UK: DOJ Review Creates Possibility For Large Scale Change In The Music Industry

Last month, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) announced its plans to review two music licensing antitrust consent decrees which have been in place, in some shape or form, for almost 80 years. Due to the newly-initiated review, the competitive mechanisms that dictate how music is broadcasted, streamed or played live could soon drastically change.

In 1941, the DOJ entered into two separate consent decrees with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)—the two largest performing rights organizations (PROs) in the United States, controlling nearly 90% of the market—to address competitive concerns arising from their signifcant market power. PROs, including ASCAP and BMI, distribute licenses to publicly perform musical works to entities, such as radio broadcasters, streaming services and live venues, that transmit the performance of musical works to listeners. In their current manifestations, the consent decrees require ASCAP and BMI to license the public performance rights to all musical works in their respective catalogues upon request and at a reasonable rate.

Upon conclusion of the newly initiated review, the DOJ has two options: (1) leave the consent decrees in place, in favor of consistency and predictability in the marketplace; or (2) modify or terminate the consent decrees, which may serve as a catalyst for wholesale reform of the music licensing rules currently in place. While it is diffcult to predict what the DOJ might do, it is clear that modifying or terminating the decrees, even over time, would have far-reaching implications for the entire music industry.

Public Performance Rights And Industry Background

The public performance right is just one of many copyrights in a recorded piece of music. It confers on its owner, typically the creator of a musical work such as a songwriter or a composer, the exclusive ability to play the composition in public, online or on the television or radio. Owners of public performance rights can grant others, via a license, permission to play the song as well. Songwriters and composers can also assign their copyrights to a publishing company and, in return, the company will then license and promote the compositions, help monitor where the compositions are used and collect

The DOJ has become increasingly interventionist, fling amicus briefs and initiating reviews of a wide range of long standing decrees.

royalties and distribute them to the composers. Songwriters, composers and music publishers can all agree to become members of a PRO, and then will receive royalties directly from that PRO instead of, for example, the radio station or venue where their composition was played.

As a result of the consent decrees, ASCAP and BMI can only distribute "blanket" licenses, which cover the entirety of their catalogues. They cannot license individual compositions and cannot charge different fees for different compositions. The licensing fees for the "blanket" license must be reasonable, and any pricing disputes are settled by a judge in the Southern District of New York. PROs cannot deny any request from music users to license their repertory of musical works.

Consent Decrees In the Antitrust Context

A consent decree is a negotiated agreement between the government and a private party entered as a court order that is enforceable by the court. See Department of Justice Offce of Public Affairs, Justice Department Releases Memorandum on Litigation Guidelines for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements (Nov. 8, 2018). In the antitrust context, parties enter into consent decrees to mitigate regulatory concern over potential or actual market abuses. Consent decrees have the same effect as litigated decrees, binding the government and the consenting defendant to their terms. The DOJ has long maintained a practice of entering into consent decrees with defendants to resolve investigations, saving both parties the cost of litigation. Prior to 1979, antitrust consent decrees typically did not have temporal limitations. In 1979, the DOJ began the common practice of including "sunset" provisions, such that the decree ceases to have effect after a certain date, usually 10 years from entry of the judgment. Many of the consent decrees entered into before 1979 (including the music licensing consent decrees) still have no set expiration dates and remain open on courts' dockets even though the vast majority are likely outdated as a result of changes in industry conditions, economics, law or other reasons.

Prior Review of the ASCAP And BMI Consent Decrees

Given that ASCAP and BMI control nearly 90% of the PRO market, their consent decrees essentially govern the competitive landscape for the licensing of public performance rights today. The consent decrees have been reviewed several times over the years, most recently in 2014 after ASCAP and BMI petitioned to modify them to allow writers and publishers to "partially withdraw" from the PROs in order to negotiate licensing deals directly with streaming services. The review involved two rounds of public comments and took over two years to complete before the DOJ ultimately concluded that it would make no formal changes to the music licensing rules.

Notably, in the 2014 review the DOJ reinterpreted the consent decrees to require "full-works" licensing, which would allow any one co-owner of a work to license all of the work without needing the permission of the other co-owners. Historically and currently, BMI and ASCAP operate under a fractional licensing model where each PRO collects for and pays out for only the shares of musical works it represents in its respective repertoire. Under the current fractional licensing model if, hypothetically, Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel each own 50% of "The Sound of Silence," both Simon and Garfunkel have to agree to license their respective rights to the song. Under a "full-works" regime, either songwriter could license the full song without the permission of the other.

