Peer, as plaintiff is claiming that the mere indexing of songs files they own is an infringement. In our case, where we sued them bcause they licensed the performance of others (through ASCAP and BMI) Peer claimed that the mere issuing of licenses (for money) is not infringement because o actual performance was proven and mere licensing (and fraudently posing as owner of rights) was not infringement. Under this Peer argument the mere licensing is not damaging.

On another prior case where Peer sued another publisher for infringement the Peer position was that mere licensing was infringement and demanded the maximum infringement for the sued party. Under this Peer argument, the mere licensing of their songs by the sued party was very damaging.

One would think that acutal licensing (for a fee), which is an implicit authorization to copy or perform, is more damaging to the owner than merely indexing or listing the song and that Peer’s theory was right when they claimed that licensing alone was infringement.

Perhaps someone can explain why publishers flip from one side of an argument to another whenever that is convenient and depending on wether you are an acuser or the acused of infringement?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Rick