SoundExchange v. Muzak, No. 15-cv-476 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 8, 2016).
The Court held that Muzak, a grandfathered "preexisting subscription service" under 17 USC 114, enjoyed a favorable royalty rate -- not subject to the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard -- for its SonicTap service even though that service was not offered at the relevant statutory date. Interpreting the statute, the Court found that Congress intended to permit preeexisting subscription services to expand their offerings. This ruling was also consistend with the legislative history and findings by the Register of Copyrights.
Showing posts with label SoundExchange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SoundExchange. Show all posts
March 10, 2016
December 24, 2014
Copyright Royalty Board Royalty Rates For Performance Of Sound Recordings Affirmed
Music Choice v. Copyright Royalty Board, No. 13-1174/13-1183 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2014).
In 2013, the Judges of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued a determination setting royalty rates and defining terms for statutorily defined satellite digital audio radio services and preexisting subscription services. SoundExchange, which collects and distributes royalties, argued that the CRB arbitrarily set rates too low and that the CRB erred in defining "Gross Revenue" and eligible deductions. Music Choice, which provides music-only television channels, also appealed arguing that the Judges set the rates too high.
The Court of Appeals held that the CRB acted within its broad discretion to set rates for compulsory licenses of the digital performance of sound recordings, and therefore affirmed the determination of royalty rates. The appellate court found that the CRB did not exercise its broad discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner when setting royalty rates for satellite digital audio radio services and preexisting subscription services.
For satellite digital audio radio services, the rate was set at 11%; in order to avoid disruption, the CRB adopted a staggered schedule beginning at 9% in 2013 and increasing by 0.5% annually until achievement of 11% in 2017.
For preexisting subscription services, the rate was set at 8.5% with an upward adjustment for Music Choice's planned channel expansion. The rate would start at 8% in 2013 and increase to 8.5% for 2014 through 2017.
In 2013, the Judges of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued a determination setting royalty rates and defining terms for statutorily defined satellite digital audio radio services and preexisting subscription services. SoundExchange, which collects and distributes royalties, argued that the CRB arbitrarily set rates too low and that the CRB erred in defining "Gross Revenue" and eligible deductions. Music Choice, which provides music-only television channels, also appealed arguing that the Judges set the rates too high.
The Court of Appeals held that the CRB acted within its broad discretion to set rates for compulsory licenses of the digital performance of sound recordings, and therefore affirmed the determination of royalty rates. The appellate court found that the CRB did not exercise its broad discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner when setting royalty rates for satellite digital audio radio services and preexisting subscription services.
For satellite digital audio radio services, the rate was set at 11%; in order to avoid disruption, the CRB adopted a staggered schedule beginning at 9% in 2013 and increasing by 0.5% annually until achievement of 11% in 2017.
For preexisting subscription services, the rate was set at 8.5% with an upward adjustment for Music Choice's planned channel expansion. The rate would start at 8% in 2013 and increase to 8.5% for 2014 through 2017.
August 27, 2014
SoundExchange/Sirius Royalty Dispute Belongs Before Copyright Royalty Board, Not Federal Court
SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1290 (D.D.C. filed August 26, 2014).
Pursuant to the "primary jurisdiction" doctrine, a federal district court judge stayed a royalties dispute between SoundExchange and Sirius, saying that the dispute belongs before the Copyright Royalty Board. The parties already had met before the CRB in two prior proceedings, setting royalty rates for the digital broadcast of sound recordings on satellite radio SoundExchange brought an action in federal court alleging that Sirius underpaid royalties owed from 2007-2012 (the subject of the first CRB proceeding). The instant dispute centered on the meaning of the term "Gross Revenues" (a percentage of which are the royalties owed SoundExchange), and Sirius's alleged reductions/exclusions therefrom based on pre-72 recordings and Sirius' premiere subscriber package. The Court agreed with Sirius that the disputes "are best suited to review in the first instance by the CRB. ... [T]he technical and policy expertise of the CRB makes referral to that body appropriate." Because neither party was asking for a change in the royalty rates, only a clarification, the CRB was found to have continuing jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the "primary jurisdiction" doctrine, a federal district court judge stayed a royalties dispute between SoundExchange and Sirius, saying that the dispute belongs before the Copyright Royalty Board. The parties already had met before the CRB in two prior proceedings, setting royalty rates for the digital broadcast of sound recordings on satellite radio SoundExchange brought an action in federal court alleging that Sirius underpaid royalties owed from 2007-2012 (the subject of the first CRB proceeding). The instant dispute centered on the meaning of the term "Gross Revenues" (a percentage of which are the royalties owed SoundExchange), and Sirius's alleged reductions/exclusions therefrom based on pre-72 recordings and Sirius' premiere subscriber package. The Court agreed with Sirius that the disputes "are best suited to review in the first instance by the CRB. ... [T]he technical and policy expertise of the CRB makes referral to that body appropriate." Because neither party was asking for a change in the royalty rates, only a clarification, the CRB was found to have continuing jurisdiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
