ASCAP's Desire To End Antitrust Agreement Leads DOJ To Investigate Latest Collusion Between Music Publishers
from the look-at-that dept
Over the last few months, you may have noticed that ASCAP, BMI and the various music publishers have been pushing strongly to end the so-called "consent decree" around music publishing. This was an agreement from 1941 (and reviewed in 2001) limiting how performance rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI could act, given their position as a somewhat natural monopoly over the compositions they represented. The idea was to stop those companies from holding those works hostage -- which is why there are things like rate setting procedures by the Copyright Royalty Board. Now, we have our problems with the CRB and the rate setting process, but there is a very real fear that ASCAP, BMI and others would make music streaming prohibitively expensive if given the chance. The whole focus on getting rid of the consent decree is to try to remove any effort to block them from jacking up their prices to ridiculous rates.The attempt to ditch the consent decree seemed especially odd, given that just months earlier, a court had called out the clear collusion by ASCAP and a bunch of music publishers to try to artificially jack up Pandora's rates. The details were a little convoluted, but basically certain publishers "withdrew" certain music from ASCAP, claiming they wanted to negotiate directly with Pandora. They didn't negotiate in good faith, and basically waited right up until the deal was about to expire. They then refused to even name what songs would no longer be covered, leaving Pandora at a very real risk of streaming songs it no longer had the right to (without even knowing which songs were being "pulled.") Because of this, Pandora was forced to sign exorbitantly high rates, which ASCAP and others then used to try to get even higher rates for others. It was clearly collusion, because while ASCAP should have been upset about publishers withdrawing music, it clearly was not. Furthermore, there were clear discussions between ASCAP and the publishers about all of this.
The end result of that case was that ASCAP lost its attempt to really jack up rates to Pandora much higher, but many people wondered how ASCAP could get away with doing that without any sort of punishment. Well... new reports say that the Justice Department is investigating ASCAP, BMI, Universal Music Publishing and Sony/ATV over possible collusion. This is being done as part of the DOJ's review of the consent decree, but ASCAP's decision to attack the consent decree right after a court called it out for collusion may backfire badly:
The CID requests are seeking documentation across a lot of particulars, including the effect of the consent decrees on rates, whether partial withdrawals of digital rights should be allowed, and plans to license other rights beyond the public performance rights that PROs handle today. However, a memo obtained by Billboard that was sent to employees by ASCAP senior VP of legal Richard Reimer began by noting that the CID is connected to the DOJs review of the consent decree. And, as a possible reminder to be careful of what you wish for, the DOJ is also investigating of alleged coordination among ASCAP, BMI, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, and Universal Music Publishing Group.In the Billboard article, the publishers and ASCAP insist they're not worried about all of this because they believe the judge in the Pandora rate setting case "got it wrong." That's quite a bit of hubris to have, given all of the evidence of collusion that was presented in that case. It seems quite possible that rather than ending the consent decree, as ASCAP and publishers would like, the DOJ may actually come down on all of them for some fairly serious antitrust problems.
That aspect of the DOJ investigation was mentioned in a note to ASCAP employees telling them to "preserve all documents, whether in paper or electronic format, on all the CID-related topics."
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: antitrust, collusion, consent decree, doj, music, music publishing, partial withdrawals, streaming rates
Companies: ascap, bmi, pandora, sony music, sony/atv music publishing, umg, universal music, universal music publishing group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Color me confident this will have an outcome in favor of those being screwed.
This post brought to you by Sarcasmic! The new way to post online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all depends on if ASCAP can negotiate some desirable back door dealings with the DOJ. You should know how it works by now, the law is just a front for the personal advancement of politicians and regulators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off the mark
and you're just a shill.
"All publishers are asking for is a market rate."
Then lets abolish copy protection laws and see what the market rate is.
Your statement is sorta disingenuous. What you mean by 'market rate' is all publishers are asking for is to conspire to raiser their prices as much as they can so that they can take the lions share of the profits for contributing absolutely nothing while allowing everyone else (like Pandora and the artists) to do all the work of producing everything and distributing it to customers. All publishers want is to charge everyone else monopoly prices for being worthless middlemen. That's what you mean by 'market rate'.
"The problem is the publishers are not themselves monopolies but they're treated that way by the DoJ because of the consent decree. "
Copy protection laws are monopoly laws and when they hold the copy protection over something they are monopolists.
"is no longer serving it's purpose and is enabling Pandora massively better rates."
You are really on crack or something.
The purpose of the consent decree wasn't to help protect the profits of publishers and to ensure that they (the parasite monopolist publisher that contributed nothing and simply gets paid for holding the copy protection) can fully milk artists, Pandora, and others (those that contribute something) out of every penny they can. Just because Pandora earned some money doesn't mean that the parasite middlemen are somehow entitled to gouge as much of it as they can. The purpose of the consent decree is to prevent publishers from colluding to fully gouge everyone else (ultimately consumers). To that degree it is serving its purpose. Preventing publishers from colluding to overcharge Pandora and artists so that others (those that contribute something) can make more without getting scammed is the purpose that it's supposed to serve. Your problem is that it's serving its purpose.
"Tim Westergren takes home more money than all publishers combined."
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off the mark
First of all, I'm absolutely loving the fact that this tactic backfired. Allowing partial withdrawals from ASCAP or BMI would be catastrophic for the artists they represent. That's why actual songwriters (as opposed to the major publishers) were opposed to it.
Here's the relevant passage from the ASCAP rate court decision (which should really be read in its entirity):
Now to Jon's comment.
BMI didn't love the withdrawal but it was better for them than a wholesale withdrawal by EMI as the first mover. ASCAP had to follow suit to allow partial withdrawal.
