LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

WEBCASTER ALLIANCE INC v RIAA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: WAIVR139392, CourtName: MISC 5, Plaintiff: WEBCASTER ALLIANCE INC, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>WAIVR139392, Agreement, Webcasting, Carp, Radio, Sound Recordings, Major Labels, Yahoo Agreement, Market, Internet Radio, Royalty, Riaa, Negotiating, Commerce, Vow, Radio Stations, Distribution, Minimum Fees, Loc Rates, United States, Sherman Act, Channel, Delaware, License, Violations, Supporters, Consumer, Mainstream, Control , ContentID: 120255260

Case Documents
1 2003-08-27 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 132547
15 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 15 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WEBCASTING
CARP
RADIO
SOUND RECORDINGS
MAJOR LABELS
YAHOO AGREEMENT
MARKET
INTERNET RADIO
ROYALTY
RIAA
NEGOTIATING
COMMERCE
VOW
RADIO STATIONS
DISTRIBUTION
MINIMUM FEES
LOC RATES
MEMBERS
UNITED STATES
SHERMAN ACT
PLAINTIFF
CHANNEL
DELAWARE
LICENSE
VIOLATIONS
SUPPORTERS
CONSUMER
MAINSTREAM
CONTROL
                      1  Perry J. Narancic,  SBN  206820
                           LEXANALYTICA,  P.C.
                     2  160 West Santa Clara  Street
                     3  Suite  1100
                           San Jose,  CA  95113
                     4  Tel:  650-814-7688
                           Fax:  650-618-2700
                     c
                     b
                           Attorneys  for  Plaintiff
                     6  WEBCASTER  ALLIANCE,  INC.
                     7

                     z                                            UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT

                     E                                   FOR  THE  NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF 

                    1c

                    11  Webcaster  Alliance,  Inc.                                           > 
                                                                                             >
                    12                                                       Plaintiff,      )
                                                                                             > 
                    13              V.                                                      J     
                    14                                                                       >
                           Recording  Industry  Association  of  America,  Inc.,             ) 
                    15  Universal  Music  Group,  Inc.,  Warner  Music  Group,  )  sound 
                           Inc.,  Bertelsmann  Music  Group,  Inc., Sony Music               )
                    16  Entertainment,  Inc.,  Capitol-EM1  Music,  Inc.                    >  (2) 
                                                                                                  
                    17                                                                            
                                                                          Defendants.
                    18                                                                            
                    IS

                    2c              Plaintiff  alleges as follows:
                    21
                                                                 I.      NATURE  OF  PROCEEDINGS
                    22
                                           1.  This  is  an  action  brought  under  the  antitrust
                    23
                             anticompetitive  conduct by the  Defendants  which  threatens to 
                    24
                             a result  of  Defendants'  exclusionary  conduct  in  the  markets 
                    25
                             recordings  and Internet  distribution  of  such sound recordings.
                    26
                                           2.     Plaintiff  is  a  trade  association  whose 
                    27
SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff
  • 15 Universal Music Group, Inc., Warner Music Group,) sound recordings (Sherman Act 8 1)
  • unlike the broadcasting of signals in traditional radio, Internet radio involves the
  • 12 with a compulsory license to perform copyrighted sound recordings.
  • 14 failing such voluntary agreement, the Copyright Offrce may initiate a Copyright Arbitration
  • 15 Royalty Panel in order to establish such rates.
  • IE controlled by the five major labels who account for over 80% of all domestically
  • 2c content produced and distributed in the United States,
  • 21 agent on behalf of its members in the CARP proceedings.
  • which report included certain recommendations as the appropriate webcasting royalty rates.
  • 24 "CARP Rates").
  • 27 which was published on July 8,2002 (the "LOC Rates")
  • I interstate and foreign commerce.
  • II of the state of Delaware.
  • IZ sound recordings in the United States (the "Sound Recordings Market"),
  • E competes with Mainstream Content for listenership and consumer dollars.
  • 11 distribution and marketing channels to consumers, such as radio station play, shelf space
  • it made a finding of fact that RIAA had
  • April 2001, including the Yahoo Agreement, in order to establish a "benchmark" for an eventual
  • 26 Agreement that served to exclude small internet radio stations.
  • "VOW Supporters").
  • which ultimately became SWSA and the VOW Agreement.
  • Using such negotiating leverage to
  • 25 minimum fees set forth in the CARP and LOC Rates.
  • the principal distribution channel for Independent Content.
  • or control, and all successors thereto, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from
  • webcaster until the violations alleged in this Complaint are remedied.
  •    |