Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “the authorization clause merely provides a statutory foundation for secondary liability, not a means of expanding the scope of direct infringement liability”
• observing that statutory damages are more likely to deter an infringer whose motive is to profit
• “The Court holds that distribution to Media-Sentry can form the basis of an infringement claim.”
• “[D]irect proof of actual dissemination is not required by the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs are free to employ circumstantial evidence to attempt to prove [a violation].”
• “[A] copyright owner’s authorization of an investigator to pursue infringement does not authorize the investigator to validate the third party’s unlawful conduct.” (internal quotations and alteration omitted)
• “[D]istribution to MediaSentry can form the basis of an infringement claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).