MediaNet Sued for Licensing Unlicensed Songs 73
New submitter duSoliel wrote in with news that another musician is complaining about a lack of royalties from streaming music services. This time, however, the musician is going after MediaNet (once known as MusicNet) which acts as an intermediary source for licensing songs to streaming music services that did not manage to gain compulsory licensing from the Copyright Royalty Board. MediaNet has a storied history riddled with lawsuits from the Harry Fox agency among others; a suit brought last year alleged that around a quarter of MediaNet's catalog was improperly licensed, but was settled privately out of court. Now, Aimee Mann is suing them
for failure to properly license 120 of her songs, seeking $18 million in damages. From the article: "... she entered into a license agreement in 2003 with MediaNet (then known as MusicNet). The term of the license agreement was scheduled to end in 2006 but had automatic two-year extensions unless terminated by either party. Mann's representative is said to have sent a termination notice in 2005, but nevertheless, 'MediaNet continued after the Termination Date to transmit, perform, reproduce and distribute the Compositions as part of MediaNet's service, despite having no right or license to do so.' ... Besides suing for direct infringement, Mann is also claiming that MediaNet induced its business partners to commit copyright infringement. Mann also says she has not been paid any royalties by the company since Sept. 30, 2005 with the exception of a $20 advance this past March that was returned."
The perils of not having sane compulsory licensing for Internet radio?
lol (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, the perils of having copyright at all?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the damages? (Score:4, Informative)
$250,000 per song or something like that?
And this is willful commercial infringement, not personal use.
Payback is a bitch...
Re: (Score:2)
$250,000 per song or something like that?
And this is willful commercial infringement, not personal use.
Payback is a bitch...
yeah.. if the perpetrator was some dude in a basement and had sold the songs and lied about the license then that dude would be on the hook for tens of millions - in that context 18 million isn't that much, really.
Re: (Score:1)
if the perpetrator was some dude in a basement and had sold the songs and lied about the license then that dude would be on the hook for tens of millions
No, they would be on the hook for the same amount. $18 million for 120 songs is $150,000 per song. $150,000 is maximum statutory damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Do damages include multiple downloads of the same song? If so, It could be into the thousands of songs.
Re: (Score:1)
It's per work.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. The law states no such thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's per work.
it doesn't quite work out so that you can go licensing "Beat it" to the entire world for 150k.
Re: (Score:1)
And I never said that.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. if the perpetrator was some dude in a basement and had sold the songs and lied about the license then that dude would be on the hook for tens of millions - in that context 18 million isn't that much, really.
This newfangled American notion of "damages" seems to be quite damaged on its own if $18M is supposed to be an adequate compensation for not having payed $20 per month for a few years, for whatever reason it happened. If I stopped, for example, paying for a car, I'd be in trouble but I don't think that someone would come and say "now that you didn't pay us $5000, you owe us $1B".
Re: (Score:2)
$250,000 per song or something like that? And this is willful commercial infringement, not personal use.
They're not going for criminal copyright violation, just civil copyright violation so 120 songs * $150,000 = $18 million. Even the statutory minimum is 120 * $750 = $90,000 if they're found guilty which sounds quite good compared to $20/month (if that's what she'd normally be paid per the contract).
Re:What are the damages? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what'll happen: MediaNet will find a way to press the case on and on beyond the plaintiff's resources, and will then settle for a bit more than the $20/month the plaintiff would've been getting, with a confidentiality agreement.
'Cause that's how law works when it's corporations versus individuals. Equal, but not egalitarian.
Re:What are the damages? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's going to be quite hard to weasel out of the fact that they conveniently stopped paying her royalties right after date that the termination notice was sent as documented in the complaint and yet claim at the same time that they never received such a notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Note also they recently sent her a $20 "advance" once the *** hit the fan, which she wisely didn't cash.
Re: (Score:2)
My younger brother used to play in multiple local bands, but has moved on to equipment rental, sound engineering, and booking for local bands because he wanted them to get more than $20 a gig {and it's a service not available locally}. People forget that you can have $20k+ on the stage in equipment easily and that it requires maintenance. Recently he has been angry about a bitter ex-bandmate underbidding bookings so much that the bands he is booking are paying to play.
or is it just me that finds a $20 advan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In my (admittedly pessimistic) scenario they don't have to prove anything, though, they just have to make the case run long enough that a settlement becomes preferable. Surprise witnesses, requests for extra time, copious and un-necessary filings... if they can find a judge who's willing to put up with it, they can spin the case out long enough to "win" a settlement rather than a decision against them.
Set up a donations page (Score:2)
I'd be more than willing to donate $50 every few months to her continuing shit kicking. All I ask is that my name is listed as a donor ,yes I'm not afraid of being listed on a no fly or no something list.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
because you last name isn't "incorporated".
