In part, it is based on the contention that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property.
In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose.
For instance, in the New York State 2005 case, Capitol Records v. Naxos of America, the court held that pre-1972 sound recordings, which do not receive federal copyrights, may nevertheless receive state common law copyrights,[1] a ruling that was clarified and limited with 2016's Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM Radio.
The previous entry here maintained that the Lords found that "parliament had limited these natural rights in order to strike a more appropriate balance between the interests of the author and the wider social good," quoting Ronan.
[7] This leaves a sizable amount of work that still falls under a mixture of state statutes and common law copyright.
[1] This precedent was partially overruled in 2016 in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, which determined that the extent of common law copyright in New York did not cover the performance of a sound recording.