so. See House Report at 61, reprinted in 1976 ISKCON 5674. Other than the reference to a copyright owner’s right “to authorize” exercise of the exclusive rights, however, the Copyright Act does not mention or define “contributory infringement” or “vicarious liability,” the standards for which have developed through case law, mostly in tort cases. If someone has the “right and ability” to supervise the infringing action of another, and that right and ability “coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials — even in the absence of actual knowledge” that the infringement is taking place — the “supervisor” may be held vicariously liable for the infringement. See Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (2d Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>). Vicarious liability is based on a connection
holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales holding that company that leased floor space to phonograph record department was liable for record departments sales of bootleg records despite absence of actual knowledge of infringement because of companys beneficial relationship to the sales holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding a principal liable for its sales agents misrepresentations