Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District California dismissed an antitrust allegation counterclaim by Pandora Media in litigation involving several lawsuits filed against it alleging non-payment of royalties for use of the literary content of the routines of such comedians as Lewis Black and the late Robin Williams that consumers can access on Pandora's streaming service. (Pandora does pay royalties for use of the comedy sound recordings.) In re Pandora Media LLC Copyright Litigation, 2:22-cv-00809. Pandora hurled its antitrust counterclaim against the comedians and their licensing agent Word Collections, which enters into exclusive "affiliation agreements" with the artists that enable Word to charge the same licensing fee for each comedian's content. Word in turn demands a 25% royalty rate under a blanket license for use of the comedy routines. Central District Judge Mark C. Scarsi noted: "Pandora alleges that these exclusive affiliation agreements amount to a conspiracy, whereby Word Collections and the Comedians have agreed not to license 'independently outside of the cartel.' Word Collections represents many different comedians, making the Word Collections portfolio 'dangerously close' to a must-have if a service wants to offer comedy streaming. Pandora alleges that this demonstrates Word Collections' monopoly power and permits Word Collections to make itself the go-to entity for comedy performances." Word sought to have Pandora's counterclaim dismissed on the ground that Pandora hadn't sought individual licenses for the comedy routines. Denying the motion, though, District Judge Scarsi emphasized, "It is enough that Pandora has plausibly alleged Word Collections requires a blanket license for access to its literary works." However, the district judge went on to dismiss Pandora's monopolization, price-fixing conspiracy and tying claims against Word by noting about the monopolization allegation, for example: "Even though Pandora adequately defines a relevant market, Pandora offers no allegations that Word Collections owns a dominant share of the market or that there are significant barriers to entry in the market. … Pandora's description of Word Collections' impressive but short list of comedians whose works it licenses does not suffice to demonstrate that Word Collections owns a dominant share of the comedy recording market in the United States. Importantly, nothing in the counterclaim gives any indication of the size of the market (although the size of Pandora's own catalog casts significant doubts on Word Collections' dominance in the market)."
*****
|In a music dispute, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sanctioned a plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for submitting a request for judicial notice. McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet Inc., 1:22-cv-1138. Reggae artist Shauna McKenzie-Morris and Freemind Music filed suit in Manhattan federal court alleging record label V.P. Records Retail Outlet and related parties were infringing on the copyrights for McKenzie-Morris's music. After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' counsel Celeste N. McCaw submitted a request that included for judicial notice of three complaints and a letter filed in four other litigations in which V.P. had been involved. The judicial notice motion's goal was to "establish that there is a legitimate question of fact related to Plaintiffs' claims and ownership." Southern District Judge Gregory H. Woods had explained to McCaw that a judicial notice request must not be frivolous. Granting the defendants motion for sanctions, District Judge Woods explained that "if the statements in the other documents are not true, then they do not establish a question of fact related to the claims and ownership rights here, because they are inaccurate. So, to establish that the question of fact that Plaintiffs identify as the purpose of judicial notice exists, the Court would have to consider the statements in the documents filed in other courts for their truth. But it is blackletter law that documents filed in another court may not be considered for that purpose." The district judge concluded: "Because Plaintiffs' motion had no chance of success when filed, and because the Court repeatedly explained to Plaintiff's counsel why that was so in advance of filing, Plaintiffs' judicial-notice motion violated Rule 11."
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
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.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
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.