Judge Rules Pandora Must Pay ASCAP 1.85 Percent of Annual Revenue

ASCAP CEO “pleased” with court ruling that the streaming service must pay more than traditional radio

A rate court judge ruled on Friday that Pandora must pay the America Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) 1.85 percent of the streaming music service’s annual revenue.

The amount was lower than the rate increase ASCAP sought, but higher than Pandora wanted.

The streaming service was pushing for the rate to be between 1.7 percent — what traditional radio pays — and 1.85 percent, the rate it had been paying since 2011. ASCAP wanted 2.5 percent for 2013 and 3 percent in 2014 and 2015 — at which point the term expires.

Judge Denise Cote presided over the proceedings. The decision was made under seal, but ASCAP confirmed the details, first reported by Billboard, for TheWrap.

See video: Lady Gaga Gets Puked on in the Name of Art at SXSW

ASCAP CEO John LoFrumento applauded the decision but said the market rates for Internet radio is “substantially higher” than the 1.85 percent rate, and urged review of the regulatory structure for music licensing.

“Streaming is growing in popularity — and so is the value of music on that platform,” LoFrumento said in a statement. “We are pleased the court recognized the need for Pandora to pay a higher rate than traditional radio stations.

“But recent agreements negotiated without the artificial constraints of a consent decree make clear that the market rate for Internet radio is substantially higher than 1.85 percent,” he continued. “And today’s decision further demonstrates the need to review the entire regulatory structure, including the decades-old consent decrees that govern PRO licensing, to ensure they reflect the realities of today’s music landscape.”

See video: Jimmy Kimmel Outs SXSW’s Biggest Posers With ‘Lie Witness News’ Music Segment

Pandora confirmed the order under seal, but said the company “cannot comment until it is publicly released.”

The decision was filed under seal pending the determination of what (if any) confidential information in the decision should be redacted.

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.

Comments