Hubbry Logo
American Society of Composers, Authors and PublishersAmerican Society of Composers, Authors and PublishersMain
Open search
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Community hub
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) (/ˈæskæp/) is an American not-for-profit performance-rights organization (PRO) that collectively licenses the public performance rights of its members' musical works to venues, broadcasters, and digital streaming services (music stores).[2]

Key Information

ASCAP collects licensing fees from users of music created by ASCAP members, then distributes them back to its members as royalties. In effect, the arrangement is the product of a compromise: when a song is played, the user does not have to pay the copyright holder directly, nor does the music creator have to bill a radio station for use of a song.

In 2024, ASCAP collected approximately US$1.84 billion in revenue, distributed approximately US$1.7 billion in royalties to rightsholders, and maintained a registry of approximately 20 million works.[3][4] The organization had approximately 1 million members as of 2024.[5]

ASCAP has drawn negative attention for attempting to enforce licensing fees when songs are used in informal occasions such as campfire singing and open mic nights. It has also been criticized for its high lack of transparency in its operations, and for retaining some royalties brought in from its membership rather than paying them out to the artists.

History

[edit]
ASCAP trade advertisement, Billboard January 7, 1967

ASCAP was founded on February 13, 1914, by Victor Herbert, together with composers George Botsford,[6] Silvio Hein, Irving Berlin, Louis Hirsch, John Raymond Hubbell, Gustave Kerker, and Jean Schwartz;[7] lyricist Glen MacDonough; publishers George Maxwell (who served as its first president) and Jay Witmark and copyright attorney Nathan Burkan in New York City, to protect the copyrighted musical compositions of its members, who were mostly writers and publishers associated with Tin Pan Alley.[8] ASCAP's earliest members included the era's most active songwriters, George M. Cohan, Rudolf Friml, Otto Harbach, Jerome Kern, John Philip Sousa, Alfred Baldwin Sloane, James Weldon Johnson, Robert Hood Bowers and Harry Tierney. Subsequently, many other prominent songwriters became members. Composers who could not read and write musical notation were ineligible for membership. This requirement, since dropped, excluded many songwriters in such genres as country. However, an exception was made to admit Irving Berlin.[9]

In 1917, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of ASCAP in Herbert v. Shanley Co. The lawsuit, brought by Herbert, contended that the owner of Shanley's Restaurant in New York City had infringed on Herbert's copyright of Sweethearts by playing music from the play in the restaurant without permission or compensation for Herbert. Shanley argued that because there was no entrance fee for the restaurant performing the music, the performance was not making a profit and therefore did not require compensation for Herbert. The unanimous decision on the lawsuit, written by associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., held that any performance of music for profit, including profits tangentially related to the performance, such as the sale of food and drink, required compensation for the original creators of the music.[10] The decision legitimized ASCAP's continued existence and allowed the organization to more proactively seek compensation for its members.[11]

In 1919, ASCAP and the Performing Rights Society of Great Britain (since 1997 known as PRS for Music), signed the first reciprocal agreement for the representation of each other's members' works in their respective territories. Today, ASCAP has global reciprocal agreements and licenses the U.S. performances of hundreds of thousands of international music creators.

Advent of radio

[edit]

The advent of radio in the 1920s brought an important new source of income for ASCAP. The organization initially offered low licensing fees to foster a partnership between the fledgling medium and ASCAP; however, the licensing fees increased 900 percent between 1931 and 1939. ASCAP said the increases were due to radio curtailing the ability of its members to make money through other venues, such as sheet music and record sales, and decreasing how long hit songs remained hits.

Main article: ASCAP boycott

In 1940, when ASCAP tried to triple its license fees, radio broadcasters prepared to resist their demands by enforcing a boycott of ASCAP,[12] and inaugurating a competing royalty agency, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI).[10][13] During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on NBC and CBS radio stations. Instead, the stations played regional music and styles (like rhythm and blues or country) that had been rejected by ASCAP. Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP settled for a lower fee than they had initially demanded.[14]

In 1941, an antitrust lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice resulted in ASCAP and BMI being governed under consent decrees that required both organizations to offer blanket licenses of their catalogs to all at rates negotiated between the parties or set by a federal judge.[15]

Membership expands

[edit]

ASCAP's membership diversified further in the 1940s, bringing along jazz and swing greats.[16] In the 1940s, it was common for ASCAP and BMI to send out field representatives to sign new songwriters and music publishing companies, as the firms were not household names; one such ASCAP employee was Loring Buzzell, who later formed the music publishing company Hecht-Lancaster & Buzzell Music.[17][18]

Differences in BMI's structure, including providing advance payments on songs, and an early embrace of country, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll led to an increase in the organization's market share in the 1940s and 1950s.[19][20] In 1953, ASCAP filed an antitrust lawsuit against BMI, and instigated a congressional investigation of BMI in 1956. ASCAP lobbied Congress for laws that would bar broadcasters from owning BMI stock in 1958, and provided the impetus to launch payola investigations at the end of the decade. ASCAP and BMI settled an antitrust lawsuit in 1962.[19]

In the 1950s and 1960s, television was introduced as a new revenue stream for ASCAP, one that maintains its importance today. With the birth of FM radio, new ASCAP members came on board.[21] During this period, ASCAP also initiated a series of lawsuits to recover the position they lost during the boycott of 1941, without success.[22]

The early 1960s folk music revival, led by ASCAP member Bob Dylan (later switched to SESAC) made ASCAP a major player in that genre. Dylan's expansion into rock music later that decade gave ASCAP a foothold in that genre. At the same time, ASCAP member Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. started having country hits for ASCAP.[23]

By 1970, a new generation of ASCAP board members decided to launch a campaign to attract more songwriters and music publishers away from BMI. The campaign led to Motown Records switching most of its music publishing from BMI to ASCAP in 1971.[23]

