DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright Arbitrage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright Arbitrage University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2019 Copyright Arbitrage Kristelia A. Garcia University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Courts Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia A. Garcia, Copyright Arbitrage, 107 CALIF. L. REV. 199 (2019), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1214. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright Arbitrage Kristelia A. García* Regulatory arbitrage—defined as the manipulation of regulatory treatment for the purpose of reducing regulatory costs or increasing statutory earnings—is often seen in heavily regulated industries. An increase in the regulatory nature of copyright, coupled with rapid technological advances and evolving consumer preferences, have led to an unprecedented proliferation of regulatory arbitrage in the area of copyright law. This Article offers a new scholarly account of the phenomenon herein referred to as “copyright arbitrage.” In some cases, copyright arbitrage may work to expose and/or correct for an extant gap or inefficiency in the regulatory regime. In other cases, copyright arbitrage may contravene one or another of copyright’s foundational goals of incentivizing the creation of, and ensuring access to, copyrightable works. In either case, the existence of copyright arbitrage provides strong support for the classification (and clarification) of copyright as a complex regulatory regime in need of a strong regulatory apparatus. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38DR2P868 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. * Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School and Director of the Content Initiative at the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship. For their generous and helpful comments, the author thanks Michael Abramowicz, Eric Alston, Ian Ayres, Robert Brauneis, Ben Depoorter, Eric Gerding, Jim Gibson, Mark Lemley, Yvette Liebesman, Jessica Litman, Barak Orbach, Gideon Parchomovsky, Blake Reid, Matthew Sag, Andrew Schwartz, Sloan Speck, Harry Surden, Rebecca Tushnet, Phil Weiser, and the participants of the St. Louis University School of Law Faculty Workshop, Yale Law School’s ISP Speaker Series, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Third Annual Copyright Roundtable. For their generous support, the author thanks the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas IP Inn of Court and the Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law (IPIL). A special thanks to Rachael Smith, and to Jane Thompson and the Colorado Law Library team for their excellent research assistance, and to Daniel Yablon, Martha Reiser, and the editors at the California Law Review without whom this Article would be far less readable. Accolades and compliments, and criticism couched as such, are welcome at [email protected]. 199 200 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 107:199 This Article discusses several options available for identifying and curbing problematic copyright arbitrage. First, courts can take a purposive, substantive approach to interpretations of the Copyright Act. Second, Congress can empower a regulatory agency with rulemaking and enforcement authority. Finally, antitrust law can help to curb the anticompetitive effects of copyright arbitrage resulting from legislative capture. Introduction ............................................................................................. 201 I. Regulatory Arbitrage ........................................................................... 206 A. The Theory of Regulatory Arbitrage ................................... 206 B. Conditions Promoting Regulatory Arbitrage ....................... 209 1. Regulatory-Regime Inconsistency ................................. 209 2. Economic Substance Inconsistency ............................... 210 3. Time Inconsistency ........................................................ 210 C. Constraints on Regulatory Arbitrage ................................... 211 1. Legal Constraints ........................................................... 211 2. Transaction Costs .......................................................... 212 3. Reputational Concerns ................................................... 213 II. Copyright Arbitrage ........................................................................... 214 A. The Impetus for Contemporary Copyright Arbitrage .......... 214 B. Examples of Copyright Arbitrage ........................................ 216 1. Section 114 Arbitrage: Pandora’s Terrestrial Radio Station ............................................................................ 