April 28, 2024

Record Labels Sue Sirius XM Over the Use of Older Music

Another, Feb. 15, 1972 — when federal copyright protection began to apply to recordings — has less recognition. But a recent string of lawsuits argue that licensing issues tied to that date may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to singers and record labels. If the suits are successful, they could also bring a headache of liability to satellite and Internet radio services.

On Wednesday, the three largest record companies — Sony, Universal and Warner, along with ABKCO, an independent that controls many of the Rolling Stones’ early music rights — sued Sirius XM Radio in a California court, saying that the satellite service used recordings from before 1972 without permission. Even though federal copyright protection does not apply to these recordings, the suits say that they are still covered by state law.

The suit is the third major complaint filed against Sirius XM in five weeks. The band the Turtles — whose song “Happy Together” was a No. 1 hit in 1967 — and the royalty agency SoundExchange filed similar suits last month, each seeking as much as $100 million in damages. The suit filed on Wednesday, in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks unspecified damages and a declaratory judgment about the rights involved in pre-1972 recordings.

“It is disgraceful, unfair, and probably criminal that Sirius XM is stealing monies due to me and other performing artists,” the singer Judy Collins said in a statement. “Performers should be paid their fair share of the royalties from their songs.”

Among other artists mentioned in the suit are the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Frank Sinatra and the Supremes.

A spokesman for Sirius XM declined to comment.

The suits against Sirius could have a broad impact in digital music. Pandora, which like Sirius relies on the compulsory licensing provisions of federal copyright law, could be affected. But lawyers and music executives said the cases would probably not have an impact on Spotify and other on-demand services, which tend to strike all-encompassing licensing deals with labels.

Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay royalties only to music publishers, which control songwriting copyrights; digital services must also pay for use of recordings.

Sirius XM, the only satellite radio service in the United States, has 25 million subscribers who pay $14.49 or more a month. Last year, the company had $3.4 billion in revenue and paid 8 percent of its gross revenue in royalties to record companies and performers, according to its annual report. SoundExchange, whose suit accused Sirius XM of improper accounting of royalties, estimated that oldies make up 10 to 15 percent of all the airplay on the satellite service.

The legal argument behind the major labels’ suit differs little from the one being made in the Turtles’ case, but it underscores the importance of the issue to the music industry. The Turtles’ suit has applied for class-action status, which could take months to establish. By filing their own suit, the industry’s biggest powers are looking to control the issue on their own terms and get a ruling as quickly as possible.

The issue of licensing for recordings before 1972 has been mostly untested in courts. Lawyers and music executives say that the new suits are a response to questions that have arisen in other recent cases, and also to new terms established for satellite radio by the Copyright Royalty Board, a panel of federal judges that regulates some forms of licensing.

Jonathan B. Sokol, a lawyer who often represents music companies in copyright cases, said that the suits may face difficulty proving a public performance right for recordings under law. For one thing, he noted, that would implicate many other businesses that may have licenses with music publishers, which control songwriting rights, but not record labels.

“The problem is that anybody that has rights to a master recording could come after anybody engaging in public performance — any bar, restaurant, sports stadium,” said Mr. Sokol, who is not involved in the Sirius suits.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/business/media/big-record-labels-file-copyright-suit-against-sirius-xm.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Advertising: Small Rival Music Service Takes Aim at Pandora

The latest example is in digital music services, with Pandora as the Goliath and its much smaller competitor Slacker in the role of David with the 30-second sling.

In an online-only spot that will start running Wednesday, a young woman at a coffee shop vexes everyone in earshot when she opens a blue “Pandora’s box” — labeled “P,” like Pandora’s app icon — and unleashes a singularly annoying song.

“It plays that over and over again,” the woman complains to a friend, who blames Pandora’s “small music library” for the repetition. With Slacker helpfully loaded on her phone, the friend points out that Slacker has 10 times as many songs, and other features, too.

Like Pandora, Slacker offers free, ad-supported Internet radio and has two tiers of premium service. Listeners can eliminate ads for a $4 monthly subscription, and $10 a month also adds features that — like Spotify and other “on-demand” services — let users play any song they choose.

Since its founding in 2006, however, Slacker has struggled to stand out. With four million monthly users, 560,000 of them paying, its audience is a fraction of Pandora’s, which is more than 65 million a month; Clear Channel Communications has nearly 50 million online listeners through its station sites and iHeartRadio app.

To promote itself among such formidable competition — and to introduce a revamped version of its site — Slacker wants to show that it tries harder.

“We had to be very honest with where we were in the marketplace,” said Craig Rechenmacher, Slacker’s chief marketing officer. “We had to be disruptive in the marketplace, and we needed something that targets our competitors and the holes in their service.”

Slacker will spend $5.5 million on media placements this year, Mr. Rechenmacher said. In addition to the video spot, by Liquid Advertising, the campaign will include display ads by the agency Questus, and they will run on music and pop-culture sites like YouTube, Vevo, Brooklyn Vegan and College Humor.

The ads show off what Slacker says is its human touch, with playlists created by music experts and stations featuring D.J.’s and commentators. Pandora caters to listeners’ tastes through a secret algorithm that analyzes each song’s musical “genome.” (Others, like Songza, have grown quickly through expert programming, but Pandora is the field’s leader by far.)

“When we did research on our core users, what they love the most, what came back was the idea that it felt like somebody was home,” said Jack Isquith, Slacker’s senior vice president of strategic development. “There was someone who loves music at the controls.”

The campaign is also evidence of a slow change in the marketing of digital music services, many of which have avoided advertising in favor of online word-of-mouth (and, of course, lots of free music). Pandora, for example, is often featured in commercials by its partners, like car companies, but has made none of its own.

“It costs a lot of money to build a brand if you didn’t hit it luckily through viral channels, like Pandora did,” said David Hyman, the former chief executive of the music service Mog, which was sold last year to Beats Electronics.

The biggest force in promoting digital music over the years, music executives say, was Apple’s iTunes and iPod commercials. Rhapsody, too, has run dozens of television ads, including a memorable one with Jay-Z in 2009.

For the most part the recent wave of streaming services has not been heavily advertised, but that is changing as the field grows more competitive. Last year, Rdio, a subscription service, did a multimillion-dollar campaign that included billboards in Times Square. Spotify, which has grown quickly but has not fully penetrated the mainstream market, recently hired its first agency of record, Droga5 — the former agency of Rhapsody.

For its campaign, Slacker wanted to focus on how digital services serve consumers. In the coffee shop video, the patrons align with the demographics of the service — 18 to 44 years old, and slightly more females than males, said Will Akerlof, the chief executive of Liquid Advertising — and visibly express their reactions to the music playing.

To find a sufficiently irritating soundtrack, the agency looked at a 2007 Rolling Stone magazine feature, “The 20 Most Annoying Songs,” Mr. Akerlof said, and recorded a techno-pop version of the folk song “Cotton-Eyed Joe,” in the style of Rednex’s version from the mid-1990s (No. 13 on the list).

That lighthearted approach, with a focus on the consumer, has been missing from many digital-music ads, Mr. Isquith said.

“The approaches of many of the people in the space has been, ‘Hey, we’re standing next to big stars,’ or, ‘Hey, we’ve got the slickest, most cutting-edge tech product,’ but that’s not why people use it,” he said.

“Our ads,” Mr. Isquith added, “are meant to say that this is a great listener experience that will delight you.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/business/media/small-rival-music-service-takes-aim-at-pandora.html?partner=rss&emc=rss