(Common Law Copyright Infringement / Unfair Competition)   (Unjust Enrichment)   59.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.   6.  In the es specializi usic labels p g the Flamin d to the Blue nglows (indu in 2000).   60.  The Pre-1972 Recordings, when created, were the novel product of mental labor  embodied in material form; Plaintiffs and the Misappropriation Class thus have property rights in  them as recognized by New Jersey common law.    61.  By duplicating the Pre-1972 Recordings without authorization from Plaintiffs and  Class Members, and publicly performing those Recordings to its users for their own gain,  Defendants misappropriated the Recordings and infringed Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’  property rights, whereby Plaintiffs and Class Members were damaged.   63.  Defendants’ conduct, as described above, constituted a continuous and intentional  pattern of misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ property, justifying the imposition  of punitive damages. Defendants are high-profile, large-scale media companies that are  intimately familiar with the mechanics of the music industry and the requirements of intellectual  property law. By knowingly misappropriating works without their owners’ permission and  performing these works to millions of users of satellite and internet radio services, Defendants  acted and continue to act maliciously and oppressively to injure Plaintiffs and Class Members by  depriving them of compensation for the use of the Pre-1972 Recordings. Defendants’ continued  misappropriation of the Pre-1972 Recordings was at a minimum done with wanton and willful  disregard of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights in those Recordings, and the harm suffered by  Plaintiffs and Class Members was foreseeable to Defendants.   64.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.   66.  Defendants’ conduct, as described above, constituted a continuous and intentional  pattern of misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ property, justifying the imposition  of punitive damages. Defendants are high-profile, large-scale media companies that are  intimately familiar with the mechanics of the music industry and the requirements of intellectual  property law. By knowingly misappropriating works without their owners’ permission and  performing these works to millions of users of satellite and internet radio services, Defendants  acted and continue to act maliciously and oppressively to injure Plaintiffs and Class Members by  depriving them of compensation for the use of the Pre-1972 Recordings. Defendants’ continued  misappropriation of the Pre-1972 Recordings was at a minimum done with wanton and willful  disregard of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights in those Recordings, and the harm suffered by  Plaintiffs and Class Members was foreseeable to Defendants.   7.  Arthu llowing fixtu tiff Arthur Sh and contract tiff Barbara S t rights in a p ndant Pandor nd, Californi roughout this ndant SiriusX York, New Y es as alleged  tiffs bring th ow.   A.  Arthu 