With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to be impounded during the pendency of the action, upon such terms and conditions as the court may prescribe, all articles alleged to infringe a copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 101(c) (1970) (amended 1976). The words “such person” were interpreted to permit the impoundment of an infringing work only when it was possessed by a defendant who had himself infringed the plaintiffs copyright. See Foreign & Domestic Music Corp. v. Licht, 196 F.2d 627, 629 (2nd Cir.1952) (finding impoundment improper when sought against a purchaser of copyrighted material because the “remedy of forfeiture and destruction is given only against an infringer” and “one does not infringe a copyright by buying an infringing copy” of a work); Jewelers’ Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 274 F. 932, 936 (S.D.N.Y.1921) (<HOLDING>); Matenciot, Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 422

A: holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation
B: holding that the commission could not rely on generic analysis where it expressly found that only a limited segment of the industry was affected by the problem it sought to address while the remedy adopted would necessarily impact other segments
C: holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act
D: holding that impoundment could not interrupt a bailees possession because under the 1909 act the remedy was expressly limited to infringers
D.