Legal News
Page: 72
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A federal judge rules that works created by A.I. are not covered by copyrights; an appeals court revives abuse lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s companies; Smokey Robinson beats a lawsuit claiming he owed $1 million to a former manager; SoundExchange sues SiriusXM for “gaming the system” on royalties; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
No Copyrights For A.I. Works – But Tougher Questions Loom
The rise of artificial intelligence will pose many difficult legal questions for the music business, likely requiring some combination of litigation, regulation and legislation before all the dust settles. But on at least one A.I. issue, a federal judge just gave us a clean, straightforward answer.
In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that American copyright law does not cover works created entirely by artificial intelligence – full stop. That’s because, the judge said, the essential purpose of copyright law is to encourage human beings to create new works.
“Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them,” the judge wrote.
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited copyrights to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The issue of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI, since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
Trickier legal dilemmas lie ahead. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists then add other elements? How much human direction on the use of AI tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”? How can a court filter out, in practical terms, elements authored by computers?
On those questions, the current answers are much squishier – something that Judge Howell hinted at in her decision. “Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
“This case, however, is not nearly so complex.”
Other top stories this week…
MJ ABUSE CASES REVIVED – A California appeals court revived lawsuits filed by two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children, ruling that they can pursue negligence claims against his companies. A lower court dismissed the cases on the grounds that staffers had no power to control Jackson, who was the sole owner of the companies. But the appeals court called such a ruling “perverse” and overturned it: “A corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator.”
SMOKEY ROBINSON TRIAL VICTORY – The legendary Motown singer won a jury trial against a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits, capping off more than six years of litigation over the soured partnership. Robinson himself took the stand during the case, telling jurors that the deal was never intended to cover concert revenue.
“GAMING THE SYSTEM” – SoundExchange filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM claiming the satellite radio giant is using bookmaking trickery in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists. The case centers on allegations that SiriusXM is manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
TIKTOK JUDGE RESPONDS – A judge in New Jersey defended himself against misconduct allegations over TikTok videos in which he lip-synced to Rihanna’s “Jump” and other popular songs, admitting “poor judgment” and “vulgar” lyrics but saying he should receive only a light reprimand for what intended as “silly, harmless, and innocent fun.”
LAWSUIT OVER TAKEOFF SHOOTING – Joshua Washington, an assistant to the rapper Quavo, filed a lawsuit over last year’s shooting in Houston that killed fellow Migos rapper Takeoff. He claims injuries sustained during the attack are the fault of the bowling alley where the shooting took place, which he says failed to provide adequate security, screening or emergency assistance.
GUNPLAY FACING FELONY COUNTS – The rapper Gunplay was arrested in Miami and hit with three felony charges over an alleged domestic violence incident in which he is reportedly accused of drunkenly pointing an AK-47 assault rifle at his wife and child during an argument.
FRENCH DIDN’T CLEAR SAMPLE? – The rapper French Montana was hit with a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from singer-songwriter Skylar Gudasz. She claims he tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip – both in an upfront payment and a 50 percent share of the publishing copyright — but then never actually signed the deal.
YOUTUBE FRAUDSTER SENTENCED – Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Under the name MediaMuv, Batista and an accomplice fraudulently collected roughly $23 million in royalties from over 50,000 songs by Latin musicians ranging from small artists to global stars like Daddy Yankee.
Two months after a New Jersey judge was hit with a misconduct investigation over TikTok videos in which he lip-synced to Rihanna’s “Jump” and other popular songs, he’s filed his first response — admitting “poor judgment” and “vulgar” lyrics but saying he intended only “silly, harmless, and innocent fun.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Gary N. Wilcox, a judge on New Jersey’s Superior Court, is facing potential discipline after it was revealed in June that he had posted pseudonymous lip-sync videos featuring sexually explicit and violent lyrics. One featured a Nas song about a courthouse shooting; another centered on Busta Rhymes lyrics about oral sex; several were filmed in his actual court chambers.
In his first formal response Friday (Aug. 18), Wilcox repeatedly owned up to the mistake — saying he’d intended the videos to be private but acknowledging that “the content of some of his posts was inappropriate and not becoming of a judge.”
“The respondent recognizes that now and with the benefit of hindsight would not have made and posted them,” Wilcox wrote. “Nor will he ever post again.”
