• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. CV07-03314 PSG (MANx)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Richard S. Busch (TN Bar No. 014594) (
 pro hac vice
)rbusch@kingballow.comKING & BALLOW315 Union Street, Suite 1100Nashville, TN 37201(615) 259-3456 Facsimile: (615) 726-5417Paul H. Duvall (State Bar No. 73699)pduvall@kingballow.comKING & BALLOW9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340La Jolla, CA 92037-1355(858) 597-6000 Facsimile: (838) 597-6008Mark L. Block (State Bar No. 115457)mblock@glaserweil.comGLASER, WEIL, FINK, JACOBS, & SHAPIRO, LLP10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067(310) 553-3000 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920Attorneys for Plaintiffs F.B.T. Productions, LLC and Em2M, LLCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
F.B.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC, etal., Plaintiffs, v.AFTERMATH RECORDS doingbusiness as AFTERMATHENTERTAINMENT, et al., Defendants.)))))))))))))))))))Case No. CV 07-03314 PSG (MANx)MEMORANDUM AND POINTSAND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENTDate: January 5, 2009Time: 1:30PMPlace: Roybal, Courtroom 790Honorable Philip S. GutierrezDiscovery Cut-Off: Nov. 3, 2008Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 12, 2009Jury Trial: Feb. 3, 2009
Case 2:07-cv-03314-PSG-MAN Document 175-2 Filed 12/03/2008 Page 1 of 30
 
 i12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………1II.
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...2A. Aftermath/F.B.T. Agreements………………………………………..21. 1995 Agreement between F.B.T and Eminem………………...22. The 1998 Agreement…………………………………………..23. The 2000 Novation…………………………………………….34. The 2003 Agreement…………………………………………..4a. The 2004 Amendment…………………………………..5B. Digital Downloads and Other Third Party Uses……………………...6C. Types of Digital Downloads…………………………………………7D. UMG’s Contracts with Third Party Permanent Download andMastertone Providers…………………………………………………81. iTunes Permanent Download Agreement……………………...92. Mastertone Agreements………………………………………11E. UMG’s Royalty Treatment of Revenues from Digital Uses………...121. The Letter from Music Industry Attorneys…………………...13F. UMG’s Characterization of Its Arrangements………………………14G. UMG’s Royalty Treatment of Third Party Compilation Albums…...15H. The Royalty Audit…………………………………………………...15
ARGUMENT
III. GENERAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTMOTIONS…………………………………………………………..16IV. IF UMG HAS LICENSED THE EMINEM MASTERS, PLAINTIFFSARE ENTITLED TO ROYALTIES BASED ON 50% OF UMG’SNET RECEIPTS…………………………………………………….171. Any Ambiguity in the 1998 or 2003 Agreements Must beConstrued Against Defendants……………………………….19
Case 2:07-cv-03314-PSG-MAN Document 175-2 Filed 12/03/2008 Page 2 of 30
 
 ii12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2. The Master License Provision is Not Restricted to “Ancillary”Income………………………………………………………..20B. The Third Party Digital Download Providers are Licensees………..211. UMG’s Relationiships with Third Party Digital DownloadProviders are Analogous to Other Situations Where the MasterLicense Provision Applies……………………………………232. UMG Has Admitted it Licenses Composition Copyrights toApple for Some of These Same Songs in Another Case……..24V. THE UNDISTPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT UMGUNDERPAID PLAINTIFFS $159,332 BASED ON A MMIS-ALLOCATION OFCONSTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND EMINEM……………………………25VI. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...25
Case 2:07-cv-03314-PSG-MAN Document 175-2 Filed 12/03/2008 Page 3 of 30
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...