I haven't read the BMI ruling (couldn't find a copy online), but in ASCAP's case, it was even worse than that. The major publishers were so devoted to being monopoly players, that they threatened not just to leave, but to sue ASCAP if it closed a deal with Pandora:
However, I don't see any indication that the BMI withdrawals had anything to do with it. Like I said, I don't have a copy of the BMI decision, so I don't know the dates; but I would guess that the major publishers had been blackmailing both PRO's simultaneously.
All publishers are asking for is a market rate.
Yes: they are asking for a completely unfair market rate. One that is set exclusively by the publishers, and that Pandora (and others) have absolutely no chance to negotiate.
More quotes from the ASCAP rate court decision:
This was not even remotely close to negotiating a "fair market rate." It was blackmail, pure and simple.
The problem is the publishers are not themselves monopolies but they're treated that way by the DoJ because of the consent decree.
First of all: The DOJ's consent decrees govern ASCAP and BMI, not the publishers themselves. And they are monopolies.
If they were not, then Pandora (and radio stations, and bars, and rock clubs...) could negotiate with competing PRO's for the same material. So, if you wanted to play "All the Single Ladies" on your jukebox, you could choose from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC (or anyone else) for the lowest rate to play that particular song.
Of course, that's not how it works. And that is because copyright itself is a monopoly. It is a monopoly on a single work, but since it is transferrable to a PRO (in this case), that PRO has a monopoly on all of the works that are transferred to it.
This is completely uncontroversial, and it's why ASCAP and BMI had to agree to consent decrees in the first place: if they didn't, they would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
And this is why there cannot possibly be a "fair market price" for copyrighted material: copyright is simply not part of an open market. Again, from the ASCAP decision:
The publishers themselves form an oligopoly. They effectively become a monopoly when they collude to raise prices (instead of competing to lower prices). That is clearly what happened with Pandora.
And Pandora (and all the rate court judges) are not the only ones that are concerned about this. This is from SiriusXM's comments to the Library of Congress (PDF):
I believe the DoJ will reform the consent decree to permit partial withdrawal because doing so furthers the DoJ's anticompetitive objective
Unless you consider large publishers with monopolies over their own music colluding to selectively raise rates to be "competitive," I believe you're wrong. If anything, the DOJ should expand the consent decrees to cover the publishers themselves, and not just the PRO's.
and the consent decree is no longer serving it's purpose and is enabling Pandora massively better rates.
"Massively better rates" than who? Pandora pays higher rates than comparable services. For example, iHeartRadio pays lower rates than Pandora does for streaming over the Internet. (Pandora pays 1.85%, iHeartRadio pays 1.70%.)
Tim Westergren takes home more money than all publishers combined.
This is a complete joke. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, Pandora paid roughly $8 million to publishers in 2013 (1.85% of total revenue, which was about $427 million). There's no way that Westergren takes home that much in a year.
And that's just coming from Pandora (and doesn't include sound recording royalties). In 2013, ASCAP paid out over $851.2 million in royalties, and BMI's income exceeded $944 million. In other words, both organizations brought in roughly two times Pandora's total revenue.
So, no. Westergren does not make more than "all publishers combined." He does not even make more than what Pandora pays to "all publishers combined." Nice try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off the mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hubris, or not
The sad thing is that, given the government we've seen recently, it won't surprise me if the result is termination of the consent decree and a final ban on Pandora.
So is it really hubris? Or do they have the fix in place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hubris, or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only thing i will mention is that when i mentioned the tim westergren/publishers pay, considering this is a topic on pandora, i obviously meant pay in respect of pandora. for him to build a business on the backs of the rights of others (SONGWRITERS and publishers), the least he can do is pay rights holders more than he pays himself. the best i was able to reobtain was the following (posted by a SONGWRITER).
https://twitter.com/thevandykeparks/status/467421279608254464
(the facts I'd seen indicate the publisher's share of the ASCAP/BMI $ is less than Tim's salary)
Trust me...PLENTY of songwriters are against Pandora and they lobbied on Capital Hill to that very effect. Of course you wouldn't know that.
Also, the BMI issue wasn't about any case....it was bc the consent decree says all or nothing...EMI years ago said "ok, nothing." BMI scrambled to do what they could to keep EMI to keep BMI's own catalog as big as possible...that's why they (and ascap) permitted digital withdrawal. You're arguing in theory when you have no notion of what's actually happening. Of course that's why you're here on comment boards instead of giving actual legal analysis.
Market rate means negotiated. Why wouldn't pandora be able to negotiate? Of course when publisher's leave the PRO they negotiate a higher rate...that's not blackmail, that's fair market not constricted by monopoly rules imposed on them when they are not deemed by the DoJ to be monopolies. Copy/pasting whole blocks of text does nothing to further your argument. I didn't argue PROs aren't monopolies (of course they are)...all I said is that selective withdrawal furthers the anticompetitive spirit to put the rights in the hands of a greater number...PROs have some (indies), majors keep their own...thus if publishers can withdraw digital rights, it is de facto less competitive. You confuse so many issues that I'm silly to be wasting my time. If there is collusion....that's different (hint, there's not). It's not collusion to follow the lead of a market leader. EMI withdrew and everyone else said "hey, we want to do that too." Why withdraw? To get better rates? Who benefits? The Songwriters (and the publishers). that is completely uncontroversial. Truth is, in the end, if the DoJ doesn't permit selective withdrawal, publishers will completely withdrawal and in the long run it'll benefit songwriters and publishers alike.
Karl, at least it was reasonably well reasoned. That One Guy/AnonCow, wish I could say the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]