BMI and ASCAP objected to the DOJ's "full-works" licensing reinterpretation and sought clarification from the District Court the case was appealed, and the Second Circuit disagreed with the DOJ, fnding that because the consent decrees are silent on fractional licensing, PROs may offer them "unless a clear and unambiguous command of the decree would thereby be violated." See United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 720 Fed. Appx.14 (2017).

Why Now?

The DOJ's decision to initiate another review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees is likely the result of its current departmental initiatives, changes in the music industry and lingering questions about fractional and "fullworks" licensing.

Last year, the DOJ announced it would review over one thousand open antitrust consent decrees. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim articulated the motivation for the initiative, noting that the DOJ will "pursue the termination of outdated judgments around the country that presently do little more than clog court dockets, create unnecessary uncertainty for businesses or, in some cases, may actually elicit anticompetitive market conditions." See Department of Justice Offce of Public Affairs, Department of Justice Announces Initiative to Terminate "Legacy" Antitrust Judgments (April 25, 2018).

The DOJ's review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees is also motivated, in part, by the sweeping changes to the music industry brought on by the rise of streaming services. Streaming is often heralded as having "saved" the music industry. Where CD sales of music were in decline, leading to massive losses and layoffs, streaming services have created new revenue opportunities. They have also given listeners the opportunity to easily discover new, and perhaps niche, music.

Finally, the DOJ's review may answer lingering questions around fractional and "full-works" licensing raised by its most recent review. PROs, publishing companies and songwriters are generally opposed to the idea of "full-works" licensing, fearing that the music users who license works from their repertoires will shop for rate discounts among the co-owners of a musical work. On the other hand, music users, including digital services, argue that "full-works" licensing will increase free market competition.

Possible Outcomes

The DOJ's review will address the music licensing regime in two ways, either (1) maintain the status quo, or (2) modify or terminate the consent decrees.

On the one hand, maintaining the status quo would enhance predictability and stability in the music industry, but may not update the consent decrees for the modern age or address open questions surrounding fractional licensing. Supporters of the status quo argue that the consent decrees create a stable regime that allows for the fair and effcient licensing of musical works. See, e.g., Future of Music Coalition, "ASCAP-BMI Consent Decrees Fact Sheet" (2016). They also argue that the consent decrees help mitigate anticompetitive behavior while ensuring that songwriters and music creators are paid when their music is played. Ultimately, proponents of the status quo argue that the modification or termination of the decrees would create chaos in the industry in the form of higher licensing fees that could be passed on to consumers.

On the other hand, supporters of modification or termination argue that a free market for music licensing would create a more productive, effcient and level playing feld for all parties involved. As would be expected, ASCAP and BMI favor change. An ASCAP representative stated that altering the rules could lead to a "more fexible framework with less government regulation [which would] allow [it] to compete in a free market ..." See Diane Bartz, U.S. Justice Department to Review 1941 ASCAP, BMI Consent Decrees, Reuters (June 5, 2019). Some supporters for change argue that the consent decrees should be terminated altogether, and view the consent decrees as "burdensome regulations

The culmination of the DOJ's review will shed light on how it is choosing to use its resources.

which have unfairly devalued the work of thousands of songwriters for far too long." See Anna Steele and Brent Kendall, Justice Department Opens Formal Review of Music-Licensing Rules, Wall St. J. (June 5, 2019). Yet, terminating the consent decrees would also terminate the antitrust protections afforded to ASCAP and BMI, which could raise serious competitive concerns given that the two PROs have such a large combined share in the market.


Given that the industry has grown up around ASCAP and BMI, the DOJ has promised that it will not make any changes "lightly or without due care and consideration." See Matthew Perlman, DOJ Again Mulling DecadesOld Music Licensing Orders, Law360. com (June 5, 2019). Additionally,

President Trump recently signed the Music Modernization Act, which made major changes to the way streaming services pay mechanical royalties to songwriters when a musical work is reproduced. The Music Modernization Act was premised on the idea that PROs would continue to operate under the current licensing regime. Any major alteration to the consent decrees would seem to undermine whatever progress was achieved by passage of that Act. In any event, the culmination of the DOJ's review will shed light on how it is choosing to use its resources. The DOJ has become increasingly interventionist, fling amicus briefs and initiating reviews of a wide range of long standing decrees. Should the DOJ choose to rewrite the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees, thus reinforcing its interventionist streak, future revisions and policy changes could be expected in other areas.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions