Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 47 U.S.C. § 553 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Geddes v. United Financial Group · Dundee Cement Company v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products Inc · International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes · Danning v. Lavine · 980 F. Supp. 107 - Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Lokshin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One oft-cited reason for applying § 605 instead of § 553 in these cases is because ‘§ 605 provides for a greater potential recovery of damages than § 553. Moreover, § 605 permits prevailing plaintiffs to recover their costs and attorneys' fees as a matter of right, whereas prevailing parties under § 553 may recover such only if a trial judge issues such an order.’ TCI Cablevision of New England v. Pier House Inn, Inc., 930 F.Supp. [727,] 732 (D.R.I. 1996). In this case, however, the choice of which provision to apply does not affect the Court’s calculation of statutory damages since the allegations did not justify an award even approaching the statutoiy limits under either provision. Thus, although the Court chooses to apply § 605 in this case, it awards an amount of statutoiy damages that would be permissible under either § 605 or § 553’s statutoiy cap.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.