Sirius sued over not paying royalties on pre-1972 songs
Sirius is allegedly refusing to pay performance royalties for any recordings made before 1972, because up until that year sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law.
August 27, 2013 at 06:10 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Sirius XM Radio Inc. has not been paying for its golden oldies and has ruffled the feathers of SoundExchange Inc., a non-profit subsidiary of the Recording Industry Association of America responsible for collecting royalties from digital music services.
Satellite-radio company Sirius is allegedly refusing to pay performance royalties for any recordings made before 1972, because up until that year sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law. The only protection these songs have are under various state laws.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, SoundExchange claims that Sirius should have to pay royalties for all of its music, basing its argument on royalty-calculation regulations set by federal judges. Regulations set in 2013 specifically excludes money made from recordings from before 1972 as part of the gross revenue that digital music services must pay royalties on. According to The Wall Street Journal, SoundExchange plans to argue that exclusion did not exist in the previous iteration of the regulations, which were in effect from 2007 to 2012.
The disputed oldies account for around 10 percent to 15 percent of Sirius's airplay.
Read more about music-related lawsuits on InsideCounsel:
Satellite-radio company Sirius is allegedly refusing to pay performance royalties for any recordings made before 1972, because up until that year sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law. The only protection these songs have are under various state laws.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, SoundExchange claims that Sirius should have to pay royalties for all of its music, basing its argument on royalty-calculation regulations set by federal judges. Regulations set in 2013 specifically excludes money made from recordings from before 1972 as part of the gross revenue that digital music services must pay royalties on. According to The Wall Street Journal, SoundExchange plans to argue that exclusion did not exist in the previous iteration of the regulations, which were in effect from 2007 to 2012.
The disputed oldies account for around 10 percent to 15 percent of Sirius's airplay.
Read more about music-related lawsuits on InsideCounsel:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
