Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Music Stream vs. Download
If a music file is downloaded to a computer and no one is there to play it, does it constitute a performance? This is not some question from a digital-age freshman philosophy seminar ' it was the legal issue recently facing Judge William C. Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), 485 F.Supp.2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Connor found that a digital download alone, as distinct from a digital media 'stream,' does not constitute a performance. While this decision seems obvious and has been widely viewed as correct (by everyone other than ASCAP), it is not actually as simple as it first seems.
ASCAP is one of three performance-rights organizations (along with BMI and SESAC) that track public performances of musical compositions, and collect and distribute royalties to publishers and composer members. Because a performance occurs every time a song is played on the radio or television, the process is extremely cumbersome and the performance-rights organizations make it possible to efficiently track, collect and distribute the statutorily mandated royalties. ASCAP functions under an amended final judgment, dating (in various versions) from a 1941 antitrust action. Pursuant to the amended final judgment, ASCAP establishes a fixed royalty rate for each type of performance of its works. Disputes over the appropriate royalty rate for a given kind of performance are adjudicated by the court that heard the original antitrust action ' often called the ASCAP rate court ' if the rate cannot be decided between the parties. These rate disputes still appear under the original 1941 'Civ.' docket number in the Southern District and Judge Connor presides over these cases.
Streaming v. Downloading
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.