In June 2009, ASCAP sued AT&T and Verizon Wireless in a case that generated considerable public attention over the sale of musical ringtones in an effort to get additional revenue from the sale of ringtones.[24] The organization said that ringtones played in public constituted a performance of a copyrighted work, which required additional payment. Critics worried ASCAP might seek to hold consumers responsible for a ringtone public performance, which ASCAP said it would not do. AT&T, Verizon, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) disagreed with ASCAP's claims, with the EFF filing an amicus curiae brief with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, contending that ringtones playing in public were no different than consumers listening to a car radio with the windows down and did not constitute a performance.[25] The Court dismissed the suit in October 2009, with judge Denise Cote noting that the suit did not demonstrate ringtones playing in public spaces constituted copyright infringement.[26]

ASCAP licenses over 11,500 local commercial radio stations, more than 2500 non-commercial radio broadcasters and hundreds of thousands of "general" licensees (bars, restaurants, theme parks, etc.).[27] It maintains reciprocal relationships with nearly 40 foreign PROs across six continents,[28] and licenses billions of public performances worldwide each year.[29]

Criticism

[edit]

In 1995, ASCAP requested royalty payments from the American Camp Association for public performances at its camps. Following public backlash, ASCAP said it only meant to "demand a fee for performances by professional musicians at large resorts", and returned the fees paid.[30] However, it has drawn negative attention for cracking down on licensing fees on other occasions as well, such as when it demanded that open mic events need to pay licensing (even if most or all of the songs are original).[31]

ASCAP has also been criticized for its extremely non-transparent operations, including the refusal to release attendance records for board members, the notes from board meetings, and the reasoning behind their weighting formulas which determine how much money a song or composition earns for use on television or radio.[32]

In response to its 2009 lawsuit, critics worried that ASCAP may seek to hold consumers responsible for a ringtone public performance.[25]

Further controversies arose involving ASCAP in 2009 and 2010. The organization requested that some websites pay licensing fees on embedded YouTube videos, even though YouTube already pays licensing fees,[33] and demanded payment from Amazon.com and iTunes for 30-second streaming previews of music tracks,[34] which traditionally does not require a license, being considered a promotional vehicle for song sales.

In June 2010, ASCAP sent letters to its members soliciting donations to fight entities that support weaker copyright restrictions, such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Creative Commons,[35][36] creating notable controversy as many[37] argued that these licenses are a form of copyright and offer the artist an extra choice. Lawrence Lessig, a co-founder of Creative Commons, responded stating that they are not aiming to undermine copyright, and invited ASCAP for a public debate.[38] The offer was turned down by ASCAP's Paul Williams.[39]

It was reported in April 2020, that songwriters and composers were facing delays in receiving royalties. This was delivered via a memo to hundreds of thousands of members from CEO Elizabeth Matthews, who said the global disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic was to blame. This raised contention as those critical of the announcement wondered why the pandemic at that time would affect payments related to the third quarter of 2019. Further, it was revealed that publishers were still being paid royalties on time.[40]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) is a membership-based performing rights organization established to license nondramatic public performances of copyrighted musical compositions and distribute royalties to its songwriter, composer, and publisher members. Founded on February 13, 1914, by composer Victor Herbert and other music industry figures in response to unauthorized uses of their works, ASCAP pioneered the collective licensing model in the United States to ensure creators receive compensation for performances in venues, broadcasts, and digital platforms. The organization monitors performances through surveys, cue sheets, and technological tracking, calculating royalties based on factors such as usage weight and total revenue from licensees, including radio stations, television networks, streaming services, and live event operators. Over its history, ASCAP has distributed billions in royalties, advocated for copyright protections, and adapted to industry shifts like the rise of digital media, representing a vast repertoire while competing with other PROs such as BMI. ASCAP's blanket licensing system, which allows users to access its entire catalog for a single fee, has been a cornerstone of its operations but also a source of antitrust scrutiny, leading to a 1941 consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice that imposed restrictions on exclusivity and pricing to prevent monopolistic practices. Subsequent modifications and ongoing reviews of the decree reflect persistent debates over balancing creator compensation with market competition in music licensing.

Founding and Early Development

Origins in Response to Technological Change

The advent of player pianos and phonographs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries revolutionized music dissemination by enabling automated public performances without live musicians, thereby eroding composers' traditional revenue from sales and live fees. These devices, using perforated rolls and recordings, proliferated in establishments like restaurants and theaters, where music was played mechanically to entertain patrons, often without compensating creators for the underlying compositions. Prior to organized enforcement, such performances exploited gaps in copyright law, as the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act primarily addressed reproduction via mechanical rolls through compulsory licensing but left public performance rights underenforced for non-theatrical venues. A pivotal incident underscoring this technological disruption occurred in 1913 when composer Victor Herbert sued Shanley's Restaurant in New York City for playing his song "Sweethearts" on a player piano without permission. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Herbert v. Shanley Co. (1917) that such mechanical public performances infringed composers' rights under the 1909 Act, affirming liability for establishments profiting from unlicensed music. This victory exposed the impracticality of individual lawsuits against diffuse users, prompting Herbert and fellow creators—including George Botsford, Silvio Hein, , and Louis Hirsch—to form a collective entity for licensing and royalty collection. On February 13, 1914, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) was established in New York as the first U.S. performing rights organization, specifically to negotiate blanket licenses with users of mechanical and live music performances, adapting to the scale of technological proliferation. By pooling repertory and monitoring usage, ASCAP addressed the causal shift from artisanal music delivery to mass mechanical playback, ensuring creators received fees proportional to exposure rather than relying on sporadic litigation. Initial membership comprised about 178 composers and publishers, focusing on non-dramatic works to circumvent theater-specific rights managed by other entities. Following its incorporation on February 13, 1914, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) immediately pursued blanket licensing agreements for the public performance of its members' musical works, targeting establishments such as restaurants, hotels, and theaters that featured live or mechanical reproductions of ed music. However, these efforts met with widespread resistance, as many venue operators contended that incidental or non-admission-charging performances fell outside the scope of under the 1909 Copyright Act, which had codified the public performance right but lacked clear enforcement mechanisms for non-theatrical settings. This opposition delayed revenue collection, with ASCAP issuing its first royalty distributions only after establishing legal viability. The pivotal challenge arose from a 1913 incident at New York City's Shanley's Restaurant, where composer , an ASCAP founder, overheard an unlicensed rendition of his operetta song "Sweethearts" performed by the establishment's in-house orchestra to entertain diners. Herbert filed suit on behalf of ASCAP, arguing violation of his exclusive public performance right, despite no cover charge or direct profit from the music. Lower courts initially split, with the district court ruling for Herbert but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversing, prompting appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Herbert v. Shanley Co. (242 U.S. 591, 1917), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the unanimous opinion affirming Herbert's claim, holding that public performance encompasses dissemination "for profit" broadly, including incidental commercial benefits like enhanced patronage: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. In fact, it pays... by increasing the food's attractiveness." This precedent clarified that the 1909 Act's public performance right applied to non-dramatic musical works in dining and similar venues, irrespective of formal admission fees or the performer's employee status, thereby legitimizing ASCAP's licensing model and spurring voluntary agreements from resistant users. The ruling prompted a surge in ASCAP lawsuits against other non-compliant establishments, solidifying enforcement of performance royalties and enabling the organization's expansion beyond initial membership of about 175 works.

