G.R. No. 184661 , February 25, 2025
FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS AND PUBLISHERS, PETITIONER, VS. WOLFPAC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) entered into Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with Wolfpac Communications, Inc. (Wolfpac), authorizing the conversion of FILSCAP’s musical works into downloadable ringtones for sale. FILSCAP later discovered an advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer promoting the downloading of ringback tones from a website operated by Wolfpac. The website featured a “pre-listening function” allowing a potential consumer to listen to a 20-second portion of a song before downloading. FILSCAP filed a complaint for copyright infringement, alleging this pre-listening function constituted an unauthorized “public performance,” requiring a license and royalty payments. Wolfpac defended itself by claiming the assignment for conversion and sale inherently included the right to market the ringtones through pre-listening, that the function was “communication to the public” and not “public performance,” and that its use qualified as “fair use” as the samples had no independent commercial value.

ISSUE

1. Whether the use of sample ringtones in the pre-listening feature of Wolfpac’s website constitutes “public performance” or “communication to the public.”
2. Whether such use qualifies as “fair use” of FILSCAP’s copyrighted work.

RULING

Justice Singh, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, ruled as follows:
1. On Public Performance vs. Communication to the Public: The pre-listening function constitutes “communication to the public” and not “public performance.” The key distinction lies in the method of making the work available. “Communication to the public” under the Intellectual Property Code involves making a work available to the public by wire or wireless means, allowing access at a place and time individually chosen by them. Here, Wolfpac made the works available via the internet, and they became audible only when a user clicked play, accessible at a time and place of the user’s choosing. “Public performance” requires making the recorded sounds audible in a place where the public is or can be present, perceivable without the need for communication. Since the works were not audible until user-initiated and were accessed on-demand, the elements of “communication to the public” were satisfied.
2. On Fair Use: The use of the ringtone samples on the pre-listening page does not qualify as fair use. The two elements of copyright infringement are present: (a) FILSCAP established ownership of the valid copyright through deeds of assignment from the composers, and (b) Wolfpac exercised an economic right (“communication to the public”) without authorization, as the MOAs did not cover use in a pre-listening device. Wolfpac’s defense of fair use fails. The purpose and character of the use was commercial, aimed at marketing and promoting the sale of ringtones. The nature of the copyrighted work—creative musical compositions—favors protection. The amount and substantiality of the portion used (20-second samples) was significant, serving as a preview of the essence of the work to entice a purchase. The effect of the use upon the potential market was detrimental, as it exploited the copyrighted material for commercial gain without compensation to the rights holder, and such previews are increasingly used as a standalone service. Therefore, Wolfpac’s unauthorized “communication to the public” amounts to copyright infringement.