Kasem's Wife Wins Court Fight

11-21-14

NBC News reports that a Los Angeles judge has denied a request from Kasem's children that the remains of their father be returned from Norway for a California burial. Kasem died five months ago and has not yet been buried. The children have also requested that Norway deny Jean's request to bury the disc jockey's body in Oslo.

Government officials told NBC News they have decided to hold off on a decision until the Santa Monica police investigation of Jean Kasem on elder abuse allegations is completed. Those allegations stem from Jean Kasem's removal of her husband from a healthcare facility in May.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Pandora Court Setback With BMI

12-19-13

Is Pandora about to lose some of its music collection? The Internet pure-play lost a bid in a court battle with BMI to gain access to works excluded from BMI's new media offerings. U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton  rejected Pandora?s request for a ruling that its license for all of BMI's work should be honored despite publishers? efforts to modify their contracts to no longer include streaming. The Judge wrote, ?The publishers are privileged to license, or not license, the performance of their compositions as they see fit." Agreeing with Broadcast Music to withdraw new media rights is ?well within their power as copyright holders.?

This ruling means if Pandora doesn't cut some kind of deals with publishers -- who all have notified BMI that come Jan. 1, they intend to withdraw their digital rights -- Pandora could be in copyright violation if they haven?t pulled those songs by that date. Pandora was sued by BMI in June over a royalty fee disagreement. Pandora won a court order in September to stop the ASCAP from limiting the number of songs that it licenses to Pandora.

(12/21/2013 7:27:34 PM)
Fuck off, Robert!
(12/21/2013 12:41:16 AM)
Bill B, clearly you are a shill for Pandora. Major radio powers do not "shudder" at Pandora...I think most of them are laughing at Pandora. Pandora's business model is fatally flawed; Westergen was betting that the musical artists would have to take a financial hit, so that Pandora would be viable. Not going to happen. Pandora is dead in the water, in the sense that they now have no idea how they can be profitable. And once tge investors see this, Pandora is done.
(12/20/2013 4:17:23 PM)
Eric has an oral obsession with Pandora. Eric, suck it, or fuck it!
(12/20/2013 3:59:20 PM)
It still always makes me chuckle seeing how broadcasters either cheer or shudder at court rulings regarding Pandora and any of the other online music services. One can only assume that big-bucks radio execs are crapping all over themselves at the thought that, some day, Pandora or one of the others will manage to strangle the life out of the goose that laid all of their golden eggs.
(12/20/2013 2:38:12 PM)
It's good to know the history of why BMI was formed.

BMI was formed by the broadcast industry in the end of 1930's.
At this time ASCAP was trying to hike up and limiting the number of songs the new radio broadcast industry could play.

Any artist with ASCAP deal was not played on air. Any artist with BMI deal was played on air, and was reflected afterwards in high record sales. Good for the artist, good for the radio industry and good for the BMI.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Pandora Files Motion With ASCAP Rate Court

6-21-13

Ed Christman at Billboard gets this story from sources where he finds Pandora has filed a motion with the ASCAP rate court. According to Christman's sources, Pandora is asking the judge to rule on whether publishers like Universal, BMG Chrysalis and Warner/Chappell, which have all filed a revocable notice with ASCAP of their intention to withdraw certain limited ?New Media? rights as of July 1, are in fact obligated to keep those digital rights at ASCAP for the purposes of Pandora licensing. Read his full story HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

(AUDIO) To be Settled by a Court For Sure

6-13-13

With ASCAP's firm statement (see above) that the Pandora purchase of KXMZ-FM, in Rapid City, South Dakota will not get them lower fees, this battle is surely headed for court. Assistant General Counsel for Pandora Christopher Harrison said this issue was headed that way in his blog at The Hill on Tuesday. In all likelihood, a court will have to decide whether or not one radio station qualifies Pandora as an official broadcaster that should be treated on an even playing field as Clear Channel, with over 800 stations. Or, is Pandora simply trying to back-door the ASCAP rules and get help on a business model it created. We turn to broadcast attorney Frank Montero for his take. Here's our interview.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Court Sides With Emmis in Shareholder Case

A U.S. District Court has denied a request for a preliminary injunction by a group of Emmis preferred shareholders who claimed, among other things, that Emmis should not have bought back preferred stock without first paying dividends. The company stopped paying dividends on the preferred stock in 2008. Smulyan tells Radio Ink he is very very pleased." An Emmis shareholder meeting is scheduled for next week. It was postponed until a judge made a ruling in this case. The court said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they'd have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in court with their contention that Emmis violated the law and its own articles of incorporation, and therefore their request "failed to meet any of the threshold requirements for injunctive relief." The ruling says, "At this preliminary stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs have failed to show that Defendants? actions contravened either the [Indiana Business Corporation Law] or the relevant federal securities disclosure laws."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

