Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Second Circuit Gives Belated Valentine’s Day Gift to Music Licensees by Ruling for Sirius XM Regarding Its Use of Pre-72 Sound Recordings

By Karyn K. Ablin on February 17, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

turtle-siriusXM-3We previously told you about the Christmas gift that New York’s highest state court had given to licensees that play “oldies” recordings by finding that the owners of those recordings had no right to demand payment when the recordings were publicly performed in New York.  That ruling came in one of many lawsuits that Flo & Eddie – a company owned by two members of The Turtles (of “Happy Together” fame) – had filed against Sirius XM Radio challenging Sirius XM’s use of sound recordings created before February 15, 1972.

[Recall that February 15, 1972 is a magic date because sound recordings fixed on or after that date are protected by federal copyright law.  Sound recordings fixed before that date are protected – if at all – under the widely varying state copyright laws, with state-law protection expiring on February 15, 2067.]

The Second Circuit has now followed suit by giving licensees a belated Valentine’s Day gift – it has found for Sirius XM on each of Flo & Eddie’s claims, which ends Flo & Eddie’s New York lawsuit.

Flo & Eddie had not merely challenged Sirius XM’s performances of pre-72 recordings under New York copyright law. It also had challenged Sirius XM’s making of internal copies of those recordings to facilitate the performances under New York copyright law and had alleged that Sirius XM’s use of pre-72 recordings amounted to “unfair competition.”  The Second Circuit gave short shrift to both of these claims, citing its holding earlier in the case that the resolution of those claims “is bound up with whether” Sirius XM’s public performances were permissible under New York law. Given the New York high court’s ruling that they were, the Second Circuit ordered the district court to enter judgment for Sirius XM and dismiss the case.

The court’s decision to let Flo & Eddie’s claims rise and fall together was a good one. It makes little sense to hold Sirius XM liable for making internal copies of recordings whose very purpose was to enable the performances that have now been ruled lawful in New York. The market value of a sound recording comes from hearing it, and the public cannot hear Sirius XM’s internal copies of recordings unless they are played – a lawful activity in New York. It also makes little sense to hold Sirius XM liable for unfairly appropriating recordings under New York unfair competition law if Flo & Eddie have no underlying property right to bar Sirius XM from performing them.

While the Second Circuit’s decision ends the lawsuit in New York, it does not end Flo & Eddie’s litigation against Sirius XM – there are still open cases in California and Florida. In California, the parties have reached a settlement, which the district court preliminarily approved on January 27, 2017.  That settlement defines Sirius XM’s monetary liability but includes adjustable amounts depending on the outcomes of the New York and Florida cases.  (The Second Circuit’s ruling will reduce how much Sirius XM has to pay under that settlement and will be music to Sirius XM’s ears, both literally and figuratively.)

In Florida, the case is tracking the pattern followed in the Second Circuit – the Eleventh Circuit has asked the Florida high court to weigh in on the key public performance question.  Oral argument in that case has been scheduled for April 6, 2017.  We’ll continue to follow this issue, so stay tuned.

Photo of Karyn K. Ablin Karyn K. Ablin

Karyn Ablin is a member of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. and specializes in intellectual property issues, especially those relating to music licensing and other copyright-related issues. She has more than two decades of experience representing broadcasters and others before the Copyright Royalty…

Karyn Ablin is a member of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. and specializes in intellectual property issues, especially those relating to music licensing and other copyright-related issues. She has more than two decades of experience representing broadcasters and others before the Copyright Royalty Board, the ASCAP Rate Court, and other federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Karyn also counsels clients in issues relating to the use of music and other copyrighted content, especially with regard to the statutory license applicable to webcasting and the use of music by over-the-air broadcasters, satellite radio operators, and telecommunications providers. She also negotiates music licenses and represents clients in music licensing fee disputes and has experience litigating patent, trademark, and non-intellectual property matters, including those before federal regulatory agencies and federal courts.

Ms. Ablin received her law degree from the University of Virginia, where she graduated Order of the Coif and was an Executive Editor of the Virginia Law Review and a member of the Editorial Board of the Virginia Journal of International Law. She graduated with two undergraduate degrees, summa cum laude, from Oral Roberts University, majoring in math and music. She also studied at the Sorbonne in France, Martin Luther University in Germany, and the International Institutes of Law and Social Change in the Netherlands, as well as Northern Arizona University.

Karyn was named by The Legal 500 US as a “recommended lawyer” for copyright law both 2015 and 2016.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment, Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo