Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that the negative impact of the Napster free file-sharing software on the ability to sell sound recordings over the Internet didn't give rise to a frustration of purpose defense in a suit over failure to pay the full license fee for the right to sell Who recordings online. Profile Publishing v. Musicmaker.com Inc., 01-2886 (Jan. 24).
In December 1999, Profile and Musicmaker signed an agreement that gave Musicmaker the exclusive right to sell several live recordings of the Who over the Internet worldwide for ten years. Musicmaker agreed to pay Profile a percentage of the sales price as well as an advance against royalties of $2.5 million.
Napster was founded in May 1999. Three weeks before the Profile-Musicmaker licensing agreement was signed, the Recording Industry Association of America sued Napster for copyright infringement. After shutting down its Web site in January 2001, Musicmaker failed to make a final $250,000 payment to Profile. When Profile sued Musicmaker for non-payment, Musicmaker raised an affirmative defense that the sound-recordings license had been frustrated by the unforeseeable 'cataclysmic' effect of Napster. But granting Profile's motion for summary judgment, the district court noted that, 'while it is obvious that Napster did make a mess of a lot of things, so do many events in unpredictable life, perhaps only partially perceived at the time, or even perceived. That, however, does not a legal frustration of purpose make, and while one can have a sympathetic emotional tug here, a contract is a contract, and Profile has stood ready to perform.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?