Expansion and Institutional Growth

Adaptation to Radio and Broadcasting

As emerged in the early , ASCAP extended its licensing model to encompass public performances over the airwaves, recognizing the new medium's potential to disseminate music widely without direct compensation to creators. The first commercial radio station, KDKA in , began operations in 1920, and by 1923, ASCAP had issued its inaugural broadcast license to station in , establishing a blanket fee structure based on stations' revenue to cover the use of its repertory. This adaptation built on ASCAP's foundational principle of collective rights management, initially developed for live performances and player pianos, by treating radio transmissions as analogous public performances under the 1909 Copyright Act. By the 1930s, with radio's audience expanding rapidly—reaching over 30 million U.S. households by 1935—ASCAP negotiated standardized agreements, setting licensing fees at approximately 5% of stations' advertising revenue in 1932 to reflect the symbiotic relationship between broadcasters and music programming. However, as networks like NBC and CBS grew dominant, ASCAP sought to capture a larger share of this value, proposing fee increases in the late 1930s amid rising music usage. This led to tensions, prompting broadcasters to form Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) in 1939 as a competing performing rights organization focused on underrepresented genres like country and rhythm-and-blues, which ASCAP had largely overlooked. The pivotal challenge came in 1940, when ASCAP demanded a near-tripling of fees—up to 7.5% of networks' gross time sales—effective upon license expirations on December 31, 1940, arguing that radio's profitability justified higher royalties for creators. Broadcasters, represented by the , rejected the terms, leading to a blanket of ASCAP-controlled music starting January 1, 1941; stations resorted to works, BMI repertory, and original compositions, drastically altering playlists and exposing listeners to non-mainstream styles for nearly six months. The standoff ended in June 1941 with a settlement reinstating ASCAP music at rates lower than initially demanded, alongside U.S. Department of intervention that scrutinized ASCAP's and foreshadowed antitrust consent decrees. This episode forced ASCAP to adapt by diversifying its approach, accepting competitive pressures from BMI, which grew to represent about half the U.S. music market by the mid-1940s, and refining fee structures to balance creator compensation with broadcaster viability. Post-settlement, ASCAP's radio licensing revenue rebounded, supporting royalty distributions that reached millions annually by the decade's end, while the organization lobbied for legislative protections amid evolving technologies like (FM) radio introduced in 1933. The adaptation underscored radio's dual role as both a promotional boon for music sales and a revenue stream requiring vigilant enforcement, ultimately strengthening ASCAP's institutional resilience.

Post-War Membership and Organizational Maturation

In the years immediately following , ASCAP underwent significant organizational maturation amid the expansion of broadcast media and post-war economic recovery, rebuilding from the market share losses incurred during the 1940-1941 radio licensing dispute with broadcasters. This period marked a shift toward more robust administrative structures, including refined royalty distribution mechanisms and adaptation to new performance platforms, as the society licensed an increasing volume of musical works across radio, emerging television, and live venues. Membership growth accelerated as ASCAP attracted composers and authors from broadening genres, transitioning from its pre-war emphasis on and classical works to include greater representation from , swing, and eventually rock influences by the 1950s and 1960s. The society's repertory expanded correspondingly, encompassing millions of compositions by the mid-century, supported by proactive recruitment and the rising demand for music in consumer-driven entertainment. This diversification reflected causal links to demographic shifts, such as the and , which amplified music consumption in homes and public spaces. A key aspect of maturation involved pioneering licensing frameworks for , which ASCAP engineered starting in the early to capture revenues from local stations and national networks amid the medium's rapid adoption—over 50% of U.S. households owned TVs by 1955. The 1950 amendment to the 1941 antitrust specifically addressed television-related complaints from licensees, enabling streamlined blanket licenses and fee structures that balanced creator compensation with user accessibility, thus solidifying ASCAP's role in the visual media ecosystem. Internally, ASCAP enhanced operational efficiency through expanded staff, improved performance monitoring via cue sheets and logs, and advocacy efforts to protect public performance rights against competitive pressures from entities like BMI. By the late , these developments had positioned ASCAP as a more resilient institution, distributing royalties from diverse sources while navigating ongoing antitrust oversight from the Department of Justice.

