Supreme Court News Flash: Downloads Still Not Public Performances

Wharfedale woofer
Creative Commons License photo credit: wstry­der

File this one under “priv­i­leged glimpses of the bloody obvi­ous.”  In a devel­op­ment that could be a sur­prise only to ASCAP and its coun­sel, the Supreme Court today has rejected ASCAP’s peti­tion for cer­tio­rari, leav­ing in place the Sec­ond Circuit’s rul­ing that the mere act of down­load­ing a sound record­ing does not con­sti­tute a pub­lic per­for­mance of the down­loaded song. 

ASCAP has wasted sev­eral years and a large sum of song­writ­ers’ money push­ing the argu­ment that dig­i­tal down­load ser­vices should have to pay ASCAP for a pub­lic per­for­mance license, even though they are already pay­ing music pub­lish­ers for the repro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion rights asso­ci­ated with the down­load.  Of course, as the Sec­ond Cir­cuit rightly rec­og­nized, a par­tic­u­lar ser­vice could be set up to pro­vide a pub­lic per­for­mance (i.e., stream) of a record­ing at the same time the song is being down­loaded, and a sep­a­rate license would cer­tainly be needed for such a per­for­mance.  ASCAP’s posi­tion was more extreme, how­ever, claim­ing that the down­load itself con­sti­tuted a pub­lic per­for­mance.  This was always an absurd argu­ment, and has been roundly rejected at every level.  Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from the Sec­ond Cir­cuit deci­sion, one hopes that ASCAP will finally accept real­ity, although I have my doubts.

Here is the Supreme Court docket, indi­cat­ing the denial of cert:

 

 

 

  • 211 1/2

    The chick is toste, man!