But Wilcox also defended himself, saying the lyrics came from songs by “recognized commercial artists” that had been “played on the radio” and could be purchased by anyone — including some that had been “nominated for recognized music industry awards.” Notably, Wilcox also suggested that his use of hip-hop lyrics had been treated differently than it might have been for a different type of music.
“Other genres have generated popular songs by artists who have criminal backgrounds or lyrics about objectionable or even abhorrent conduct,” the judge wrote. “Yet, such artists and songs remain popular. Those who listen to them, sing them, or even lip-sync to them are not adopting any messaging or lifestyle of the artist or song.”
Wilcox was hit with a complaint on June 30 by New Jersey’s judicial conduct watchdog, claiming he had used the alias “Sal Tortorella” to create dozens of TikTok posts over the past two years.
The complaint cited 11 videos that were “inappropriate and brought disrepute to the Judiciary,” including those with “graphic sexual references to female and male body parts” or “racist terms.” Several were allegedly filmed in his personal chambers, and one was filmed walking through the courthouse in his robes.
“By his conduct in posting these and similar videos to TikTok, Respondent exhibited poor judgment and demonstrated disrespect for the Judiciary and an inability to conform to the high standards of conduct expected of judges,” judicial regulators wrote.
In one video, Wilcox mouthed lyrics from “Jump” by Rihanna: “If you want it let’s do it / Ride it, my pony / My saddle is waitin’ / Come and jump on it / If you want it, let’s do it.” In another, Wilcox appeared as “Touch It” by Busta Rhymes played in the background: “While she tryna touch see I was peepin’ it out / She turned around and was tryna put my dick in her mouth / I let her.”
One other video featured Nas’ “Get Down,” a 2002 track that features a lyric about a criminal trial in which a defendant “grabbed a court officer’s gun and started squeezing” and another in which gang members kill a doctor who treated a rival.
The complaint, lodged by the state’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, accused Wilcox of violating three different rules governing the New Jersey judiciary, including one requiring judges “to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Under state guidelines, his discipline could range from a light reprimand to his outright dismissal from the bench.
In Friday’s response, Wilcox urged the committee to impose only a reprimand. He cited his “unblemished record” prior to the videos, and said the TikTok clips, which had been viewed by only a small number of people, had not caused lasting damage to “the public’s perception of his integrity.” He also said he had faced enough punishment simply by the case being publicly filed against him.
“The public is clearly aware of the embarrassment and humiliation that respondent has been subjected to by the enormous press coverage resulting from the filing of the complaint for public discipline,” Wilcox wrote.
As for the lyrics themselves, Wilcox repeatedly stressed that he had not intended to “endorse any of the artists, their lifestyle or their views.” Referring to the sexually-explicit Rihanna lyrics, the judge said he chose it simply because he had “heard the song and liked the music.”
“The song was posted because of the music and to have fun lip syncing,” the judge wrote. “It was not posted because of any meaning, nor was the post directed anywhere, at anyone or anything.”
Wilcox will face a formal hearing on the allegations, but such a hearing has not yet been scheduled.
The rapper Gunplay is facing three felony charges over an alleged domestic violence incident involving his wife. The rapper, whose real name is Richard Morales, was arrested Sunday and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and child abuse, according to court records reviewed by Billboard. According to a police report obtained […]
Two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children can pursue their lawsuits against companies that were owned by the late singer, a California appeals court ruled Friday (Aug. 18).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Wade Robson and James Safechuck filed their cases a decade ago, claiming that Jackson’s companies (MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.) had a legal duty to protect them from the singer’s alleged abuse.
But Jackson’s companies argued — and a lower court agreed — that they had no such obligation to Robson and Safechuck since Jackson was the sole owner of the companies and they thus lacked the power to control him.
On Friday, the California Court of Appeal for Second District overturned that decision — ruling that the corporate structure did not automatically shield the companies from liability.
“We conclude a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse,” the court wrote.
“The corporations say these are ‘idiosyncratic circumstances,’ and perhaps they are. There is certainly no comparable case law to recite,” the court wrote. “But it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder.”
In a statement, Jonathan Steinsapir, lead counsel for MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., said he and his clients were “disappointed” by the decision.
“We remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money,” Steinsapir said. “We trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again. Michael Jackson himself said, ‘Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.’
