Search for: "Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 28
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2021, 10:00 am by James Kachmar
In a lawsuit that was originally filed in 2013 titled, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case  Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 9:02 am by David Oxenford
The decision (available here in a version subject to revision) was reached after the US Court of Appeals certified the question to the state court as being necessary to resolve the appeal of a US District Court decision which had found such a right to exist in a lawsuit brought by Flo & Eddie of the band the Turtles against Sirius XM Radio. [read post]
4 May 2016, 7:42 am by Ben
 The New York Appellate Court has agreed to rule on the case which Flo & Eddie from 60's band The Turtles have brought against Sirius XM Radio over the issue of whether the copyright owners of recordings made before 1972 have a common law right to make radio stations and others pay for their use. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
District Judge Colleen McMahon rejected Sirius’ arguments that Flo & Eddie Inc, controlled by founding band members Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman, did not own copyrights in The Turtles’ recordings or that Sirius had an “implied” license to play Turtles' songs. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 3:49 am by Ben
 As it currently stands, the 2nd Circuit will be reviewing the New York judge's decision with the California case awaiting a result, too.More here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/1972-and-all-that-but-does-turtles-win.html and here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/turtles-probe-murky-soup-of-pre-1972-us.html and here Flo & Eddie, Inc., v Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al  … [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 4:00 am by Ben
 Judges Nathan and Netburn also disagreed with Escape's argument that pre-1972 sound recordings should be excluded, with Judge Nathan citing the recent decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. [read post]