Selective enforcement by print rights administrators?

[copyright-?s]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV

If there are multiple artists creating unlicensed print music lessons using several songs under copyright protection, can the print administrator select one artist to pursue, yet allow the others to continue infringing, or is the print administrator required by law to put all known infringers on notice? In other words, if a print administrator has knowledge that x number of artists are putting out unlicensed content, are they required to notify/pursue all of those artists or can they selectively enforce their rights on some but not others? And what statute under the copyright laws governs the answer to this question? Thanks!

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV

If there are multiple artists creating unlicensed print music lessons using several songs under copyright protection, can the print administrator select one artist to pursue, yet allow the others to continue infringing, or is the print administrator required by law to put all known infringers on notice? In other words, if a print administrator has knowledge that x number of artists are putting out unlicensed content, are they required to notify/pursue all of those artists or can they selectively enforce their rights on some but not others? And what statute under the copyright laws governs the answer to this question? Thanks!

They can pursue as many or as few as they wish.

 

[copyright-?s]

Thank you for the reply. Hypothetically then, suppose there are 8 known infringers and they pursue 2 of the 8. Again, the administrator has direct knowledge that all 8 are infringing. Do the 2 being pursued have any kind of defense in that the other 6 are not being pursued? (If you're wondering, no, I'm not being pursued by anyone) Is there a specific statute or case law that governs this scenario?

 

[quincy]

"Others are doing it" is not a defense.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

"Others are doing it" is not a defense.

You can always argue estoppel (plaintiff should be estopped from suing because he has let others get away with it). You won't win, but it may prolong things.

 

[Zigner]

You can always argue estoppel (plaintiff should be estopped from suing because he has let others get away with it). You won't win, but it may prolong things.

Yes, it sure will...by at least a couple of days!

 

[copyright-?s]

My question asked if there was a statute or case law that governs this situation and no one here answered that, so what allows the publisher to pursue as few or as many infringing parties.

It's hard to believe that a publisher can and would allow known infringers to have a free pass, but attempt to prosecute someone who is willing to pay any reasonable and customary fee for the usage. This seems tantamount to a landlord allowing squatters to occupy a property and suing another squatter who offers to pay rent.

Explain the justice here:

Party A offers numerous copyrighted song titles for sale without obtaining print licensing.
Party A's actions are brought to the attention of the publisher multiple times.
Publisher takes no action against Party A.
Party B applies for licensing and is denied.

How can Party B, who wants to comply with the law and pay license fees, be denied when publisher allows Party A to proceed illegally?

 

[Zigner]

This seems tantamount to a landlord allowing squatters to occupy a property and suing another squatter who offers to pay rent.

Yep, kind of sounds like that. Of course, there is nothing wrong with THAT either

 

[Zigner]

How can Party B, who wants to comply with the law and pay license fees, be denied when publisher allows Party A to proceed illegally?

If publisher is "allowing" party A to proceed, then it is no longer a violation, is it?

The publisher can do business with whomever they please.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

How can Party B, who wants to comply with the law and pay license fees, be denied when publisher allows Party A to proceed illegally?

Simple. It is the publisher's property to do with as it chooses.

Publisher is not "allowing" party A to proceed illegally. Publisher probably just doesn't want to spend the time and money in a lawsuit against Party A that will likely never recover the costs, let alone the legal fees.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Yes, it sure will...by at least a couple of days!

I'll agree if you make that "a couple of court dates".

 

[Zigner]

I'll agree if you make that "a couple of court dates".

Steve - it'd get tossed so quick that the ink won't even be dry...