Operational Mechanisms

Membership and Repertory Management

ASCAP membership is open to songwriters, composers, and music publishers who own or control musical works eligible for public performance royalties . Writers and composers join at no cost, while publishers traditionally pay a one-time $50 fee, though promotional offers have occasionally waived this for joint writer-publisher applications. Applicants must submit an online form via the ASCAP website, providing government-issued identification and details on original works they have written or published, with approval typically granted upon verification of ownership. Membership grants non-exclusive rights to ASCAP for licensing public performances, but members retain full ownership and may affiliate with multiple performing rights organizations globally. As of 2024, ASCAP represents over 1.1 million members, including songwriters, composers, and publishers, reflecting steady growth driven by digital music expansion. The organization maintains a member-governed structure, with a elected by writers and publishers to oversee policies without external profit motives. New members must register their works to activate royalty collection, a process handled through ASCAP's online portal where details such as titles, co-writers, and ownership shares are documented to prevent disputes over shares. The ASCAP repertory comprises the collective catalog of registered musical works controlled by its members, encompassing over 20 million compositions as of 2025. Management involves maintaining the Repertory database, a searchable tool that lists works, writers, publishers, and alternate titles to facilitate licensing and performance tracking. Upon registration, works enter the repertory exclusively for U.S. performance rights, with ASCAP conducting surveys of radio, television, streaming, and live venues using advanced monitoring technologies to log usages and allocate royalties based on fractions. This ensures comprehensive coverage without requiring individual work-by-work licensing, as a single ASCAP grants users access to the entire repertory. Repertory integrity is preserved through ongoing updates for new registrations, withdrawals, or share adjustments, with joint efforts like Songview—co-developed with BMI—enhancing transparency for multi-PRO works since 2020.

Licensing Agreements and Fee Collection

ASCAP administers non-exclusive blanket licenses to music users, permitting the public performance of any musical works in its repertory without individual clearances or tracking of specific songs performed. These licenses cover diverse users, including broadcasters, live venues, restaurants, and digital platforms, with over 100 tailored rate schedules determining fees based on factors such as size, generated from music use, frequency of performances, and type of medium. For instance, radio and television stations pay fees scaled to their market reach and , while concert promoters base payments on ticket or . Fee structures emphasize proportionality to exploitation: general public venues like bars and restaurants calculate annual fees according to , hours of music played, and whether performances are live or recorded, often resulting in flat annual that avoid per-song accounting. Broadcasters submit logs or playlists to ASCAP for performance verification, enabling "follow the dollar" allocation where collected fees from specific media types fund royalties for corresponding uses. Licenses are obtained via online application at licensing.ascap.com, with initial fees due upon execution and subsequent annual remitted on the agreement's anniversary through the My ASCAP License portal, accepting credit cards, checks, or wire transfers. Collection occurs from over 700,000 licensed broadcast and live venues annually, processing more than a trillion reported performances to ensure comprehensive coverage of public uses. Agreements require licensees to report usage details periodically, such as cue sheets for or setlists for live events, facilitating accurate fee adjustments and audits, though non-compliance can lead to escalated demands under statutory rates set by federal courts. This system, rooted in consent decrees since , standardizes fees across users while allowing direct licensing alternatives for those negotiating individually with rights holders.

Royalty Distribution Processes

ASCAP monitors public performances of its members' musical works through a combination of and sample surveys tailored to different media types, employing advanced technologies such as the Audio Performance Management (APM) platform, which processes digital data to identify performances. surveys capture complete performance logs where feasible, such as for major network television broadcasts (e.g., ABC, , ) and top-grossing live concert tours covering over 2,500 acts annually. Sample surveys apply statistical multipliers for broader or less centralized uses, including local television programs, cable networks, radio stations, and streaming services, where full enumeration proves impractical due to volume. These methods draw from sources like broadcast recordings, program schedules, cue sheets, and logs, enabling the processing of hundreds of billions of performances yearly. Royalties adhere to the "follow-the-dollar" principle, apportioning payments proportional to the licensing fees generated by each medium, with adjustments via economic multipliers for revenue shares. Credits for individual works are derived from the formula: Credits = (Use Weight × Licensee Weight × Follow the Dollar Factor × Time of Day Weight) + Premium Credits. Use Weight varies by performance role (e.g., 1 credit for a featured , 60% for a theme); Licensee Weight factors in survey intensity and fee size (e.g., network "hook-up" weighting); Time of Day Weight scales value (e.g., 100% for primetime , 25% for late night); and premium credits supplement for high-impact uses, such as audio feature thresholds, classic song bonuses for enduring hits exceeding 300,000 credits, or audiovisual premiums for top-viewed TV series and films. Final royalties equal credits multiplied by the member's share (per title registrations) and credit value, which incorporates total distributable income. Distributions occur quarterly, with 12 payments annually across domestic writer, domestic publisher, and international categories, covering performance periods from two to three quarters prior to reflect processing time. Writers receive royalties under the Current Performance Plan (100% based on recent credits) or the optional Averaged Performance Plan (20% current, 60% five-year average, 20% ten-year average) to mitigate fluctuations; publishers follow quarterly proportional allocation. New media-specific rules apply premiums like enhanced credits for radio features (1 use credit) versus non-features (3-5%), and television features (up to 2 credits). Foreign royalties integrate data from reciprocal societies. Public domain works yield no credits absent a copyrighted . Payments issue via for amounts of $1 or more on release dates, or checks for $100 or more, with sub-threshold sums accruing to future or year-end distributions. ASCAP allocates approximately 90% of collected fees to royalties, operating as a not-for-profit entity. Survey methodologies undergo independent expert review to ensure objectivity. The initiated antitrust proceedings against ASCAP in 1937, alleging violations of the through practices that restrained trade in musical performance rights, culminating in a entered on March 4, 1941, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This decree settled the case without a full trial, imposing ongoing restrictions on ASCAP's operations to mitigate its as a performing rights organization controlling a significant portion of U.S. musical compositions. The core provisions mandate that ASCAP grant non-exclusive licenses to any applicant for public performance rights, allowing members to retain the ability to license their works directly or through competitors like BMI. ASCAP must offer licenses on reasonable terms, with disputes over rates resolved by a specialized "rate court" in the Southern District of New York, which applies a willing buyer-willing seller standard adjusted for the decree's constraints. Key terms prohibit ASCAP from discriminating among licensees, requiring transparency in repertory information and prohibiting practices like tying arrangements or refusals to deal that could exclude competition. The decree also bars ASCAP from acquiring exclusive rights that would prevent direct licensing by creators and mandates periodic reporting to the DOJ on compliance. Amendments occurred in 1950 to address post-war concerns and in 2001 to incorporate electronic licensing and clarify rate-setting for new media, reflecting technological shifts while preserving antitrust safeguards. DOJ oversight involves the Antitrust Division's authority to enforce, modify, or terminate the decree, with periodic reviews mandated every 10-15 years or as needed to assess ongoing relevance amid market changes. The Southern District court retains jurisdiction for rate proceedings and compliance disputes, ensuring ASCAP cannot leverage its repertory dominance—estimated at over 18 million works—to impose supracompetitive fees. In a 2014-2016 review, the DOJ declined modifications, citing the decrees' effectiveness in promoting competition despite calls from publishers for deregulation. A subsequent 2019-2021 review, prompted by digital streaming growth, rejected termination but clarified that the decree permits "fractional" or partial licensing of co-written works, overturning prior DOJ interpretations that mandated full-work licensing and enabling more flexible negotiations. As of 2025, the decree remains in force without further amendments, with DOJ monitoring focused on ensuring reasonable rates for users like radio broadcasters amid ongoing rate court settlements, such as the August 2025 agreement with the Radio Music Licensing Committee yielding escalated fees reflective of inflation and . Critics, including some creators, argue the caps royalties below , while users emphasize its role in preventing monopolistic pricing; DOJ evaluations prioritize of competitive harm over advocacy positions.

