In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).
Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:
An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by the National Society of Arts & Entertainment Lawyers. The brief argues that the Copyright Act’s plain text and legislative history support a unified, comprehensive termination right that revokes all rights granted in a prior transfer, regardless of geographic scope. It rejects the notion of a “multiverse” of national copyrights, citing international treaties like the Berne Convention and longstanding U.S. policy favoring artist protection. Limiting terminations to U.S. territory, the brief warns, would gut the statute’s purpose, harm artists, and impose impossible burdens on creators seeking to reclaim their rights.
We believe the answer on appeal must be yes–affirm the District Court’s well-reasoned decision. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right a “second bite at the apple” to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.
That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said, Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.
Read the brief below, watch this space for case updates.
This led directly to both agencies inviting public comments on the state of the live event ticketing market—an industry riddled with speculation, opacity, and middlemen who seem to make money without ever attending a show. Over 4000 artists, fans, economists, state attorneys general, and industry veterans all weighed in. And the record reveals something important particularly regarding resellers: there’s a rising consensus that the resellers are engaged in some really shady practices designed for one purpose–to extract as much money as possible from fans and artists without regard to the damage it does to the entire artist-fan relationship.
Over the next several posts, I’ll be highlighting individual comments submitted to the DOJ/FTC inquiry. Some are technical, some personal, and some blisteringly direct—but all speak to the fundamental imbalance between artists, fans, and the multi-layered resellers, bots, and platforms that profit from both ends of the transaction.
This isn’t just about high prices. It’s about ownership, transparency, control, and accountability and the lenders who fuel the fraud. Many of the commenters argue that ticketing is no longer just a marketplace—it’s a manipulated, closed-loop ecosystem in which the reseller’s house always wins. And for too long, the architects of that system have claimed there’s nothing to see here. There is plenty to see here.
Each post in this series will spotlight one of these submissions that I have selected—not just to amplify the voices that took time to respond, but to help connect the dots on how the ticketing industry got here, who’s benefiting, and what needs to change.
We all have to be grateful to Kid Rock who brought this debacle to President Trump’s attention and to the President himself for making it a priority. We also have to thank Senator Marsha Blackburn for her continued defense of artists through her BOTS Act co-sponsored with Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blackburn has long opposed the use of automated fraudster systems to extract rents from fans and artists and we hope that the DOJ/FTC inquiry will also shed light on why there have been so few prosecutions.
Stay tuned for the first in the series. Spoiler alert: it’s going to be hard to argue that this is a “free market” when fans are bidding against bots and artists are not allowed to control the face value of their own shows.
This is a summary of a lot of the more involved issues that came up in the comments:
1. Speculative Ticket Listings
Resellers frequently list tickets for sale without possessing them, misleading consumers and inflating prices. These listings distort market data and should be treated as deceptive under federal consumer protection law.
2. Price Manipulation Through Bots
Automated bots are used to hoard tickets and create artificial scarcity, driving up resale prices. This not only violates the BOTS Act but enables unfair competition that harms consumers.
3. Deceptive Use of Venue, Artist, or Promoter Branding
Resellers often use official names and branding in ads, URLs, and metadata as well as typosquatting or URL hacking to trick consumers into believing they are purchasing from authorized sources. These deceptive practices undermine market transparency.
4. Misleading “Sold Out” or Urgency Claims
Some platforms advertise that events are “sold out” or create false urgency (e.g., “only 2 left at this price”) when primary tickets are still available. These tactics constitute false advertising and manipulative marketing.
5. Concealment of Total Ticket Cost
Fees are often hidden until checkout, misleading consumers about the true price. This “drip pricing” violates FTC guidance on transparent pricing and impairs consumers’ ability to comparison shop.
6. Resale of Non-Transferable or Restricted Tickets
Resellers list tickets that are explicitly non-transferable or designated will-call only, often in violation of the event organizer’s terms. Consumers risk being denied entry without recourse.
7. Lack of Delivery Guarantees and Refund Accountability
Many platforms offer no guaranteed delivery or refund protection when tickets are invalid or undelivered—despite charging substantial markups—leaving consumers with no remedy.