FCC Asks Full 9th Circuit Court To Hear Appeal In Political-Ads-For-Public-Broadcasters Case

Plaintiff
The FCC has petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case about noncommercial television and radio stations' right to sell and carry political ads before the full panel.
A three-judge panel recently ruled in MINORITY TELEVISION PROJECT (noncommercial KMTP-TV/SAN FRANCISCO) v. FCC that the stations do have the right to sell political advertising, and the Commission argues that the judgement "threatens the fundamental nature of public broadcasting."  The appeal to the full court alleges that the majority "applied erroneous legal standards and misinterpreted the record to reach a result that threatens the noncommercial, educational character of public broadcasting ... public broadcasters provide educational programming (particularly high-quality children’s programming) that is not available on commercial stations and subjecting public stations to advertisers’ market pressures would undermine their ability to provide such programming."
« see more Net News

View the original article here

Court Says WPRO Host Childish But Did Not Slander

7-5-2012

The slander suit was originally dismissed by a lower court and now that is upheld by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The incident stems from a slander suit filed by a local restaurant owner against WPRO host Dan Yorke. Yorke went off on an article about a political meeting that took place in the restaurant. He wasn't happy that there was an agreement that none of the jokes from the meeting would be on-the-record. An agreement that apparently also includes local reporters invited to the meeting.

In the ruling, the judges wrote, "every day, the hosts of these programs seek to create debate and commentary about local news, with a palpable emphasis on the latest real or imagined political intrigue. On occasion, tensions flare and these conversations deteriorate from moderate exchanges into heated free-for-all arguments; the tome can become caustic, the comments blunt, unrefined, and downright unfair." The court went on the write that the on-air rant by Yorke over the article was "acrimonious and childish." "Yorke used his talk show as a platform to hurl a series of crude and disparaging remarks from the safety of his microphone."

Read the full ruling HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Supreme Court Takes The Easy Way Out

6-21-2012

After all the fancy language and statements from the folks in Washington, we turned the indecency topic over to Broadcast attorney John Garziglia who says Thursday's Supreme Court decision did only one thing. "It holds that neither Fox nor ABC had sufficient notice that the fleeting use of profanity during an awards show, or the seven seconds of nude buttocks during a drama, would be deemed indecent under the FCC?s indecency restrictions. This was the easy way out." 

Here's more from Garziglia on the Thursday court ruling (all of which you can read HERE).
"The Supreme Court decision specifically does not find the FCC?s indecency regulations unconstitutional nor unable to be otherwise enforced by the FCC.  The Supreme Court decision probably does not impact the majority of the indecency cases that remain pending before the FCC." 

"The Supreme Court has punted in deciding an issue that was squarely before it.  That issue is the constitutionality of the entire scheme of the FCC?s regulation of broadcast indecency. This decision is a victory for the censors ? those who would profess to know better than you and I what we should listen to and watch on radio and television.  Radio stations must continue to fear running live events for the prospect that one of the more commonly-used verboten words in our vernacular will find its way on the air.  Television stations must not run uncut versions of award-winning movies.  Certain un-definable on-air speech and depictions may continue to cost broadcast stations millions of dollars in fines or loss of licenses.  Broadcasters? speech remains chilled."

"The FCC currently has hundreds of license renewal applications held due to millions of indecency complaints.  Ungranted license renewal applications can often keep a station from being sold or re-financed.   Now the FCC must work its way through these complaints and determine whether the indecency allegations are valid."

"Some years, possibly decades, from now, after many more years of broadcast speech continuing to be chilled, the issue of the constitutionality of the FCC?s broadcast station indecency regimen will once again be before the Supreme Court.   It will be then that the concurrence to today?s decision may haunt the then justices.   Justice Ginsburg in the concurrence that Justice Thomas joined to today?s decision  simply states:  ?[i]n my view, the Court?s decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ? was wrong when it issued. Time, technological advances, and the Commission?s untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration.?

"Eventually the FCC?s indecency regulations will be held to be unconstitutional, but not this year.  Broadcasters for now continue to remain 2nd class citizens under the 1st Amendment."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

FCC Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling

6-21-2012

Commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai both released statements following the Supreme Court's decision to punt on Thursday. McDowell said now it's time for the commission to "expeditiously implement the Court?s decision to put an end to years of litigation and uncertainty regarding the Commission?s regulation of indecent content." Pai said, "The best way for us to proceed is to get to work resolving the multitude of indecency complaints that have piled up during this litigation." See both statements in full below.

