1. Does it matter that, under an agency theory, Keith did not disclose the full extent of what he would be posting using the band’s name to extend liability to the entire group?
Under an agency theory, it does not matter that Keith did not fully disclose what he would be posting. The knowledge of Keith and his actions will be imputed to the other partners, or the firm if a separate personality. In other words, each partner of the band is an agent of the other with the right and the ability to control the activities of each other; and the band profited from the wrong doing of Keith, therefore they are all liable under an agency theory.
Likewise, under copy right law, Contributory liability for copyright infringement requires that the secondary infringer know or have reason to know of direct infringement. A &M Records Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
Does it matter that Keith’s intent was only to conceal his soft- rock proclivities and not the infringement?
…show more content…
The trademark infringement law states; [a]ny person who shall, without the consent of the registrant-(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. Infringement charges can be filed against Keith and his partners. Keith reproduced Carly Simon and Carole King tracks without their consent, used them in a public forum, and profited from doing