8. One-Sided Arbitration and Waiver Clauses
Some resale platforms impose forced arbitration clauses and class action waivers, effectively denying consumers access to meaningful remedies, even in cases of systemic fraud.
9. Failure to Disclose Broker Status or Ticket Quantities
Platforms often fail to identify brokers or disclose the number of tickets held, undermining market transparency and the ability of venues and regulators to detect fraud or hoarding.
10. Bankruptcy as a Shield Against Accountability
Resellers may use bankruptcy to discharge obligations arising from fraudulent or deceptive conduct. Congress should consider amendments to make such claims nondischargeable, similar to fraud-based exceptions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).
11. Federal RICO Liability for Coordinated BOTS Act Violations
The use of automated ticket-buying tools in coordinated schemes between resellers and bot developers may give rise to federal RICO charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. The following are three plausible RICO predicates when tied to a pattern of violations:
(a) Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Automated bulk purchases made using false identities or obfuscated IP addresses may constitute wire fraud if they involve misrepresentations in interstate commerce.
(b) Access Device Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029): Bot schemes often involve unauthorized use of payment cards, CAPTCHA bypass tools, or ticket platform credentials, qualifying as trafficking in access devices.
(c) Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Bypassing ticket site security measures may amount to unauthorized access under the CFAA, particularly when done for commercial advantage.
These acts, when carried out by a coordinated enterprise, support civil or criminal RICO enforcement, particularly where repeat violations and intent to defraud can be established.
In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).
Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:
An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by Music Artists Coalition, Black Music Action Coalition, Artists Rights Alliance, Songwriters Of North America, And Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists–that’s right, the SAG-AFTRA union is with us.
We believe the answer must be yes. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right a “second bite at the apple” to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.
That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said, Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.
Read the latest amicus brief below, watch this space for more.
America’s core copyright industries add $2 trillion dollars to our GDP and employ more than 11 million workers. Sign onto our letters to Congress and the President urging them to protect creators from unlicensed #AI training on copyrighted works! https://t.co/rpPVRolovUpic.twitter.com/GVLyNM16yA
— Copyright Alliance (@Unite4Copyright) June 16, 2025
The biggest of Big Tech are scraping everything they can snarf down to train their AI–that means your Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, websites, Reddit, the works. Congress has to stop this–if. you are as freaked out about this as we are, join in the Copyright Alliance letter campaign here. It just takes a minute to send a personalized letter to Congress and the White House urging policymakers to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair compensation in the AI era.
This week, country music icon Martina McBride poured her heart out before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Her testimony in support of the bipartisan NO FAKES Act was raw, earnest, and courageous. Speaking as an artist, a mother, and a citizen, she described the emotional weight of having her voice—one that has offered solace and strength to survivors of domestic violence—exploited by AI systems to peddle messages she would never endorse. Her words echoed through the chamber with moral clarity: “Give me the tools to stop that kind of betrayal.”
The NO FAKES Act aims to create a federal property right over an individual’s name, image, and likeness (NIL), offering victims of AI-generated deepfakes a meaningful path to justice. The bill has drawn bipartisan support and commendation from artists’ rights advocates, child protection organizations, and even some technology companies. It represents a sincere attempt to preserve human dignity in the age of machine mimicry.
And yet, while McBride testified in defense of authenticity and integrity, Congress was quietly advancing legislation that was the opposite.
At the same time her testimony was being heard, lawmakers were moving forward with a massive federal budget package ironically called the “Big Beautiful Bill” that includes an AI safe harbor moratorium—a sweeping provision that would strip states of their ability to enforce NIL protections against AI through existing state laws. The so-called “AI Safe Harbor” effectively immunizes AI developers from accountability under most current state-level right-of-publicity and privacy laws, not to mention wire fraud, wrongful death and RICO. It does so in the name of “innovation,” but at the cost of silencing local democratic safeguards and creators of all categories.
Worse yet, the economic scoring of the “Big Beautiful Bill” is based on economic assumptions that rely on productivity gains from AI ripping off all creators from grandma’s baby pictures to rock stars.
