Copyright Tribunal Decision, page-6

To make a long story short, it looks like both CAL and especially Meltwater have not been forthcoming with the truth in their dealings in the case to date. Specifically, clip rates provided to the judge have not been accurate and so have underestimated the damage the differential rates have had on the Isentia business. Judge not happy. He now wants to hear the whole case in one go next year and include all parties, including Streem.

Because of these issues, Isentia has pushed the limits to take more ground from judge on various contentious matters in the case. I don't understand all the issues, but the interim license is the key issue for now to allow Isentia to compete on an equal footing. It appears some ground may be given here once CAL/Meltwater reveal the real clip rates and licensing deal.

Longer term it will be good as Isentia has more bargaining power because of the 'dishonesty' of Meltwater/CAL and because the Meltwater deal was better than revealed previously. But short term, it has delayed a final decision.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 At the directions hearing on 12 February 2019, Isentia still did not know whether Meltwater accepts that the Item 44 CS rate is the relevant Meltwater Press Clip rate or whether Meltwater contends that the Variation Rate applies. Isentia says that the state of affairs on this topic is unsatisfactory.

22 The Tribunal agrees. It is unfortunate that: the real facts were not made plain about Meltwater’s actual Press Clip rate in the course of the Meltwater and Isentia proceedings respectively; that between 26 November 2018 and 12 February 2019 Meltwater’s position has not been made very clear in this age of instant contact and communication; and, that time has been wasted in not bringing the final resolution of the terms of the Isentia interim licence to fruition by the date of the earlier directions hearing.

23 In light of these uncertainties, the Tribunal asked Mr Hennessy SC, for Meltwater, whether he had anything to say on this topic. Mr Hennessy said that he had not seen any material on this issue and thus he had nothing to say on the topic.

24 In order to deal with this problem of the inaccuracy in the Meltwater Press rate leading to uncertainty on the rate as actually applied, counsel for Isentia, Ms Thomas, says that Isentia’s interim position can be preserved so far as the interim licence is concerned by adopting proposed Note 10(a) as part of the proposed Interim Orders to be made in the Isentia matter. Note 10(b) is designed to accommodate a review after three months. CAL agrees with proposed Note 10. The Tribunal is minded to incorporate Note 10 in its entirety.