HUEY

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding, in analyzing a criminal statute analogous to ORS 164.865(l)(b), that a prohibition against advertisement does not provide for an additional to sale because advertisement “is a method to facilitate or attract customers for a sale”
• applied the two-part preemption test and found that New York criminal law banning sale of unauthorized recordings was preempted
• “ [differing mens rea elements, such as ‘awareness’ or ‘intent’ will not provide the ‘extra element’ to take it out of a copyright infringement claim”
• a violation of consumer protection provision may occur even with permission of the copyright owner
• the defendant’s prosecution for violating a New York antipiracy statute was preempted by section 301 where the statute dealt exclusively with distribution and prohibited matters related to distribution
• the defendant's prosecution for violating a New York antipiracy statute was preempted by section 301 where the statute dealt exclusively with distribution and prohibited matters related to distribution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).