*****BorisG wrote:Criminally insane?Modernistfan wrote:Why is Mr. Barrington-Coupe digging himself in deeper?
He may have little to lose. Hatto CDs haven't, I'm sure, brought him megabucks.
*****BorisG wrote:Criminally insane?Modernistfan wrote:Why is Mr. Barrington-Coupe digging himself in deeper?
Having recently been badly burned by the courts, I wouldn't be surprised if Hyperion lets the matter rest.Modernistfan wrote:Well, it is now looking like they did rip off Hamelin (Hyperion) for at least some of the Godowsky Etudes. Outrageous. If there is litigation, I hope Hyperion goes to the front of the line.
After having reviewed the case which Hyperion lost, I wouldn't be too quick to apply normal judicial standards to any intellectual property case tried by English courts.Modernistfan wrote:Unless everything we have learned is incorrect, this would be a slam dunk. I cannot imagine a judge who would not grant a summary judgment motion for the plaintiff on a claim of copyright infringement given this evidence. Mr. Rose would undoubtedly execute a declaration or affidavit explaining exactly what was done and how identical the "Hatto" recordings are to the originals. That would be awfully hard to rebut. Access to this material would not be difficult to prove, as these recordings were commercially available and there is no indication that master tapes or anything else not available to the public were used. As you undoubtedly know, the elements of a cause of action for copyright infringement are access and substantial similarity.
Of course, the real issue is the availability of damages and whether Mr. B-C has any resources available to pay them (as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees under the English rules).
I haven't seen Concert-Artists CDs and I don't know what information the liner notes contain. Any that state recording dates prior to the recording dates shown on the liner notes of the alleged copied recordings would present triable issues of fact. Any that show no recording date at all and are the subject of affidavits alleging prior recording dates would also present triable issues of fact.Modernistfan wrote:True, perhaps "slam dunk" might be a bit too glib, but it would be very difficult to counter an affidavit or declaration by Mr. Rose. The evidence that presents a triable issue of fact needs to be credible. Remember that summary judgment has been granted for the plaintiffs in cases of patent infringement, and the quantum of factual evidence required to support a judgment of patent infringement is probably somewhat greater than for copyright infringement in the present situation (each element of a patent claim needs to be present in the allegedly infringing device for literal infringement to exist).
Summary judgment appears to be available in British courts.
We shall see where this goes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests