Source: https://ja.scribd.com/document/362707106/Flo-Eddie-Inc-v-Sirius-XM-Radio-Inc-827-F-3d-1016-1018-11th-Cir-2016
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:07:42+00:00

Document:
The Florida Supreme Court rules that pre-1972 recordings do not enjoy copyright.
common law or statutes . . . until February 15, 2067. Id.
recognize any such right and that Flo & Eddies various state law claims fail.
F.3d 1016, 1018 (11th Cir. 2016).2 Appellee/defendant, Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
2. The sound recordings at issue include the iconic hit Happy Together.
Flo & Eddie, 827 F.3d at 1022.
Inc., No. 13-23182-CIV, 2015 WL 3852692, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2015).
Siriuss motion for summary judgment on all claims. Id.
Radio, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), revd, 849 F.3d 14 (2d Cir.
public performance and reproduction. Flo & Eddie, 2015 WL 3852692, at *3-6.
interpreted Florida law was CBS, Inc. v. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. 532 (M.D. Fla.
the issue of public performance rights. Flo & Eddie, 2015 WL 3852692, at *4.
Trust, 755 F.3d 87, 97-99 (2d Cir. 2014)).
2015 WL 3852692, at *6.
performance, the Eleventh Circuit examined this Courts decision in Glazer v.
to use the same. Id.
musical performance. Flo & Eddie, 827 F.3d at 1021 (discussing Waring, 194 A.
decision in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc., 830 N.E.2d 250 (N.Y.
Eleventh Circuit noted that CBS, Inc. v. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. 532 (M.D. Fla.
recognizes a right of reproduction that is not divested by publication. Id.
copyright. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. at 535.
the absence of an enforceable copyright. Id. at 1024-25.
right of public performance and the exclusive right of reproduction?
common law copyright exclusive right of reproduction?
under Fla. Stat. 772.11 and Fla. Stat. 812.014?
performance in pre-1972 sound recordings?
certified by the Eleventh Circuit.
1026 n.8. We do not address this issue.
notes on a page. Flo & Eddie, 827 F.3d at 1019 n.2; see also Brian T. Yeh, Cong.
the radio, whether that be terrestrial radio or, more recently, satellite radio.
form of federal copyright protection to sound recordings.
the Sound Recording Act of 1971 (Act of 1971), Pub. L. No. 92-140, 1, 85 Stat.
the right to reproduce and distribute to the public . . . reproductions of the . . .
reproductions made by transmitting organizations exclusively for their own use.
date of the Act of 1971. Id. 3, 85 Stat. 392; see also 17 U.S.C. 301(c).
protection, recordings of musical performances fixed prior to February 15, 1972.).
largely bringing all of copyright law under the federal umbrella.9 See Act of Oct.
19, 1976 (Act of 1976), Pub. L. No. 94-553, 101, 90 Stat. 2541, 2544-45.
Code on July 30, 1947.
1976 went into effect on January 1, 1978. Id. 102, 90 Stat. 2598-99.
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (Act of 1995), Pub. L.
February 15, 2067. See Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Pub. L. No.
105-298, 102(a), 112 Stat. 2827 (1998).
public performance for any sound recordings.
rights for sound recordingsWaring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc., 194 A.
631 (Pa. 1937), and RCA Manufacturing Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F.2d 86 (2d Cir.
the holder of certain common law property rights generally terminates those rights.
records contained a label that read: Not licensed for radio broadcast. Id. at 633.
issue of first impression. Id. at 632.
disagreed with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvanias decision in Waring.
radio station. See Waring v. Dunlea, 26 F. Supp. 338 (E.D.N.C. 1939).
litigation by Flo & Eddie.
distinct from the right of reproduction.
Legislature did not, however, repeal the anti-piracy statute in section 543.041. Id.
archival preservation transfers any such sounds recorded on a sound recording.
history of this topicsomething we decline to do.
York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? Flo & Eddie, Inc.
v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 849 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 2017).
Stat. 336 (amending 17 U.S.C. 106).
claims has existed all along under the common law in Florida and elsewhere.
of this issue on the federal level.
added). No mention is made of existing or established common law rights.
that was decided prior to the enactment of the [subsequently repealed] statute.
Barber, 143 So. 2d at 853 (emphasis added).
expressing uncertainty as to the potential application of Glazer to the instant case.
alleged common law property right at issue was not governed by those provisions.
an exclusive right of public performance for pre-1972 sound recordings.
back to at least 1975. Flo & Eddie, 827 F.3d at 1022.
recognized an exclusive right of public performance in sound recordings.
performance in pre-1972 sound recordings.
issue. See Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 851 F.3d 950, 951 (9th Cir.
2017). But again, the development of California law is not dispositive here.
for copies made in connection with, or as part of radio broadcast transmissions.
history. We therefore answer the third certified question in the negative.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
18. Flo & Eddies remaining claims are also problematic for other reasons.
conversion has taken place and that the accused party acted with criminal intent.).
made in connection with, or as part of radio broadcast transmissions.
for imposing civil liability for the same conduct would be illogical.
Angel A. Cortinas and Jonathan H. Kaskel of Gunster, Miami, Florida; Henry D.
Amici Curiae iHeartMedia, Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc.
Documents Similar To Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 827 F.3d 1016, 1018 (11th Cir. 2016).

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.