Major Disputes with Music Users

One of the most significant disputes occurred in the late 1930s and early 1940s between ASCAP and radio broadcasters over licensing fees. In 1940, ASCAP proposed fee increases of up to 300% for stations to perform its repertory, prompting the to reject renewal of agreements effective January 1, 1941. In response, over 800 radio stations boycotted ASCAP-controlled music, which comprised about 80% of popular songs at the time, turning instead to material licensed through the newly empowered (BMI). This standoff lasted nearly a year, severely impacting ASCAP's revenue and accelerating BMI's growth as a competitor. The broadcaster dispute culminated in federal antitrust lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1941 against ASCAP, resulting in a that imposed ongoing oversight to prevent monopolistic practices, such as discriminatory pricing or withholding of licenses. Earlier tensions dated back to the , when ASCAP initiated lawsuits against radio stations for unauthorized performances, including a 1924 suit against station for broadcasting ASCAP compositions without permission. In the , ASCAP faced further litigation from broadcasters, losing a federal case against Buffalo Broadcasting Co. in 1982 on allegations of price-fixing, , and monopolistic behavior related to licensing terms. ASCAP has also engaged in numerous enforcement actions against non-broadcast music users, such as restaurants, bars, and venues, for performances without licenses. These often involve suits seeking statutory damages, with ASCAP filing 21 such lawsuits against establishments in 13 states as of one reported period, targeting places like casual dining spots and nightclubs. Recent examples include 2025 actions against 10 nationwide venues for repeated unauthorized plays of ASCAP works, and similar suits against 15 others, emphasizing ASCAP's policy of pursuing businesses that profit from music without compensating creators. Venue operators have criticized these fees as burdensome, particularly amid rising costs, with some arguing they exacerbate financial pressures on small businesses playing background or live music. In , ASCAP secured judgments totaling over $1.5 million in unpaid fees, costs, and from radio stations denying licenses until payment, underscoring ongoing rate disputes resolved through litigation. A 2025 settlement with the Radio Music Licensing Committee established higher royalty rates for commercial radio with annual increases, reflecting persistent negotiations over fair compensation versus user affordability. These conflicts highlight tensions between ASCAP's mandate to maximize creator royalties under law and users' perceptions of aggressive fee structures, often mitigated but not eliminated by antitrust constraints.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Monopoly Power and Overreach

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has faced antitrust scrutiny since , when the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that its blanket licensing practices constituted price-fixing and restraints of trade under the Sherman Act, enabling ASCAP to exert monopoly-like control over public performances of musical compositions. In 1937, the DOJ filed suit against ASCAP, culminating in a 1941 that required ASCAP to offer licenses on non-discriminatory terms, permit members to withdraw individual works, and submit fee disputes to federal rate courts, thereby mitigating but not eliminating concerns over its market dominance. These measures addressed fears that ASCAP's pooling of copyrights—representing a significant share of —created for users and suppressed competition among licensors. Critics, including broadcasters and digital services, have argued that ASCAP retains substantial monopoly power, particularly when combined with (BMI), as the two organizations control approximately 90% of licensed public performance rights in the U.S., allowing them to dictate terms via blanket licenses that users often accept due to the impracticality of per-composition negotiation. The U.S. in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS (1979) rejected per se illegality for blanket licensing but acknowledged the potential for anticompetitive effects, noting ASCAP's and BMI's market power could enable supracompetitive pricing absent oversight. Subsequent DOJ reviews in 2014, 2016, and 2019-2021 affirmed the decrees' necessity, citing ASCAP's ability to leverage its repertory for higher fees in evolving markets like streaming, where alternatives remain limited. Proponents of reform, including some publishers, contend the decrees hinder ASCAP's bargaining power against tech platforms, but opponents highlight persistent risks of abuse in a concentrated licensing market. Allegations of overreach have centered on aggressive enforcement tactics and attempts to expand licensing scope. ASCAP has pursued lawsuits against small businesses such as bars, restaurants, and gyms for unlicensed playback, seeking statutory up to $30,000 per work, which owners describe as intimidating and disproportionate given incidental use. In 2024 and 2025, ASCAP filed multiple suits against non-compliant venues, publicizing alleged infringers to pressure payment, a practice defended as essential for creator compensation but criticized for targeting low-margin operators unaware of obligations. Rate-setting disputes, such as the 2013-2015 case, revealed efforts by ASCAP and publishers to collude on withdrawal clauses to inflate digital fees, prompting a federal judge to decry "bogus" maneuvers violating principles of fair . Additionally, specialized licenses for political campaigns have been accused of breaching decrees by permitting selective work withdrawals, undermining the all-or-nothing repertory commitment intended to curb discriminatory practices. These incidents underscore tensions between ASCAP's mandate to maximize royalties and antitrust constraints on leveraging its collective power.

