UrbaneGent

Am I reading this correctly? United would simply make a copy of a song list and just load them into the in-flight entertainment system without paying royalties? If that the case, how odd.

When I use music for commercial purposes, I have to go on-line, fill out a form, state which songs I am going to use, for what, etc., and then it calculates a fee I have to pay.

The record label says that copyrighted sound recordings from Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and others are being loaded onto planes illegally.

Hollywood Reporter

Find these things interesting....I just don't know why UA would be so irresponsible unless this happened under the new management and they didn't know? Doesn't makes sense.

Why Sony would sue UA and not come to an agreement is what throws me off a bit. Is there more to this?

astroflyer

I guess I don't have any good sense of exactly how much an intermediate company is involved. This seems like the kind of thing UA would outsource. The article isn't super clear on exactly how it's all structured, but other companies, which seem to be intermediaries, are being sued as well.

mgcsinc

This has to do with very complicated uncharted legal waters related to sound recordings (as opposed to compositions). It may surprise you to learn that terrestrial radio stations do not pay anything to license sound recordings.

It's best to ignore this lawsuit; if this thread becomes active, it will be a horrifying nightmare of misinformation.

emcampbe

My guess is that UA outsources everything with entertainment on their inflight systems, including rights management, to a third-party, and the only thing UA does is give that third-party guidelines (what kind of music, profanity allowed, etc.) and potentially approves the options. The third-party company would be the one, in guessing, responsible for the issues involved in the lawsuit. UA would pay that company good $ for that. If that third-party was not doing this, and UA is forced to pay up, I'm sure the next lawsuit will be about UA recouping those $ and damages from the third-party.

Interestingly enough, Sony wants the court to allow it the option of receiving profits UA made from use of the music. I know it's a legal document - but I'd love to see how Sony thinks UA made profit "from the music". Do people select UA because they have Michael Jackson and Brittany Spears to listen to on board, but others don't?

Personally, I also think Sony could be shooting itself in the foot. On long hauls, I like that I get a chance to listen to try new albums/artists on board, and if I like it, will go ahead and buy a copy once I am home again. Apparently Sony still hasn't learned much from their industry's failure to embrace the digital age from a decade ago.

wethereyet

+1, you can be fairly certain UA would not knowingly "pirate" music on their onboard systems.

This seems on the surface to be another music industry attempt at fleecing money any way they can. Much more lucrative to go after an airline than a welfare mom.

sincx

The problem for Sony is that, unlike a mom, airlines have teams of lawyers and can fight back. Smisek went to Harvard Law School. He may not know how to run an airline, but he probably knows how to win a lawsuit.

MatthewLAX

If UA has any decent lawyers, it would have indemnified itself from this sort of claim in the contract with the IFE content provider and can promptly implead the complaint to this party.

cheltzel

I agree.

But if you look at some of Sony's efforts in this area, they have not been particularly well thought out (for example their DRM effort that effectively loaded a rootkit virus on your PC).

halls120

^^ Sony makes some of most boneheaded decisions around. I have also purchased music on the label after a long haul. All this is going to is result in UA no featuring Sony artists, and who does that hurt in the long run?

LaserSailor

UA is offering 10,000 miles comp for each Sony song played, but sony employees have to spend at least 10,000 on TODs to qualify....

Frankly this lawsuit has more merit than the M+ one! but that's not to say it has much..

astroflyer

At least one good thing came out of this thread...I had no idea that implead was a word. Now I've googled it, and learned something.

milepig

Exactly. Part of what I do for a living is negotiate similar licenses, and everything I sign clearly states that the provider is responsible for clearing all rights and permissions issues (and that they've paid the correct fees) and that any issue that arises will be their problem to deal with, not mine. In the case in hand, of course, it doesn't stop Sony from trying to get money out of anyone they can. But, I'd think that UA's lawyers would be sure that they're indemnified against exactly this sort of action.

This all assumes that UA is abiding by the terms of their license, which we don't know.

mgcsinc

A small usage note: You implead a party, not a complaint.

Steve M

This assumes that the party responsible for indemnification is capable of doing so. As a hypothetical example, let's say it's a small independent company that makes reasonable profits but has little in the way of assets, and a $5 million liability insurance policy, and there's a $50 million lawsuit. In that case, it doesn't matter that there's an uncapped indemnification clause between UA and the company, as the company simply doesn't have the ability to protect UA from a $50 million claim. The fact that UA thought it was indemnified has no bearing on a third party that was not a party to that contract, if the indemnifying party is unable to do so. In order to get released from the lawsuit, the indemnifying party would need to step up to the plate and convince the court and the plaintiffs that it's both willing and able to fully indemnify UA. If it can't do both, then UA remains a defendant until/unless it can get released for other reasons (or is found at least partially responsible).

drewguy

It appears that Sony has sued the third parties that provide UA with the service. So someone is liable-who pays is a separate issue.

What seems to have happened from the little information available is that UA and the third parties realized that an AVOD system may require a different license than a "broadcast" system such as radio or (I assume) the older airline systems that played music in a loop. They approached Sony to cut a deal, and, presumably after trying to reach agreement on a license, Sony sued.

So it doesn't seem to me from the description that UA was "pirating" music. Rather, UA was playing music based on a license (perhaps statutory like radio stations have) that their lawyers realized arguably didn't apply. UA then tried to address the problem but Sony and UA couldn't reach agreement on how to address it (i.e., how much money was owed) and sued.

I would expect this suit to get resolved with further negotiations. As pointed out above, Sony clearly has an interest in allowing its music to be available on AVOD, but wants more money for it being available.