Bit Parts

A federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has withdrawn her earlier ruling (reported in the February 2015 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, p.1) that non-party Twitter must disclose the names of account users who allegedly defamed an audio equipment manufacturer. Instead, Magistrate Laurel Beeler has now ruled in part that a single derogatory comment accusing Music Group Macao's CEO of tax evasion wasn't enough to override the Doe defendants' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 14-mc-80328.

Stan Soocheris Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance'and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is the 2014 recipient of the State Bar of Texas Entertainment & Sports Law Section's 'Texas Star Award.' Stan can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

“Blurred Lines” Post-Verdict Posturing

After a California federal jury decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' song “Blurred Lines” infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1970s hit song “Got To Give It Up,” “Blurred Lines” parties' litigator Howard King of L.A.'s Holmes, Paterno & Berliner vowed to appeal the $7.4 million copyright judgment. “We owe it to songwriters of the world, who are inspired by their predecessors, to make sure this verdict does not survive,” King said. But Gaye family trial lawyer Richard Busch of Nashville's King & Ballow claimed to our publication's sibling Litigation Daily, that there are no grounds for tossing out the verdict. Busch said. “If they could have proven that this was the copying of a genre or a feeling, they would have proven it during the two-week trial.”

Hey 19, New York Judge Says in Streaming Royalties Dispute

In another Busch-litigated case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asked for clarification of Busch client 19 Recordings' music-royalty underpayment claims over Sony's accountings for the streaming of recordings by such artists as Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood that 19 signed from the TV talent show American Idol. 19 Recordings Ltd. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 14-cv-1056. 19 argues that it is entitled to half of Sony's income for streaming-music licenses Sony enters into with third parties, rather than a much lower royalty rate for “distribution” or “sales.” District Judge Ronnie Abrams noted that, under Sony/19's agreement: “The lower rate also applies where the third-party agreements characterize the exploitation as both a broadcast (or transmission) and as a distribution (or sale).” District Judge Abrams ordered 19 to show “whether it is alleging that the [third-party] agreements describe the exploitation solely as broadcasts or transmissions, or as broadcasts and transmissions in addition to distributions or sales.”

Magistrate Changes Mind in Twitter Subpoena Controversy

A federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has withdrawn her earlier ruling (reported in the February 2015 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, p.1) that non-party Twitter must disclose the names of account users who allegedly defamed an audio equipment manufacturer. Instead, Magistrate Laurel Beeler has now ruled in part that a single derogatory comment accusing Music Group Macao's CEO of tax evasion wasn't enough to override the Doe defendants' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 14-mc-80328.

Stan Soocheris Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance'and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is the 2014 recipient of the State Bar of Texas Entertainment & Sports Law Section's 'Texas Star Award.' Stan can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.