Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pre-1972 Recordings Case Against Sirius In GA Hits Spotlight
The February 16 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordering the dismissal of Flo & Eddie's closely watched class-action lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio over the use by the satellite provider of pre-1972 sound recordings lately has received the lion's share of attention on this hotly litigated issue. (The Second Circuit shot down the claims by the original members of the 1960s hit-makers The Turtles who alleged common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 15-1164.)
But a few days before the Second Circuit published its decision, the Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments in a class action case against iHeartMedia over its use of pre-1972 sound recordings. Attorney Matthew Galin of the Foster firm in Chicago flew down to Atlanta to tell the Georgia Supreme Court that iHeartRadio is a bootlegger and a pirate playing his clients' songs without paying for them. At an oral argument field trip for the state supreme court justices to Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, they seemed a bit skeptical of Galin's suggestion that broadcasting songs on the radio is legal and even good for the music industry, but streaming them on the Internet is a violation of Georgia's criminal record piracy statute, Ga. Code §16-8-60, that hurts the owners of the master copies by depriving them of record sales (and thus allegedly makes iHeartMedia run afoul of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
But “[i]t's the same broadcast,” Justice Nels Peterson said.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.