217 2. Section 115 Arbitrage: Mass “Address Unknown” Notices of Intent .......................................................................... 219 3. Section 109(a) Arbitrage ................................................ 224 a. ReDigi’s Second-Hand Digital Music Marketplace 224 b. “Buy Now” Buttons for Licenses ........................... 227 4. Section 110(11) Arbitrage: VidAngel’s Filtered Streaming Service ........................................................................... 227 5. Section 106(4) Arbitrage ............................................... 229 a. Aereo’s “Private” Broadcasts ................................. 229 b. Downloads, Samples & Public Performances ........ 231 6. Section 512 Arbitrage .................................................... 233 a. YouTube’s Alleged “Value Gap” ........................... 233 b. Improper Takedown Notices .................................. 237 III. Implications ...................................................................................... 238 A. Incentives & Inefficiency .................................................... 240 B. Anticompetitive Effects ....................................................... 243 C. Distributive Justice .............................................................. 247 D. Consumer Expectations ....................................................... 248 E. Correction, Information-Forcing & Signaling ..................... 249 IV. Mitigation ......................................................................................... 250 2019] COPYRIGHT ARBITRAGE 201 A. Legislative Response ........................................................... 250 1. Subject Matter Expertise ................................................ 251 2. Timeliness ...................................................................... 252 3. Capture ........................................................................... 253 B. Judicial Response ................................................................. 254 C. Administrative Response: A Proposal ................................. 257 1. Copyright as a Regulatory Regime ................................ 257 2. Call for a Regulatory Apparatus .................................... 258 3. Application .................................................................... 260 D. Antitrust ............................................................................... 264 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 265 INTRODUCTION Babyface, Bon Jovi, Cher, Chicago, Katy Perry, and Lady Gaga—this may sound like a Grammy lineup, but it actually constitutes only a fraction of the 186 recording artists who signed a June 2016 petition asking Congress to fix the law that they claim allows YouTube to shirk proper payment for the music it uses.1 Meanwhile, a slew of artists ranging from Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons to Guns N’ Roses, have filed “staggering”2 lawsuits—explicitly rejecting a settlement offer of $43.45 million—against Spotify alleging that it failed to pay statutory royalties under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Copyright Act).3 In both scenarios, the platforms in question are in technical compliance with the letter of the law, while simultaneously reducing, or altogether denying, royalties paid to copyright owners. At fault for this convoluted state of affairs is regulatory arbitrage, or the reduction of regulatory costs via manipulation of regulatory treatment. All regulatory regimes are vulnerable to manipulation; it arises in diverse areas of 1. Tim Ingham, Revealed: The 186 Artists Fighting the Youtube-Shielding DMCA, MUSIC BUS. WORLDWIDE (June 21, 2016), https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/revealed-the-186- artists-protesting-against-youtube-shielding-dmca-laws [https://perma.cc/TTL6-XUQU]. 2. Eriq Gardner, Spotify Hit with Two Lawsuits Claiming “Staggering” Copyright Infringement, HOLLYWOOD REP. (July 18, 2017), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify- hit-two-lawsuits-claiming-staggering-copyright-infringement-1021771
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MCA-700 Midline/Reissue Series
    MCA 700 Discography by David Edwards, Mike Callahan & Patrice Eyries © 2018 by Mike Callahan MCA-700 Midline/Reissue Series: By the time the reissue series reached MCA-700, most of the ABC reissues had been accomplished in the MCA 500-600s. MCA decided that when full price albums were converted to midline prices, the albums needed a new number altogether rather than just making the administrative change. In this series, we get reissues of many MCA albums that were only one to three years old, as well as a lot of Decca reissues. Rather than pay the price for new covers and labels, most of these were just stamped with the new numbers in gold ink on the front covers, with the same jackets and labels with the old catalog numbers. MCA 700 - We All Have a Star - Wilton Felder [1981] Reissue of ABC AA 1009. We All Have A Star/I Know Who I Am/Why Believe/The Cycles Of Time//Let's Dance Together/My Name Is Love/You And Me And Ecstasy/Ride On MCA 701 - Original Voice Tracks from His Greatest Movies - W.C. Fields [1981] Reissue of MCA 2073. The Philosophy Of W.C. Fields/The "Sound" Of W.C. Fields/The Rascality Of W.C. Fields/The Chicanery Of W.C. Fields//W.C. Fields - The Braggart And Teller Of Tall Tales/The Spirit Of W.C. Fields/W.C. Fields - A Man Against Children, Motherhood, Fatherhood And Brotherhood/W.C. Fields - Creator Of Weird Names MCA 702 - Conway - Conway Twitty [1981] Reissue of MCA 3063.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong De Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina
    Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina To cite this version: Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina. Intelligent Multimedia. Danièle Bourcier, Pompeu Casanovas, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Catharina Maracke. European Press Academic Publishing, pp.412, 2010, Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies. halshs-00671623 HAL Id: halshs-00671623 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00671623 Submitted on 17 Feb 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies Volume 8 IntelligentMultimedia.tex; 28/05/2010; 20:00; p.1 Volume Editors’ Biographies Daniele Bourcier, doctorate in Public Law, is director of research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CERSA, Paris. She is associ- ated professor at the University of Paris 1 in eGovernment. Scientific lead of CC France, she works on Commons Governance and Regulation. She wrote 16 books (collective or not) and many papers in the field of IT, Cognition and Law. She is an appointed member of the Comite d’Éthique des Sciences (CNRS). Pompeu Casanovas, director of the UAB Institute of Law and Technol- ogy (http://idt.uab.cat) and professor of Philosophy of Law at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
    [Show full text]
  • 371 Copyright Act of 1976 — Transmit Clause — ABC, Inc. V. Aereo, Inc. In
    Copyright Act of 1976 — Transmit Clause — ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a new industry of community an- tenna television (CATV) exploded.1 By placing an antenna on top of a hill above a community and transmitting signals to subscribers’ houses via coaxial cables, CATV companies provided television to areas where hilly terrain made receiving traditional broadcast signals difficult.2 Af- ter the Supreme Court held that such systems did not violate copyright holders’ exclusive rights to public performance,3 Congress revised the copyright law in 1976 and, among other things, enacted the Transmit Clause to supersede those decisions and make such transmissions an infringement of copyright. Last Term, in ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,4 the Supreme Court held that a company that transmitted broadcast televi- sion to users via the Internet violated the Transmit Clause, even though the user selected what content to watch, and even though each user had a dedicated antenna that produced a “personal” copy of the broadcast.5 The Court employed a functionalist approach, relying on analogical reasoning rather than analyzing the underlying technical operations of the system — the method that Justice Scalia adopted in his dissent. In doing so, the majority introduced unpredictability into the law by leaving important doctrinal questions unanswered and adopting an approach that lacks clear boundaries. Prior to the Copyright Act of 1976,6 the Court read the public per- formance right narrowly. In 1968, in Fortnightly Corp. v. United Art- ists Television, Inc.,7 the Court held that a CATV operator is more analogous to a “viewer” than a “performer,” and thus cannot face lia- bility under the Copyright Act.8 The Court affirmed Fortnightly in Teleprompter Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum to Clients June 2014
    MemorandumMemorandum toto ClientsClients June 2014 News and Analysis of Recent Developments in Communications Law No. 14-06 The Supremes have spoken . now it’s the Swami’s turn. The Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision: What It Says, What It Means By Kevin M. Goldberg [email protected] 703-812-0462 [Editor’s Note: As we have reported on CommLaw- eas with which it is familiar. And it also tried hard to make Blog.com, the Supreme Court has reversed the Second Cir- sure that its decision will not disrupt what it believes it cuit in the Aereo case, giving the TV broadcasting industry knows about new media, such as cloud computing. a major victory. Yes, that’s the result that the Swami, Kevin Goldberg, had