Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Bombastus, post: 93435, member: 2178"] BMG and three major music firms want the US Supreme Court to scrap Cyril Vetter's global copyright win. The Fifth Circuit had ruled that songwriters can get back rights held abroad when they end a US copyright deal. That goes far past rights held in America. Capitol CMG is on Universal's side, while Sony has Essential Music Publishing. Warner-Tamerlane Publishing is with Warner, and BMG Rights Management is the fourth firm. All four want the justices to take up the case. Their main gripe is that one court has set a rule with global reach. Vetter wants other appeals courts to weigh in first. His lawyers say there is no clear split between the courts yet. But the firms argue that a lack of such a split does not make the issue any less urgent. The justices have a private meeting set to weigh the petition. Long-term music deals are a big part of the row. Foreign rights can make up a large share of a license fee. And the firms say unclear rights could raise costs, scare off deals, and hurt new work. Their fear is that no one can be sure who has the right to sell what. Paramount Pictures, IFPI, and the Motion Picture Association have filed briefs in support of the firms. Vetter's team sees it quite differently. It says music firms have the cash to make deals with more artists. The publishers argue that such a move would not fix the risk faced by buyers and investors. At the heart of the case is Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love). Cyril Vetter wrote the song with Donald Smith. Vetter then gave rights to Windsong Music Publishers. He also bought Smith's half of the song's copyright from Smith's heirs. That second stake has its own legal twist. Vetter's team says he could still block foreign licenses, even if the firms win their appeal. The publishers reject that claim. They argue that both parts of the case rest on the same view of how US rights affect rights abroad. Tim Kappel, who led Vetter's case in the lower courts, gets a fair bit of focus as well. He and Loren Wells wrote that the music trade had long used a US-only reading of the law. Yet they did not agree with it. The firms use this to argue that Vetter sought to change a long-held norm. Vetter's side rejects the claim that its legal view was fringe. His lawyers say it was dismissed far too fast. They also took aim at scholars who back the US-only stance. The firms defend David Nimmer, William Patry, and Jane Ginsburg, whose work has seen wide use in court. There's a Cox Communications link here as well. E. Joshua Rosenkranz won a Supreme Court case for Cox over piracy by its users. He acts for Vetter in this dispute. Paul Clement, who argued for music firms against Cox, is leading the new appeal with three lawyers from Clement & Murphy. Another route could bring the US government into the case. The publishers suggest that the justices seek the Solicitor General's view, with input from the Copyright Office. The court took a similar step in the Cox case before it chose to hear that dispute. BMG also has a fresh update on its share split. Bertelsmann holds about 67% through an indirect stake, while firms tied to Great Mountain Partners have about 33%. That change stems from the Concord merger. Earlier court papers had listed Bertelsmann as the sole parent. As for the song rights at issue, the four publishers bought Resnik Music Group's claimed stake after the appeals court ruled for Vetter. They then took charge of the case. The next call rests with the justices, who must choose whether the appeal gets a hearing. [/QUOTE]

Name