S
Closing The Gap:
Flo & Eddie Set Precedent in the Case for
Pre-1972 Performance Rights
Laura Landry
MUS 457-001 Legal Issues in Music Industry
December 5, 2017
1. Flo & Eddie, Inc. V. Pandora Media, Inc. In Oct. 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. (F&E) filed a putative class action in the Central District of California seeking damages against Pandora Media Inc. (Pandora) for “publicly performing The Turtles’ pre-1972 sound recordings on its services without paying royalties.” The latest in a series of class actions filed in federal district courts in California, New York, and Florida by the former Turtles members against digital broadcasters Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Sirius) and Pandora, the suit alleges “that that these …show more content…
Pandora is both complex and precedent-setting, involving cases brought in three states, (New York, Florida, and California), and illuminating the gaps in US copyright law that must be filled in by state civil or common law in order to resolve the issue of whether, under state law, there is a performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings. Court rulings and their ensuing legal precedents continue to affect not only F&E sound recordings but also those made by other pre-1972 recording artists, including hits recorded by groups such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Rulings favorable to F&E will likely lead to multiple law suits by artists and record labels against Pandora and other broadcasters for the unlicensed public performance of their pre-1972 sound recordings, as well as the potential for restrictions on what recordings can be played prior to reaching royalty agreements with their owners. Rulings in California have been promising for F&E, with the success of their case resting on a favorable interpretation of California copyright statute 980(a)(2); however, it is now up to the Supreme Court of California to interpret 980(a)(2) with respect to the original intent behind its …show more content…
Furthermore, according to the Ninth Circuit, not only does the case meet both of these criteria, it is also an issue of significant public importance. In fact, exactly these issues were raised in Flo & Eddie, Inc. V. Sirius XM Radio in both New York and Florida, prompting the Second Circuit to certify a similar question to the New York Court of Appeals, and the Eleventh Circuit to certify similar questions to the Florida Supreme Court. Both high courts ultimately ruled in favor of Sirius XM, certifying that copyright holders do not have a right of public performance under New York or Florida common
Closing The Gap:
Flo & Eddie Set Precedent in the Case for
Pre-1972 Performance Rights
Laura Landry
MUS 457-001 Legal Issues in Music Industry
December 5, 2017
1. Flo & Eddie, Inc. V. Pandora Media, Inc. In Oct. 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. (F&E) filed a putative class action in the Central District of California seeking damages against Pandora Media Inc. (Pandora) for “publicly performing The Turtles’ pre-1972 sound recordings on its services without paying royalties.” The latest in a series of class actions filed in federal district courts in California, New York, and Florida by the former Turtles members against digital broadcasters Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Sirius) and Pandora, the suit alleges “that that these …show more content…
Pandora is both complex and precedent-setting, involving cases brought in three states, (New York, Florida, and California), and illuminating the gaps in US copyright law that must be filled in by state civil or common law in order to resolve the issue of whether, under state law, there is a performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings. Court rulings and their ensuing legal precedents continue to affect not only F&E sound recordings but also those made by other pre-1972 recording artists, including hits recorded by groups such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Rulings favorable to F&E will likely lead to multiple law suits by artists and record labels against Pandora and other broadcasters for the unlicensed public performance of their pre-1972 sound recordings, as well as the potential for restrictions on what recordings can be played prior to reaching royalty agreements with their owners. Rulings in California have been promising for F&E, with the success of their case resting on a favorable interpretation of California copyright statute 980(a)(2); however, it is now up to the Supreme Court of California to interpret 980(a)(2) with respect to the original intent behind its …show more content…
Furthermore, according to the Ninth Circuit, not only does the case meet both of these criteria, it is also an issue of significant public importance. In fact, exactly these issues were raised in Flo & Eddie, Inc. V. Sirius XM Radio in both New York and Florida, prompting the Second Circuit to certify a similar question to the New York Court of Appeals, and the Eleventh Circuit to certify similar questions to the Florida Supreme Court. Both high courts ultimately ruled in favor of Sirius XM, certifying that copyright holders do not have a right of public performance under New York or Florida common