predicted. So we asked him to review Let’s take a look at Breyer’s majority opinion (which was the two opinions out of the Supremes – Justice Breyer’s joined in by Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices majority opinion and Justice Scalia’s dissent – and let us Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan), and then the know what he found. Here’s his report – but note that we dissent by Scalia (writing for himself and Justices Thomas are dispensing with our routine summary of what Aereo is and Alito). Then I’ll field some questions that I’ve been fre- and how the case got to the Supremes. If you’re just getting quently asked. to the Aereo party now and don’t know the background, check out our blog’s extensive Aereo-related coverage at The Majority Opinion this link.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff Nexstar
    ase 2:13-cv-00910-DAK Document 87 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF UTAH, LLC dba KSTU FOX 13, KUTV LICENSEE, LLC dba KMYU and MEMORANDUM DECISION AND KUTV, and FOX BROADCASTING ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY COMPANY, INJUNCTION AND STAY Plaintiffs, Consolidated Case No. 2:13CV910DAK vs. Judge Dale A. Kimball AEREO, INC., Defendant. ____________________________________ NEXSTAR BROADCASTING COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. AEREO, INC., Defendant. This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Community Television of Utah, LLC, KUTV Licensee, and Fox Broadcasting Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendant Aereo, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Supreme Court’s decision in ABC v. Aereo, and Defendant Aereo’s Motion to Transfer. The court held a hearing on Aereo’s Motion to Stay on February 7, 2014, ase 2:13-cv-00910-DAK Document 87 Filed 02/19/14 Page 2 of 26 and a hearing on Plaintiffs Motions for Preliminary Injunction on February 11, 2014.1 At the hearings, Plaintiffs Community Television of Utah, LLC, KUTV Licensee, and Fox Broadcasting Company were represented by Brent O. Hatch, Shaundra L. McNeil, and Richard L. Stone, Plaintiff Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. was represented by Rodney R. Parker and John C. Ulin, and Defendant Aereo was represented by Daralyn J. Durie, Joseph C. Gratz, Jess M. Krannich, and Timothy Considine. After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, as well as the law and facts relevant to the motions, the court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Plaintiffs are a collection of local and national broadcast television companies who have brought the present lawsuit against Aereo for copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Battles Continue Over Hopper, Aereo
    Court Battles Continue over Hopper, Aereo 10.24.2013 Broadcasters continue to wage legal warfare to stop the oncoming technology tide, with battles heating up on two fronts: Dish Network's Hopper and IAC-backed Aereo. Fox is working to get the courts to take legal action against Dish Network's Hopper with Sling, which is a set-top box with both ad-skipping and place-shifting technology built in. On Wednesday, Fox filed a notice of appeal to California's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee last month denied Fox the injunction it was seeking. Fox is seeking an "en banc" hearing in front of a full panel of judges. It's not Fox's first appearance in front of the court on the issue, although earlier requests applied to different iterations of the service. Similarly, last month U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in New York denied ABC's motion for a preliminary injunction against Dish' AutoHop, a separate set-top box that skips ads but doesn't "sling" TV programming to smart phones and tablets. Meanwhile, Aereo defended itself in Salt Lake City where broadcasters are working to stop the roll-out of its service, which streams broadcast signals to subscribers over the Internet for $10 a month. Broadcasters argue that Aereo is infringing their copyrights by "publicly performing" shows without permission, while Aereo says what it's doing is perfectly legal. "A consumer who tunes an individual antenna to access a program, makes an individual copy of a broadcast television program, and then watches that program, does not violate the copyright laws," Aereo argues in the Utah case.
    [Show full text]
  • Bright Ideas a Publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association
