Case Study #1:

In July 2010, in proceedings brought by PPCA in respect of a Queensland nightclub, the Federal Magistrates Court issued a judgment against All Girls Entertainment Pty Limited as well as the director and former director of that company. The Court ordered that the company and the directors pay PPCA $145,332.95 in tariff E1 licence fees for the venue (this included back fees for the whole of the three year period over which PPCA had been writing to the club about its licensing obligations) as well as interest on that sum of almost $15,000.00. The Court also awarded PPCA additional damages of $90,000, sending a clear message to copyright infringers that such conduct will not be tolerated. PPCA’s legal costs of bringing the case are to be paid. Lastly, the Court made an order stopping the use of PPCA sound recordings at the nightclub, unless the use was properly licensed. 

Case Study #2:

For several years, PPCA had been communicating with an entertainment complex in Western Australia which regularly hires its premises out to third parties for music festivals, weddings and other functions. According to the Copyright Act, the occupier of the premises, typically the owner, has the primary responsibility to hold all necessary music licences. However, the owners of the entertainment complex refused to obtain licences for any third party events held at the complex involving the public performance of sound recordings because they hired the premises out for these purposes.

PPCA’s inspector attended a music festival held at the entertainment complex and identified protected sound recordings playing. In December 2009, PPCA commenced proceedings against the owners of the entertainment complex using the evidence obtained at the music festival. The matter settled in April 2010. PPCA obtained licence fees for the inspected festival, interest on unpaid fees, legal costs and additional damages to reflect the owners’ ongoing infringement of copyright. The owners also submitted a PPCA licence application in respect of private functions (e.g., weddings) held at the entertainment complex.

Case study #3:

On 1 July 2008, PPCA commenced copyright infringement proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court against a large fitness centre in South Australia. PPCA’s licensing department had been communicating with the fitness centre for a number of years in an effort to ensure that it was licensed appropriately for the public performance of sound recordings used in its fitness classes. The owners of the fitness centre refused to comply with their licensing obligations. As a result, the fitness centre was referred to PPCA’s National Enforcement Program and PPCA conducted an inspection of the premises.

During their inspection, PPCA investigators obtained evidence of copyright infringement in protected sound recordings. PPCA’s legal department wrote to the owners of the fitness centre and attempted to contact them by telephone on many occasions with a view to resolving its claim without recourse to legal proceedings. However, the legal department failed to receive any response from the fitness centre.

Consequently, as stated above, proceedings were issued in the Federal Magistrates Court. The matter was set for a trial hearing on 8 December, however, it settled shortly prior on 3 December 2008, in favour of PPCA. The owners paid PPCA the sum of $30,000.00, which includes PPCA licence fees dating back to February 2003, interest on the backdated licence fees, legal costs and additional damages to compensate for the copyright infringement which took place at the centre.

Case study #4:

PPCA sued a popular Adelaide nightclub for infringement of copyright after an inspection of the nightclub revealed the unlicensed performance of copyright protected music on its premises. The Federal Magistrates Court awarded PPCA damages (licence fees including back fees for prior periods), interest on unpaid fees and legal costs in the sum of $58,080.96. In addition, recognising the nightclub’s deliberate and blatant disregard for copyright law, the Federal Magistrates Court awarded PPCA additional damages in the amount of $85,000.00.

Case Study #5:

In December 2009, PPCA commenced proceedings against a hotel venue in Victoria for the unauthorised public performance of sound recordings. The respondents in the proceedings were a company registered as the owner of the hotel together with the current and former directors of that company. PPCA sued the former director on the basis that he/she was involved with the hotel at the time that PPCA had obtained evidence. The matter has now settled with the respondents paying PPCA licence fees for the current and back period, interest on all unpaid licence fees, legal costs and additional damages.

In 2010, similiar processedings have been commenced and settled against hotel venues in Queensland and South Australia.

Case study #6: 

PPCA successfully sued a prominent fashion accessory chain comprising 44 stores for copyright infringement after an inspection of one of its stores indicated the performance of copyright protected music without the requisite sound recording licence. The matter was settled and PPCA obtained licence fees in relation to all 44 of the chain’s stores for the previous year and ensured that the chain attained a PPCA licence for all of its stores through its music service provider for the current year. PPCA also recovered its legal costs together with interest on the unpaid licence fees until the date of settlement.

Case study #7:

PPCA inspected a well-known restaurant in Brisbane and found unauthorised public performance of protected sound recordings on its premises. On the basis of the evidence obtained during the inspection, PPCA recently sued the restaurant. The matter was settled and PPCA obtained damages in the form of current licence fees and back fees for prior periods, interest on unpaid fees and legal costs.

Case Study #8:

On 21 January 2009, PPCA lodged proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court against a hotel in Tasmania for infringement of copyright in music videos. The matter settled out of court in February 2009. As part of settlement, the owners of the hotel applied for a PPCA licence and paid all backdated fees, interest on those fees, PPCA’s legal costs and additional damages.