bionmulti.blogg.se

They have huge legal resources out there fighting this stuff for us, and it's still an uphill battle.

So, long term, it really can hurt Ascap/BMI, who for all the flack some people give them, still provide a pretty amazing service. But if that was your main thing, then you might have to consider moving to Sesac (who doesn't have a consent decree to deal with, same with GMR). At that point, theoretically you would be paid by Sesac as a writer on that, while you're still a member of Ascap (or BMI). Sounds like a mess.It's even more of a mess because, for example, even though Universal moved some of their library catalogs to Sesac, writers of that stuff will still be paid by Ascap until their existing licenses in place expire which is two or 3 years in most cases. Their rights belong to them, even if the publisher wants to switch PROs. I don't think songwriters can be forced to change PROs. To date, we have not incurred, do not anticipate incurring and therefore have not accrued for, any costs related to such indemnification provisions.So will songwriters still be paid by their own PRO or the PRO that the publisher moves to? That is one hell of a dilemma for songwriters. Such indemnification provisions are accounted for in accordance with guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. In the ordinary course of business, we are party to certain contractual agreements under which we may provide indemnifications of varying scope, terms and duration to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by us or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. The parties are currently awaiting the district court’s determination. This rate proceeding commenced on Februand ended on March 13, 2015. On December 18, 2013, our motion for summary judgment was denied based on the Court’s determination that an attempted partial withdrawal, although inconsistent with BMI’s obligations under its consent decree, would result in a publisher’s complete withdrawal from BMI. On November 1, 2013, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that, as a matter of law, the publishers alleged to have withdrawn certain rights of public performance by digital audio transmission from the scope of grant of rights BMI could license on behalf of such publishers subsequent to the date of our request for a license from BMI were not valid as to our BMI consent decree license. While we seek a determination applicable to the period from Januthrough December 31, 2017, BMI has limited its requested determination to only cover Januthrough December 31, 2016. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the determination of reasonable fees and terms for the BMI consent decree license.

(“BMI”) filed a petition in the rate court established by the consent decree between BMI and the U.S. Oral arguments were held on Maand the parties are currently awaiting the appellate court’s decision. On April 14, 2014, ASCAP, Sony/ATV, EMI Music Publishing, and Universal Publishing Group filed notices of appeal of the district court’s decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A trial to determine the royalty rates we will pay ASCAP for the period from Januthrough Decemconcluded in February 2014 and the court issued its opinion in March 2014.

On September 17, 2013, our motion for partial summary judgment was granted, alleviating the need to negotiate direct licenses for such purportedly withdrawn performance rights. On June 11, 2013, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that, as a matter of law, the publishers alleged to have withdrawn certain rights of public performance by digital audio transmission from the scope of grant of rights ASCAP could license on behalf of such publishers subsequent to the date of our request for a license from ASCAP were not valid as to our ASCAP consent decree license. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the determination of reasonable license fees and terms for the ASCAP consent decree license applicable to the period Januthrough December 31, 2015. On November 5, 2012, we filed a petition in the rate court established by the consent decree between the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) and the U.S.