music licensing

6

iHeartMedia proposes reducing webcast royalty rates by 80%

Posted on by Brad Hill

by Brad Hill

iHeartMedia has proposed reducing the royalty rate webcasters pay to artists and labels, cutting the existing rate set for terrestrial webcasters by 80 percent. The suggested royalty amount is less than half of Pandora’s suggested rate, which in turn is about half the rate suggested by SoundExchange, which represents music labels. iHeart’s argument is based on its negotiated deal with Warner Music Group, which provides lower royalty rates in exchange for greater exposure of Warner music. Continue Reading →

2

Webcast Rate Proposals Now Public for 2016-2020; What Will the Copyright Royalty Board Consider?

Posted on by Brad Hill

by David Oxenford

As webcasters have submitted their royalty-rate arguments to the Copyright Royalty Board, the fight for favorable music licensing rates shifts into high gear. Broadcast law attorney Davide Oxenford takes stock of key points in the submitted briefs, clearly summarizing complex considerations. Continue Reading →

Pandora announces new general counsel

Posted on by Anna Washenko

Pandora has appointed Steve Bené as its new general counsel. Bené joins the online radio service from Electronic Arts, where he held the same position and worked on negotiations with music and movie studios. In his role at Pandora, Bené will be a member of the company’s executive leadership team and will oversee all legal operations. Continue Reading →

College radio webcasting gets quick settlement for 2016-2020 royalty period

Posted on by Brad Hill

College radio stations, represented by College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), will see their webcast royalty rates for the use of music recordings unchanged in the looming 2016-2020 royalty period. Most stations will use a simplified “proxy” reporting method to SoundExchange, an easier administrative process than the fastidious reporting that commercial stations must supply. Continue Reading →

Webcast parties file arguments with Copyright Royalty Board; we look at NAB and SoundExchange

Posted on by Brad Hill

Webcast companies have filed written arguments with the Copyright Royalty Board, as the streaming industry moves inexorably toward a new licensing period for the use of music recordings starting in 2016. The filing deadline was last night at midnight.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and SoundExchange have both filed their documents. The two petitions use some of the same language, but to opposite purposes. We examine both arguments. Continue Reading →

Apple reportedly working with labels to reduce streaming subscription price

Posted on by RAIN News Staff

Apple might be preparing a heart-to-heart conversation with its music content providers — the record labels. Apple has reportedly reached out to major labels in an effort to negotiate licensing changes that will let it reduce the monthly subscription price of Beats Music. That might be a struggle. But if any company has a track record of working with record labels to reshape the music industry, it is Apple. Continue Reading →

Verstandig Broadcasting perseveres in royalty-exemption case

Posted on by Brad Hill

Inside Radio tells us that Verstandig Broadcasting is pushing back against the recent magistrate recommendation that the case be thrown out. Verstandig is suing SoundExchange, seeking an exemption from paying royalties for recordings used in the online streams of Verstandig stations. the case hinges on an argued loophole in the Copyright Act, which potentially allows a royalty exemption for retransmitted music in a 150-mile radius, representing a typical terrestrial signal reach. It’s all a bit obscure, but significant. Continue Reading →

1

Rosanne Cash: Streaming is “dressed-up piracy”

Posted on by Brad Hill

The latest outburst in the high-profile Spotify debate does more than just criticize streaming, it condemns it. Rosanne Cash, who testified in a congressional music-licensing hearing this summer, stirred up mixed reactions with two recent Facebook posts in which she equated streaming with music piracy, and also continued her impassioned campaign to alter U.S. copyright regulations. Continue Reading →

1

The SoundCloud Conundrum: The intersection of copyright holders and revenue sharing on user-generated content platforms.

Posted on by Michael Spinelli

by Mike Spinelli

SoundCloud’s kettle boiled over this summer when major labels (“the majors”) started to enforce their intellectual property rights upsetting the service’s large community of Producers and DJs. After seven years of maintaining the same service, SoundCloud took drastic steps to change its design, and more importantly, its functionality. Many of the functionality changes likely occurred from the growing concern over potentially copyright-infringing works that inhabit the platform. Although SoundCloud has remedied the situation temporarily to satisfy the smaller artists, it could run into further problems down the road. Continue Reading →

1

Judge reduces punitive damages against Michael Robertson in MP3Tunes.com case

Posted on by Brad Hill

In March we covered the first ruling in a years-long court case against Michael Robertson, founder of MP3Tunes.com. The verdict went badly for Robertson, who faced a bill for $48-million in damages and punitive compensation. Now the presiding judge has reduced the punitive component of the verdict to one-tenth of its original size — from $7.5-million to $750,000. Continue Reading →

David Oxenford: Court Ruling for pre-1972 Music: What Does It Mean?

Posted on by David Oxenford

by David Oxenford

“This is a very surprising decision,” writes broadcast attorney David Oxenford in this comprehensive analysis of a federal court ruling in California. Looking forward, much depends on whether the surprising decision is upheld in appeal, and whather it is replicated in other courtrooms and states. “If this decision were upheld, the potential ramifications for business in California could be great.” Oxenford, who wrote about “The Summer of Copyright” this year, declares the start of what could be an equally contentious new season — “The Autumn of Copyright has begun!” Continue Reading →