Bad news for SIRIUSXM

[Ronnie-]

But you do tell them that you just got a new car to get around the radio id issue? Or are you just saying that you would?

 

[navychop]

Wouldn't they keep track of the name?

 

[Bobby]

Wouldn't they keep track of the name?

He gives them a different fake name and phone number each time. It's out and out and out fraud and theft of service.....

 

[navychop]

Payment not by credit card, which must match the name?

 

[Bobby]

So, he simply takes out a prepaid credit card, no name needed... He alludes to that in his post.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

And the hits keep on coming for SiriusXM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-certifies-class-action-siriusxm-798349

 

[navychop]

Gee, I wonder where the money to pay these folks off is going to come from?

Not me. I won't be going back.

 

[TheKrell]

Good grief. They should end the bleeding by cutting off all pre-1972 songs, and thereby give adequate bandwidth to remaining channels.

 

[Jimbo]

Good grief. They should end the bleeding by cutting off all pre-1972 songs, and thereby give adequate bandwidth to remaining channels.

If they got rid of Pre 72 songs that would take a good chunk of the Classic Rock away and well as the anything before the 70's radio, that would probably make me think long and hard about re upping next year.

I use it to listen to Classic Rock and MLB/Nascar/ some NFL and thats about it.

 

[Voyager6]

I'm confused. I thought the Flo & Eddie ruling only applied to California. Why is this in Federal Court over a California Copyright Law violation? Shouldn't SiriusXM ONLY be required to pay royalties for it's California Subscribers and only for when they were listening to Turtles music? How will the Court determine how many times a Turtles song was heard and by how many Californians?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

And this Flo & Eddie is NOT the Flo & Eddie from the Turtles, it is a company who purchased the rights of the Turtles music from Flo & Eddie.

 

[Peter Parker]

I thought that Flo And Eddie Inc. was a corporation formed by the original performers Flo and Eddie tht bought the rights to the Turtles music.

 

[Voyager6]

This is Flo & Eddie, Inc.

The principals of Flo & Eddie, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, have been performing together as The Turtles since 1965 and have recorded numerous iconic hits including "Happy Together," "It Ain't Me Babe," "She'd Rather Be With Me," "You Baby," "She's My Girl," "Elenore," and many others. Since approximately 1971, Flo & Eddie has owned the entire catalog of 100 original master recordings by The Turtles, all of which were recorded prior to February 15,1972.

Interest take on the "Flo & Eddie" decision.
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...-for-broadcasters-digital-media-companies-an/

In reaching this decision, the Court looked at the language of the California statute dealing with pre-1972 sound recordings. Finding that the statute vested “exclusive ownership” in the pre-1972 sound recordings in the “author” of the work, the Court looked at other California statutes on property ownership generally, to determine what “exclusive ownership” meant. Looking at the California civil code, the Court concluded that ownership was the right “to possess and use a thing to the exclusion of others.” From that language, the Court concluded that the public performance was a “use” of the “thing” (i.e. the sound recording), and that Flo and Eddie had the right to exclude Sirius XM from the public performance of their songs or to demand consideration from Sirius XM for such use.

This is a very surprising decision, in that the Court finds, from a generic definition of “ownership” applicable to tangible property in California, a public performance right in sound recordings. The public performance right is a creature of copyright law, and a right that never existed in the United States until the mid-1990s when it was adopted exclusively for digital transmissions of sound recordings. Copyrights are not “natural” rights like an ownership right to a piece of tangible property – they are rights that are created by the law, and subject to the limitations established by law. Owning a copyright is not like owning a car or a house, as it is not something where your use of the property excludes others from using it at the same time. It seems like a dangerous precedent to take the definitions applicable to tangible property and extend them to copyright concepts that are not really applicable at all to the kinds of property to which the definition of ownership originally applied. There is no right to “publicly perform” a house or a car, but from the definition of ownership applicable to that tangible property, the Court found an inherent right to publicly perform sound recordings – this sweeping right that has never before existed in the US.

If this decision were upheld, the potential ramifications for business in California could be great. There appears to be nothing in the decision that would limit it to just the digital world. So any business that plays pre-1972 sound recordings – bars and restaurants, stadiums, schools and churches, broadcasters, etc. could all face claims for royalties? And who would they pay?
...
It is important to recognize that this is a trial court decision by a Federal Court interpreting California law. A California court, in another case addressing this issue, preliminarily reached a different conclusion just a few weeks ago (see this article about that preliminary ruling). So this decision likely will be appealed, and could be subject to collateral attack were the California courts, who have the right to determine what their own state law is, reach a different determination

 

[Peter Parker]

That's what I thought. Thanks.