Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Pricing of Digital Music Downloads On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs’ state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants’ original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants’ motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain, for the class of internet download purchasers. The parties have filed amended pleadings complying with the court’s order, and the case is currently in discovery. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be made. Music Download Putative Class Action Suits Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs’ counsel moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs’ counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012. On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. As part of the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys’ fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and ringtones. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 2, 2014. Based on an evaluation of potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss possible, the Company has recorded what it believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not material. Other Matters In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is involved in various litigation and regulatory proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Where it is determined, in consultation with counsel based on litigation and settlement risks, that a loss is probable and estimable in a given matter, the Company establishes an accrual. In none of the currently pending proceedings is the amount of accrual material. An estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts already accrued cannot be made at this time due to various factors typical in contested proceedings, including (1) the results of ongoing discovery; (2) uncertain damage theories and demands; (3) a less than complete factual record; (4) uncertainty concerning legal theories and their resolution by courts or regulators; and (5) the unpredictable nature of the opposing party and its demands. However, the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation or the potential for future litigation. As such, the Company continuously monitors these proceedings as they develop and adjusts any accrual or disclosure as needed. Regardless of the outcome, litigation could have an adverse impact on the Company, including the Company’s brand value, because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors and it could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations for a given reporting period.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Pricing of Digital Music Downloads

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs’ state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants’ original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants’ motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain, for the class of internet download purchasers. The parties have filed amended pleadings complying with the court’s order, and the case is currently in discovery. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be made.

Music Download Putative Class Action Suits

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs’ counsel moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs’ counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. As part of the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys’ fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and ringtones. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 2, 2014. Based on an evaluation of potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss possible, the Company has recorded what it believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not material.

Other Matters

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is involved in various litigation and regulatory proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Where it is determined, in consultation with counsel based on litigation and settlement risks, that a loss is probable and estimable in a given matter, the Company establishes an accrual. In none of the currently pending proceedings is the amount of accrual material. An estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts already accrued cannot be made at this time due to various factors typical in contested proceedings, including (1) the results of ongoing discovery; (2) uncertain damage theories and demands; (3) a less than complete factual record; (4) uncertainty concerning legal theories and their resolution by courts or regulators; and (5) the unpredictable nature of the opposing party and its demands. However, the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation or the potential for future litigation. As such, the Company continuously monitors these proceedings as they develop and adjusts any accrual or disclosure as needed. Regardless of the outcome, litigation could have an adverse impact on the Company, including the Company’s brand value, because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors and it could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations for a given reporting period.