Enforcement Practices and Rate Setting Conflicts

ASCAP enforces its members' public performance rights primarily through licensing agreements with music users, such as broadcasters, venues, and digital platforms, and pursues legal action against non-compliant parties for . Under its antitrust , ASCAP is required to offer licenses on reasonable terms, but disputes often arise when users refuse payment, leading to lawsuits in federal courts. For instance, in October 2025, ASCAP filed infringement actions against 10 establishments nationwide, including bars and restaurants, for repeatedly performing licensed works without , seeking statutory and injunctions. Similar enforcement actions occurred earlier in 2025, with suits against 15 venues in June and another 15 in March, targeting users who profited from music while evading fees. Critics, including advocates, have characterized these practices as aggressive and burdensome, arguing that ASCAP's monitoring—via on-site inspections, playlists, and third-party reports—imposes disproportionate compliance costs on low-revenue operations like local eateries, though ASCAP maintains such measures are essential to deter willful infringement and fund creator royalties. Rate setting conflicts stem from disagreements over "reasonable" licensing fees, often escalating to rate court proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as mandated by ASCAP's . When negotiations fail, the court determines rates based on factors like the license's value to the user, repertory scope, and market alternatives, aiming to prevent exploitative pricing while ensuring fair compensation. A prominent example is the 2015 Pandora Media v. ASCAP case, where the court upheld Pandora's blanket license despite partial withdrawals of works by publishers and set the rate at 1.85% of 's U.S. revenue, rejecting higher demands amid digital streaming disruptions. In the radio sector, longstanding tensions with the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) culminated in an August 19, 2025, settlement after rate court litigation, establishing higher base rates with annual increases tied to inflation and performance metrics, reflecting ASCAP's push for adjustments to terrestrial radio's market dominance. These conflicts highlight broader tensions: music users, such as broadcasters and online services, contend that ASCAP's blanket licensing model—offering access to its vast repertory for a fixed fee—stifles competition and inflates rates due to the organization's , while ASCAP argues that fragmented per-work licensing would be inefficient and undervalued. Rate court outcomes have varied, with some favoring users (e.g., lower digital rates) and others ASCAP (e.g., radio uplifts), but procedural disputes persist, as seen in 2023 appeals over consolidating ASCAP and BMI proceedings, which courts rejected to preserve decree-specific standards. Enforcement and rate disputes have drawn congressional scrutiny, with hearings examining whether consent decrees adequately balance creator incentives against user burdens, though no major reforms have altered the framework as of 2025.

Achievements and Industry Impact

Financial Performance and Creator Compensation

ASCAP achieved record revenue of $1.835 billion in the , reflecting a 5.7% increase or $98 million growth compared to 2023. This performance was driven primarily by domestic collections, which grew 5.5% to support $1.284 billion in funds available for U.S.-based distributions. Overall, $1.696 billion was allocated for royalty distributions to members, up 6.5% or $104 million from the prior year, amid membership exceeding one million songwriters, composers, and publishers. Operating as a not-for-profit entity, ASCAP directs approximately 90% of collected licensing fees—around 90 cents per —directly to members as royalties, funding administrative expenses with the balance without imposing commissions or retaining profits. This contrasts with for-profit performing rights organizations, prioritizing creator payouts over returns, though it relies on efficient fee collection and performance monitoring to sustain distributions. Royalty calculations incorporate factors such as usage weight, licensee revenue ("follow the " principle), time-of-day premiums, and verified performance data from broadcasters, streamers, and venues, ensuring allocations reflect empirical play counts and economic value. Distributions occur monthly, with 12 annual payouts segmented by type (e.g., four for U.S. , four for foreign), enabling timely compensation tied to real-time usage reporting advancements. In , these mechanisms supported record payouts amid rising digital streaming s, though critics note that aggregate growth does not always equate to proportional per-creator gains due to repertory expansion and varying individual metrics. Historical trends show consistent escalation, from $1.592 billion available for distributions in 2023, underscoring ASCAP's role in channeling public income back to creators despite regulatory constraints on fee-setting.

Innovations in Rights Protection and Transparency

ASCAP has implemented digital databases to improve transparency in the and administration of musical works, facilitating better and access for users. The ACE Repertory, ASCAP's searchable database of its repertory, was redesigned in as part of a new Digital Team's efforts to enhance efficiency and public access to data on works, writers, and publishers, including aggregate shares controlled by ASCAP. In collaboration with BMI, ASCAP launched Songview in 2020, a comprehensive platform aggregating ownership data from both organizations (later including GMR and ), providing an authoritative view of public performance copyright shares to reduce discrepancies in metadata and support accurate licensing and royalty allocation. This initiative addressed longstanding industry challenges in fragmented data, offering music users and creators a unified for verifying shares without relying on individual PRO queries. To protect creators' rights amid , ASCAP introduced the first slate of AI-specific initiatives among U.S. performing rights organizations in June 2023, including the ASCAP Lab/NYC Media Lab Music and AI Challenge for innovative tools, an AI Symposium for , and advocacy principles demanding transparency in AI training usage, such as disclosure of copyrighted materials ingested by models. These measures aim to safeguard performance rights by promoting opt-in licensing for AI applications and opposing exemptions that could undermine human-authored works, with ASCAP submitting comments to the U.S. Copyright Office emphasizing existing blanket licensing as sufficient for technological adaptation without diluting protections.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

