![\"Entertainment](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ASCAP-Radio-Lawsuit-1024x546.jpg\" "\\"Entertainment\\"")
<\/p>\n
Photo Credit: Eric Nopanen<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Entertainment Is ASCAP systematically underpaying radio performance royalties for non-feature music? A number of production music owners and publishers believe so, and they\u2019ve slapped the PRO with a $123 million lawsuit as a result.<\/strong><\/h2>\nAlibi Music, Capp Records, Manhattan Production Music, and eight others, repped by entertainment attorney Richard Busch, submitted that multimillion-dollar complaint to the New York Supreme Court yesterday. A copy of the suit<\/a> was shared with DMN.<\/p>\nNaming the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) as the lone defendant, the action covers multiple bases in its 16 detail-oriented pages. But at the top level, the plaintiffs maintain that \u201cASCAP is unreasonably and unfairly diverting over $15 million\u201d in radio royalties from non-feature music owners annually.<\/p>\n
This refers specifically to stock and library music used in the background and during program introductions, to name a couple examples \u2013 particularly on news, sports, and talk radio.<\/h4>\n
In some ways, the description harkens back to Universal Music head Lucian Grainge\u2019s \u201cnoise\u201d criticism<\/a>. While 31-second audio uploads were allegedly gaming the system to secure streaming royalties, however, the non-feature music in question here is said to play a significant radio role.<\/p>\nThe mentioned news, sports, and talk stations, paying approximately \u201c17.4% of the blanket music station royalty rate,\u201d tap \u201cnon-feature music to fill in the roughly 22 minutes on average per hour, of radio airtime that contains commercials, promotional messages, bumpers, transitions and themes,\u201d according to the complaint.<\/p>\n
Even so, ASCAP allegedly \u201cfails and refuses to pay its non-feature music members all but a token amount of royalties from the monies it receives from\u201d leading radio stations.<\/p>\n
What, then, are the reasons for the alleged missing compensation? First, with similar arguments having been raised<\/a> when it comes to detecting usages in public establishments, the PRO allegedly employs \u201ccompletely unequal and unjustifiable performance detection methods\u201d for non-feature music.<\/h4>\nIn a nutshell: Allegedly inadequate \u201csample data,\u201d contrasting the performance-by-performance logging of full-length \u201cfeature\u201d tracks, is purportedly at the center of the calculations. Media Monitors is said to supply \u201c16 kbps, low-quality feeds\u201d for non-feature sampling, which is \u201cinadequate for reliable music monitoring.\u201d<\/p>\n
From there, Soundmouse audio fingerprinting tech is tapped to pinpoint usages. But it \u201ccannot effectively identify music when overlaid with spoken word \u2013 a standard feature in radio when playing non-feature music,\u201d per the legal text.<\/p>\n
As a whole, \u201cthe unfair, unjust, arbitrary and capricious nature of ASCAP\u2019s sampling methodology\u201d has allegedly fueled a material performance undercount (and underpayment), according to the suit\u2019s cited data from SourceAudio (the plaintiffs\u2019 radio royalties administrator).<\/p>\n
Running with said data, \u201cASCAP affiliated non-feature songwriters and publishers received payment for only 0.1% of their actual performances on broadcast radio\u201d between 2021 and 2024, the action alleges.<\/h4>\n
And across the board, \u201cit is estimated that only about 10% of non-feature music broadcast on domestic radio is actually counted by ASCAP\u2019s wholly deficient methods and technology.\u201d<\/p>\n
One station-specific example: New York\u2019s WINS, for which SourceAudio in 2021 \u201cidentified and logged 41,597 individual performances\u2026of the music it represents, licenses, and tracks.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis amounts to 114 individual song performances per day, for an entire year (which is a very large number considering radio has a finite amount of airtime per day),\u201d the suit spells out. \u201cASCAP paid on exactly zero of those performances even though WINS paid their annual license fee to ASCAP.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ASCAP-Suit-Screencap.png\" "\\"Entertainment\\"")
<\/p>\n
A breakdown, citing SourceAudio data, illustrating ASCAP\u2019s alleged failure to register and pay royalties for non-feature music usages on news, talk, and sports radio stations in 2021. Photo Credit: Digital Music News<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
As for the reason behind the alleged effort to shift \u201calmost all of the royalties collected from these stations\u201d to parties besides the plaintiffs, the complaint points to ASCAP board members\u2019 commercial motivations and express approval.<\/h4>\n
\u201cDespite the existence of readily availability [sic] technology to obtain a fair count of non-feature music on domestic radio (including but not limited to the technology ASCAP utilizes to count feature music performances),\u201d the relevant text reads, \u201cASCAP has failed and refused to change its counting methodology for non-feature music.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe sole reason given by ASCAP for this decision is that the current and wholly inadequate ASCAP methodology was approved by ASCAP\u2019s Board of Directors. Underlying this decision, of course, is the fact that most of ASCAP\u2019s Board of Directors are composers and representatives of composers and publishers for feature music used on radio,\u201d the document continues.<\/p>\n
A related-but-separate issue: ASCAP\u2019s board-approved radio collections \u201cweighting formula,\u201d which in practice allegedly means \u201cnon-feature artists are also paid significantly less than they should be for the performances that are detected.\u201d<\/h4>\n
\u201cThe Weighting Formula has been revised several times to favor feature performances over non feature performances,\u201d the appropriate section explains. \u201cASCAP states these changes are intended to re-allocate revenue to feature music as a result of the overall decline in U.S. radio revenue.<\/p>\n
\u201cSaid simply: these funds are funneled away from non-feature artists to appease feature music songwriters and major publishers.\u201d<\/p>\n