McDowell Statement
?Today, the Supreme Court held that the FCC failed to provide fair notice that Fox?s airing of fleeting expletives and ABC?s broadcast of brief nudity during an NYPD episode would trigger enforcement action and, therefore, the indecency standards as applied to these broadcasts were impermissibly vague. The FCC must expeditiously implement the Court?s decision to put an end to years of litigation and uncertainty regarding the Commission?s regulation of indecent content on America?s airwaves. As a matter of good governance, it is now time for the FCC to get back to work so that we can process the backlog of pending indecency complaints ? which currently stands at just under 1.5 million involving about 9,700 TV broadcasts. Some of these complaints date back to 2003. We owe it to the American public and the broadcast licensees involved to carry out our statutory duties with all deliberate speed. I look forward to working with the Chairman, my Commission colleagues and FCC staff to reduce the backlog of indecency cases, along with more than 300 license renewal applications that have remained pending in light of this litigation, as soon as possible.?

Pai Statement
"Today?s narrow decision by the U.S. Supreme Court does not call into question the Commission?s overall indecency enforcement authority or the constitutionality of the Commission?s current indecency policy. Rather, it highlights the need for the Commission to make its policy clear. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the clarity that both parents and broadcasters deserve. At this point, the best way for us to proceed is to get to work resolving the multitude of indecency complaints that have piled up during this litigation."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Emmis Court Date Postponed

6-1-2012

A meeting in court between Emmis and preferred shareholders set for today has been canceled. No new date was announced. Emmis has proposed stripping preferred shareholders of their right to collect millions of dollars in past dividends, a plan the preferred shareholders are fighting. Shareholders want the court to block the plan and stop Emmis from holding a shareholder meeting where investors would vote on the plan. Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan says this is the best way forward for the company.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

FCC Asks Supreme Court To Hear Janet Jackson Case

April 18, 2012

The FCC hasn't given up on the long-running matter of Federal Communications Commission and U.S.A. vs. CBC Corp., and has asked the Supreme Court to uphold its $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. over the momentary -- less than one second -- exposure of Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The Third Circuit Court of appeals threw out the forfeiture in November 2011, calling the FCC's ruling "arbitrary and capricious," and in January rejected a request that it rehear the case.

The Third Circuit rejected the FCC's argument that it hadn't changed its policy on "fleeting indecency" -- isolated, unscripted incidents -- with regard to images, though it did institute a tougher policy on fleeting expletives after notorious on-air remarks by Bono, Cher, and Nicole Richie on three separate awards shows. In any event, the court said, the Super Bowl incident took place before the FCC made the ruling that changed its policy.

In the new Supreme Court filing, Solicitor General Donald Verrelli denies that the FCC acted arbitrarily; the filing says FCC rules and policies "never included a 'fleeting nudity' exception to indecency liability" and continues, "The FCC's explanation of its own regulatory policy is well supported by the agency's prior guidance and decisions, as well as by the commonsense distinction between words and images."

The filing also asks the court, however, to hold back on considering the CBS case until the resolution of the Fox Television Stations case involving those fleeting expletives on awards shows.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Finebaum Case Sent Back to State Court.

Attorneys for syndicated sports-talker host Paul Finebaum have won their battle to have the case heard in state court. Finebaum filed a lawsuit against Citadel when they still owned the station he's working on in Birmingham. The order was signed by United States District Judge Scott Cooglar.

The Birmingham Business Journal is reporting that Finebaum?s attorneys plan to target WJOX-FM General Manager Bill Thomas and drop other defendants. Thomas has told Radio Ink that he considers Finebaum a friend and expects he'll continue to honor his contract.

View the original article here

Supreme Court Declines ASCAP Appeal.

The Digital Media Association praised the U.S. Supreme Court?s rejection of an ASCAP appeal of a lower court?s ruling that digital music downloads do not constitute public performances and therefore are not subject to performance royalties.

ASCAP, which collects royalties on behalf of songwriters for public performances, such as radio airplay, had argued that the transmission of a download to a purchaser should be considered a performance as well as a distribution, and should bear BOTH a reproduction-distribution royalty and a performance royalty. The 2nd Circuit determined that ?Unlike musical works played during radio broadcasts and stream transmissions, downloaded musical works are transmitted at one point in time and performed at another.  Transmittal without a performance does not constitute a ?public performance.??

DiMA?s interim Executive Director Lee Knife said, ?A lower court rightly ruled that ASCAP does not deserve an additional royalty payment from online music services that provide downloads, and DiMA and our member companies are pleased that the Supreme Court declined ASCAP?s request for appeal of that decision. DiMA?s members are committed to paying appropriate royalties, and they pay songwriters and music publishers fairly and fully for digital downloads when reproduction and distribution rights are implicated.?

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Finebaum VS. Citadel. Back to State Court. Sort of.

