Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Department of Justice To Review ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees

doj_main

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last week that it will be reviewing both ASCAP and BMI’s consent decrees. The consent decrees, originally entered in 1941, were created to level the playing field and give businesses requesting licenses a competitive edge. When these consent decrees were created, nearly all of American music was controlled by ASCAP and BMI (which still holds true). However, the biggest difference now is their licensees have dramatically changed from the mom and pop shops they once were.

Elizabeth Matthews, Executive VP and General Counsel at ASCAP, explained at the ASCAP Music Expo this past April:

“Today, [our licensees] are multi-billion dollar, publicly traded corporations. They are all lawyered up. We’re talking about the Comcasts of the world. Disney, ABC, NBC, Google. They can take care of themselves.” She continued, “We believe… these consent decrees… are not working anymore. They don’t reflect the realities of how content gets distributed, how music gets consumed and it’s creating a problem throughout the entire music ecosystem.” – Elizabeth Matthews, Executive VP and General Counsel, ASCAP

Under these consent decrees, the moment someone requests a license from ASCAP or BMI, ASCAP or BMI must say yes. Before they can negotiate price.

Matthews used the analogy: “[It's like] if you wanted to buy a house and you couldn’t come to an agreement on the price of the house, you could still move in and redecorate and they can’t kick you out.”

And during negotiations, if the licensee doesn’t like the rate that ASCAP or BMI set, they can take them to ‘rate court.’ This is what happened with Pandora.

In Fall 2012, Pandora took ASCAP to rate court. The current royalty rate that Pandora pays to SoundExchange for the sound recording is about 14 times higher than the royalty rate Pandora pays to ASCAP or BMI for the composition. Under the current consent decree, ASCAP’s lawyers could not cite the sound recording royalty rate to plead their case for higher royalties.

The DOJ has not updated ASCAP’s consent decree since 2001 or BMI’s since 1994. Times have changed quite dramatically since these updates. iTunes, YouTube, Spotify and Pandora have forced the music industry to change the way it does business. However, ASCAP and BMI’s hands are tied to these outdated Consent Decrees.

The Songwriter Equity Act, which seeks to change the law altogether (section 114 of the US Copyright Act which deals with these consent decrees), is making headway in both Congress and the Senate. Representative Tom Marino (R-PA) a strong supporter of the bill, mentioned on April 25th that he believes that they could have a piece of legislation before the end the year. He said that the Judiciary committee is about 1/3 of the way through the evaluation process.

hand Congress Wants To Hear Your Songs And Stories To Help Fix The Copyright Law.

hand Songwriters Are One Step Closer To Higher Royalties

“The Department understands that ASCAP, BMI and some other firms in the music industry believe that the Consent Decrees need to be modified to account for changes in how music is delivered to and experienced by listeners. The Department’s review will explore whether the Consent Decrees should be modified and, if so, what modifications would be appropriate.” – Department of Justice

The DOJ Requests Public Comments

The DOJ wants to hear from songwriters, composers, publishers, licensees and service providers “relevant to whether the Consent Decrees continue to protect competition.”

Specifically they are looking for comments on the following issues:

  • Do the Consent Decrees continue to serve important competitive purposes today? Why or why not? Are there provisions that are no longer necessary to protect competition? Are there provisions that are ineffective in protecting competition?
  • What, if any, modifications to the Consent Decrees would enhance competition and efficiency?
  • Do differences between the two Consent Decrees adversely affect competition?
  • How easy or difficult is it to acquire in a useful format the contents of ASCAP’s or BMI’s repertory? How, if at all, does the current degree of repertory transparency impact competition? Are modifications of the transparency requirements in the Consent Decrees warranted, and if so, why?
  • Should the Consent Decrees be modified to allow rights holders to permit ASCAP or BMI to license their performance rights to some music users but not others? If such partial or limited grants of licensing rights to ASCAP and BMI are allowed, should there be limits on how such grants are structured?
  • Should the rate-making function currently performed by the rate court be changed to a system of mandatory arbitration? What procedures should be considered to expedite resolution of fee disputes? When should the payment of interim fees begin and how should they be set?
  • Should the Consent Decrees be modified to permit rights holders to grant ASCAP and BMI rights in addition to “rights of public performance”?

