Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.

11 Citing briefs

  1. Peter Beckett et al v. Universal International Music B.V. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to First Cause of Action

    Filed September 14, 2016

    621 F.3d at 964. But quite unlike the contract in F.B.T., Sections 6(a) and (b) of the Contract here apply to sales of “records” (as broadly defined) by both 15 See also Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 651 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (downloads are within Copyright Act’s definition of “phonorecord”); London- Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 171 (D. Mass. 2008) (same). Case 2:15-cv-02153-SJO-JC Document 38 Filed 09/14/16 Page 22 of 27 Page ID #:352 LA 13161582v1 - 16 - MOTION OF DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL MUSIC B.V. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 2:15-CV-02153-SJO-JC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 UIMBV and its “licensees.”

  2. ABS Entertainment, Inc. v. CBS Corporation et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. Document

    Filed April 8, 2016

    Capitol Records, LLC v. Escape Media Group, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38007, at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015) (“[J]judges in this Court have similarly relied on Naxos to conclude that New York would recognize a right of public performance in sound recordings that would mirror the federal copyright in such sound recordings.”); Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 658 n.8 (S.D.N.Y 2013). Alternatively, if this Court is unconvinced by these decisions, it should reserve judgment on the issue until the Second Circuit issues its decision in Flo & Eddie.

  3. American Society for Testing and Materials et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, Inc.

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 21, 2016

    The first sale doctrine does not apply in this context. See Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Am.’s Bar & Grill, LLC, No. 13 C 8526, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113219, at *11-12 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2014) (first sale doctrine did not apply to sale of “copied, unoriginal items” on which defendant placed plaintiff’s trademark because Case 1:13-cv-01215-TSC Document 155 Filed 01/21/16 Page 49 of 63 39 defendant’s actions went beyond the mere resale of trademarked goods); Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 654-56 (S.D.N.Y 2013) (first sale doctrine is applicable only to material items and to the exact copy of a work purchased; refusing to expand first sale doctrine in context of distributing internet copies of digital works). D. Defendant’s Use of Plaintiffs’ Marks Creates a Likelihood of Confusion.

  4. Flo & Eddie, Inc v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [46] MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed August 13, 2014

    Escape Media at 51-52. The lone case cited for that proposition, Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), was a federal copyright case involving an Internet distributor of digital downloads; it did not involve performance rights and discussed New York law only in a short footnote. See id.

  5. Flo & Eddie, Inc v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: [46] MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed July 11, 2014

    And the proof of that is the Naxos court makes no mention of the distribution right being an element of common law copyright infringement, yet, liability for the unlawful distribution of sound recordings is routinely found under New York law. Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 658 fn.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) Liability under New York law for infringement and misappropriation of the performance right in pre-1972 recordings is just not the controversial proposition that Sirius XM makes it out to be. Moreover, enforcement of that right in this case will not upset the delicate balance that Sirius XM claims has existed for decades.

  6. James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment No. 1 as to All Claims of Plaintiffs Bo Donaldson and Ron Tyson

    Filed May 23, 2014

    ; Allman v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 2008 WL 2477465, *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (same); Panama Music, Case No. 12-20200-CIV, Docket No. 88 at 13 (“Permanent downloads and mastertones are Records that are electronically transmitted to the consumer.”); see also Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 651 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Downloads are within Copyright Act’s definition of “phonorecord”); London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 171 (D. Mass. 2008) (same). Even the Ninth Circuit in F.B.T. – the decision upon which Plaintiffs predicate their claims – found that “Aftermath permitted third parties to use the Eminem masters to produce and sell records, in the form of permanent downloads and mastertones[.]”

  7. The Authors Guild et al v. Google Inc.

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 1049 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed September 16, 2013

    We do no more Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1085 Filed 09/16/13 Page 23 of 26 19 here than try to determine what decision Congress has taken.”); WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676, 695 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that “unanticipated technological developments” may require legislative action); Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 95, 2013 WL 1286134, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2013) (“It is left to Congress, not this Court” to determine whether first sale principles should apply to digital copies).10 In April 2011, the Librarian of Congress and Acting Register of Copyrights wrote in a letter to Congress that “the basic tenets that exclusive rights afforded by copyright law may not be usurped as a matter of convenience and policy initiatives, including those that would redefine the relationship of copyright and technology, are the proper domain of Congress, not the Courts.”11 Significantly, the process of considering whether changes to existing copyright law are necessary, including those directly related to new and emerging technologies is well under way.

  8. The Authors Guild et al v. Google Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 1031 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication.. Document

    Filed August 26, 2013

    In so doing, Google causes the creation of additional digital copies of the books. See Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 95, 2013 WL 1286134, at *4-6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2013) (reproduction right implicated by creation of digital copies; by definition, bits cannot be “moved” from one server to another). And this is not some theoretical process.

  9. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

    REPLY

    Filed June 20, 2013

    But as the Ninth Circuit’s server test makes clear, the “display” of the image occurs when a computer owner stores the image on its server, not when a user accesses the image over the Internet. Amazon.com, 508 F.3d at 1159; see also Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 2013 WL 1286134, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2013) (“[T]he display of a photographic image on a computer may implicate the display right, though infringement hinges, in part, on where the image was hosted.”).

  10. 3Lions Publishing, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM in opposition re Motion for summary judgment

    Filed July 9, 2015

    “Intentionally uploading” to its own website is not akin to inducing or encouraging others to make copies. Indeed, the only case Plaintiff cites to support this implication, Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 648 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), is not on point. ReDigi contributorily infringed by operating a website whose sole purpose was for third-parties to upload and sell digital music recordings—in direct violation of copyright laws.