Bonnaroo To Release Live DVD; What's Not Included: That Time You Ate A Lot Of Mushrooms And Accidently Watched The String Cheese Incident For Five Hours

By Annapocalypse on 10-19-2009

This federal court ruling goes out to all those idiots who think anyone would actually want to hear their cell phone blast the new Kid Cudi song through their shitty one-inch speaker: this week, a federal court ruled that ringtones that are played aloud in public are not an actual performance of an artist’s song, so therefore cell phone providers do not have to pay royalties on them. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote acknowledged the fact that the cell phone provider both has no control over when a ringtone is played and earns no money when it is played.

Oddly enough, what would seem like an obvious case was actually an argument brought to light by the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) earlier this year when it decided to sue several U.S. cell phone providers in order to force them to pay royalties whenever a “performance,” or ringtone, was played. Its argument was that the download rights that providers were already paying weren’t enough. But the court shot down ASCAP because it failed to show infringement of providers or its customers, ruling that a ringtone is not a public performance, like how a radio on the beach blasting the new Kid Cudi song is not considered one either.

By Brom on 10-18-2009

The big congressional news last week was that the Senate Finance Committee voted through a health care plan. Much less publicized (but far more important considering all the historical conflicts and tensions) was the approval of the Performance Rights Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

The legislation aims to compensate artists whose music is played on AM and FM radio stations, one that, according to the Executive Director of the musicFIRST Coalition, Jennifer Bendall, rights a wrong that has existed “over the last 80 years.” She described the Committee’s approval as bringing us “one step closer to winning the fight for fundamental justice that has been waged by countless artists and musicians.” Somebody’s been borrowing Obama’s speechwriters!

According to The Wall Street Journal, the legislation “would force radio companies to pay royalties [fees] of as much as $500 million a year to record labels and artists whose music they play.” A survey conducted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) found that, when the Act was described in this way, 75% of Americans opposed the legislation. Of course, if it was described as “Paying hardworking Americans for their vital labor that entertains millions of radio listeners every week,” then maybe we’d have a different set of results. This correspondent is not biased (bias doesn’t exist on TMT!); I'm just suggesting that NAB could've benefited from a semester in survey design.