Is the case of Bright Tunes Music verses Harrisongs (420 F.Supp. 177)
binding on a federal court in Massachusetts and on future decisions
rendered by judges in the Southern District of New York?

I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked as a paralegal for many years, so
I'm reasonably sure what I'm saying is right.  Standard disclaimer:
it's not legal advice, and you should consult with a lawyer if it
actually has relevance to your life.

Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs is not binding on a Massachussetts
federal court.  It can be cited as precedent, of course, but the court
can easily distinguish it from other precedent.

It's also not binding on S.D.N.Y. district judges, but it will be a
compelling precedent to them, unless there's a clear and convincing
reason that the case at bar is distinguishable from Bright Tunes Music
v. Harrisongs.

District courts don't set binding legal principles.  Rather, those are
set for states by State Supreme Courts and for the federal government
by Circuit courts and occasionally by the U.S. Supreme Court.  I'm not
sure whether Bright Tunes Music was heard by either a circuit judge or
a state supreme court judge, but of course you could look that up.

Cheers

Assuming the case was not subsequently overturned on appeal or by
later precedent from the same court, then the answer is yes, it would
be binding on future decisions rendered by judges in the SDNY under
the doctrine of stare decisis
(http://ilawyer.com/library/glossary.jsp#s).  It would not be binding,
per se, on a federal court in Massachusetts, unless, e.g., the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court expressly
adopted the holding in Bright Tunes.  Then a Massachusetts federal
district court would be bound by the higher court precedent.

So for example, if the same basic facts came up again in a new case in
the SDNY between two new parties, and one of the parties argued that
he did not recall hearing the song allegedly infringed and the other
party argued that that did not matter under authority of Bright Tunes
because Bright Tunes held that even a subconscious familiarity was
enough to show access, the judge would have to agree with the second
party and apply the Bright Tunes holding under stare decisis, UNLESS
the first party could show some very compelling law or facts to
justify the SDNY's overturning Bright Tunes.  That does not happen
very often, however.


BTW, it's an interesting case from a copyright law perspective if
anyone out there in GA land is curious.  See
http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/IntellectualProperty/4_Copyright/BrightTunesMusicHarrissongsSDNY1976GeorgeHarrison.htm