Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After performing-rights organizations ASCAP and BMI lost royalty rate challenges against background music provider DMX Inc. in 2010, they turned to a pair of former U.S. solicitors general to handle their appeals: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Olson for ASCAP and Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman for BMI.
But all that appellate firepower wasn't enough to turn their fortunes around. DMX and its own big-gun litigator, Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner R. Bruce Rich, persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to affirm the lower court decisions in the consolidated appeal, which stemmed from separate suits filed by ASCAP and BMI in 2006. Broadcast Music Inc. v. DMX Inc., 10-3429.
DMX had adopted a direct licensing plan, and negotiated with musicians and publishers rather than paying for a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI. DMX's licensing pool grew to include more than 850 individual companies, led in size by Sony. Modeling their rate structures after agreements with DMX rival background music company Muzak, ASCAP proposed a royalty rate of $49 per customer location and BMI offered $36 per location.
DMX countered by offering less than $20 per location, claiming ASCAP's and BMI's rates were not reflective of the market. DMX also maintained that ASCAP's and BMI's proposed rates should be reduced based on what DMX paid for its direct licenses. ASCAP disagreed, arguing that such a licensing scheme was precluded by a deal that ASCAP reached with the federal government to settle antitrust claims in 2001.
Writing in June 2012 for a unanimous three-judge Second Circuit panel, Judge Denny Chin held that two lower court judges were correct when they adopted DMX's royalty rate. He found ASCAP's and BMI's proposed rates “did not reflect a sufficiently competitive market.” Chin ruled the rates set by the district courts were reasonable and adequately compensated ASCAP and BMI.
“That the rates set by the ASCAP and BMI rate courts were comparatively lower than those historically obtained by ASCAP and BMI is of no moment given ASCAP and BMI's longstanding market power and the industry's changing economic landscape,” wrote Chin, who cautioned that ASCAP's and BMI's rates could discourage direct licensing within the music industry.
After performing-rights organizations ASCAP and BMI lost royalty rate challenges against background music provider DMX Inc. in 2010, they turned to a pair of former U.S. solicitors general to handle their appeals:
But all that appellate firepower wasn't enough to turn their fortunes around. DMX and its own big-gun litigator,
DMX had adopted a direct licensing plan, and negotiated with musicians and publishers rather than paying for a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI. DMX's licensing pool grew to include more than 850 individual companies, led in size by Sony. Modeling their rate structures after agreements with DMX rival background music company Muzak, ASCAP proposed a royalty rate of $49 per customer location and BMI offered $36 per location.
DMX countered by offering less than $20 per location, claiming ASCAP's and BMI's rates were not reflective of the market. DMX also maintained that ASCAP's and BMI's proposed rates should be reduced based on what DMX paid for its direct licenses. ASCAP disagreed, arguing that such a licensing scheme was precluded by a deal that ASCAP reached with the federal government to settle antitrust claims in 2001.
Writing in June 2012 for a unanimous three-judge Second Circuit panel, Judge
“That the rates set by the ASCAP and BMI rate courts were comparatively lower than those historically obtained by ASCAP and BMI is of no moment given ASCAP and BMI's longstanding market power and the industry's changing economic landscape,” wrote Chin, who cautioned that ASCAP's and BMI's rates could discourage direct licensing within the music industry.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.