The Turtles now targeting Pandora with class-action copyright infringement suit

gavel canvasThe Turtles have filed a class-action suit against Pandora, claiming $25 million in damages for copyright infringement. The band’s hit songs date from before 1972 when federal copyright protections took effect, but it is arguing that Pandora infringed on copyright by playing its music without permission and now owes it royalties under California law. The New York Times reported that pre-1972 songs only account for about 5% of the music played on Pandora. A representative from the online radio company said that the platform was confident in its actions, noting that Pandora pays separate songwriting royalties on all its music, including those tunes from before the pivotal date.

The band must be feeling good after a first success with its suit against Sirius XM on the same topic in California, which could net $100 million in damages for group unless the satellite radio company manages to win an appeal. That decision is being hailed as a major victory for artists against online and digital music services. But that initial success does not mean there’s any assurance that the courts will rule the same way in this instance.

The nature of copyright law means that the topic will be handled in a piecemeal style for some time. Since there is no federal statute covering pre-1972 copyright payments, the lawsuits are rolling in at the state level. The Turtles’ action against Sirius XM also included challenges in Florida and New York, but those decisions have not come in yet. The various district and state courts also seem inconsistent in their treatments of pre-1972 royalty cases; Sirius XM seemed to be on the brink of positive news in a similar California suit filed by major labels.

A bill called The Respect Act was introduced in Congress earlier this year in an effort to create a national standard for pre-1972 music performance royalties. It has the backing of major performing rights organization SoundExchange, but that bill has been charged with not going far enough with the powers granted to those performers from past decades.

Anna Washenko

Related Posts

Spotify to hike subscription rates in France in dispute with a targeted tax hike

In what seems like a protest action in addition to a logical finance decision, Spotify will raise its subscription rate in France to compensate for a new tax levied by the French government. A public blog post which is both aggressive and defensive makes a case for the streaming giant. “Se simply can’t absorb any additional taxes.” Spotify also disputes whether taxed revenue in France gets where it is supposed to go — assisting artists.

ASCAP reports record-breaking revenues for music creators in 2023 annual report

In ASCAP’s just-released annual report for 2023, the performing rights organization announces record-breaking royalty collections on behalf of songwriters, composers, and music publisher members. Click for details and charts.

You Missed

Spotify Q1: 1B Euros; total revenue +20%; 615 monthly users

Steve Goldstein: Navigating The Real Risks Of AI-Audio

Steve Goldstein: Navigating The Real Risks Of AI-Audio

Audacy Sports launches today, solving a “clunky” problem and better serving advertisers

Audacy Sports launches today, solving a “clunky” problem and better serving advertisers

RAIN Notes: Wednesday, April 24

RAIN Notes: Wednesday, April 24

Acast annual report: Defending and defining the podcast ad market

Acast annual report: Defending and defining the podcast ad market

Spotify exits the IAB; podcasting particularly affected; a signal of extraordinay self-sufficiency

Spotify exits the IAB; podcasting particularly affected; a signal of extraordinay self-sufficiency
Enjoy great online radio at AccuRadio!