Vince Finaldi, an attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said he and his clients were “pleased but not surprised” that the court had chosen to overturn “incorrect rulings in these cases, which were against California law and would have set a dangerous precedent that endangered children throughout state and country. We eagerly look forward to a trial on the merits.”
Robson’s and Safechuck’s allegations were detailed in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. Safechuck claims that Jackson abused him “hundreds of times in various locations”; Robson says Jackson began molesting him in 1990, when he was seven, and continued to do so until he was 14.
Robson sued in May 2013, at the age of 30, and Safechuck followed suit a year later when he was 36. The pair argued that Jackson’s companies were negligent in failing to stop the alleged abuse, calling them “conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter egos” that were “specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims.”
In 2020, a trial court dismissed those claims, ruling that Jackson had “absolute legal control over the entities and everyone employed by them,” meaning those companies and their staffers had “no ability to control Jackson regarding his alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff.”
But in Friday’s decision reversing that ruling, the appeals court said Jackson’s companies were not as powerless as they had been made out to be.
“Any director, employee or other agent of defendants who knew of or suspected abuse could have done something to protect plaintiffs’ welfare: issued warnings, gone to police, confronted Jackson,” the court wrote. “Yes, the likely consequence of protecting plaintiffs would have been termination of employment or removal from the board of directors. But a director or employee’s risk of removal or termination if they acted to protect plaintiffs does not mean they could not act.”
Friday’s ruling revived Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits, but it does not mean they have won the cases. The disputes will now return to a lower court for more litigation and an eventual trial, where the pair will need to prove their allegations against MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.
Read the entire opinion here:
Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison on Tuesday (Aug. 15). The court documents were made publicly available on Friday.
According to court documents, Batista is ordered to serve 46 months in prison for one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Upon his release from prison, he will be placed on supervised release for 36 months.
From about 2016-2021, Batista and his partner, Jose “Chenel” Teran, ran MediaMuv, a music company that claimed ownership of and collected YouTube royalties from over 50,000 songs, despite not having legal rights to nearly any of those works. The victims were primarily from Latin genres and ranged from hobbyist musicians to global superstars like Julio Iglesias, Don Omar, Anuel AA, Prince Royce and more.
Batista and Teran were ultimately indicted on 30 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft in November 2021. Six months later, Batista accepted a plea deal, admitting to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. His partner, however, did not plead guilty and accept a plea deal until just before the start of his Jan. 17 trial date. Ultimately, Teran admitted guilt to single counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and transactional money laundering.
Teran was given a heftier sentence than his counterpart — in late June, he was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for his involvement in the scheme. According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Teran’s sentence was “undoubtedly substantial” but reflects a desire to “deter future conduct” similar to the MediaMuv scam. The document adds that Teran is at high risk to re-offend, given his interest in returning to the music business after prison and the sheer scale and savviness of his scam.
“In particular, the government is alarmed that even news of his indictment did not stop Teran,” says the court document. After his indictment, the document revealed that Teran siphoned another $190,000 of stolen royalties and moved those funds to a bank account “out of the government’s reach.”
A court document filed on Aug. 7 claimed that Batista is working toward rehabilitation and should receive more leniency in his sentence as a result. “He wanted to rehabilitate his life” since his arrest in November 2021, says the sentencing memorandum. “[He] participated in Hustle 2.0, which is a self-directed learning program designed for incarcerated individuals to give them the tools for rehabilitation.” On May 3, 2023, Batista received a certificate for completing its “pre-season program.”
Many of the artists whose works were claimed and stolen from by MediaMuv are still unaware. To check and see if you are a victim, please click here and contact victim witness specialist Todd McKenney, todd.mckenney@usdoj.gov.
A federal judge ruled Friday (Aug. 18) that U.S. copyright law does not cover creative works created by artificial intelligence, weighing in on an issue that’s being closely watched by the music industry.
In a 15-page written opinion, Judge Beryl Howell upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to deny a copyright registration to computer scientist Stephen Thaler for an image created solely by an AI model. The judge cited decades of legal precedent that such protection is only afforded to works created by humans.
“The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was … central to American copyright from its very inception,” the judge wrote. “Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.”
