PPCA v Adelaide City Entertainment

Case [2005] FMCA 923

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE & ORS v ADELAIDE CITY ENTERTAINMENT [2005] FMCA 923
COPYRIGHT – Decision where applicant does not appear – consideration of the requirements for proof of claim – discussion of damages – whether additional damages should be awarded – assessment of damages – assessment of costs under Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
Copyright Act 1968, ss.26, 115(4)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s.76
Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics (2000) 49 IPR at [66-67]
Audodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69
Universal Music & Ors v Hendy Petroleum & Ors [2003] FMCA 373
Microsoft Corporation v Ezy Loans Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1135
Applicant: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LTD & ORS
Respondent: ADELAIDE CITY ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD
File Number: SYG 1138 of 2005
Judgment of: Raphael FM
Hearing date: 29 June 2005
Date of Last Submission: 29 June 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 29 June 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms S Balafoutis
Counsel for the Respondent: No Appearance

ORDERS

  1. The Respondent has infringed the Second to Fifth Applicants’ copyright in the following sound recordings referred to in the affidavits of Jason McLennan and Paul Condous sworn on 27 and 29 April 2005 respectively (the Identified Infringing Recordings);

Artist Title
Big Audio Dynamite Rush
George Michael Faith
The Romantics What I Like About You
Buggles Video Killed the Radio Star
Eurythmics Sweet Dreams
Dee –lite Groove is in the Heart
J Geils Band Centrefold
The Knack My Sharona
David Bowie/Queen Under Pressure
The Beatles Twist and Shout
500 Miles (I’m Gonna Be) Proclaimers

  1. The Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from causing or authorising any of the Identified Infringing Recordings being heard in public without the licence of the relevant Applicant.

  2. The Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from causing or authorising any sound recordings contained within the First Catalogue (as defined in Attachment A hereto) being heard in public, without the licence of the First Applicant or the respective copyright owner(s).

  3. The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant the sum of $48,812.53 pursuant to s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

  4. The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant the sum of $9,268.43 as interest on s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) damages pursuant to s.76 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth).

  5. The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant additional damages pursuant to s.115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in the sum of $85,000.

  6. The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant’s costs of this Application to be assessed in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

  7. Order 6 is stayed for 21 days or until 9.15am on 28 July 2005 if the Respondent files prior to 20 July 2005 an application returnable on


    28 July 2005 to be heard on the award contained therein.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1138 of 2005

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA…

Continue reading PPCA v Adelaide City Entertainment

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PPCA v Adelaide City Entertainment [2005] FMCA 923
Case
[2005] FMCA 923
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Plaintiff, PPCA, and the Defendant, Adelaide City Entertainment. The dispute centred around allegations of copyright infringement concerning various sound recordings played at the Defendant's entertainment venue. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the Defendant had indeed infringed the copyright of the Plaintiff and, if so, to what extent and what remedies should be applied.

The legal issues in the case were multifaceted. Primarily, the court had to ascertain whether the Defendant's use of the sound recordings constituted an infringement of copyright. This involved examining the nature of the Defendant's activities and the extent to which the sound recordings were used in public performances without proper authorisation. Additionally, the court had to determine the specific recordings that were infringed and the appropriate remedy for such infringements, including potential monetary compensation and injunctive relief.

The court found that the Defendant had infringed the copyright of the Plaintiff in the specified recordings by playing them in public without a license. The court considered the evidence presented, including affidavits from the Plaintiff's representatives, and concluded that the Defendant's actions constituted direct infringement of the copyright held by the Plaintiff. As a result, the court issued several orders, including permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from playing the specified recordings without proper authorisation. Furthermore, the court awarded the Plaintiff monetary compensation and interest, totalling over $58,000, under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Respondent has infringed the Second to Fifth Applicants’ copyright in the following sound recordings referred to in the affidavits of Jason McLennan and Paul Condous sworn on 27 and 29 April 2005 respectively (the Identified Infringing Recordings);

Artist

Title

Big Audio Dynamite

Rush

George Michael

Faith

The Romantics

What I Like About You

Buggles

Video Killed the Radio Star

Eurythmics

Sweet Dreams

Dee –lite

Groove is in the Heart

J Geils Band

Centrefold

The Knack

My Sharona

David Bowie/Queen

Under Pressure

The Beatles

Twist and Shout

500 Miles (I’m Gonna Be)

Proclaimers

2.

The Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from causing or authorising any of the Identified Infringing Recordings being heard in public without the licence of the relevant Applicant.

3.

The Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from causing or authorising any sound recordings contained within the First Catalogue (as defined in Attachment A hereto) being heard in public, without the licence of the First Applicant or the respective copyright owner(s).

4.

The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant the sum of $48,812.53 pursuant to s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

5.

The Respondent shall pay the First Applicant the sum of $9,268.43 as interest on s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) damages pursuant to s.76 of the

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.