ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
from the because-reasons dept
We'd already talked about how the legacy players in the recording industry had lashed out at Pandora for buying a small radio station. As we noted, Pandora was doing this to more or less highlight the absolute hypocrisy (and possible illegality) of ASCAP who offers cheaper streaming rates for terrestrial radio stations to stream their programming online. Since this stuff gets a bit confusing, as a reminder, ASCAP (along with others like BMI and SESAC) collect and distribute money for composers and publishers, not for musicians playing the music (though, obviously, sometimes the composers also play). ASCAP has a variety of different rates that it charges for things, and Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio -- which is owned by ClearChannel, the largest owners of terrestrial radio stations in the US -- pay a lower rate for online streaming.ASCAP has been offering iHeartRadio and other terrestrial stations that also do streaming cheaper licenses for their streaming than it offers to Pandora. Pandora has argued that this violates the antitrust agreement that the DOJ made ASCAP agree to, after it was discovered that ASCAP was engaged in a variety of anti-competitive practices to restrict the market.
The hysteria over this from some less-than-well-informed folks in the music industry has really been quite incredible. Contrary to some claims that we've seen, Pandora is not trying to get a special deal. Nor is it trying to say that it doesn't have to pay performer rights (which are a whole different issue). All it's really doing is highlighting how ASCAP is discriminating against online-only streaming services by charging them different rates than online streaming services that happened to be owned by terrestrial radio stations.
The latest, however, is that ASCAP is now asking the FCC to block the purchase, mainly because ASCAP doesn't like it.
Pandora is buying KXMZ for one reason – to argue that it is entitled to pay lower music performance royalties to composers, songwriters and lyricists for its billions of online-only internet music streams.Actually, it seems like Pandora is buying KXMZ to demonstrate that ASCAP has discriminatory and unfair pricing practices in how it offers its licenses. It's not that Pandora is claiming that it alone is magically entitled to lower royalties -- it's pointing out that everyone else gets lower royalties and Pandora is wondering why it is singled out for higher royalties.
Honestly, that's about the extent of ASCAP's argument. Beyond that, it focuses on some procedural issues about the paperwork that Pandora filled out -- ASCAP claims they didn't follow all the rules. But, clearly, ASCAP doesn't go around making sure that everyone buying radio stations has dotted their i's and crossed their t's. ASCAP is just upset that Pandora is suddenly calling attention to ASCAP's discriminatory online streaming rates. Even on the technicalities ASCAP is being particularly ridiculous. For example, it claims that Pandora did not properly disclose its ownership, because it claims that Pandora improperly referred to Wellington Management Company as "an investment adviser" in the past, but for this document, refers to it as "an investment company." That's the sort of minutiae ASCAP is pulling out to try to block this.
The whole thing is petty in the extreme. ASCAP clearly has discriminatory pricing practices against online-only streaming companies -- and is embarrassed by Pandora making this point very clearly by purchasing this tiny radio station. Is it a move to "game" the system? Yes, it is but a move necessitated by ASCAP's discriminatory pricing. If ASCAP is so upset about this, perhaps it shouldn't have priced internet streaming differently depending on whether or not you own a radio station.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: composers, fcc, rates, songwriters, streaming
Companies: ascap, pandora
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Easy enough to explain:
A purely online service like Pandora on the other hand, allows the listeners to choose what they want to hear, and allows those not shackled to the labels to get equal air-time. Is it any wonder then they want to get rid of Pandora, given that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy enough to explain:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy enough to explain:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy enough to explain:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy enough to explain:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm. I feel like I'm missing a verb in here. This is a very long noun phrase with lots of nested parentheticals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ASCAP has a variety of different rates that it charges for things, and Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio -- which is owned by ClearChannel, the largest owners of terrestrial radio stations in the US.
Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AS(S)CAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AS(S)CAP
Define blocked, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AS(S)CAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Masnick asks users to BLOCK TD comments from TechDirt, because Masnick DOESN'T LIKE dissenting comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
As I’ve said before: Techdirt admins have no obligation to allow your comments to appear on Techdirt, and you have no legal recourse with which to force it to happen. The report system/comment blocking does not count as censorship or an infringement upon your Constitutionally-guaranteed right to self-expression.
Oh, and dissenting ideas show up here all the time; on the other hand, Techdirt commenters and admins have little patience for ad hominem attacks and comments mean only to troll the comments and lower the level of discourse.
So, do you have an actual comment about the story above, or did you come here to whine about a self-fulfilling prophecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Report and move on, nothing new to discuss for the hundredth time..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Your very own government is asking its citizens to pay less for Adobe, because even it can tell that Adobe's pricing plans are bullshit and country-based discriminatory.
That's right.
You are living in a DEN of THIEVES AND PIRATES.
Makes your solar panel dick sad doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Furthermore, you are allowed to start your own blog and if people like your blog they will follow. So why don't you do it? Why do you come here? Oh, because no one would listen to your nonsense. The media cartels insist on having the government grant them monopolies because they know that what they deliver is pure propaganda and no one would listen to it in the face of competition.
