Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ringtones Breed Tension Within Music Industry
As senior vice president and general counsel for The Harry Fox Agency ' the New York-based collecting agency that acts as a clearinghouse for much of the licensing monies flowing to music publishers ' Jacqueline Charlesworth has spent 4 years helping reap billions of dollars for her firm's clients from the incoming phone-call alerts known as ringtones. Ringtones funneled $3.5 billion into music-industry coffers last year, according to London-based telecommunications consultancy, The Arc Group, and insiders say they may account for 25% of music sales by the end of 2006, thanks to millions of consumers paying $3 for 25-second versions of songs ' when a full-length version of a hit can be purchased for just 99 cents on a digital music store such as Apple Computer's iTunes.
Even more mind-boggling is the disarray this suddenly popular technology has caused, as lawyers for music publishers, record labels, performance-rights organizations, re-cording artists, ringtone vendors and others in the music industry struggle to determine how laws that govern the sales of its products apply to ringtones. Recording companies and publishers have always argued about money, and now they have intellectual-property ambiguities and a gigantic new revenue stream to fight over. Publishers, historically the industry's stepchild, may have the upper hand this time.
What's at issue is the interpretation of Sec. 115 of the Copyright Act, which forces music publishers to accept relatively small “compulsory” license fees for their copyrighted music. These days, that figure is 8.5 cents for each unit (a record or CD, for example) that's sold. However, Sec. 115 also states that reproduced works subject to compulsory fees can't be fundamentally altered, notes Charlesworth. “If you take just a 30-second clip of a song, that's a fundamental alteration,” she says.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?