Digital Streaming and Technological Adaptations

ASCAP has extended its licensing framework to encompass digital public performances, including interactive and non-interactive streaming via platforms such as , , , and , thereby adapting to the shift from physical and broadcast media to on-demand digital consumption. This includes agreements ensuring royalties for over 20 million registered works played across these services, with ASCAP collecting fees from major streaming entities as part of its repertoire licensing. However, these adaptations have been constrained by longstanding antitrust consent decrees, originally established in 1941, which mandate blanket licensing at rates determined by federal oversight rather than direct negotiation, limiting flexibility for higher digital-specific royalties sought by publishers. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice rejected ASCAP's proposed modifications allowing partial withdrawals of for services, preserving the decrees' requirement for comprehensive licensing even as streaming revenues surged past traditional formats. To address tracking challenges in the digital era, ASCAP employs advanced technologies for performance monitoring, processing more than a trillion annual plays across licensed digital venues and using metadata analysis, surveys, and digital fingerprinting to identify and allocate royalties accurately. A pivotal came with the 2020 launch of Songview, a collaborative platform with BMI that reconciles ownership data for public performance rights, providing music users—including streamers—with a transparent, authoritative database covering shares in over 38 million works as of October 2025. This tool enhances efficiency in royalty distribution by reducing discrepancies in fragmented digital metadata, enabling faster payments to creators amid the volume of . Disputes with streaming platforms have underscored adaptation hurdles; for instance, in the 2015 v. ASCAP case, the U.S. Court's rate-setting under the equated interactive streaming rates to terrestrial radio levels, a ruling upheld on appeal, which critics argued undervalued digital performances relative to their commercial scale. Despite such constraints, ASCAP has pursued ongoing DOJ reviews—initiated in 2019—to modernize decrees for the streaming-dominated market, advocating for reforms that permit market-driven rates without compromising competition safeguards. These efforts reflect broader technological shifts, including integration with systems like YouTube's for automated detection, ensuring creators receive compensation proportional to verified digital plays.

Policy Responses to AI and Emerging Challenges

ASCAP has articulated a "Human Creators First" policy framework to address artificial intelligence's potential to infringe on music copyrights through unauthorized training on protected works and generation of derivative outputs. In June 2023, the organization formalized six principles: prioritizing human creativity, requiring transparency in AI processes and data sources, mandating consent for using creators' works, ensuring compensation via free-market licensing rather than government mandates, providing credit where applicable, and advocating for consistent global standards. These principles underpin ASCAP's opposition to AI developers' claims of for ingesting vast catalogs of copyrighted music without permission or payment, positioning such practices as direct threats to creators' economic incentives. In response to generative AI's rise, ASCAP submitted detailed comments to the U.S. Copyright Office in and December 2023, recommending voluntary, direct licensing negotiations at —facilitated by performing rights s like itself—to enable lawful AI training while avoiding compulsory schemes that could suppress royalties. The also called for federal mandates requiring AI firms to disclose training datasets, implement mechanisms for creators, and outputs as AI-generated to prevent market flooding with unoriginal content that dilutes human-authored works' value. ASCAP argued that AI should augment, not supplant, human songwriters, warning of revenue diversion if platforms exploit works without accountability. ASCAP extended its advocacy to executive branches, submitting March 15, 2025, comments to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's AI action plan, urging robust enforcement of existing and rejecting exemptions that would prioritize tech innovation over creators' rights, as such changes could erode the U.S. music industry's $50 billion annual economic footprint. The group praised the U.S. Copyright Office's January 29, 2025, report on AI copyrightability, which concluded that purely generative AI outputs lack authorship necessary for —a position aligning with ASCAP's principles, as noted by CEO Elizabeth Matthews: "ASCAP will continue to put creators first and defend the value of our members’ creative work." A subsequent May 2025 Copyright Office report on training inputs further supported scrutiny of unlicensed uses, though it deferred broader resolutions to courts. To balance protection with innovation, ASCAP initiated practical programs, including a July 2023 AI Symposium for member education on legal risks and opportunities, and the 2023 ASCAP Lab and AI Challenge, which awarded grants to five teams developing ethical AI tools for creation and workflows. This evolved into the 2024 "AI and the Business of " Challenge, announced October 10, 2024, in partnership with the NYC Media Lab, focusing on AI-driven efficiencies in licensing, distribution, and analytics without compromising creator control. In June 2025, ASCAP co-signed a statement with composers, lyricists, and publishers demanding legislative reinforcement of rights to veto or license AI applications of their works, emphasizing control amid and threats. Beyond AI, ASCAP's policies adapt to challenges like blockchain-enabled rights tracking and metaverse performances, advocating for updated consent decrees to cover virtual public performances while maintaining antitrust safeguards. These efforts reflect a proactive stance prioritizing empirical evidence of AI's infringement patterns over unsubstantiated tech optimism, with ASCAP's official submissions providing primary documentation amid industry-wide debates.

