Bridgeport Music, Inc. Westbound Records, Inc., Southfield Music, Inc. Nine Records, Inc. v. Dimension Films Miramax Film Corp., No Limit Films Llc, Bridgeport Music, Inc. Southfield Music, Inc. Nine Records, Inc., Westbound Records, Inc. v. Dimension Films, No Limit Films LLC Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Sixth Circuit held that any unauthorized digital sampling of a copyrighted sound recording constitutes infringement, regardless of the amount taken, rejecting a de minimis defense for such acts.
Legal Significance: This case established a bright-line rule in the Sixth Circuit: for copyrighted sound recordings, any digital sampling without a license is copyright infringement.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, including Westbound Records, Inc., owned the sound recording copyright for “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” by George Clinton, Jr. and the Funkadelics. Defendants, including No Limit Films, released the movie I Got the Hook Up, the soundtrack of which included the rap song “100 Miles and Runnin’.” This song contained a digitally sampled two-second, three-note arpeggiated guitar chord from “Get Off.” The sample was pitch-lowered, looped, and extended to 16 beats, appearing five times in “100 Miles,” with each looped segment lasting approximately seven seconds. The district court found the sampled portion original and creative but granted summary judgment to the defendant on Westbound’s sound recording infringement claim, reasoning that the sampling was de minimis and therefore not actionable. Westbound appealed, arguing that no de minimis inquiry should apply to digital sampling of sound recordings.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the unauthorized digital sampling of any portion of a copyrighted sound recording constitute copyright infringement per se, without regard to a de minimis analysis or substantial similarity?
Yes, the unauthorized digital sampling of a copyrighted sound recording constitutes copyright Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the unauthorized digital sampling of any portion of a copyrighted sound recording constitute copyright infringement per se, without regard to a de minimis analysis or substantial similarity?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established a strict liability standard for the digital sampling Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati
Legal Rule
Under 17 U.S.C. § 114(b), the exclusive right of a sound recording Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess
Legal Analysis
The court's decision rested primarily on its interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Established a bright-line rule for digital sampling of sound recordings: **“Get