The very public fight Birmingham sports talker Paul Finebaum is having with his employer (which technically is Cumulus now) is moving back to state court. Yesterday a judge granted Finebaum?s motion to send the case back to state court which is where Finebaum's suit was initially filed. It's also widely believed Finebaum has a better chance to win in state court. The judge wrote "Citadel had failed to show the matter in dispute exceeded $75,000." $75K is the threshold for cases to move to the feds.
According to the Birmingham Business Journal, the judge also denied a motion to dismiss a similar suit that Finebaum?s attorneys had attempted to squelch in state court before its removal to federal court, writing that Finebaum?s legal team had failed to effect the dismissal before its removal. The ruling means Finebaum effectively has two lawsuits pending against his employer ? one in state court and one in federal court. However, Coogler noted in his opinion that the federal court would also remand the remaining case back to state court if the plaintiff adds claims made in the other suit.
Finebaum is suing Citadel, alleging they violated his employment contract by agreeing to federal bankruptcy reorganization without his prior consent. He also alleges that he was coerced into signing an unfavorable employment contract when Citadel officials threatened to pull his show from the air if he refused and that Citadel officials worked fraudulently to suppress his pay. The company has denied the claims.

Great coverage on the story by Birmingham Business Journal reporter Evan Belanger
Read the entire Business Journal piece HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Sirius XM Wins Court Battle

Sirius XM won court approval for settlement with subscribers who sued the satellite- radio broadcaster over claims it broke the law by raising prices after acquiring its only rival. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan endorsed the accord in a filing today over the objections of some subscribers. ?I have reviewed the settlement?s substantive terms and conclude that they demonstrate sufficient fairness, adequacy and reasonableness,? Baer wrote. ?The vast majority of class members will benefit in the course of their normal subscription payments.?

Subscriber Carl Blessing of Florida sued Sirius XM in 2009, claiming the company violated federal antitrust law and state consumer-protection law when it raised some prices and levied a music royalty fee after Sirius Satellite Radio acquired XM Satellite Radio in 2008. The basic monthly charge is $12.99. Sirius XM increased the rate a subscriber paid to get service on an additional radio to $8.99 a month from $6.99. The class also decried a $2.99 charge for Internet access, which had been free. The music charge, assessed after new royalty rates with record companies were set, amounted to $1.98 a month.

The deal, valued at $180 million, provides that prices for basic service and Internet access, as well as the music royalty fee, will remain at current levels through the end of the year. Subscribers who canceled can reconnect without paying a fee. Those whose plans expire after Dec. 31 can renew before that time at current rates. Subscribers will get no cash.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Court Tells Broadcasters They Own Enough For Now

July 8, 2011

Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey says "Our goal is to become the industry's premier consolidator." For now that goal will have to be achieved under the current ownership rules in each local market. Yesterday, the  Third Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the FCC's decision in late 2007 -- following its 2006 quadrennial rules review -- to retain the radio and TV ownership caps and subcaps. It's no secret the Cumulus team would like to see the government ownership rules loosened, and Dickey told Radio Ink last night ?The market for audio entertainment is more competitive than ever before with the addition of live streaming, satellite and podcasts. We remain optimistic that the rules governing ownership will evolve over time to more accurately reflect the new competitive landscape.?

CBS Broadcasting, Gannet and Clear Channel brought a suit arguing that the 2007 decision didn?t go far enough in eroding the cross-ownership ban and the FCC?s local media ownership rules. The Court sided against these parties, upholding the FCC?s existing local ownership limits on radio and TV stations.

The reaction from the NAB was tepid which indicates this is not a major priority for the trade organization. "There have been sweeping changes in the media landscape since most of the broadcast ownership rules were adopted decades ago," NAB EVP/Communications Dennis Wharton said in a statement. "NAB believes that modest reform of rules to allow free and local broadcasters to compete successfully in a universe of national pay TV and radio platforms is warranted." Many in radio would argue the opposite which is why the NAB statement is supportive of  more deregulation by not overly critical of the court ruling.

The court also rejected a loosening of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban approved by the commission,.saying then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin did not allow enough time for public comment. The commission voted on the proposal about a month after Martin announced it in a New York Times editorial. The rule change would have allowed broadcast-newspaper combinations in the largest markets if certain conditions were met, but the new regulation was stayed by the Third Circuit shortly after it was adopted. The court has now remanded the matter back to the FCC.

"The commission is currently engaged in a statutorily mandated further review of its media ownership rules," FCC General  Counsel Austin Schlick said in a statement. "With an updated record and this supportive decision, the agency should be able to take appropriate steps to ensure that the nation's media marketplace remains healthy and vibrant."

The FCC is required by law to review media-ownership rules every four years. The 2010 review is still underway.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here