ASCAP Names New Chief Strategist

ASCAP has appointed digital strategist Alice Kim as its new chief strategy and development officer. Reporting to ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews, Kim will oversee strategy, business development, product development, and administration services. Kim has been working in digital media for almost 20 years, most recently as a founder and principal for DigiConsult, a consulting practice providing strategic services to media clients focused on identifying and evaluating digital opportunities.CEO Matthews said in the announcement: "Alice has deep expertise of consumer behavior, trends in digital content adoption, and monetization models. She is uniquely positioned to help us harness our assets for the benefit of our songwriters, composers, and publishers, as well as our licensing partners, as we move into a world of increased data transparency and efficiency." Kim added: "I am excited to join the ASCAP executive team to develop and launch new ways of adding value to all of ASCAP's stakeholders who benefit from our collective licensing and efficient distribution model."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Pepe Promoted At ASCAP

4-1-15
ASCAP has promoted Christine Pepe to VP of business and legal affairs. Pepe will continue to be responsible for structuring and negotiating licenses and other agreements, as well as providing legal and business support to the ASCAP Foundation and the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts. Pepe joined ASCAP in 2008 as director of legal affairs. Prior to ASCAP, Pepe practiced copyright and entertainment law at the New York Office of McDermott, Will & Emery.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

ASCAP: Our Future is at Stake in Pandora Case

8-4-14

On Monday an unredacted version of ASCAP's appeal in its case against Pandora was unsealed in federal court, according to The Tennessean. The organization is in a bitter dispute with Pandora over rates the pure-play must pay songrwriters and publishing companies. Pandora now pays 1.85 percent of its revenue and ASCAP wants that number to be closer to 3 percent. ASCAP is also worried that a lower court ruling that allows publishers to negotiate directly with publishers will destroy the company. Here's some of what ASCAP filed in court...

"This is an appeal from two district court decisions that, if not reversed, threaten the viability of (ASCAP), this nation's oldest and largest performing rights organization," ASCAP argued in the brief. "Such an outcome would have a profoundly negative effect on songwriters, music publishers and music users themselves, disrupting the marketplace for the licensing of music performing rights that has functioned for many decades as a result of the well-established efficiencies provided by an ASCAP license."

ASCAP is arguing that the lower court misinterpreted the law and publishers should not be allowed to negotiate directly, which some believe, could lead to collusion, a claim the D.O.J is now investigating as part of its review of the ASCAP and BMU consent decrees. "The district court's ruling is also at odds with the history of ASCAP's consent decree, which shows that ASCAP and the Department of Justice deliberately removed from the decree the very prohibition on members reserving exclusive rights for themselves that the district court imposed."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Pandora Files Motion With ASCAP Rate Court

6-21-13

Ed Christman at Billboard gets this story from sources where he finds Pandora has filed a motion with the ASCAP rate court. According to Christman's sources, Pandora is asking the judge to rule on whether publishers like Universal, BMG Chrysalis and Warner/Chappell, which have all filed a revocable notice with ASCAP of their intention to withdraw certain limited ?New Media? rights as of July 1, are in fact obligated to keep those digital rights at ASCAP for the purposes of Pandora licensing. Read his full story HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

ASCAP to Pandora: Not So Fast

6-13-13

According to a representative from ASCAP Radio Ink spoke to last night, the Pandora purchase of a radio station may have been a waste of $600,000. ASCAP EVP of Licensing Vincent Candilora says "The RMLC license was designed for terrestrial radio stations and groups which earned the overwhelming share of their revenues from traditional radio, not an online streaming service that buys a radio station that ranks only 255th in the U.S. market as a ploy to undercut songwriters."

That statement makes it sound pretty clear that ASCAP has no plans to give Pandora a break on fees.

And that this issue will no doubt wind up in the courts. Pandora announced Tuesday that it had purchased KXMZ-FM, in Rapid City, South Dakota from Jeff Warshaw for $600,000. Pandora was hoping to use the purchase to level out the playing field when it comes to the fees it pays to ASCAP. Those fees are higher than what Clear Channel pays for iHeartRadio. Jay Cohen, who is a partner with the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison added, "Pandora, unlike radio, is essentially a wall to wall music service that has to pay a higher rate." 

(6/14/2013 2:16:13 AM)
So Pandora thinks that ASCAP and BMI should cut their pricing, so that Pandora stockholders and top executives can get rich? What gall and arrogance. Pandora deserves to fail miserably, and they will because they are making one fatal mistake: they think ASCAP and BMI need Pandora. Guess what Timmy boy... THEY DON'T NEED YOU!
(6/13/2013 9:12:27 PM)
Pandora's problem is that while consumers want their product, they aren't willing to to pay for it, at least not at the point that Pandora can make money. It's not complicated, Pandora is just a bad business model.

