Black Friday Sale! Save huge on InvestingProGet up to 60% off

Pandora defeats ASCAP, music publishers in royalties appeal

Published 06/05/2015, 21:31
© Reuters. Traders work at the kiosk where Pandora internet radio is traded on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange
VIV
-

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in Manhattan rejected appeals by a music licensing group and music publishers that could have forced Internet radio service Pandora Media Inc to pay higher royalties and have access to fewer songs.

In a case closely watched in the music industry, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected an effort by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers to charge Pandora more to licence its music from 2013 to 2015.

It also said rules governing ASCAP licensing "unambiguously" barred music publishers from negotiating higher rates for their works with "new media" users such as Pandora, even as ASCAP licensed the same works to other users.

Vivendi (PARIS:VIV) SA's Universal Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing and EMI Music Publishing had withdrawn their new media licensing rights from ASCAP, while retaining membership in that group.

Wednesday's decision is a defeat for publishers and songwriters who believe growth in streaming music has resulted in unfairly low licensing rates.

It upheld rulings by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan federal court, which reviews ASCAP rate disputes under a 1941 antitrust consent decree.

Pandora is the most popular Internet radio service. The Oakland, California-based company last month said it has more than 250 million users, including 79.2 million "active" users, who listen to 1.77 billion hours of music each month.

ASCAP Chief Executive Elizabeth Matthews said the decision shows the need to change licensing rules that are "completely out of step" with how people listen to music today.

Universal was not immediately available for comment. Sony/ATV, which administers the EMI catalogue, had no comment.

Kenneth Steinthal, a King & Spalding partner representing Pandora, said the decision helps ensure "equal treatment under the consent decree, including the right to perform all works by all publishers that are ASCAP members."

The 2nd Circuit said Cote did not commit "clear error" by requiring Pandora to pay ASCAP a royalty rate of just 1.85 percent of revenue to use its songs from 2011 through 2015. ASCAP proposed an escalating rate that peaked at 3 percent.

Moreover, the court said it could not "rewrite the decree" to let publishers pick and choose how works are licensed.

"The licensing of works through ASCAP is offered to publishers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis," it said.

ASCAP has about 525,000 members, and represents music from artists like Leonard Bernstein, Beyoncé, Duke Ellington, George Gershwin, Alan Jackson, Jay-Z and Katy Perry.

© Reuters. Traders work at the kiosk where Pandora internet radio is traded on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange

The cases are American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers et al v. Pandora Media Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 14-1158, 14-1161, 14-1246.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.