The irony is devastating. Martina McBride’s call for justice was sincere and impassioned. But the AI moratorium hanging over the very same legislative session would make it harder—perhaps impossible—for states like Florida, Tennessee, Texas, or California to shield their citizens from the very abuses McBride described. The same Congress that applauded her courage is in the process of handing Silicon Valley a blank check to continue the vulpine lust of its voracious scraping and synthetic exploitation of human expression.
This is not just hypocrisy; it’s the personification of Washington’s two-faced AI policy. On one hand, ceremonial hearings and soaring rhetoric. On the other, buried provisions that serve the interests of the most powerful AI platforms in the world. Oh, and the AI platforms also wrote themselves into the pork fest for $500,000,000 of taxpayers money (more likely debt) for “AI modernization” whatever that is. At a time that the bond market is about to dump all over the U.S. economy. Just another day in the Imperial City.
Let’s be honest: the AI safe harbor moratorium isn’t about protecting innovation. It’s about protecting industrialized theft. It codifies a grotesque and morbid fascination with digital kleptomania—a fetish for the unearned, the repackaged, the replicated.
In that sense, the AI Safe Harbor doesn’t just threaten artists. It perfectly embodies the twisted ethos of modern Silicon Valley, a worldview most grotesquely illustrated by the image of a drooling Sam Altman—the would-be godfather of generative AI—salivating over the limitless data he believes he has a divine right to mine.
Martina McBride called for justice. Congress listened politely. And then gave her to the wolves.
They have a chance to make it right—starting with stripping the radical and extreme safe harbor from the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Daniel Ek is indifferent to whether the economics of streaming causes artists to give up or actually starve to actual death. He’s already got the tracks and he’ll keep selling them forever like an evil self-licking ice cream cone.
Kate Nash is the latest artist to slam Spotify’s pathetic royalty payments even after the payola and the streaming manipulation with the Orwellian “Discovery Mode” as discovered by Liz Pelly. According to Digital Music News, Kate Nash says:
“‘Foundations’ has over 100 million plays on Spotify — and I’m shocked I’m not a millionaire when I hear that! I’m shocked at the state of the music industry and how the industry has allowed this to happen,” said Nash. “We’re paid very, very, very poorly and unethically for our recorded music: it’s like 0.003 of a penny per stream. I think we should not only be paid fairly, but we should be paid very well. People love music and it’s a growing economy and there are plenty of millionaires in the industry because of that, and our music.”
But then she said the quiet part out loud that will get them right in their Portlandia hearts:
She added: “And what they’re saying to artists from non-rich privileged backgrounds, which is you’re not welcome here, you can’t do this, we don’t want to hear from you. Because it’s not possible to even imagine having a career if you don’t have a privileged background or a privileged situation right now.”
This, of course, comes the same time that Spotify board members have cashed out over $1 billion in stock including hundreds of millions to Daniel Ek personally, speaking of privilege.
Using forks and knives to eat their bacon
Spotify responds with the same old whine that starts with the usual condescending drivel, deflection and distraction:
“We’re huge fans of Kate Nash. For streams of her track ‘Foundations’ alone — which was released before Spotify existed — Spotify has paid out around half a million pounds in revenue to Kate Nash’s rights holders,” reads Spotify’s statement.
“Her most streamed songs were released via Universal Music Group. Spotify has no visibility over the deals that Kate signed with her rights holders. Therefore, we have no knowledge of the payment terms that were agreed upon between her and her partners.”
This is a very carefully worded statement–notice that they switch from the specific to the general and start talking about “her rights holders”. That means no doubt that they are including the songwriters and publishers of the compositions, so that’s bullshit for starters. But notice how they are making Kate’s own argument here by trying to get you to focus on the “big check” that they wrote to Universal.
Well, last time I checked in the world of arithmetic, “around half a million pounds” (which means less than, but OK) divided by 100,000,000 streams is…wait for it…shite. £0.005 per stream–at the Universal level but all-in by the sound of it, i.e., artist share, label share, songwriters and publishers. This is why Spotify is making Kate’s argument at the same time they are trying to deflect attention onto Universal.
Then–always with an eye on the DCMS authorities in the UK and the UK Parliament, Spotify says:
“We do know that British artists generated revenues of over £750 million on Spotify alone in 2023 — a number that is on the rise year on year — so it’s disappointing to hear that Spotify’s payments are not making it through to Kate herself,” the company concluded.
Oh, so “disappointed.” Please spare us. What’s disappointing is that the streaming services participate in this charade where their executives make more in one day of stock trading than the company’s entire payments to UK artists and songwriters.
This race to the bottom is not lost on artists. Al Yankovic, a card-carrying member of the pantheon of music parodists from Tom Leher to Spinal Tap to The Rutles, released a hysterical video about his “Spotify Wrapped” account.
The legend Weird Al criticizing what Spotify pays artists in the video he made FOR Spotify. 🐐🐐🐐 pic.twitter.com/wASQunepBg
Al said he’d had 80 million streams and received enough cash from Spotify to buy a $12 sandwich. This was from an artist who made a decades-long career from—parody. Remember that–parody.
Do you think he really meant he actually got $12 for 80 million streams? Or could that have been part of the gallows humor of calling out Spotify Wrapped as a propaganda tool for…Spotify? Poking fun at the massive camouflage around the Malthusian algebra of streaming royalties gradually choking the life out of artists and songwriters? Gallows humor, indeed, because a lot of artists and especially songwriters are gradually collapsing as the algebra predicted.
The services took the bait Al dangled, and they seized upon Al’s video poking fun at how ridiculously low Spotify payments are to make a point about how Al’s sandwich price couldn’t possibly be 80 million streams and if it were, it’s his label’s fault. Just like Spotify is blaming Universal rather than take responsibility for once in their lives.
Nothing if not on message, right? As Daniel Ek told MusicAlly, “There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough.” This is kind of like TikTok bragging about how few children hung themselves in the latest black out challenge compared to the number of all children using the platform. Pretty Malthusian. It’s not a fallacy; it’s all too true.
I’d suggest that Al and Kate Nash were each making the point–if you think of everyday goods, like bacon for example, in terms of how many streams you would have to sell in order to buy a pound of bacon, a dozen eggs, a gallon of gasoline, Internet access, or a sandwich in a nice restaurant, you start to understand that the joke really is on us. The best way to make a small fortune in the streaming business is to start with a large one. Unless you’re a Spotify executive, of course.
New Survey for Songwriters: We are surveying songwriters about whether they want to form a certified union. Please fill out our short Survey Monkey confidential survey here! Thanks!
Big Tech’s “Text and Data Mining” Lobbying Head Fake
George York of Digital Creators Coalition and RIAA gives an excellent overview of international AI Text and Data Mining (TDM) loopholes and how to plug them. Nov. 20, 2024 Artist Rights Symposium, Washington, DC. Watch the Symposium playlist here.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the MLC has little to no oversight. The Copyright Office is tasked by Congress with oversight authority over this quasi-governmental organization under the Music Modernization Act. Yet there is nothing happening in the way of guardrails. The Copyright Office haven’t even concluded their mandated five-year review of the MLC that started a year ago. Not only has no one responded to Congressman Fitzgerald’s inquiries about the MLC’s oddball finances, the Copyright Office hasn’t responded to the many public comments demanding answers on the MLC’s sketchy finances as demonstrated on their tax returns.
The MLC’s 2023 tax return shows the quango is holding $1,212,282,220 invested in publicly traded securities–that’s $1.2 BILLION. That’s a fortune for an organization that makes no money–because as we were told ad nauseum the services pay it’s operating costs and bloated salaries-and has no profits because it is not an operating company. But it does hold several fortunes in unmatched royalties it does not seem to be in a hurry to match and pay out to songwriters.
