OTCS has to wonder whether the defendants in the following two related cases would even be subject to an infringement suit had they never even obtained an ASCAP license for the public performance of copyrighted works (music publishing) in the first place? It appears that, AS A RESULT OF THEIR FAILURE TO RENEW THEIR LICENSES, Defendants were sued for infringement of the 106-public-performance right.
This "jukebox" case seems to just be a strong-arm tactic to get the venues (defendants) to re-sign their ASCAP licenses: suit was brought on ONE SONG by each plaintiff/publisher, for ONE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE occuring on one of two days in June 2007. [OTCS has a place in its electronic-heart for the songs selected: "Puff the Magic Dragon", "Hello" performed by Lionel Ritchie, and "Bad Bad Leroy Brown".]
Of course, with statutory damages, this suit should scare defendants into signing their ASCAP licenses; but, aren't there bigger fish to fry (instead of just polling a tavern on a single day)? Maybe not in Arizona...?
EMI Mills Music, Inc. et al v. Kim Dar Enterprises, Inc. et al. 2:07-cv-02030-HRH (filed 10/19/2007, District Court Arizona)
Criterion Music Corp. et al v. Vagabundo Inc. et al. 2:07-cv-02036-DGC (filed 10/19/2007, District Court Arizona)