Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc.
This article will address the topic of Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc., which has become relevant in various areas of today's society. Since its emergence until today, Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. has aroused the interest of specialists, researchers and the general public, due to its impact and repercussion on different aspects of daily life. Along these lines, the different facets and dimensions that Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. encompasses will be analyzed, as well as its implications and challenges in the current context. Likewise, various perspectives and approaches that have emerged around Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. will be reviewed, with the aim of enriching the debate and providing a comprehensive vision of this phenomenon.
Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc.
a record shop rented sound recordings to customers who would also purchase blank tape and then use a recording machine on the store premises to copy the rented recording onto the blank tape. The store owner's knowledge of the likely use of the blank tape was patent.
Federal courts have held that secondary tort liability exists when:
enabling or inciting another to infringe, at least when the enabler knows that her conduct will result in infringement. Decisions dating back several decades recognize that one who supplies the means to infringe, and knows of the use to which the means will be put (or turns a blind eye), can be held liable for contributory infringement. In the early cases, however, the relationship between the supplier and the user of the means was sufficiently close, that there could be little doubt of either the knowledge or the nexus between the means and the infringement.