Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Xanthas, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 233 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc. (1990), Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. (1996)
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 116 · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · Doyle v. Ohio · Douglas v. Cunningham · Fitzgerald Publishing Co. v. Baylor Publishing Co. · Moore v. United States
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knows his actions constitute an infringement; the actions need not have been malicious.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiff, Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), is a nonprofit licensing organization that obtains public-performance rights in copyrighted musical compositions and collect royalties to be distributed to the artists. The defendant, Xan-thas, Inc., which does business in Louisiana as TAC Amusement Co., owns and operates hundreds of jukeboxes, video games, pinball machines, and billiard tables that it places in various establishments. BMI sued Xanthas and its owner, John J. Elms, Jr., in federal district court, alleging that Xanthas had committed fifteen acts of copyright infringement at four locations in July and August 1986. The complaint alleged that Xanthas had failed to pay the required fee to the U.S. Copyright Office for licenses to operate its jukeboxes and had then played on them compositions in which BMI held the performance rights. BMI later amended its complaint to alleged 182 infringements at 22 different locations between May and November 1986. The amended complaint sought an injunction against further infringements and damages of at least $250 for each infringement claimed. The action was stayed against Elms, who had declared bankruptcy. Xanthas stipulated that it owned seven of the jukeboxes and had committed 44 of the infringements, but it contended that it did not know whether it owned the remaining jukeboxes on which the infringements allegedly took place. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for BMI. 674 F.Supp. 553 . In its findings of fac”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $50,000.00”
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.