In a statement Friday, Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbot said he and his client “disagree with the district court’s judgment” and vowed to appeal: “In our view, copyright law is clear that the public is the main beneficiary of the law and this is best achieved by promoting the generation and dissemination of new works, regardless of how they are created.”
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The question of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works,” the judge wrote. “The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
The current case, however — dealing with a work that was admittedly created solely by a computer — “is not nearly so complex,” the judge wrote. Given the lack of any human input at all, she said, Thaler’s case presented a “clear and straightforward answer.”
Though Friday’s ruling came with a clear answer, more challenging legal dilemmas will come in the future from more subtle uses of AI. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists add other elements to the final product? How much human direction on the use of those tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”?
Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Copyright Office said that AI-assisted works could still be copyrighted, so long as the ultimate author remains a human being. The report avoided offering easy answers, saying that protection for AI works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances.
Read the full opinion here:
French Montana is facing a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from a singer-songwriter – who says the rapper tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip but then never actually did so.
Skylar Gudasz’s ghostly 2020 song “Femme Fatal” can be heard playing throughout French’s track, and she claims that the rapper’s reps offered to pay her for the sample – both in upfront fees and an ongoing payments, including a fifty-percent share of the publishing copyright.
But in a lawsuit filed Thursday in North Carolina federal court, the singer says French (whose real name is Karim Kharbouch) then dropped “Blue Chills” without ever actually signing that deal.
“Despite repeated promises from defendants …. no signed agreement, fees, royalties, licensing agreements or monies have ever been sent to plaintiff,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
A rep for French Montana did not immediately return a request for comment.
Gudasz says she was first contacted in May 2022 by Deborah Mannis-Gardner, a well-known industry exec who has been called the “queen” of sample clearance, about French using “Femme Fatal” in an upcoming song. Gudasz says she and her lawyer then negotiated a deal in which she would receive more than $7000 in upfront fees, an .08 percent cut on master royalties, and a fifty-percent share of the copyright for French’s new composition.
But a month later, she claims that French, without notice, released the song “prior to finalizing and signing a licensing agreement.” Gudasz says that her lawyer quickly alerted Mannis-Gardner about the problem.
“Oh jeez,” Mannis-Gardner allegedly wrote in a response email, saying she would reach out to French’s attorney about the issue. But Gudasz says the situation was never resolved: “DMG continued to maintain there would be a final agreement, sent emails finalizing the licensing agreement and requested invoices from plaintiff, which plaintiff timely sent … and even sent plaintiff a congratulatory email.”
Gudasz says the aborted negotiations show that French “knowingly infringed” the earlier song, because they show that he was aware that he needed a license but chose to proceed without one. She claims that French even posted comments to Instagram congratulating her, and acknowledged her role in “Blue Chills” on an episode of Apple Music’s Rap Life Radio.
“The unauthorized and infringing use by defendants of the song ‘Femme Fatale’ has caused irreparable harm, damage and injury,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiff has been deprived of the rightful experience of benefitting and enjoying the fruits of her labor.”
In addition to French Montana, the lawsuit also names producer Harry Fraud (real name Rory William Quigley) as a defendant, as well Sony Music Entertainment and several other companies involved in French’s song. Mannis-Gardner is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Carin Leon’s former manager is suing distribution company Oplaai and two of its executives for copyright infringement over allegations of underpaid royalties.
In the lawsuit, Javier “El Tamarindo” González, CEO of Tamarindo Rekordsz, alleges that he has not been properly paid by Oplaai – his indie label’s distributor since 2018 – for revenues from Leon’s music. González owns all copyrights for songs recorded by Leon during the term of their recording deal that started in 2018 through last December.
According to the claim, Oplaai has “infringed, and continues to infringe” upon González’s copyrights in the sound recordings and compositions by “reproducing, distributing, selling, promoting, advertising, performing by means of digital audio transmission, and otherwise commercially exploiting without authority or consent.” Oplaai’s CEOs Marylu Ramos and Victor Zambrano are also named as defendants.
González and Oplaai’s partnership began in 2018 through an oral distribution agreement where he says he “granted” Oplaai a two-year license to distribute new Tamarindo Rekordsz recordings delivered to Oplaai during that period. According to the complaint, the deal would be renewed for subsequent one-year terms if both parties agreed.