    NYSBA SPRING/SUMMER 2011 | VOL. 20 | NO. 1 Bright Ideas A publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association Message from the Chair I am pleased to report on but has never quite been able to fi nd the right place. I am a number of exciting develop- excited to report that we will be trying something differ- ments and activities of our ent this year: the Section’s 2011 Fall Meeting will be held Section. First, we had another at the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia from October great Annual Meeting in January. 20-23. We hope that moving the Meeting to an urban Kudos to our Annual Meeting venue will mix things up a bit and help keep the program Co-Chairs, Chuck Miller and Phil fresh. There are many fun things for our families (and Furgang, for putting together ourselves) to do in Philadelphia, and the city is easy to a fascinating program, which get to by train or by car from most points within New covered diverse and cutting-edge York. We are planning special events to take advantage of intellectual property topics Paul M. Fakler what the city has to offer, hopefully including an event at such as the latest developments the Franklin Institute (a wonderful museum named for in patent litigation, counterfeiting, intellectual property inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin and dedi- legislation, ethical issues raised by cloud computing, and cated to science and technology). Traditionalists need not intellectual property protection in China. We also had the worry: we plan to return to one of our traditional upstate distinct honor of hosting a thought-provoking luncheon venues for the 2012 Fall Meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • George Jones Once You've Had the Best Mp3, Flac
    George Jones Once You’ve Had The Best mp3, flac, wma DOWNLOAD LINKS (Clickable) Genre: Folk, World, & Country Album: Once You’ve Had The Best Country: US Released: 1992 Style: Country MP3 version RAR size: 1330 mb FLAC version RAR size: 1574 mb WMA version RAR size: 1593 mb Rating: 4.6 Votes: 534 Other Formats: WMA RA AHX AAC MP4 MMF ASF Tracklist 1 We Can’t Make It 2 A Picture Of Me (Without You) 3 Once You’ve Had The Best 4 Loving You Could Never Be Better 5 Nothin Ever Hurt (Half As Bad As Losing You) 6 The Grand Tour 7 Her Name Is 8 Bartenders Blues 9 Still Doin Time 10 She Thinks I Still Care 11 Who’s Gonna Fill Their Shoes 12 The One I Loved Back Then (Corvette Song) 13 Walk Through This World With Me 14 I’m A One Woman Man 15 Kiss An Angel Good Morning 16 Tender Years 17 Why Baby Why 18 Borrowed Angel 19 White Lightning 20 The Window Up Above 21 The Race Is On 22 He Stopped Loving Her Today Related Music albums to Once You’ve Had The Best by George Jones George Jones - All-Time Greatest Hits - Volume I George Jones - The Race Is On / She Thinks I Still Care George Jones - All-Time Greatest Hits Volume I George Jones - Nothing Ever Hurt Me (Half As Bad As Losing You) Tammy Wynette & George Jones - The World Of Tammy Wynette & George Jones George Jones - The One I Loved Back Then (The Corvette Song) George Jones - George Jones George Jones - Who's Gonna Fill Their Shoes George Jones - Super Hits George Jones - The Grand Tour George Jones - Live With The Possum Tom Jones - Tender Loving Care.
    [Show full text]
  • Television a La Carte: American Broadcasting Cos
    THIS VERSION DOES NOT CONTAIN PAGE NUMBERS. PLEASE CONSULT THE PRINT OR ONLINE DATABASE VERSIONS FOR THE PROPER CITATION INFORMATION. NOTE TELEVISION A LA CARTE: AMERICAN BROADCASTING COS. V. AEREO AND HOW FEDERAL COURTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW ARE IMPACTING THE FUTURE OF THE MEDIUM Andrew Fraser I. INTRODUCTION Somewhere in Brooklyn, a large warehouse holds a bundle of over one thousand rabbit-ear antennas.1 In many ways these antennas resemble the ones that rested on top of generations of older television sets before the advent of cable, except for one small fact—these rabbit-ear antennas are each roughly the size of a dime.2 It is ironic that this ancient, seemingly outdated piece of television technology might signal the medium’s newest direction, but with Aereo at the helm, this may actually be the case. Aereo is a technology platform currently available exclusively in New York City that airs live broadcast television through the Internet to a subscriber’s mobile device, computer, or web-enabled television.3 When an Aereo subscriber wishes to watch a broadcast, he or she instructs an assigned Aereo antenna to capture signals from the public airwaves and to transmit them over the Internet to the subscriber’s mobile device.4 No two subscribers ever use the same antenna at the same time, and Aereo also offers DVR recording technology, so subscribers can watch shows live or recorded.5 With this incredible merging of both old and new technology, Aereo could have an enormous impact on the way consumers watch television, assuming that it can first survive what promise to be some intense legal challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pdf) Download