In fact, government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies are an abrogation of free speech. The government is restricting my free speech and its distribution based on the discretion of a self interested private monopoly holder. This is the worst possible free speech abrogation the government can impose because such restrictions are directly directed to serve the interests of a private party at the discretion of said private party. This is arguably what the founding fathers sought to prevent. Look at Russia where the govt-industrial complex work hand in hand and the govt protects industry. Historically governments have been well known to grant monopoly power and restrict free speech based on the interests of private merchants and various monopolists and that's why the founding fathers were very skeptical of patents and sought to limit their user.
A private party is allowed to determine what speech is distributed and what speech isn't and it uses the government to enforce its decisions. That's arguably worse than having the government restrict free speech for its interests.
Thanks to these media cartels copy'right' law now lasts 95+ years and has been retroactively extended to the point that nothing ever enters the public domain anymore. The government grants taxi-cab monopolies causing taxicab prices to be way overinflated. The media has either kept us ignorant or have fed us propaganda and lies to allow for such bad laws to have been passed. The mainstream media cartels have truly been a disservice to us all and their government established monopoly power must be relinquished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Hm, maybe some sort of cross between a vampire and a fish-man. A lamprey-man, maybe, or perhaps just a fish-man that was made into a vampire, like if it was the Dracula from the Black Lagoon or something.
That's my guess, anyway. What were you thinking of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
Anyhoo, it's been established that Pandora is nothing but new gatekeepers getting filthy rich while paying artists even less of pittance than the old gang. Of course grifters want to get lower rates. This is just a cynical stunt to pretend that Pandora can't pay the rates demanded. -- And as for the rates difference, well, I'd bet ASCAP charges differently (more) for television use than radio, based on obvious audience numbers.
This is typical Masnicking: wild exaggermeration (look at all his pejoratives and adjectives!) of a monetary dispute, of course with Mike favoring his Internet Grifter pals over actual artists.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where fanboys assert that multi-billion industries are doing it all wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
Pandora pays artists lower royalty rates because the RIAA and its music industry brethren rigged the system against Pandora, Spotify, and other Internet radio providers/broadcasters.
Then again, at least Pandora pays artists.
Of course grifters want to get lower rates.
I wouldn't refer to Pandora as ‘grifters’ if Pandora actually pays artists the royalties they deserve (and by all accounts, Pandora does).
Pandora wants a level playing field where Internet radio providers pay the same rates as terrestrial radio providers. What about that makes Pandora ‘evil’?
This is just a cynical stunt to pretend that Pandora can't pay the rates demanded.
What makes it a stunt? What information do you have on Pandora’s financial situation that we apparently don’t? How do you expect us to believe a claim such as yours without proof?
And as for the rates difference, well, I'd bet ASCAP charges differently (more) for television use than radio, based on obvious audience numbers.
Television networks can afford the higher rates given the larger number of viewers and the higher amount of income, and they also generally own the rights to (at least) first-run content aired on said networks.
Internet radio providers don’t have ways of monetizing the licensed content it airs (whereas TV networks can sell DVDs and other licensed physical merchandise).
It makes no sense to charge Internet radio providers a higher licensing rate than terrestrial radio providers (which also can’t monetize the licensed content they air).
This is typical Masnicking
And that’s an ad hominem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
If that's all it takes to make you howl, you must have a very low excitement threshold. Your life must be a riot. And I wouldn't be criticising anyone else's spelling and grammar; yours is often shocking.
"Anyhoo, it's been established that Pandora is nothing but new gatekeepers getting filthy rich while paying artists even less of pittance than the old gang."
No, this has been claimed by you. It's been established by nobody.
"Of course grifters want to get lower rates."
I don't think anyone wanting the same rates as comparable services can be called a grifter (a word you truly don’t know the meaning of).
"This is just a cynical stunt to pretend that Pandora can't pay the rates demanded."
Well at their current rates they're running at a loss. So yes, they obviously can't pay the rates demanded forever. Not rocket science.
"And as for the rates difference, well, I'd bet ASCAP charges differently (more) for television use than radio, based on obvious audience numbers."
WTF has television got to do with this discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
this is typical out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle behaviour. out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle has to jump to every corporations defence regardless of how ammoral\ corrupt they are.
out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle thinks that every time a corporation does something illegal or immoral it is just an anomaly. Billions of anomalies.
out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle is a paranoid nutjob who thinks that Google is hiding under her bed
out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle is the biggest hypocrite on the internet when it comes to pointing out that people have made a spelling mistake when she cannot spell correctly or use correct grammar.
out_of_the_blue_douchnozzle does not know the difference between a gatekeeper and an enabler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUPER DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pandora was doing this to ....
Um. Yeah. Just to prove what I'm saying [b]I'll buy a freaking radio station![/b] Maybe then you'll understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pandora was doing this to ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pandora was doing this to ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]