-recording count on the ground that the statute on which it is based, ORS 164.”
Carmas (Carmus) Jonah McLaughlin v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “1053 (2005); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.240 (2006); N.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.868(1) — 1 case
State v. Oidor, 292 P.3d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “865, and unlawful labeling of a sound recording (the unlawful-labeling count), ORS 164.868. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the sound-recording count on the ground that the statute on which it is based, ORS 164.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.