9th Circuit's Acceptance of 'Melodic Reduction' May Change Music Infringement Litigation
November 29, 2004
In recent years, courts have frequently dismissed music copyright infringement cases at the summary judgment stage, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the claimed similarity between the allegedly infringed and infringing songs. In a number of cases, the court found the opinion of similarity offered by the plaintiff's expert musicologist ' usually a music professor or otherwise credentialed music scholar ' to be legally deficient or otherwise irrelevant to the applicable legal standards. <br>However, a decision earlier this year from Ninth Circuit appears to have expanded the net of music copyright infringement cases that may survive summary judgment. In <i>Swirsky v. Carey</i>, the court found that a type of expert musicological analysis, commonly called "melodic reduction," can raise a triable issue of fact concerning similarity. This article will explain melodic reduction and the problems that the <i>Swirsky</i> decision and melodic reduction may pose for defendants in music copyright infringement cases.
Aggregator Deals With Online Music Services
November 29, 2004
In Part One, the author discussed the emergence of content aggregators and began listing the issues to watch out for when contracting with one. Part Two continues that list of the major points of an aggregator agreement.
Cameo Clips
November 29, 2004
Recent cases in entertainment law.
The Effects of Terminating a Pension Plan in Bankruptcy
November 29, 2004
Oftentimes, one of the largest commitments of a company is its ongoing funding obligations under its pension plan. Contribution obligations to a company-sponsored pension plan will often influence the timing of a financially troubled company's bankruptcy filing. An example of this is the Chapter 11 case of United Air Lines (United) and its affiliates. United viewed its obligations to make significant contributions to its pension plans as somewhat incompatible with its need to create a fiscally strong enterprise so as to effectively compete with low- cost carriers that do not have the same economic burdens.
The Retail Debtor's 'Year in Review'
November 29, 2004
Welcome to the most magical time of a retailer's year -- the Holiday Selling Season. It seems fitting as retailers enter this "make-it-or-break-it" period that we examine the Retail Debtors' Year in Review. After all, if Santa is kind to bankruptcy professionals, a few retailers currently holding on will go down the ... chimney. If 2004 provides any indication as to how some courts are approaching issues affecting retailers, various courts were anti-vendor in special relief; pro-contract party regarding assumption and assignment issues; and, when it comes to the asset-disposition auction process, it is anybody's game!
Asbestos and Mass Tort Claims
November 29, 2004
Asbestos-related bankruptcies are prevalent for various reasons, including expense of traditional tort litigation, lack of either state or federal procedures to handle mass litigation, disputes between insurer and insured, and need for many companies' creditors and shareholders to achieve certainty with large current and contingent asbestos liabilities. Bankruptcy remains an attractive alternative and sometimes last resort because section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for companies faced with overwhelming asbestos liability to resolve current and future asbestos claims by channeling them to a trust, thereby allowing the effected company to avoid what could result in an inevitable liquidation. One necessary component of this channeling mechanism is section 524(g)(4)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code which requires the Bankruptcy Court appoint "a legal representative for the purpose of protecting the rights of persons that might subsequently assert [asbestos claims] ..." 11 U.S.C. ' 524(g)(4)(B)(i), commonly referred to as a future claimants' representative (FCR).
Protecting Against Common Pitfalls Encountered By Landlords in Bankruptcy Cases
November 29, 2004
Since its enactment in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code has provided a means for debtors either to reorganize their financial affairs or to liquidate their assets. Within this framework, bankrupt tenants have often utilized the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the detriment of landlords, and landlords have increasingly become either involuntary creditors or financiers during a bankruptcy case or have suffered some type of unexpected loss.
Bankruptcy Lease Sales: Four Basic Rules to Play By
November 29, 2004
Bankruptcy presents a unique forum for a cash-strapped debtor to sell otherwise unassignable and unprofitable leases to third parties, for immediate cash, and free of liens, certain contract restrictions, certain transaction costs, and future liability. While the bankruptcy arena offers unique opportunities, it poses special risks. The primary players in a bankruptcy lease sale scenario are the debtor, the prospective buyers, and the landlord. A debtor's goal is getting as much value as fast as possible for its creditors. A prospective buyer wants to pay as little as possible, with sufficient due diligence, and have an unassailable sale with whatever lease modifications are necessary for it to remodel and reopen. A landlord's objective is timely lease compliance and a financially and operationally sound buyer. Each party can benefit from following these four basic rules of bankruptcy lease sales.