All told, the plaintiffs are suing for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, with $15.4 million in annual allegedly diverted royalties, added up for eight years, coming out to the initially highlighted $123 million.<\/h4>\n
In a statement, ASCAP described the suit as \u201cbaseless\u201d and reiterated its board\u2019s role in setting distribution policies.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
Naming the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) as the lone defendant, the action covers multiple bases in its 16 detail-oriented pages. But at the top level, the plaintiffs maintain that \u201cASCAP is unreasonably and unfairly diverting over $15 million\u201d in radio royalties from non-feature music owners annually.<\/p>\n
This refers specifically to stock and library music used in the background and during program introductions, to name a couple examples \u2013 particularly on news, sports, and talk radio.<\/h4>\n
In some ways, the description harkens back to Universal Music head Lucian Grainge\u2019s \u201cnoise\u201d criticism<\/a>. While 31-second audio uploads were allegedly gaming the system to secure streaming royalties, however, the non-feature music in question here is said to play a significant radio role.<\/p>\n The mentioned news, sports, and talk stations, paying approximately \u201c17.4% of the blanket music station royalty rate,\u201d tap \u201cnon-feature music to fill in the roughly 22 minutes on average per hour, of radio airtime that contains commercials, promotional messages, bumpers, transitions and themes,\u201d according to the complaint.<\/p>\n Even so, ASCAP allegedly \u201cfails and refuses to pay its non-feature music members all but a token amount of royalties from the monies it receives from\u201d leading radio stations.<\/p>\n In a nutshell: Allegedly inadequate \u201csample data,\u201d contrasting the performance-by-performance logging of full-length \u201cfeature\u201d tracks, is purportedly at the center of the calculations. Media Monitors is said to supply \u201c16 kbps, low-quality feeds\u201d for non-feature sampling, which is \u201cinadequate for reliable music monitoring.\u201d<\/p>\n From there, Soundmouse audio fingerprinting tech is tapped to pinpoint usages. But it \u201ccannot effectively identify music when overlaid with spoken word \u2013 a standard feature in radio when playing non-feature music,\u201d per the legal text.<\/p>\n As a whole, \u201cthe unfair, unjust, arbitrary and capricious nature of ASCAP\u2019s sampling methodology\u201d has allegedly fueled a material performance undercount (and underpayment), according to the suit\u2019s cited data from SourceAudio (the plaintiffs\u2019 radio royalties administrator).<\/p>\n And across the board, \u201cit is estimated that only about 10% of non-feature music broadcast on domestic radio is actually counted by ASCAP\u2019s wholly deficient methods and technology.\u201d<\/p>\n One station-specific example: New York\u2019s WINS, for which SourceAudio in 2021 \u201cidentified and logged 41,597 individual performances\u2026of the music it represents, licenses, and tracks.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis amounts to 114 individual song performances per day, for an entire year (which is a very large number considering radio has a finite amount of airtime per day),\u201d the suit spells out. \u201cASCAP paid on exactly zero of those performances even though WINS paid their annual license fee to ASCAP.\u201d<\/p>\n A breakdown, citing SourceAudio data, illustrating ASCAP\u2019s alleged failure to register and pay royalties for non-feature music usages on news, talk, and sports radio stations in 2021. Photo Credit: Digital Music News<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cDespite the existence of readily availability [sic] technology to obtain a fair count of non-feature music on domestic radio (including but not limited to the technology ASCAP utilizes to count feature music performances),\u201d the relevant text reads, \u201cASCAP has failed and refused to change its counting methodology for non-feature music.<\/p>\n \u201cThe sole reason given by ASCAP for this decision is that the current and wholly inadequate ASCAP methodology was approved by ASCAP\u2019s Board of Directors. Underlying this decision, of course, is the fact that most of ASCAP\u2019s Board of Directors are composers and representatives of composers and publishers for feature music used on radio,\u201d the document continues.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Weighting Formula has been revised several times to favor feature performances over non feature performances,\u201d the appropriate section explains. \u201cASCAP states these changes are intended to re-allocate revenue to feature music as a result of the overall decline in U.S. radio revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cSaid simply: these funds are funneled away from non-feature artists to appease feature music songwriters and major publishers.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, ASCAP described the suit as \u201cbaseless\u201d and reiterated its board\u2019s role in setting distribution policies.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\nWhat, then, are the reasons for the alleged missing compensation? First, with similar arguments having been raised<\/a> when it comes to detecting usages in public establishments, the PRO allegedly employs \u201ccompletely unequal and unjustifiable performance detection methods\u201d for non-feature music.<\/h4>\n
Running with said data, \u201cASCAP affiliated non-feature songwriters and publishers received payment for only 0.1% of their actual performances on broadcast radio\u201d between 2021 and 2024, the action alleges.<\/h4>\n
<\/p>\nAs for the reason behind the alleged effort to shift \u201calmost all of the royalties collected from these stations\u201d to parties besides the plaintiffs, the complaint points to ASCAP board members\u2019 commercial motivations and express approval.<\/h4>\n
A related-but-separate issue: ASCAP\u2019s board-approved radio collections \u201cweighting formula,\u201d which in practice allegedly means \u201cnon-feature artists are also paid significantly less than they should be for the performances that are detected.\u201d<\/h4>\n
All told, the plaintiffs are suing for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, with $15.4 million in annual allegedly diverted royalties, added up for eight years, coming out to the initially highlighted $123 million.<\/h4>\n