RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are adjured that courts must adjust themselves to new conditions, and that in the case at bar justice clearly points the way to some relief. We cannot agree; no doubt we should be jealous to execute all reasonable implications of established doctrines; but we should be equally jealous not to undertake the composition of substantial conflicts of interests, between which neither the common-law, nor the statute, has given any clue to its preference. We cannot know how Congress would solve this issue; we can guess — and our guess is that it would refuse relief as we are refusing it — but if our guess were the opposite, we should have no right to enforce it.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Goody · Hartford Charga-Plate Associates, Inc. v. Youth Centre-Cinderella Stores, Inc.

2. ““It is only in comparatively recent times that a virtuoso, conductor, actor, lecturer, or preacher could have any interest in the reproduction of his performance. Until the phonographic rec ord made possible the preservation and reproduction of sound, all audible renditions were of necessity fugitivé and transitory; once uttered they died; the nearest approach to- their reproduction was mimicry. Of late, however, the power to reproduce the exact quality and sequence of sounds has become possible, and the right to do so, exceedingly valuable; people easily distinguish, or think they distinguish, the rendition of the same score or the same text by their favorites, and they will -pay large sums to hear them. Hence this action. It was settled at least a century ago that the monopoly of the right to'reproduce the compositions of any author — his ‘common-law property’ in them — was not limited to words; pictures were included. Turner v. Robinson, 10 Ir.Ch. 121; S.C. 10 Ir.Ch. 522; Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 McN. & G. 25. This right has at times been stated as though it extended to all productions demanding ‘intellectual’ effort; and for the purposes of this case we shall assume that it covers the performances of an orchestra conductor, and — what is far more doubtful — the skill and art by which a phonographic record maker makes possible the proper recording of those performances upon a disc. It would follow from this that, if a conductor played over the radio,- and if his perform”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 109 F. Supp. 330 - Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mercury Record Corp.

3. “Restrictions upon the uses of chattels once absolutely sold are at least prima facie invalid; they must be justified for some exceptional reason, normally they are `repugnant' to the transfer of title. If `the common-law property' in the rendition be gone, then anyone may copy it who chances to hear it, and may use it as he pleases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hartford Charga-Plate Associates, Inc. v. Youth Centre-Cinderella Stores, Inc.