![\"music](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/TM-Courthouse-1024x546.jpg\" "\\"music\\"")
<\/p>\n
The Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. Photo Credit: NYU FC<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Music The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider its rate-setting decision in a marathon legal battle involving Live Nation and different promoters.<\/strong><\/h2>\nThe appropriate two-judge panel and the appellate court itself just recently rejected<\/a> a pair of related requests from Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI). And these requests followed a late-February decision<\/a> in favor of the North American Concert Promoters Association (NACPA), which was seeking to overturn a district court\u2019s BMI license terms.<\/p>\n(A bit more context from the same decision: Live Nation and AEG Presents \u201ccontrol approximately 75 percent of NACPA\u2019s members\u201d and \u201cpay about 90 percent of the fees under NACPA\u2019s license with BMI.\u201d)<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, in light of the ensuing legal battle, those terms would have established a dramatic public performance rate hike for the live litigants \u2013 to the tune of an \u201cunreasonable\u201d 138% increase.<\/h4>\n
On the heels of a five-week trial, \u201cthe district court adopted a definition of the revenue base that had no precedent in the history of the industry without a compelling reason,\u201d according to the two-judge ruling. (A third circuit judge recused herself.)<\/p>\n
(Without retreading too much ground here, exactly what to include in live-rate calculations \u2013 actual ticket revenue, VIP package revenue, etc. \u2013 has been debated for a while now. And among other things, the district court rate proposed dinging NACPA 0.5% of gross revenues for 2018-22.)<\/p>\n
Additionally, the same lower court \u201cidentified no change in economic circumstances that would justify a rate more than double what NACPA has historically paid to BMI and to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers\u201d (ASCAP), per the text.<\/p>\n
While a big win for promoters, the appeals setback didn\u2019t sit right with BMI, which filed a petition for panel rehearing or, alternatively, rehearing en banc<\/em>. <\/strong><\/h4>\nBut as laid out in the corresponding order, the relevant panel rejected the former request, while the \u201cactive members\u201d of the court denied the latter.<\/p>\n
With that, it appears the case\u2019s next step is reconsideration, in keeping with the appellate court\u2019s decision and vacated judgment, back at the district court level.<\/p>\n
As we previously reported \u2013 and as emphasized by BMI in a statement addressing the February decision \u2013 said reconsideration might still bring a rate increase. Wherever the cards fall, however, this increase would be smaller than that handed down the first time around.<\/p>\n
Separately, BMI remains embroiled in a rates confrontation<\/a> with SiriusXM; per a January scheduling filing, additional discovery and depositions are expected to keep the litigants busy into at least September.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
(A bit more context from the same decision: Live Nation and AEG Presents \u201ccontrol approximately 75 percent of NACPA\u2019s members\u201d and \u201cpay about 90 percent of the fees under NACPA\u2019s license with BMI.\u201d)<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, in light of the ensuing legal battle, those terms would have established a dramatic public performance rate hike for the live litigants \u2013 to the tune of an \u201cunreasonable\u201d 138% increase.<\/h4>\n
On the heels of a five-week trial, \u201cthe district court adopted a definition of the revenue base that had no precedent in the history of the industry without a compelling reason,\u201d according to the two-judge ruling. (A third circuit judge recused herself.)<\/p>\n
(Without retreading too much ground here, exactly what to include in live-rate calculations \u2013 actual ticket revenue, VIP package revenue, etc. \u2013 has been debated for a while now. And among other things, the district court rate proposed dinging NACPA 0.5% of gross revenues for 2018-22.)<\/p>\n
Additionally, the same lower court \u201cidentified no change in economic circumstances that would justify a rate more than double what NACPA has historically paid to BMI and to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers\u201d (ASCAP), per the text.<\/p>\n