Opinion ID: 402322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ASCAP music claims

Text: 60 Our observations in Part II supra also explain why we reject ASCAP's first general claim, concerning the total share of the Fund awarded to music claimants. The argument once again comes down to methodology, and the Tribunal's refusal to rely blindly on the data put forward by ASCAP was not unreasonable. 25 The two approaches lead to a difference of only three percentage points of the Fund, and we cannot say that the Tribunal's choice falls outside a zone of reasonableness. 61 ASCAP's second challenge, concerning its relative share of the award to music claimants generally, has somewhat greater force. Two of the five Tribunal members agreed with ASCAP in their dissent from the Phase II determination, and ASCAP makes a succession of strong arguments concerning the strength of its supporting evidence and the weakness of the evidence cited by the Tribunal. 26 It is not necessary to devote considerable attention to this claim, however. The Tribunal did not act unreasonably in concluding that the BMI and ASCAP shares of the music industry have been converging since 1972, and therefore in refusing to allocate the music share between these two claimants along the lines of a more sharply skewed division in that year. 27 As we have emphasized throughout this opinion, the Tribunal's numerical apportionments are entitled to considerable deference, and its decision is not unsupported by substantial evidence merely because other divisions were possible. 62