Showing posts with label Copyright Royalty Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright Royalty Board. Show all posts

Friday, 22 February 2019

THE COPYKAT



After our very last post, more on dance steps! Former "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" star Alfonso Ribeiro has been involved in a lawsuit with Take-Two Interactive, publisher of the video game "NBA 2K," and the publisher of "Fortnite" over avatars in the games being able to do the dance that his character popularised on the hugely popular '90s sitcom ' the 'Carlton Dance'. But now that action has taken a knock back as details of a letter from Saskia Florence at the US Copyright Office to Ribeiro's attorney, David Hecht surfaced as part of federal court documents in California. In the correspondence, Florence wrote that the moves are "a simple dance routine." adding "as such, it is not registrable as a choreographic work".  

The EU Commission has removed a rather odd blog post that attacked internet campaigners, admitting its language was not appropriate and that it could be interpreted as offensive. The post was positioned as a response to the various battles around the EU's planned copyright directive, which introduces a series of reforms, and pointed to the aggressive and polarising lobbying from the tech sector. The post was titled ‘The Copyright Directive: How the mob was told to save the dragon and slay the knight’ and the controversial text included the opinion (that seems related to Brexit) that “We know from recent elections and referendums that simple memorable slogans – however untrue or unobtainable – can go a long way to winning over hearts, minds and voters. Never let the truth get in the way of a catchy slogan”. The post went further in its criticism of the tech sectors efforts to  mislead the public by employing dubious campaigning tactics saying  “It appears as if the largest search and video platforms in the world are afraid of regulation – despite having overwhelming dominance on the internet. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that ‘big technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the copyright directive in order to make it look and sound as if the EU is acting against the ‘will of the people'”. A statement in place of the post now reads: “This article published by the Commission services was intended to reply to concerns, but also to misinterpretations that often surround the copyright directive proposal. We acknowledge that its language and title were not appropriate and we apologise for the fact that it has been seen as offending”. In related news, representatives of European Union governments have endorsed the compromise reached with the EU Parliament on the overhaul of the bloc's copyright rules, the Romanian presidency of the EU said in a statement on Twitter.

And with that  final draft of the European Copyright Directive now being considered, a number of organisations representing independent record labels and music publishers, songwriters and their collecting societies published a letter calling on the EU Council and European Parliament to vote through the copyright reforms. Independent label's group IMPALA and the Independent Music Publishers International Forum led the call for support for the Directive to now be adopted along with support from the European Composer And Songwriter Alliance, and collecting society groups CISAC and GESAC, with the letter saying "We, the undersigned organisations, representing authors, composers, writers, journalists, photographers and others working in all artistic fields, news agencies, book, press and music publishers, audiovisual and independent music producers, call on the Council Of The European Union and the European Parliament to adopt the Directive On Copyright In The Digital Single Market".

Perhaps in preparation for EU reforms,YouTube has announced changes to it's 'strikes' system as it applies to content flagged for violating the company’s Community Guidelines. Starting February 25th, the first time a creator’s content is flagged, they will get a one-time warning and their flagged content will be removed. Prior to this change, there was no warning, and a first strike would result in a 90-day freeze on live streaming. A second strike would result in a two-week freeze on video uploads.  A YouTube spokesperson told Gizmodo that the strike policies for Community Guidelines and copyright are entirely separate, and that YouTube employees don’t get directly involved copyright disputes. The spokesperson said that if YouTube receives a DMCA takedown notice, they must legally comply with that request and remove the content. Community Guidelines violations—like harmful, hateful, violent content, and spam—are reviewed and decided upon by members of the YouTube team, according to the spokesperson.


The Copyright Royalty Board in the US has published the new mechanical royalty rates that will apply for the use of music in America. The new rates were first published a year ago and include a top line 44% increase in the revenue share rate being paid by the streaming services, which will rise from 10.5% to 15.1%. After a further period of consultation with submissions from both music owners and music users a ‘final determination’ has now followed - although participating parties still have one more chance to appeal. Benjamin Semel who represents the National Music Publishers Association commented: “The final determination that became effective today is even stronger than the initial determination, as the judges clarified an important definition during the rehearing motion phase, providing additional protection against streaming services using product bundling to exclude revenues from the royalty pool”. NMPA President & CEO David Israelite said that digital music companies would ‘declare war on songwriters’ should they appeal the 44% streaming royalty rise decided by the Copyright Royalty Board adding  “Apple has announced it will not appeal. The others won’t say. We will know soon whether some digital companies want to be partners or want to attack the songwriters who make their businesses possible. Stay Tuned.”

US Radio lobbyists and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in Washington DC are backing the Local Radio Freedom Act, which would limit the royalties radio stations have to pay for the use of recordings. Similar bills failed in 2017 and 2015 and of course the rapidly passed Music Modernization Act did much to update the law on music use in the USA. Now 124 congress members and five senators have signed on as initial co-sponsors. The bills argue that radio stations "provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers," so they should not be obliged to pay "any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge." If such fees were imposed, the bill's proponents argue, it would cause "severe economic hardship." Or perhaps just reduce profits for broadcasters.

And finally, in Trinidad & Tobago, Police have arrested seven people in Port of Spain for copyright infringement..The seven vendors were targeted during an exercise which saw officers of the Port of Spain Division, the Municipal Police, and officials from Awesome Copyright interview CD vendors in Independence Square and Charlotte Street. Various CDs and sound equipment were seized with the arrests made pursuant tof Section 41 of the Trinidad and Tobago Copyright Act. The offence carries a jail term of up to ten years and/or a fine of up to $250,000.


