2d Cir. Rules That Downloading Digital File Containing A Musical Work Not “Public Performance”

© is the copyright symbol
Image via Wikipedia

Yahoo! Inc. and RealNetworks, Inc. (collectively, the “Internet Companies”) sought separate blanket licenses to publicly perform the entirety of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) repertory for certain of their websites and services. A blanket license is a license  that gives the licensee the right to perform all of the works in 5 the repertory for a single stated fee that does not vary depending on how much music from the repertory the licensee  actually uses.

In this case, the Internet Companies offer their customers the ability to download musical works over the Internet. It is undisputed that  these downloads create copies of the musical works, for which the parties agree the copyright owners must be compensated. However,  the parties dispute whether these downloads are also public performances of the musical works. ASCAP contended that the downloads are public performances for which the copyright owners must separately and additionally be compensated. The district court held that these downloads are not public performances, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The Court held that the downloads were not musical performances that were simultaneously perceived by the listener. Rather, they were only transfers of electronic files containing digital copies from an online server to a local hard drive. Because the downloads at issue involved no recitation, rendering, or playing of the musical work encoded in the digital transmission, such a download was not a performance of that work.

About The Author

Safeguarding Ideas, Relationships & Talent®

Filmmakers face an often confusing and changing set of challenges trying to ensure that their business remains legally compliant. Yet few can afford the highly-qualified and versatile legal staff needed to deal with today’s complex and inconstant legal and regulatory environment. Adler & Franczyk is a boutique law firm created with a specific mission in mind: to provide businesses with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage theirintangible assets and creative content in a way that drives innovation and increases the overall value of the business.

We approach our relationship with each client as a true partnership and we view our firm as an extension of their capabilities. Our primary value is our specialization on relevant and complex issues that maintain the leading edge for our clients. We invite you to learn more about the services we offer and how we differ.

On the web: www.ecommerceattorney.com
On Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/adlerlaw
On LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/adlerlaw

When Creative Content Does Not Equal Copyrighted Content

David M. Adler will be addressing the Chicago Bar Association’s Media & Entertainment Committee on May 27, 2010 at 12:15 P.M. on the topic of Advising Clients When Creative Content Does Not Equal Copyrighted Content – Transactional & Litigation Strategies and Brief Review of the UrineTown case.

David Adler represented the Chicago stage play team who created, produced, and directed a local run of UrineTown.  In response to threatened lawsuit/s, the team filed suit against another team of producers who formerly staged the play in New York.  (Mullen v. SSDC, et. al.)

One of the key issues addressed in the lawsuit dealt with whether or not creative endeavors such as stage directing and lighting design could be considered recognized works of authorship under the U.S. Copyright Act and defend its denial of copyright registration applications filed by the Broadway production team.  Prior to settlement, the U.S. Register of Copyrights filed a motion to increase the time with which to enter into the case.  There are numerous implications with respect to copyright protection and how to best serve your clients interests.