(6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM)
This is a tough argument. There's a major difference between "pure play" outlets like Pandora and streaming radio station programming. The ability of the consumer to choose the music is the key difference. Pandora will probably be a trivia question in a few years because the cost of rights to music is more than the business can sustain.
(6/13/2013 1:53:22 PM)
Good for ASCAP. Pandora knew, or should have known, the rules before they got into the business. It's not ASCAP's problem that Pandora is a giant VC black hole.
(6/13/2013 11:48:13 AM)
ASCAP has been caught with their pants down. They are protecting their Clear Channel and other mega broadcast partners from fees not paid by solely internet broadcast. While i agree that an FCC license is not a guarantee of internet access, it was the criteria selected by ASCAP to have a two tier royalty system that is elevated for the internet only streamers. either tell Clear Channel no discount, or make it equitable for all.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Now, Pandora Sues ASCAP

11-6-2012

The dispute over how much money Internet broadcasters should pay to play music took another turn yesterday as Bloomberg reported that Pandora filed a lawsuit against ASCAP. ASCAP represents 435,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers. They pay those groups from a pool of money collected from radio stations - or any other organization that plays the music. In the suit, Pandora is asking a federal court in New York to set "reasonable" license fees from ASCAP. This fee is separate from the royalty issue which Pandora, and others, are also fighting.

The Internet pure-play broadcaster is asking for a blanket licensing fee that would cover all songs in the ASCAP library (435,000). Back in 2005 Pandora and ASCAP reached a 5-year experimental agreement. Bloomberg says in the court filing Pandora says, ?The license rates and other material terms of the 2005 license agreement were presented to Pandora by ASCAP as being effectively non-negotiable. The experimental license agreement was ill-suited and not reasonable.?

ASCAP has negotiated a fee agreement with the Radio Music Licensing Committee, which represents broadcasters. They will pay 1.7 percent of gross revenue minus deductions based on advertising commissions. The lawsuit claims ASCAP has refused make the same offer to Pandora. Pandora also claims, according to Bloomberg, that it?s entitled to lower rates because some large music publishers have announced they are withdrawing new media rights from ASCAP and negotiating licensing fees directly with Web radio services.

(ERIC'S TAKE)
"Rates for online providers should be identical to broadcast...Pandora and terrestrial radio. There is no reason to penalize online media just because of their delivery method. The economics are difficult and we need to set online radio up to succeed."

Read the entire Bloomberg story HERE

(11/6/2012 1:53:48 PM)
"Terrestrial radio, too, recently made a similar move. The Radio Music Licensing Committee negotiated a better rate for traditional radio, however the RMLC recently sued SESAC on behalf of broadcasters in an effort to get better terms."
(11/6/2012 7:04:43 AM)
A reasoned fairness demands equivalencies across all platform - AM, FM, Sat, Internet. All same-same.
What ownership does with testing commercial load acceptance of an audience is up to them.
(11/6/2012 6:04:08 AM)
Pandora's position seems unreasonable. Pandora by choice limits its revenue by selling considerably fewer advertising units than over the air RADIO. Why would ASCAP give them the same percentage as RADIO? If Pandora can't make money with their flawed business model they can increase AD inventory or subscription fees.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

RMLC, ASCAP Make Royalties Deal

December 5, 2011: ASCAP and the Radio Music License Committee have come to a settlement in principle that will, when finalized, put radio back on a revenue-based fee structure while expanding coverage for distribution platforms like the Internet and smartphones and other wireless devices. The RMLC represents more than 10,000 radio stations.

The new settlement covers 2010-1016 and will also, says ASCAP, "greatly simplifies the reporting process and administrative burden through electronic filing."

"This is a gratifying result for the radio industry, which reflects the current realities of our industry and puts the industry back on sound footing insofar as its licensing relationships with ASCAP are concerned," said Saga CEO Ed Christian, who chairs the RMLC. "We appreciate the goodwill which ASCAP has demonstrated in working with our industry to get this resolution."

ASCAP CEO John LoFrumento said, "The process of building this agreement was based on mutual trust and appreciation, and reflected both sides' clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities we each see for the future. I want to thank the Radio Music License Committee for its creative approach in respecting the value provided by music creators in our negotiations."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Supreme Court Declines ASCAP Appeal.

The Digital Media Association praised the U.S. Supreme Court?s rejection of an ASCAP appeal of a lower court?s ruling that digital music downloads do not constitute public performances and therefore are not subject to performance royalties.

ASCAP, which collects royalties on behalf of songwriters for public performances, such as radio airplay, had argued that the transmission of a download to a purchaser should be considered a performance as well as a distribution, and should bear BOTH a reproduction-distribution royalty and a performance royalty. The 2nd Circuit determined that ?Unlike musical works played during radio broadcasts and stream transmissions, downloaded musical works are transmitted at one point in time and performed at another.  Transmittal without a performance does not constitute a ?public performance.??

DiMA?s interim Executive Director Lee Knife said, ?A lower court rightly ruled that ASCAP does not deserve an additional royalty payment from online music services that provide downloads, and DiMA and our member companies are pleased that the Supreme Court declined ASCAP?s request for appeal of that decision. DiMA?s members are committed to paying appropriate royalties, and they pay songwriters and music publishers fairly and fully for digital downloads when reproduction and distribution rights are implicated.?

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here