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
The *AA lawyers would only have been able to go after you for civil copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement means there is the chance of going to jail and having a criminal record. Only the federal government (U.S.) can go after you for criminal copyright infringement, and they seldom do. Civil copyright infringement is where the owner of the copyright goes after you for damages (or "statutory damages"). They can't put you in jail in a civil case, but they can take your money.
Where is the burden of proof? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Mann's representative is said to have sent a termination notice in 2005"
I am assuming that Mann's representative sent the termination notice in some way that requires notarized acceptance that is recorded (in other words, someone at MediaNet had to sign to say that the notice had been received) and that the receipt notification was returned to Mann's representative, who kept the original and can produce it on demand.
If not, MediaNet will probably say "hmm, we have no record of it, looks like it got lost in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it still would have expired in 2008. Also, they'll have a very hard time convincing an unbiased judge that they happen to randomly stop paying her at the same time as the notice was sent.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually no it wouldn't have expired. it has "automatic two-year extensions unless terminated by either party."
So, unless she can prove they received the termination, the contract continues uninterrupted indefinitely.
Now, you are correct that that still means they may owe her some royalties that they did not provide. The fact that the royalties stopped shortly after her termination letter definitely would seem to indicate that they received it. However, that would still need to be proven in court. Suspicio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, MediaNet will probably say "hmm, we have no record of it, looks like it got lost in the mail", with probably little or no paper/electronic trail to contradict that, aside from them collecting royalties on the playlist and not distributing that to the artist.
No, they have a clear paper trail of emails between them and MusicNet. It's in their complaint. Yeah, yeah. You didn't RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have a clear paper trail of emails between them and MusicNet. It's in their complaint. Yeah, yeah. You didn't RTFA.
Actually, I did read the article. And the actual complaint. At no point in those readings did I find anything to suggest that there had been any communication from MediaNet to Aimee Mann or her representatives.
If I missed a paragraph, I am sure you would be willing to point out that specific point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There were multiple pages of back-and-forth communication in the complaint. You clearly didn't read it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes that was the notice. Again you didn't read the complaint fully.
Quoting from page 5:
Plaintiff's representstion ... sent to MeriaNet written notice of Plaintiff's intention to terminate the License agreement on February 10, 2005 (the "Termination Notice"). (A true and correct copy of the Termination is attched hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference).
Re: (Score:2)
From musicNet : Hope youre well...
Its been a while since we last spoke, but I wanted to circle back on the licensing of the Aimee Mann catalog. Are you till overseeing that iniiative, and if not could you please direct me to whoever might be.
From Leslie Wallake : I still have a handle and ill put the file to see where we left off. It may be that the client does not want legal time spent on this if too little
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I did. The termination is the very last email dated February 10, 2005 from Exhibit C as pointed out in the quote I posted. It seems you're either intentionally being dense or stupid since it's quite clear what they were refering to. MediaNet seemed to have understood as well anise they stopped paying royalties after it was sent.
Re: (Score:1)
Anise = since. Stupid phone autocorrect...
Re: (Score:2)
The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
That is in no way a clear termination of an existing agreement.
Re: (Score:1)
"The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time"
You must not spend much time doing contracts - that's a clear termination notice.
That automatically nullifies any and all contractual agreements made prior, and puts an end to auto-renewal.
Who's the dense one, here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's clear in basic English as well as legalese.
Not wishing to pursue an agreement means that anything else in place is null and void, otherwise there would be an agreement to pursue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thaylin has the right point of this argument. The emails do not say "Terminate the contract". I don't even know if email is officially recognized as a legal notice of intent to terminate. I don't accept it as legally binding. In the contracts I have with customers, the termination clause specifies either a printed-on-paper notice or face-to-face meeting. Nothing fancy -- a single sentence with proper signature, or a five second verbal exchange would suffice (and has sufficed).
But an email in 2005 saying tha
Re: (Score:1)
Also you even quote from the first email asking about the licensing contract with respect to her music. How can you be confused that the email chain was about the licensing agreement? Again, you're either extraordinarily dense or dumb since it's plain English what was under discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Even if this was the case (it isn't, RTFA), then they would have a hard time explaining why they stopped paying royalties after the date of the notice of termination ;)
Re: (Score:1)
This guy didn't read the complaint and isn't going to admit he was wrong. He claims to have read the complaint yet makes claims that are directly contradicted by what is in the complaint itself
Re: (Score:2)
Mann also says she has not been paid any royalties by the company since Sept. 30, 2005
Looks like the company did receive the termination notice. But likely a *software bug* in the streaming software missed the removal ...
Re: (Score:2)
Aimee Will Have To Wait (Score:3)
Till Tuesday.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh God can't you keep it down?
You had one job (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the pertinent question is... (Score:2, Funny)
...who listens to Aimee Mann?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fred and Carrie, of course.
http://gawker.com/5754009/portlandia-sorry-about-the-music-industrys-downfall-aimee-mann-and-sarah-mclachlan
Re: (Score:1)
...who listens to Aimee Mann?
Probably more than twice as many people as did before this hit the news....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time