In re Pandora Radio LLC, FCC 15-129 (FCC released Sep. 17, 2015).
The FCC denied ASCAP's motion for reconsideration of (1) the Media Bureau's decision granting the application to assign the license of KXMZ FM radio station in South Dakaota to Pandora; and (2) the Commission's declaratory ruling, which held that it would serve the public interest to permit a widely dispersed group of shareholders to hold aggreage foreign ownership in Pandora in excess of the 25% benchmark set out in Section 310(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (subject to certain conditions). The FCC re-affirmed its finding that ASCAP lacked standing to challenge the license assignment. ASCAP also claimed that the Bureau should have examined the rationale and motivation behind Pandora's transaction, specifically, Pandora's hope by acquiring the radio station to qualify for lower music license royalty rates. The FCC found that "whatever the impact of its acquisition on such royalty rates may be, Pandora has undertaken to offer programming responsive to the interests of its local listeners, and ASCAP has failed to identify any substantial and matieral question about Pandora's ability to provide such service in the public interest."
Showing posts with label Reconsideration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reconsideration. Show all posts
September 28, 2015
December 5, 2014
Court My Reconsider Pre-1972 Sound Recording Decision In Turtles/Sirius Case
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, 1:13-cv-05784-CM (SDNY filed 12/03/14) [Doc. 103].
As previously reported, a New York federal court recently found that Flo & Eddie (the Turtles) have state common law claims against Sirius XM concerning the public performance of pre-1972 sound recordings. However, defendant Sirius XM, by new counsel, subsequently brought to the Court's attention a previously un-cited decades old 2nd Circuit decision, RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F.2d 86, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1940), which held that no common law public performance right existed in sound recordings. "Whiteman plainly should have been addressed the first time around, and it must be dealt with now- it is, after all, a Second Circuit decision (albeit a pre-Naxos decision) discussing key issues in this case." Accordingly, the court entered a scheduling order for plaintiff to respond and discuss the case
As previously reported, a New York federal court recently found that Flo & Eddie (the Turtles) have state common law claims against Sirius XM concerning the public performance of pre-1972 sound recordings. However, defendant Sirius XM, by new counsel, subsequently brought to the Court's attention a previously un-cited decades old 2nd Circuit decision, RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F.2d 86, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1940), which held that no common law public performance right existed in sound recordings. "Whiteman plainly should have been addressed the first time around, and it must be dealt with now- it is, after all, a Second Circuit decision (albeit a pre-Naxos decision) discussing key issues in this case." Accordingly, the court entered a scheduling order for plaintiff to respond and discuss the case
January 9, 2014
Vimeo Decision Modified; Leave To Appeal Granted
Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 2013 ILRC 3345, No. 09-cv-10101 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2013).
Upon further review of the record, the Court agreed with defendants that Vimeo is entitled to summary judgment with respect to five videos for which the only evidence of employee interaction was that the user's account had been "whitelisted." "It is simply unrealistic to infer that a Vimeo employee watched" those videos. Also upon further review, the Court found that for two videos, the infringing nature of the videos was not objectively "obvious" and therefore Defendants did not have "red flag" knowledge of the videos' infringing content. However, the Court found that 18 of the videos still should go to a jury.
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add additional videos, including both pre- and post- 1972 sound recordings.
Lastly, the Court granted Vimeo's motion to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal: (1) Are the DMCA's safe-harbor provisions applicable to sound recordings fixed prior to Feb. 15, 1972, (2) and does a service provider's mere viewing of a user-generated video containing third party copyrighted music automatically give rise to a triable issue of fact as to the service provider's knowledge of infringement under the DMCA?
Upon further review of the record, the Court agreed with defendants that Vimeo is entitled to summary judgment with respect to five videos for which the only evidence of employee interaction was that the user's account had been "whitelisted." "It is simply unrealistic to infer that a Vimeo employee watched" those videos. Also upon further review, the Court found that for two videos, the infringing nature of the videos was not objectively "obvious" and therefore Defendants did not have "red flag" knowledge of the videos' infringing content. However, the Court found that 18 of the videos still should go to a jury.
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add additional videos, including both pre- and post- 1972 sound recordings.
Lastly, the Court granted Vimeo's motion to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal: (1) Are the DMCA's safe-harbor provisions applicable to sound recordings fixed prior to Feb. 15, 1972, (2) and does a service provider's mere viewing of a user-generated video containing third party copyrighted music automatically give rise to a triable issue of fact as to the service provider's knowledge of infringement under the DMCA?
May 16, 2013
Reconsideration in MP3Tunes Case
Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC, No. 07-cv-9931 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 14, 2013) [Doc. 368].
All parties moved for reconsideration of the Court's October 25, 2011 order (821 F. Supp. 2d 627), springing from the 2nd Circuit's decision in Viacom Int'l v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's motion was granted in part and denied in part: plaintiff's motion was granted as to the issue of willful blindness and "red flag" knowledge, and denied as to the inducement of copyright claim. Defendant's motion regarding direct copyright infringement was granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding infringement of cover art, regarding personal jurisdiction and summary judgment as to his vicarious liability was denied.
There is an interesting discussion of "red flag" knowledge of infringement, under which service providers can lose the protection of the DMCA safe harbors if they have actual or apparent (i.e., "red flag") knowledge of infringing conduct.
All parties moved for reconsideration of the Court's October 25, 2011 order (821 F. Supp. 2d 627), springing from the 2nd Circuit's decision in Viacom Int'l v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's motion was granted in part and denied in part: plaintiff's motion was granted as to the issue of willful blindness and "red flag" knowledge, and denied as to the inducement of copyright claim. Defendant's motion regarding direct copyright infringement was granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding infringement of cover art, regarding personal jurisdiction and summary judgment as to his vicarious liability was denied.
There is an interesting discussion of "red flag" knowledge of infringement, under which service providers can lose the protection of the DMCA safe harbors if they have actual or apparent (i.e., "red flag") knowledge of infringing conduct.
July 10, 2009
Reconsideration of Sanction Denied
Homkow v. Musika Records Inc., No. 04 Civ. 3587, NYLJ 7/10/2009 "Decision of Interest (SDNY June 18, 2009) (denying motion to reconsider).
The Court had adopted magistrate's report to sanction defendants based on plaintiff's hours "primarily spent dealing with, reacting to, and seeking relief from, the steady stream of misstatements from Defendants as to the location and status" of the Master tapes.
On reconsideration, the Court confirmed the Report's assessment. Moreover, Plaintiff'smonetary damages and copyright claims were predicated on Plaintiff's inability to recover the Master tapes. Thus, whatever attorney's fees Plaintiff incurred in pursuit of the monetary damages and copyright claims were as result of Defendants' failure to return the Master tapes as promised.
June 3, 2009
Reconsideration Denied On Claim of Lost Written Assignment
Tolliver v. McCants, No. 05 Civ. 10840, NYLJ 6/03/09 "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2009)
The Court had previously granted plaintiff judgment on defendant's copyright infringement. Granting defendant reconsideration in part, the Court reinstated eight affirmative defenses. However, the Court denied reconsdiertion on defendant's claim of a lost written assignment.
Defendant could not rely on plaintiff's prior deposition testimony to create a genuine factual issue as to the written assignment's existence. Also, the Court noted that its earlier ruling found that defendant had admitted that the only written agreement with plaintiff was a recording contract concerning artist's royalties. The court discounted allegedly "new" evidence, and determined that defendant pointed to nothing undermining the Court's prior conclusion that no genuine factual issue existed regarding defendant's claim of a lost written assignment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
