a person “who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person” commits criminal conversion, and under Ind.Code § 34-24-3-1, a person suffering a “pecuniary loss as a result of a violation of IC 35-43” may bring a civil action against the person causing the loss for treble damages, plus costs and attorneys fees. Several courts have considered whether the Copyright Act preempts state law claims of conversion, although not the Seventh Circuit, and most have found that it does indeed preempt those claims. See United States ex rel. Berge v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, 104 F.3d 1453 (4th Cir.1997); Daboub v. Gibbons, 42 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.1995); but see G.S. Rasmussen & Assoc. v. Kalitta Flying Service, 958 F.2d 896 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). MDBS has relied on the horn-book rule that a
holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that copying all or substantial portions of microcode was not fair use holding that unauthorized use of faa supplemental type certificate was more than simple copying of intellectual property holding that a defect in notice by the faa does no more than toll the statutory time limit recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership