BMI sues Pandora over song licenses
Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) has filed suit against Pandora, claiming the online radio company is refusing to pay higher licensing fees for songs.
June 14, 2013 at 08:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) has filed suit against Pandora, claiming the online radio company is refusing to pay higher licensing fees for songs.
BMI, a songwriters' rights organization, said in the suit it filed yesterday that the fees it proposed to Pandora are “consistent with market rates to reflect the explosive growth of the Internet music streaming marketplace.”
BMI represents more than 600,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, and works on their behalf to collect license fees for their music.
Pandora, founded in 2000, now has nearly 71 million listeners. With the growing audience base comes an increase in licensing fees.
But earlier this week, Pandora purchased a radio station in South Dakota. The company said the purchase was a move to allow the Internet radio company to pay lower licensing fees, comparable to those of traditional broadcasters.
BMI said that its licensing fee agreements with other Internet radio companies, such as Spotify, are the same as or higher than the one it proposed to Pandora.
Read more about this story on Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about IP, see:
Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) has filed suit against Pandora, claiming the online radio company is refusing to pay higher licensing fees for songs.
BMI, a songwriters' rights organization, said in the suit it filed yesterday that the fees it proposed to Pandora are “consistent with market rates to reflect the explosive growth of the Internet music streaming marketplace.”
BMI represents more than 600,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, and works on their behalf to collect license fees for their music.
Pandora, founded in 2000, now has nearly 71 million listeners. With the growing audience base comes an increase in licensing fees.
But earlier this week, Pandora purchased a radio station in South Dakota. The company said the purchase was a move to allow the Internet radio company to pay lower licensing fees, comparable to those of traditional broadcasters.
BMI said that its licensing fee agreements with other Internet radio companies, such as Spotify, are the same as or higher than the one it proposed to Pandora.
Read more about this story on Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about IP, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250