References

  1. https://www.ascap.com/about-us
  2. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/february-13/ascap-is-founded
  3. https://archives.nypl.org/mus/22936
  4. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment
  5. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/royalties
  6. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11463
  7. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-civil-contempt-claim-against-ascap-entering-150-exclusive
  8. https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2019/03/articles/ascap-and-bmi-consent-decrees-under-review-how-performing-rights-organizations-antitrust-policy-and-statutory-licenses-create-a-controversy/
  9. https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wp0/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/2019/07/03210527/MusicIndustryinFlux.pdf
  10. https://www.copyhype.com/2011/12/100-years-of-copyright-and-disruptive-technology/
  11. https://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/601/
  12. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/ascap-forms-protect-writers-and-publishers-music
  13. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=dlj
  14. https://www.copyright.gov/about/office-register/ascap100.pdf
  15. https://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/setting-the-scene-at-28th-st-in-nyc/emergence-of-ascap-and-music-copyright.html
  16. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/242/591/
  17. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/ascap-100-years-and-beyond/early-years.html
  18. https://opentext.uoregon.edu/payforplay/chapter/chapter-11-world-war-ii-and-the-ascap-and-musicians-strikes/
  19. https://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/broadcast-music-inc-history/
  20. https://simonnapierbell.substack.com/p/the-coming-of-bmi
  21. https://elijahwald.com/labortimeline.html
  22. https://www.history-of-rock.com/ascap-bmi-war.htm
  23. https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/this-boycott-changed-american-music
  24. https://priceonomics.com/how-a-copyright-dispute-helped-give-america-rock-n/
  25. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/thenandnow.pdf
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-society-for-american-music/article/ascapbmi-feud-status-panic-and-the-struggle-for-cold-war-consensus/34445BF765FD6E8C1CE6F8D291A7EAD7
  27. https://www.thembj.org/2014/04/asacps-100/
  28. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/williams_ascap_music_tesitmony.pdf
  29. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2822&context=wlulr
  30. https://www.ascap.com/music-creators
  31. https://www.ascap.com/about-us/why-join-ascap-general
  32. https://www.ascap.com/help
  33. https://www.ascap.com/ome
  34. https://www.ascap.com/
  35. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/site-pages/annual-report/2024/2024-ascap-annual-report-optimized.pdf
  36. https://www.ascap.com/repertory
  37. https://www.ascap.com/press/2025/08/08-19-ascap-rmlc
  38. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/surveys
  39. https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing
  40. https://www.ascap.com/repertory/about
  41. https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing/why-ascap-licenses-bars-restaurants-music-venues
  42. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment
  43. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/keepingtrack
  44. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/members/governing-documents/ascap-survey--distribution-rules--10322.pdf
  45. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/distribution
  46. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/payment
  47. https://www.justice.gov/atr/ascap-bmi-decree-review
  48. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-opens-review-ascap-and-bmi-consent-decrees
  49. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/members/governing-documents/ascapafj2.pdf
  50. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-consent-decree-review-ascap-and-bmi-2019
  51. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF11463.html
  52. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/2025/ascap-comments-to-copyright-office-noi-april-11-2025-filed.pdf
  53. https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1355391/dl
  54. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-completes-review-ascap-and-bmi-consent-decrees-proposing-no-modifications
  55. https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2021/01/articles/doj-ends-its-review-of-ascap-and-bmi-consent-decrees-for-nowwhat-does-it-mean/
  56. https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2025-0001-0001
  57. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1059275187837243/posts/1968678380230248/
  58. http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/royalty-politics.html
  59. https://www.nrn.com/casual-dining/restaurants-sued-over-music-copyrights
  60. https://www.ascap.com/press/2025/10/10-15-venues-refuse-pay-songwriters
  61. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-09/restaurants-bars-say-they-re-getting-squeezed-by-rising-music-licensing-costs
  62. https://www.ascap.com/press/2018/07/07-13-royce-court-rulings
  63. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3728&context=ilj
  64. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/234771-the-never-ending-monopoly-story/
  65. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/1/
  66. https://variety.com/2021/music/news/justice-department-music-consent-decrees-unchanged-1234886620/
  67. https://www.justice.gov/atr/public-comments
  68. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ascap-calls-out-alleged-infringers-7558252/
  69. https://www.ascap.com/press/2025/06/06-25-venues-refuse-to-pay-songwriters
  70. https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/25/judge-highlights-bogus-collusion-ascap-publishers-rejecting-their-attempt-to-jack-up-pandoras-rates/
  71. https://cardozolawreview.com/licensed-to-rock-the-campaign-trail-are-the-ascap-and-bmi-political-campaign-licenses-violating-their-antitrust-consent-decrees/
  72. https://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43667.000/hju43667_0.HTM
  73. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/14-1158/14-1158-2015-05-06.html
  74. https://www.billboard.com/pro/ascap-settles-lawsuit-radio-stations-music-licensing-rates/
  75. https://www.insideradio.com/free/two-rate-setting-cases-or-one-the-battle-between-radio-and-songwriters-continues/article_0fbb8038-34f3-11ee-a9bd-b31d03f1a81b.html
  76. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43984
  77. https://www.ascap.com/press/2025/02/02-27-ascap-financials
  78. https://variety.com/2025/music/news/ascap-record-breaking-revenue-2024-1236321708/
  79. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ascaps-payouts-to-songwriters-and-publishers-rose-6-5-to-1-7bn-in-2024-as-membership-soared-past-1m-mark/
  80. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/members/statements/2024/2024---march-publisher-distribution-letter.pdf
  81. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ascap-launches-digital-team-to-increase-transparency-and-efficiency/
  82. https://www.ascap.com/songview
  83. https://www.ascap.com/press/2017/07-26-ascap-bmi-database
  84. https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi-ascap-announce-creation-of-new-musical-works-database
  85. https://www.ascap.com/press/2023/06/06-13-ai-initiatives
  86. https://www.ascap.com/music-creators/artificial-intelligence
  87. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/articles/2023/ascap-comments-to-us-copyright-office-on-generative-ai.pdf
  88. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/whocollect
  89. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/file/1355241/dl?inline=&ref=trackclub.com
  90. https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/identifying
  91. https://www.ascap.com/press/2020/12/12-21-Songview
  92. https://routenote.com/blog/major-us-pros-unite-songview-now-features-38-million-copyrighted-works/
  93. https://songview.com/
  94. https://www.courthousenews.com/pandora-fights-ascap-over-music-streaming/
  95. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/antitrust-and-the-shifting-music-streaming-landscape
  96. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF11463.html
  97. https://www.ascap.com/press/2023/11/ascap-copyright-office-comments-ai
  98. https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/2025/comments-of-ascap-march-15-2025.pdf
  99. https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2025/01/usco-ai-report-2
  100. https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2025/05/copyright-office-ai-report-3
  101. https://www.ascap.com/press/2024/10/10-10-ascap-lab-teams-announced
  102. https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2025/06/board-joint-ai-statement-rights-creators
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.