Question

In: Accounting

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. McDade & Sons, Inc., 928 F.Supp.2d 1120 (2013), United States District Court...

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. McDade & Sons, Inc., 928 F.Supp.2d 1120 (2013), United States District Court for Arizona

Norton’s Country Corner (Norton’s) is a cowboy bar located in Queen Creek, Arizona. The bar is owned by McDade & Sons, Inc., which is solely owned by Nancy McDade. Live bands play country-and-western music at Norton’s on various nights of the week. Certain copyright owners of music have authorized Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), to license the use of their copyright songs to broadcasters and to owners of concert halls, restaurants, and nightclubs for live performances of the copyrighted music. BMI attends public performances of music to determine whether any copyrights it is authorized to license are being performed without the license.

One night, a BMI representative attended a live band performance at Norton’s bar and recorded the songs played by the band that night. The audio recording showed that 13 copyrighted songs that BMI was authorized to license were played by the band at Norton’s without the required license. The songs included classics originally sung by famous artists, such as “All My Ex’s Live in Texas” (George Strait), “Baby Don’t Get Hooked on Me” (Mac Brown), “Brown Eyed Girl” (Van Morrison), and “Ring of Fire” (Johnny Cash). BMI sued McDade & Sons, Inc., and Nancy McDade in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement. The defendants argued they had not committed copyright infringement and that copyright law did not apply to owners of small establishments.

Answer the following questions in complete sentences:

  1. Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in this case?
  2. What arguments does the plaintiff have in support of its copyright infringement claim?
  3. What arguments does the defendant have in support of their claim that they did not infringe on BMI’s copyright?
  4. Do you think the defendants are liable for copyright infringement? Why or why not?

Solutions

Expert Solution

The plaintiff in this case is Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), the person or group who is accusing.

The defendant in this case is McDade & Sons, Inc., and Nancy McDade, the person being sued or the person against whom the complaint is filed.

When BMI representative attended a live band performance at Norton’s bar which is owned by McDade & Sons, Inc., which is solely owned by Nancy McDade and recorded the songs played by the band that night. The audio recording showed that 13 copyrighted songs that BMI was authorized to license were played by the band at Norton’s without the required license. This is the arguments the plaintiff have in support of its copyright infringement claim.

The defendants argued they had not committed copyright infringement and that copyright law did not apply to owners of small establishments.

The defendants are liable to copyright infringement. The argument of defendant that copyright law did not apply to owners of small establishments is not correct.


Related Solutions

brief case of united states v. liebo, united states court of appeals, eight circuit, 1991,923 F.2d...
brief case of united states v. liebo, united states court of appeals, eight circuit, 1991,923 F.2d 1308
United States v. Bailey United States Supreme Court 444 U.S. 394 (1980)
United States v. Bailey United States Supreme Court 444 U.S. 394 (1980)
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113...
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113 F.3d 572 (1998) SOUTER, JUSTICE The United States brought this action under §107(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) against, among others, respondent CPC International, Inc., the parent corporation of the defunct Ott Chemical Co. (Ott II), for the costs of cleaning up industrial waste generated by Ott II’s chemical plant. Section 107(a)(2) authorizes suits against, among others,...
CASE: HAROLD DAVIS and ENID DAVIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES COURT...
CASE: HAROLD DAVIS and ENID DAVIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 861 F.2d 558 November 14, 1988 Plaintiff-appellants Harold and Enid Davis claimed charitable deductions under IRC section 170 for funds they sent to their two sons for their support while they served as full-time unpaid missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay-Saints at the New York City Mission and at the New Zealand/Cook Islands Mission. These...
In Dred Scott v. Stanford, the United States Supreme Court held that slaves were not entitled...
In Dred Scott v. Stanford, the United States Supreme Court held that slaves were not entitled to file suit in federal courts because they were not citizens. Select one: True False
Tax Court decisions determined in Johnson v. United States. Do you agree or disagree with the...
Tax Court decisions determined in Johnson v. United States. Do you agree or disagree with the Tax Court's decision? Why or why not?.
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
In the Skilling v. United States 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), what did the court hold...
In the Skilling v. United States 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), what did the court hold regarding "honest services"?
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) Is direct liability for a...
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) Is direct liability for a parent company's operation of the facility distinct from derivative liability for the subsidiary's operation of the facility?
In the court case Harris v. McRae what did district court Judge Dooling mean when he...
In the court case Harris v. McRae what did district court Judge Dooling mean when he said that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy because medically necessary to her health is an exercise of “the most fundamental of rights, nearly allied to her right to be.”? Does the denial of that right for poor women by the U.S. Supreme Court deny those women their “right to be”?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT