Page 193 - JLA-03

¥ÿ≈æ“À

implications does this decision have on other cases where this issue has been

raised?

First, it must be noted that this is a decision by a single District Court

judge in a US District Court in California. This decision is not binding on other
District Courts, or on other state courts where the issue may be raised. As

was the case in the Aereo arguments, and even in the pre-1972 cases,

different courts may have different interpretations of Federal copyright law.

This decision may well be viewed as instructive, but District Court judges in

other districts could interpret Federal law in a different way. Also, this decision
can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals, so it cannot be viewed as the

final word on this subject. But it certainly provides an argument for

broadcasters to raise in any new lawsuits brought by copyright holders
alleging that there is a state law copyright in pre-1972 recordings.

Of course, to take advantage of this argument, a broadcaster needs

to be playing a post-1972 digitized version of a song - not the original

analog version. Also, the broadcaster, if streaming, needs to be paying
SoundExchange royalties for any streaming of these songs. It has been my

experience that most broadcasters do in fact pay for these recordings, as it

is difficult to determine which are covered under Federal law and which are
not (some pre-1972 sound recordings, copyrighted first in a country other than

the US, have already been covered under Federal law). So, while not a certain

defense, this decision certainly adds to the quiver of defenses available to any

broadcaster who is challenged alleging that it owes performance royalties for
(4)
pre-1972 recordings.
(4)
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2016/06/articles/us-district-court-finds-digitally-remastered-
pre-1972-sound-recordings-are-derivative-works-covered-by-federal-law-dismisses-suit-against-

broadcaster-seeking-over-the-air-p/.

°—𬓬π - ∏—𫓧¡ ÚıˆÚ 183