Pandora recently won a key legal victory in its ongoing legal battle with songwriters, but there’s no end in sight for the legal spat between the company and the writers whose songs it plays.
At issue are the royalty fees that Pandora pays songwriters in exchange for the rights to their music catalogs. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers — the country’s oldest and largest performing rights organization — and Pandora have been battling in court for over two years years over royalty rates.
The latest ruling came in March, when New York District Court Judge Denise Cote decided that Pandora must pay ASCAP 1.85 percent the company’s annual revenue in exchange for a blanket license to the 100-year-old songwriters group’s musical library.
At first glance, Cote’s decision keeps the status quo: Cote rejected ASCAP’s arguments for a higher rate while also rejecting Pandora’s request to pay the lower rate that is awarded to to traditional AM/FM radio.
That order leaves in place a legal framework dating back to 1941, when the Justice Department set up a regulatory arrangement that decides how much customers, such as radio stations or restaurants, pay ASCAP for the rights to play their catalog of music in public. Under the order, ASCAP is obligated to issue a compulsory license to interested parties, and if the two groups fail to negotiate a royalty rate, the rate is set by a federal judge. But in setting the rate, judges are bound by a set of parameters that have thus far kept royalty payments at a rate Pandora can stomach.
Cote’s 136-page decision, however, contained language siding strongly with Oakland, Calif.-based Pandora — and leaving the songwriters plenty of reason for concern. She had some harsh words for music executives, writing that the “driving force was the music publishers’ envy at the rate their sound recording brethren had extracted from Pandora.”
Indeed, songwriters have plenty to envy about their performing peers. Pandora pays recording artists and record labels about 50 percent of its revenue, while only paying songwriters and publishers about 4 percent total (ASCAP is one of three major performing-rights organizations).
And the music industry is none too pleased about it. Cue Steven Tyler, the Aerosmith front man turned royalty-rate warrior.
Tyler was in Washington last week to speak up against the gulf in royalties rates, and he came to Capitol Hill with a three letter message: “W-T-F.”
“If the laws continue going the way they are, [songwriters] will never be paid fairly for [their] own participation,” Tyler said at an event hosted by the National Music Publishers Association. “So people, forgive me for being a little jaded about the state of copyright.”
Songwriters are stepping up efforts to get at the root of the problem: changing the regulatory system dating back to WWII.
“[The Pandora] ruling confirms what we already knew - songwriters will never be paid fairly as long as they must labor under World War II era consent decrees,” NMPA President and CEO David Israelite said in a statement.
And lawmakers, at least a few of them, are listening. Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia in February introduced legislation that would allow federal courts more flexibility in deciding licensing fees, like letting judges take into consideration how much record labels receive when setting rates for publishers.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte is also leading a comprehensive review of copyright laws, although reform would likely take years.
In the meantime, Pandora still isn’t in the clear. The Internet radio posted a profit at the end of 2013 for the first time in a few years. Pandora blames licensing payments for their ongoing financial struggles, recently citing rising payouts to record labels as the reason behind the company’s decision to raise subscription fees.
While the company escaped a blow in the ASCAP suit, it still faces a cloudy legal future. Pandora is locked in a similar legal fight with Broadcast Music Inc. — the second-largest performing-rights organization, better known as BMI, bound by a similar consent decree that has handicapped ASCAP — that is also seeking a bigger piece of Pandora’s financial pie.
And even if Pandora secures another win, some are concerned that major publishers, like Sony/ATV and Universal, could decide to pull their music catalogs from the ASCAP or BMI entirely in a last-ditch effort to get out from under the consent decree to negotiate fees directly with Pandora.
“If we can’t secure adjustments to the consent decrees, which were last modified before the introduction of the iPod, we’ll have no choice but to consider some radical steps in order to ensure our writers are fairly compensated in the rapidly changing marketplace,” Zach Horowitz, chairman of the Universal Music Publishing Group, told the New York Times.
If that happens, it would mean either a big leap in licensing fees or a smaller music library for Pandora.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”