G.R. No. 184661 , February 25, 2025
FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS AND PUBLISHERS, Petitioner, vs. WOLFPAC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP), an organization authorized by its member-composers to collect royalties, filed a complaint for copyright infringement against respondent Wolfpac Communications, Inc. (Wolfpac). Wolfpac had entered into Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with certain composers, authorizing it to convert their musical works into downloadable ringback tones and “to offer and sell” them to the public. To facilitate sales, Wolfpac advertised the works on a website featuring a 20-second pre-listening function, allowing potential consumers to preview a song before purchase. FILSCAP argued that Wolfpac did not secure licenses or pay royalties for this 20-second preview, constituting infringement. The ponencia (main decision) characterized the 20-second function as a “communication to the public,” found it unauthorized by the MOA and not covered by statutory limitations, but ultimately ruled it constituted fair use, thus absolving Wolfpac.

ISSUE

Whether Wolfpac’s use of the 20-second pre-listening function to advertise the musical works constituted copyright infringement, given the terms of the MOA which authorized Wolfpac “to offer and sell” the works.

RULING

Justice Lazaro-Javier, in her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred in the result of dismissing FILSCAP’s complaint but dissented from the ponencia’s reasoning. She held that Wolfpac was not liable for copyright infringement because FILSCAP and its member-composers had given their consent for the advertisement through the MOA. She interpreted the clause authorizing Wolfpac “to offer and sell” the musical works to the general public as necessarily encompassing reasonable means of advertising, which, given the intangible and audible nature of musical works, includes allowing the public to hear a sample (the 20-second preview) to make an informed purchase decision. She argued that the MOA’s clause stating the grant “does not include any right or authority not expressly authorized herein” merely reserves all other rights of the composer not granted (like reproduction or public performance for other purposes) and does not restrict the manner in which Wolfpac may execute its expressly granted authority to “offer.” Therefore, the preview function fell within the purview of “to offer,” and consent having been given, there was no infringement, making an analysis of fair use unnecessary.