Initially, the deal was that Oplaai would collect all revenue derived from Tamarindo Rekordsz’s catalog and retain 30% of the net revenue (as a distribution fee) and pay 70% of the net revenue to Tamarindo Rekordsz (as a royalty). Following Leon’s massive success during 2019 and 2020 – Oplaai “agreed” in 2021 to lower its distribution fee to 14% and to pay Tamarindo royalties in the amount of 86% of the net revenues collected by Oplaai from the catalog.
By the end of 2022, Leon and González announced they had mutually agreed to part ways after the five-year relationship, during which Leon earned his first Latin Grammy win, plus 11 entries on the Hot Latin Songs chart and 10 top-10 songs on the Regional Mexican Airplay chart.
After Leon and González negotiated a release agreement – ratifying González as the owner of all rights (including copyrights) pertaining to Leon’s recordings from February 2018 until the date of the release agreement – González formally notified Oplaai that he was terminating their pact effective April 11, according to the lawsuit. He also requested Oplaai provide him with a simple catalog delivery file so that Tamarindo Rekordsz could “commence alternative distribution.”
After the termination, “neither Oplaai, Ramos, or Zambrano had the right to copy, sell, distribute, license, or publicly perform any of the Sound Recordings. Nor did they have a license or right to exploit the Compositions.” Yet, according to the lawsuit, “even after confirming that the Distribution Agreement was terminated and representing that it had instructed its distributor to take down all Tamarindo-controlled content, Oplaai, at Ramos’ and Zambrano’s direction, has continued to distribute and exploit the Sound Recordings without license or authorization, in violation of Tamarindo’s exclusive rights.”
Furthermore, Oplaai has collected revenue from DSP’s including YouTube, Apple Music, Spotify and Amazon, among others, “as a result of its unauthorized distribution and exploitation of the Sound Recordings,” according to the claim. The lawsuit also states that Oplaai has “improperly” charged the indie label a 30% distribution fee for March and April 2023 and failed to pay Tamarindo royalties for that period. And that Oplaai has failed to provide Tamarindo with the requested migration files, thereby requiring González’s new distributor to “manually upload the data, codes, music, and other necessary information to the DSPs to migrate the catalog.”
González claims that he has suffered damages in a “specific, identifiable amount to be proven at trial” and is seeking “all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants from their infringements of Tamarindo’s and Tons’ copyrights.”
Billboard reached out to Oplaai but did not hear back at press time.
Smokey Robinson has won a protracted legal battle with a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits from the legendary Motown singer. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Following a three-day trial that saw extended testimony from the star himself, an […]
SoundExchange is suing SiriusXM over allegations that the satellite radio giant has been “gaming the system” in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Virginia federal court, the royalties group claimed that SiriusXM has been using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
“Through its contrived and improper apportionment, Sirius XM has engineered a windfall for itself and deprived artists of the important compensation to which they are legally entitled and desperately need,” wrote lawyers for SoundExchange in the complaint.
The allegations concern the royalties paid under so-called statutory licenses – government mandates that automatically give certain streaming services the ability to broadcast songs for a set price. Crucially, that system sets different rates for revenue from satellite broadcasts (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) versus that from so-called webcasting services, which are transmitted through the internet.
In Wednesday’s complaint, SoundExchange says SiriusXM has intentionally bundled the two products together as a single offering in recent years, allowing the company to mix the revenue in order to improperly lower its royalty bill.
“Sirius XM is gaming the system: to grossly underpay the royalties it owes, Sirius XM has unreasonably characterized revenue from its bundled product as ‘webcasting revenue’ that in actuality is “[satellite] revenue’,” SoundExchange wrote. “Sirius XM’s revenue apportionment is beyond the pale, and harms music creators.”
According to SoundExchange, that maneuver has allowed SiriusXM to shortchange artists to the tune of $150 million. The company has also allegedly refused to comply with an indepdent audit that found millions in such shortfalls.
“Sirius XM has not paid its bills,” SoundExchange wrote. “By purporting to comply with the statutory license without paying what it owes under the license, Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe said the group had only resorted to litigation as a last resort. “In recent years we have viewed SiriusXM as a willingly lawful and compliant company that shares our desire for a robust streaming marketplace. But SiriusXM has and continues to wrongfully exploit the rules to significantly underpay the satellite royalties that it owes.”