Supporting Pandora’s position, a special master—retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal—recently issued a report recommending summary judgment in Pandora’s favor. Judge Segal concluded that the comedians’ estates had effectively allowed Pandora to use the recordings by not taking action for nearly a decade, despite knowing their material was being streamed.
Pandora has now formally submitted that report to the court, emphasizing that the findings validate its long-standing defense: that no copyright infringement occurred because of the implied rights it had to use the content. The company is urging the court to adopt the special master’s conclusions and dismiss the lawsuit outright.
“Pandora reasonably believed it had the right to stream this content based on years of industry practice and the absence of any objections from rights holders,” the company’s legal team stated in its filing.
The lawsuit is part of a broader trend in copyright law where spoken-word content—like comedy, podcasts, and motivational speeches—has become a focal point in the digital streaming age. Platforms like Pandora, Spotify, and others have increasingly relied on this type of content to boost user engagement, often navigating a complex licensing landscape that traditionally centered around music.
If the court agrees with the special master’s findings, the decision could set an important precedent in how implied licenses and equitable estoppel are applied to the streaming of non-musical content. It may also influence how comedians and spoken-word artists negotiate rights and protections moving forward.
