Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
that doesn't declare the club as the owner, the assigned record company would still own the copyright in that context
the club would only represent the duly authorized distributor.
the supplier would still be the record company. and the song would most certainly be thier property.
|
.... which takes us back to whether the court will accept a construction as legally valid that defines a passive third-party with no constructive knowledge of the intended use of the IP in question to be a "content supplier," and/or believes for one instant that is what RK actually intended the passage in their T&C to mean.
I just think the court would be hostile to such a construction/interpretation; that's the crux of our disagreement here, methinks.
I'll run this question by a some of the attorneys I speak to regularly (heh... probably
not to include Larry, all things considered) and see what they have to say. I probably won't be able to get any of them to go on the record with me about this, but I'll give it a shot.