Saturday, 19 December 2015

Pandora shares soar after Copyright Royalty Board set new rate

Pandora, the world's largest Internet radio service, will pay record companies more money to stream its music following a long-awaited decision on Wednesday by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board.  The Board, a panel of three federal judges, decides how much Internet radio stations such as Pandora must pay record companies. Under a 1995 law and its successors, disputes over this rate are settled by the Copyright Royalty Board.

But the new fee represents a comparatively small increase - the record companies were seeking much higher rates. The new statutory per-stream rate os paid to recorded music rightsholders by non-interactive digital 'radio' platforms such as Pandora and iHeartRadio.  the non-subscription per-stream rate set by the CRB will be $0.0017, which $0.0003 more per stream than recorded music rightsholders currently receive from Pandora. According to MBW calculations, that will mean Pandora paying out $94.1m more to recorded music rightholders next year compared to 2015 for the same amount of consumption. However this rate will only apply for definite in 2016 - the following four years (2017-2020) will be determined by fluctuations in the US Consumer Price Index, which could bring the rate back down - or push it further upwards. In the wake of the CRB's decision, Pandora shares, which had plummeted 27% in 2015 before closing Wednesday at $13.44, were surging 20% in after-hours trading.  SoundExchange has been arguing wants to almost double it to $0.0025. In 2014, Pandora paid out $446.4m to all music business rightsholders, according to its SEC filings. (From a total cost of sales of $508m). A rate court ruled that ASCAP is entitled to 1.85 percent of Pandora’s revenue, and this year, a court ruled that Pandora must pay 2.5 percent of its revenue to BMI for the use if songs - so by far the biggest share of revenues were paid to labels and artists in 2014: $407.8m. But SoundExchange said "We believe the rates set by the CRB do not reflect a market price for music and will erode the value of music in our economy" and one commentator noted "Whatever the case, a competitive marketplace - not federal judges - ought to be setting prices" adding "The radio business is changing quickly. The sooner government gets out of it, the better off artists and consumers will be."

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-16/deregulate-the-music-industry and http://www.thestreet.com/story/13398099/1/pandora-hit-with-higher-costs-as-royalty-board-hikes-streaming-rates.html

And Billboard explains more here

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

COPYKAT - Sampling a polyphonic recital of musical antiphons

"Could majors get better Pandora rates than indies?" asks a U.S. rate setting board: This is the interesting news that the ongoing review of the rates paid by online radio services in the US that are licensed via the SoundExchange system - which includes personalised radio platforms like Pandora - has taken an unusual turn, after it emerged that the Copyright Royalty Board has asked the US Copyright Office whether it could set different rates for different content providers. Which many reckon could mean one rate for the major labels and another for the indie labels  ..... and interesting blog on licensing in the digital age by Andy Heath, chairman of the Beggars Banquet record label, can be found here and more here. WIN, representing independent labels, issued a statement saying "The worldwide independent industry calls for the maintenance of single rate collective licensing in the US as it ensures that there can be no discrimination towards artists and companies in an already highly competitive market place. To create imbalances in what companies and the artists signed to them receive from digital transactions will simply cause harm, and not serve expansion of choice for the consumer and for the creative community."

And the three judges who make up the Copyright Royalty Board have also approved the settlement between SoundExchange and the public radio networks. As a result of that settlement, NPR, American Public Media, Public Radio International, Public Radio Exchange and up to 530 originating public radio stations as named by Corporation for Public Broadcasting will pay $2.8 million annually, divided into in 5 instalments, through 2019. That rate is up from the $2.4 million in annual payments made during the previous term.

The Recording Industry Association of America is  seeking $22 million in damages from MP3Skull and the RIAA has asked a court for summary judgement in the absence of any response from MP3Skull. The major labels are now seeking $22 million in damages plus an injunction preventing domain registrars and registries from working with the site. In its motion to the court the record industry trade body says: "Defendants designed, promote, support and maintain the MP3Skull website for the well-known, express and overarching purpose of reproducing, distributing, performing and otherwise exploiting unlimited copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings without any authorisation or license. By providing to the public the fruits of plaintiffs' investment of money, labour and expertise, MP3Skull has become one of the most notorious pirate websites in the world". The $22 million is based on a claim for 148 tracks that are named as having been infringed in the RIAA litigation, multiplied by the maximum statutory damages allowed under US law for copyright infringement, $150,000.

Rightscorp has been hired by Sony/ATV in the US in the music publisher's ongoing batlle against piracy to “monitor the Internet for infringements of copyrights” on illegal download sites. MBW tells us that Sony/ATV has authorised the somewhat controversial Rightscorp to collect data on piracy activity – the sort of thing that will come in useful for any future legal cases – and to send notices to Internet Service Providers of infringements of its copyrights. Sony/ATC has also contracted Rightscorp to ‘negotiate and collect settlements on Sony’s behalf with each infringer’, from which Sony/ATV will be paid 50% of net revenues. Rightscorp already acts for music company BMG.


And finally, some blatant self publicity - The CopyKat has been extensively quoted in a new article on Thump / Vice (which I am told is very trendy with the yoof) about the 'Blurred Lines' copyright case and its ramifications, although readers will be aware an appeal is pending: "In March 2015, Marvin Gaye's family won a $7.4 million verdict against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for copyright infringement. The suit alleged that their hit, "Blurred Lines," which spent twelve weeks at #1 on the Billboard charts in the United States, was a blatant copy of Gaye's 1977 track "Got To Give It Up"   .... "THUMP spoke with UK Music Lawyer Ben Challis, who has previously written on the case, to discuss future implications of the "Blurred Lines" case in electronic music: "We Talked to a Lawyer about How the 'Blurred Lines' case Will Impact Copyright Law in Dance Music"The CopyKat's also had an article published in the September edition of the WIPO Magazine on the legal ramifications of the same case - "Blurred Lines: The difference between inspiration and appropriation (first published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice).