Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	6. 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 13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. 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. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 18, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification. On August 11, 2017, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ petition. On December 8, 2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ request for leave to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for class certification. The parties are attempting to resolve the matter and have informed the District Court that they expect to file a dismissal in February 2018. Sirius XM On September 11, 2013, the Company joined with Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc. and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. in a lawsuit brought in California Superior Court against Sirius XM Radio Inc., alleging copyright infringement for Sirius XM’s use of pre-1972 sound recordings under California law. A nation-wide settlement was reached on June 17, 2015 pursuant to which Sirius XM paid the plaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210 million on July 29, 2015 and the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement resolves all past claims as to Sirius XM’s use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables Sirius XM, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United States through December 31, 2017. The allocation of the settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs was determined and the settlement proceeds were distributed accordingly. This resulted in a cash distribution to the Company of $33 million of which $28 million was recognized in revenue during the 2016 fiscal year and $4 million was recognized in revenue during the 2017 fiscal year. The balance of $1 million was recognized in the first quarter of the 2018 fiscal year. The Company is sharing its allocation of the settlement proceeds with its artists on the same basis as statutory revenue from Sirius XM is shared, i.e., the artist share of our allocation will be paid to artists by SoundExchange. As part of the settlement, plaintiffs agreed to negotiate in good faith to grant Sirius XM a license to publicly perform the plaintiffs’ pre-1972 sound recordings for the five-year period running from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022. Pursuant to the settlement, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement on license terms, the royalty rate for each license will be determined by binding arbitration on a willing buyer/willing seller standard. On December 21, 2017, Sirius XM commenced an arbitration through JAMS to determine the rate for the five-year period. 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 the currently pending proceedings, the amount of accrual is not 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.

6. 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 13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. 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. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 18, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification. On August 11, 2017, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ petition. On December 8, 2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ request for leave to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for class certification. The parties are attempting to resolve the matter and have informed the District Court that they expect to file a dismissal in February 2018.

Sirius XM

On September 11, 2013, the Company joined with Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc. and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. in a lawsuit brought in California Superior Court against Sirius XM Radio Inc., alleging copyright infringement for Sirius XM’s use of pre-1972 sound recordings under California law. A nation-wide settlement was reached on June 17, 2015 pursuant to which Sirius XM paid the plaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210 million on July 29, 2015 and the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement resolves all past claims as to Sirius XM’s use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables Sirius XM, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United States through December 31, 2017. The allocation of the settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs was determined and the settlement proceeds were distributed accordingly. This resulted in a cash distribution to the Company of $33 million of which $28 million was recognized in revenue during the 2016 fiscal year and $4 million was recognized in revenue during the 2017 fiscal year. The balance of $1 million was recognized in the first quarter of the 2018 fiscal year. The Company is sharing its allocation of the settlement proceeds with its artists on the same basis as statutory revenue from Sirius XM is shared, i.e., the artist share of our allocation will be paid to artists by SoundExchange.

As part of the settlement, plaintiffs agreed to negotiate in good faith to grant Sirius XM a license to publicly perform the plaintiffs’ pre-1972 sound recordings for the five-year period running from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022. Pursuant to the settlement, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement on license terms, the royalty rate for each license will be determined by binding arbitration on a willing buyer/willing seller standard. On December 21, 2017, Sirius XM commenced an arbitration through JAMS to determine the rate for the five-year period.

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 the currently pending proceedings, the amount of accrual is not 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.