All comments should be submitted to ASCAP-BMI-decree-review@usdoj.gov by August 6, 2014 and will be posted in their entirety for public review.

 

Ari Herstand is a Los Angeles based singer/songwriter and the creator of the music business advice blog, Ari’s Take. Listen to his new album, Brave Enough, on Spotify or download it on BandCamp. Follow him on Twitter: @aristake

 

blue bar background graphic
Comments (7)
  1. Spoken X Digital Media Group

    We used the latest scanning phone code technology and dropped one thousand one hundred and sixty six , major mobile music media store location in 53 pay by mobile countries. . And then we multiplied the 22 million asset data base formula and concluded an amount of song access inside emerging markets to be 25,652,000,000=25.6 billion on the last drop off–run. . . This of course is wholesale and not flamboyant Apple retail. . .


    Reply
  2. FarePlay

    Copyright revision is our best shot at improving compensation for artists in the short term. You would not believe how much power you have by participating.

    Telling that they’re are no comments, aside from the spam. It may not be sexy, but it is our best shot in the short term.


    Reply
  3. TuneHunter

    The industry is plying USSR era petite payout games with the government in place of simple change to “fair use doctrine”.
    It would allow all digital media to become merchandise again.
    We need to have just proper environment allowing for monetization – our property cannot be taken from our home while we are asleep by Shazam, Google Voice Search or lyrics ID guy and given to freeloader without our control. They should be allowed to trespass our property only for if they participate in monetization process.

    We have to UNITE with books and CHANGE FAIR USE DOCTRINE or Google will with help of court system will convert all goods to ADVERTISING.

    IN THE MEANTIME GOOGLE WINS!
    ….2nd Circ. Backs Fair Use Shield For Book-Scanning Project
    The Second Circuit on Tuesday ruled that a Google Inc.-backed project to digitize university library collections is covered by the fair use doctrine, turning away the bulk of a challenge lodged by a coalition of authors’ associations.


    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Consent degree should stay in force for restaurants and public venues. These places are not the Comcasts of the world and ASCAP/BMI would strongarm them if they could.


    Reply
  5. arthurjowens

    While Pandora is a favorite whipping boy of DMN, Ari is getting played here by ASCAP. The rates payable to SoundExchange for the sound recording are multiples higher than the rates paid to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for all non interactive streaming music, which includes Pandora and all of internet radio. That’s how the royalties are structured, but it doesn’t mean the rates payable to SoundExchange are the more logical or market based.

    Here’s the story you’re missing: ASCAP & BMI entered into a January 2012 agreement with terrestrial broadcasters, where ASCAP voluntarily agreed to accept LOWER rates from webcasters that were owned by terrestrial radio stations. As a member of ASCAP, I consider that an outrage, and you can be pretty sure that the General Counsel for ASCAP had to approve that deal. So perhaps instead of focusing on what Pandora tried to do and failed at, maybe you might dig into why ASCAP voluntarily agreed to a deal to take LESS money for its members, with the only reason being that the broadcasters in question were terrestrial broadcasters as well as webcasters. That back room deal actually happened, and is screwing every member of ASCAP this very minute.

    For anyone who cares to check background on my comment, check Bloomberg News: http://bloom.bg/TLnQ3E, and/or for context at my blog: http://bit.ly/1v06YDN


    Reply
  6. John Clam Chop Etheridge

    Thanks to Eliott Randall for sharing this. I’ll be back to comment, as soon as I have another POT of coffee!


    Reply
  7. steve gauthier

    ascap and bmi way over charge they represent the same artists and if you 5 people for karaoke they want to charge as if your full to capacity


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


eight + 8 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!