    Artist Song 2 Unlimited Maximum Overdrive 2 Unlimited Twilight Zone 2Pac All Eyez On Me 3 Doors Down When I'm Gone 3 Doors Down Away From The Sun 3 Doors Down Let Me Go 3 Doors Down Behind Those Eyes 3 Doors Down Here By Me 3 Doors Down Live For Today 3 Doors Down Citizen Soldier 3 Doors Down Train 3 Doors Down Let Me Be Myself 3 Doors Down Here Without You 3 Doors Down Be Like That 3 Doors Down The Road I'm On 3 Doors Down It's Not My Time (I Won't Go) 3 Doors Down Featuring Bob Seger Landing In London 38 Special If I'd Been The One 4him The Basics Of Life 98 Degrees Because Of You 98 Degrees This Gift 98 Degrees I Do (Cherish You) 98 Degrees Feat. Stevie Wonder True To Your Heart A Flock Of Seagulls The More You Live The More You Love A Flock Of Seagulls Wishing (If I Had A Photograph Of You) A Flock Of Seagulls I Ran (So Far Away) A Great Big World Say Something A Great Big World ft Chritina Aguilara Say Something A Great Big World ftg. Christina Aguilera Say Something A Taste Of Honey Boogie Oogie Oogie A.R. Rahman And The Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho Aaliyah Age Ain't Nothing But A Number Aaliyah I Can Be Aaliyah I Refuse Aaliyah Never No More Aaliyah Read Between The Lines Aaliyah What If Aaron Carter Oh Aaron Aaron Carter Aaron's Party (Come And Get It) Aaron Carter How I Beat Shaq Aaron Lines Love Changes Everything Aaron Neville Don't Take Away My Heaven Aaron Neville Everybody Plays The Fool Aaron Tippin Her Aaron Watson Outta Style ABC All Of My Heart ABC Poison Arrow Ad Libs The Boy From New York City Afroman Because I Got High Air
    [Show full text]
  • MCA-500 Reissue Series
    MCA 500 Discography by David Edwards, Mike Callahan & Patrice Eyries © 2018 by Mike Callahan MCA-500 Reissue Series: MCA 500 - Uncle Pen - Bill Monroe [1974] Reissue of Decca DL 7 5348. Jenny Lynn/Methodist Preacher/Goin' Up Caney/Dead March/Lee Weddin Tune/Poor White Folks//Candy Gal/Texas Gallop/Old Grey Mare Came Tearing Out Of The Wilderness/Heel And Toe Polka/Kiss Me Waltz MCA 501 - Sincerely - Kitty Wells [1974] Reissue of Decca DL 7 5350. Sincerely/All His Children/Bedtime Story/Reno Airport- Nashville Plane/A Bridge I Just Can't Burn/Love Is The Answer//My Hang Up Is You/Just For What I Am/It's Four In The Morning/Everybody's Reaching Out For Someone/J.J. Sneed MCA 502 - Bobby & Sonny - Osborne Brothers [1974] Reissue of Decca DL 7 5356. Today I Started Loving You Again/Ballad Of Forty Dollars/Stand Beside Me, Behind Me/Wash My Face In The Morning/Windy City/Eight More Miles To Louisville//Fireball Mail/Knoxville Girl/I Wonder Why You Said Goodbye/Arkansas/Love's Gonna Live Here MCA 503 - Love Me - Jeannie Pruett [1974] Reissue of Decca DL 7 5360. Love Me/Hold To My Unchanging Love/Call On Me/Lost Forever In Your Kiss/Darlin'/The Happiest Girl In The Whole U.S.A.//To Get To You/My Eyes Could Only See As Far As You/Stay On His Mind/I Forgot More Than You'll Ever Know (About Her)/Nothin' But The Love You Give Me MCA 504 - Where is the Love? - Lenny Dee [1974] Reissue of Decca DL 7 5366.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Online Broadcast Repeater Service Locast.Org Goes National Football Fans in Dallas Will Watch Games Without Paying a Fortune
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 2, 2018 Contact: Brian Hess, [email protected] ​ ​ Free Online Broadcast Repeater Service Locast.org Goes National Football Fans in Dallas Will Watch Games without Paying a Fortune. Three More Major Markets to Launch Soon. August 2, 2018 (New York, NY) - The non-profit Sports Fans Coalition NY (SFCNY) today launched Locast.org, a free local broadcast video streaming service currently available in New York City, to the people of Dallas, TX, and announced the expansion of Locast.org in the coming weeks to three other top-10 markets. Locast.org today also premiered a new and improved user interface and a Locast Android App, making it easier than ever before to watch local broadcast stations online. “Broadcast TV since its inception was supposed to be free and available to the public, especially during football season, when every local professional game is on broadcast,” said SFCNY Chairman David Goodfriend. “Dallas is football country and this fall, Dallas fans will be able to watch their home team online for free,” said Goodfriend. “Texas taxpayers helped to pay for the stadiums, roads, ramps, and rights-of-way that make the games possible; they own the public airwaves that carry the games on TV; and they deserve to watch their home team play, even if they can’t get an over-the-air broadcast signal or don’t want to pay for cable or satellite,” added Goodfriend. Launched on January 11, 2018 in New York City, Locast.org streams almost every full power broadcast channel in a local market to anyone with an Internet connection located within the relevant Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA).
    [Show full text]