The Supplement to the MLC’s 2023 tax return includes this language:
In our Form 990 for 2023, we provided information regarding funds we were holding in banks and investments as of the beginning of 2023 and the end of 2023. These included assessment funds that we subsequently use to fund our operations; royalty funds we were not yet able to distribute and on which we are required to earn interest in accordance with the Music Modernization Act (MMA) of 2018; and royalty funds we were holding pending distribution.
What the MMA actually says in the black box penalty language of 17 USC §115 (d)(3)(H)(ii) is:
Interest-bearing account.—Accrued royalties for unmatched works (and shares thereof) shall be maintained by the mechanical licensing collective in an interest-bearing account that earns monthly interest—
(I) at the Federal, short-term rate; and
(II) that accrues for the benefit of copyright owners entitled to payment of such accrued royalties.
The black box penalty in 17 USC §115 (d)(3)(H)(ii) is similar to the late fee charged to licensees. The code creates an incentive for the MLC to pay out unmatched funds quickly to avoid the market share distribution of black box which could happen any minute now (particularly since the Copyright Office hasn’t completed the five-year review it started over a year ago).
This language of 17 USC §115 (d)(3)(H)(ii) does not “require” the MLC to “earn interest”, it requires them to PAY interest. Because it is inextricably tied to job performance, it would not be a payment borne by the licensees as part of the administrative assessment as part of the “collective total costs.”
That’s why it’s a penalty. It is, in my view, absolutely false and misleading to state in a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government that the MLC is in compliance with a code section that does not say what they say it says. And it’s not just this one time, the CEO has said almost these exact words in testimony to the House IP Subcommittee and in supplemental written testimony to answer questions for the record from the Subcommittee.
Even if you want to be generous and accept the MLC’s argument–and it’s just an argument–that the MMA “requires” the MLC to “earn” interest, an “interest bearing account” simply does not contemplate “investing” other people’s money–your money–in publicly traded securities by a stock broker. When asked direct questions about who bears the downside and who gets the ups on their stock trading, the MLC has never answered the question.
The closest to an answer we get from the plain statutory language is that the MLC is required to pay interest on unmatched funds at the “federal short term rate” which is approximately 4.23%. Does that mean that if the MLC makes more than a 4.23% return they keep the upside? Or if the stock brokers don’t achieve that return, does that mean the licensees cough up the difference in additional administrative assessment contributions? Unlikely, so would the MLC’s board members pass the hat? I’ll believe that when I see it.
While the MLC refuses to answer who participates in the benefits or downside of the investment policy, the amount invested in publicly traded securities over 12 months has radically increased from $804,555,579 at the beginning of 2023. As of the end of 2023, the MLC’s holdings in publicly traded securities alone increased to $1,212,282,220, approximately a 50% gain over 12 months. What we don’t know is if that gain is due to slick stock trading, monkey with a dartboard or the addition of new money, Madoff-style. (And of course if they do manage to “blow up the compulsory” which is the latest from the smart people, who knows who gets to keep the black box?)
The MLC offers this explanation:
At the beginning of 2023, we were holding $138.8 million in “Savings and temporary cash investments.” By the end of 2023, we had moved $131.1 million of these funds to “Investments – publicly traded securities,” leaving the remaining $7.7 million in “Savings and temporary cash investments.” At the beginning of 2023, we were holding $804.6 million in “Investments – publicly traded securities.” By the end of 2023, the amount of funds we were holding in this category increased to $1.2 billion. This year-end amount included the $131.1 million we had moved from “Savings and temporary cash investments” into this category during the year.
Realize that this language explains nothing. Not only do they round down by $12,282,220, they simply describe movements of cash without explaining why it happened.
So once again, we are presented with a document that avoids the key issue at best and is misleading at worst. But what is clear is that the MLC has more in holdings that approximately 130 regional banks that have substantial disclosure obligations. It’s looking more and more like a hedge fund.
The MLC, Inc. has to disclose its “highest compensated” employees on its nonprofit Form 990 tax return for 2023. The Copyright Office was supposed to be reviewing public comments on whether the MLC, Inc. should be renewed for another five years or if the party is over. That review has been going on for a year now, maybe they forgot? The party is obviously still going strong.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.