13 Cited authorities

Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
547 U.S. 388 (2006) Cited 3,775 times 130 Legal Analyses
Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 966 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
441 U.S. 1 (1979) Cited 578 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"
New York Trust Co. v. Eisner
256 U.S. 345 (1921) Cited 323 times
Holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient
Capitol Records v. Naxos
4 N.Y.3d 540 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 49 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that New York's common-law protection for pre-1972 recordings continues until federal preemption occurs
Guild v. Google Inc.
770 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 18 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “when evaluating a settlement agreement, the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties, nor is it to run consideration of the adequacy of the settlement into a trial or a rehearsal of the trial ... Rather, the [c]ourt's responsibility is to reach an intelligent and objective opinion of the ultimate success should the claims be litigated and to form an educated estimate of the complexity, expense and likely duration of such litigation and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise”
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
62 F. Supp. 3d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 12 times
Interpreting Naxos and other New York authority to predict that "the New York Court of Appeals would recognize the exclusive right to public performance of a sound recording as one of the rights appurtenant to common law copyright in such a recording"
U.S. v. Broadcast Music, Inc.
426 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 18 times
Docket No. 04-3444-CV. Argued: May 2, 2005. Decided: October 6, 2005. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Louis L. Stanton, J. Fernando R. Laguarda, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC, Washington, DC (M. Elizabeth Gomperz, Michael T. Haas on the brief), for Appellant Music Choice. Michael E. Salzman, Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, New York, N.Y. (Norman C. Kleinberg, George A. Tsougarakis, Beatrice A. Hamza, Natalie C. Suhl, Marvin L. Berenson
RCA MFG. CO. v. WHITEMAN
114 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1940) Cited 62 times 1 Legal Analyses
In RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 2 Cir., 114 F.2d 86, 88, 89, supra, this court stated that the common law property in the performances of musical artists which had been recorded ended with the sale of the records and that thereafter anyone might copy them and use them as he pleased.
Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,727 times 107 Legal Analyses
Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”
Section 301 - Preemption with respect to other laws
17 U.S.C. § 301 Cited 1,406 times 20 Legal Analyses
Stating that when "legal or equitable rights ... are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"
Section 114 - Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings
17 U.S.C. § 114 Cited 103 times 7 Legal Analyses
Applying to a "transmitting entity" that "offers transmissions of visual images contemporaneously with transmissions of sound recordings" as in a cable or internet transmission
Section 112 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings
17 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 63 times 5 Legal Analyses
Permitting retention of "ephemeral recordings" for retransmission

Flo & Eddie, Inc., a California Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent,v.Sirius XM Radio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, Does, 1 through 10, Defendants.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"

Holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient

Holding that New York's common-law protection for pre-1972 recordings continues until federal preemption occurs

Interpreting Naxos and other New York authority to predict that "the New York Court of Appeals would recognize the exclusive right to public performance of a sound recording as one of the rights appurtenant to common law copyright in such a recording"

In RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 2 Cir., 114 F.2d 86, 88, 89, supra, this court stated that the common law property in the performances of musical artists which had been recorded ended with the sale of the records and that thereafter anyone might copy them and use them as he pleased.

Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”

Stating that when "legal or equitable rights ... are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"

Applying to a "transmitting entity" that "offers transmissions of visual images contemporaneously with transmissions of sound recordings" as in a cable or internet transmission

Permitting retention of "ephemeral recordings" for retransmission