Jobete Music Co., Inc. v. Hampton

864 F. Supp. 7, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14962, 1994 WL 578594
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedOctober 20, 1994
Docket1:94-cv-00356
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 864 F. Supp. 7 (Jobete Music Co., Inc. v. Hampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jobete Music Co., Inc. v. Hampton, 864 F. Supp. 7, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14962, 1994 WL 578594 (S.D. Miss. 1994).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER 1

BARBOUR, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against the Defendant Callop Hampton (“Hampton”). In this action for copyright infringement by unauthorized public performance of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical compositions, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Hampton has not made an appearance in this action, and the Clerk of the Court made an entry of Default against the Defendant on July 22, 1994. The Defendant has not responded to the motion. The Court, having considered the Motion, the Memorandum in support thereof, and the Court file, finds the Motion is well taken and should be granted.

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs own the copyrights in three musical compositions that are the subject of this suit, “O.P.P.,” “Understanding,” and “Just Kickin’ It.” They seek remedies provided by the United States Copyright Law, 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 504, and 505. Specifically, they request an injunction prohibiting further infringing performances of any copyrighted ASCAP 2 member songs, statutory damages of $2,500 for each of the three infringements, and attorneys’ fees and expenses totalling $1,162.50.

Plaintiffs are members of ASCAP, to which they have granted a nonexclusive right to license nondramatic public performances of their copyrighted musical compositions. On behalf of Plaintiffs and its almost 50,000 members, ASCAP licenses thousands of radio and television stations, restaurants, nightclubs and other establishments whose owners desire to perform lawfully copyrighted musical compositions in the ASCAP repertory.

Defendant Hampton owns and operates an establishment offering public entertainment, known as the Stardust Disco & Lounge (“Stardust”), located in Jackson, Mississippi. Plaintiffs have submitted the affidavit of AS-CAP’s Division Manager, Richard Sobecki (“Sobecki Affidavit”), which establishes that Hampton knew that Stardust was not licensed to perform copyrighted musical compositions in the ASCAP repertory, and that performance of songs such as those performed on the nights in question without a license would constitute copyright infringement. 3 ASCAP also sent investigators, who determined that Stardust had infringed the particular copyrights at issue in this case.

*9 Between July 23, 1990, and May 31, 1994, ASCAP repeatedly contacted Hampton and his lawyer, James Abram, and advised them of the infringing nature of Hampton’s activities at Stardust. 4 If Stardust had been properly licensed by ASCAP from June 1,1990 to December 31, 1994, Hampton would owe license fees totalling $3,867.20. ASCAP states it incurred out-of-pocket expenses of $1,259.99 in investigating Stardust to obtain the evidence of infringements on which this action is based. Finally, Sobecki claims that he is “informed and believe[s] that defendant continues to perform copyrighted music at the Stardust____” Sobecki Affidavit at 4.

Hampton failed to enter an appearance, answer, or otherwise defend himself in this action, though he was duly served with process of this Court. As a result, the Clerk of the Court entered a default against Callop Hampton on July 22, 1994.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting Hampton and the Stardust from unlawfully infringing their copyrights in the musical compositions that are the subject of this suit. As 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides:

Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising, under this title may ... grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.

17 U.S.C.A. § 502(a) (West 1977). When a copyright infringement occurs, a copyright proprietor is entitled to an injunction prohibiting further infringing performances. Brockman Music v. Miller, 1990 Copyright L.Dec. (CCH) ¶ 26,602, 23,585 (W.D.Mich. 1990); International Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk, 665 F.Supp. 652 (N.D.Ill.1987), aff'd, 855 F.2d 375 (7th Cir.1988); Coleman v. Payne, 698 F.Supp. 704, 707 (W.D.Mich.1988). Further, recognizing that plaintiffs in this type of action represent all of ASCAP’s members, recent cases have enjoined defendants from performing any or all music in the ASCAP repertory. Brockman Music v. Miller, 1990 Copyright L.Dec. (CCH) ¶26,-602, 23,585 (W.D.Mich.1990) (defendants enjoined from performing any musical composition licensed through ASCAP); Brockman Music v. Mass Bay Lines, Inc., 1988 Copyright L.Dec. (CCH) ¶ 26,259, 26269 (D.Mass. 1988) (same). Since it appears in this ease that Hampton has willfully and repeatedly infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights, a permanent injunction is appropriate in this matter, and the Court will enter an order prohibiting Hampton and Stardust from performing any musical composition licensed through AS-CAP.

B. Statutory Damages.

Plaintiffs in this case also seek statutory damages, as provided for by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1):

[T]he copyright owner may elect ... to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages ... in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.

17 U.S.C.A. § 504(e)(1) (West Supp.1994). The Court has wide discretion to determine the amount of damages to award within this statutory range. See, e.g., F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 231-32, 73 S.Ct. 222, 224-25, 97 L.Ed. 276 (1952); Morley Music Co. v. Dick Stacey’s Plaza Motel, Inc., 725 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1983). Factors to be considered include “(1) the expenses saved and profits reaped by the defendants in connection with the infringements; (2) the revenues lost by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants’ conduct; and (3) the infringers’ state of mind—whether willful, knowing, or merely innocent.” Nick-O-Val Music Co. v. P.O.S. Radio, Inc., 656 F.Supp. 826, 829 (M.D.Fla.1987); Boz-Scaggs Music v. END Corp., 491 F.Supp. 908, 914 (D.Conn.1980).

In F.W. Woolworth Co. v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gamel-Medler v. Almaguer
Tenth Circuit, 2020
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Tex Border Management, Inc.
11 F. Supp. 3d 689 (N.D. Texas, 2014)
E Beats Music v. Andrews
433 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Georgia, 2006)
Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enterprises, Inc.
298 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (S.D. Florida, 2003)
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. R Bar of Manhattan, Inc.
919 F. Supp. 656 (S.D. New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
864 F. Supp. 7, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14962, 1994 WL 578594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jobete-music-co-inc-v-hampton-mssd-1994.