rely exclusively on New York common law — a hybrid copyright, unfair competition cause of action— in supporting its claims. See Apple Corps Ltd. v. Adirondack Group, 124 Misc.2d 351, 476 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1983) (upholding common law unfair competition claims for the unauthorized manufacture and sale of 14 to 20 year old Beatles’ recordings); Firma Melodiya v. ZYX Music GmbH, 882 F.Supp. 1306, 1316 n. 14 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Melodiya’s common law copyright and unfair competition claims are not preempted by the Federal Copyright Act since the master recordings were made prior to February 15, 1972, the date when Congress first extended federal copyright protection to sound recordings.’’); Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, No. 00 Civ. 4660, 2002 WL 1997918, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.29, 2002) (<HOLDING>). Capitol is correct to claim that the original
holding that new york law applies to this matter recognizing an unfair competition claim pursuant to new york common law with respect to the electronic file sharing of record companies pre1972 recordings holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership recognizing the rule and surveying new york law recognizing that new york common law protects pre1972 sound recordings