Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Broad and Antiquated CDA 230 Immunity for TikTok Could Aid China’s Secret Efforts to Undermine U.S. Cyber-Security: Guest Post by Rick Lane

I believe there are only two public policy issues that President Trump and Vice President Biden agree upon: The status quo of Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunication Act is no longer acceptable; TikTok is a threat to our cyber and national security.

Interesting enough, these two issues are interlinked. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) gives free reign to Internet platforms operating in the United States to act with impunity as it relates to user generated content. Predictably, this has led to unintended and destructive consequences. But, left unsaid is what Big Tech doesn’t want anybody to realize – CDA 230 also unwittingly shields China as America’s top geopolitical adversary challenges U.S. national and economic security right here at home.

According to Bloomberg, Chinese-controlled “ByteDance/TikTok, led by Zhang Yiming, is becoming a viable rival to the dominant American online behemoths, Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc..” Last year, TikTok’s net profit was approximately $3 billion and the company estimates that it has about 80 million monthly active users in the United States, 60% of whom are female and 80% fall between the ages of 16 and 34. Of particular concern is that 60% of TikTok users are Gen Z, which is the largest generational cohort in American history and will include 74 million people next year.

As a champion of free markets, I would normally be among the first to applaud an upstart bringing a competitive “A” game to challenge dominant incumbent players no matter where they are based. But we have learned from experience that homegrown social networking companies like Facebook/Instagram, Google, and Twitter exert dominant and controversial influence in U.S. public policy debates – what sort of foreign influence should we expect TikTok to exert on this year’s election.

Lately, I’ve found myself asking should I really be concerned?

A recent article by Larry Magid was the tipping point for me in this debate. The headline of the article was, “How A 51-Year-Old Grandmother and Thousands of Teens Used TikTok to Derail A Trump Rally & Maybe Save Lives.” Magid lays out the series of events illustrating how attendance at a Trump rally was manipulated by a viral video of a grandmother from Iowa. It sounds innocent enough until you realize that the inflated numbers of expected attendees started when fans of K-pop, the popular Korean music genre, ordered free rally tickets from the Trump campaign with no intention of actually attending. Next, according to the article, the “grandmother from Iowa” posted a video on TikTok urging her mostly young viewers to “Google two phrases, ‘Juneteenth’ and ‘Black Wall Street,’” before also suggesting that they register for two free tickets to the Trump rally. Her video post went viral and motivated young TikTok users to request hundreds of thousands of tickets.

After reading this, I was left with a simple question: Whether Trump or Biden, doesn’t it bother anyone else that a Chinese-controlled social network was used to interfere with an American presidential campaign event at the same time that tensions between our two countries are escalating? Even Vice President Biden has banned TikTok from campaign phones and computers. As Mr. Magid’s article acknowledges, “(i)t’s long been known that social media can have a huge impact on politics. That’s why Russia tasked a state-run agency to flood social media with posts and ads to get Donald Trump elected.”

Two additional facts build on the story told by Magid. Another recent article, titled “Anonymous Hackers Target TikTok: ‘Delete This Chinese Spyware Now,” states that TikTok is “a data collection service that is thinly veiled as a social network. If there is an API to get information on you, your contacts, or your device, they’re using it.” The other fact to connect is that the key driver for algorithms and artificial intelligence, especially when dealing with human behavior, is vast data on human interaction. It is one of the main reasons that Microsoft is so interested in buying TikTok.

So now we are confronted with a Chinese based “social networking” site growing more rapidly than any homegrown US competitor and collecting more data on our youngest and most easily influenced demographic at the same time that China, Russia, and Iran are using social networks to undermine our democracy. Let’s not forget that this social networking site has been proven not to be secure and agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allegations that it illegally collected personal information from children, the largest civil penalty ever obtained by the FTC in a children’s privacy case.

But most alarming is that TikTok is protected by CDA 230 and cannot be held accountable for the actions of its “users” even if those “users” happen to be foreign governments. For example, if the Chinese government is leveraging TikTok for its own strategic advantage, the US government has no recourse against TikTok for these activities. The impunity provided by CDA 230 to TikTok, as well as Chinese and other hostile governments, directly threatens our democratic process. Even more troubling is the fact that TikTok, along with Facebook and other social networking sites, cannot be held responsible for illegal conduct occurring on their platforms – even when they know about it.

Besides the potential of interfering with our elections, TikTok also continues to facilitate the sale of illegal drugs. Below are three screenshots of illicit activity being perpetrated on TikTok. The first two images show illegal drug sales of opioids and the other shows illegal drug sales of steroids. Remember, TikTok’s core demographic and the intended audience for these posts consists primarily of members of Gen Z, those born between 1995 and 2012 –our children.  [Similar to Google’s near-indictment and $500,000,000 fine for violating the Controlled Substances Act.]

(Screenshots Provided by Eric Feinberg)

I will leave you with a quote from a recent speech at the Hudson Institute by FBI Director Christopher Wray. He stated:

“The Chinese government is engaged in a broad, diverse campaign of theft and malign influence, and it can execute that campaign with authoritarian efficiency. They’re calculating. They’re persistent. They’re patient. And they’re not subject to the righteous constraints of an open, democratic society or the rule of law… China, as led by the Chinese Communist Party, is going to continue to try to misappropriate our ideas, influence our policymakers, manipulate our public opinion, and steal our data. They will use an all-tools and all-sectors approach—and that demands our own all-tools and all-sectors approach in response.”

For addressing this clear and present danger, the United States must modify CDA 230 and ensure that we have all the tools necessary to hold TikTok accountable for criminal activity that occurs by “others” on their platform. Importantly, this includes illegal actions taken by the Chinese government to misappropriate the site, and the massive amounts of data it collects, in order to inflict harm on the US and its allies. Finally, we must avoid inadvertently making this problem worse by spreading the excessively broad and antiquated immunity of CDA 230 through trade agreements with other countries.

Rick Lane is the founder and CEO of IGGY Ventures. IGGY advises and invests in technology startups and public policy initiatives that can have a positive societal impact. Rick served for 15 years as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs of 21st Century Fox. Before joining Fox, Rick was the Director of Congressional Affairs focusing on e-Commerce and Internet public policy issues for the United States Chamber of Commerce.

#ShowUsTheMoney: Bringing Eyesight to the Willfully Blind: @SGAWrites and Society of Composers & Lyricists @CopyrightOffice Proposal to Bring Transparency to Secret Deals — Artist Rights Watch

[Editor Charlie sez: Remember how the MLC was supposed to bring transparency to the vast black box? Remember how we were skeptical? Here’s an excerpt from the important joint comment by the Songwriters Guild and the Society of Composers & Lyricists to the Copyright Office about how to address the previously secret deals between digital music services and publishers (called the “Negotiated Agreements”. Read the full comment here.. The robbery in plain sight may have already begun.]

With potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in songwriter and composer royalties at stake now and in the future, and in light of the profound lack of transparency surrounding these issues, we believe that the following questions should be openly addressed, answered and acted upon by the USCO as expeditiously as possible: 

(i) What do these individual, Negotiated Agreements actually state? 

(ii) What efforts (global and US) were undertaken by the DSPs and/or the music publishers to identify the true owners of the musical compositions that were the source of the unclaimed/unmatched royalties purportedly being dealt with in the Negotiated Agreements? 

(iii) Were the sums received by music publishers under these Negotiated Agreements (whether purportedly associated with unclaimed/unmatched royalties or not) ever shared with music creators, and if so, how? Put another way, what efforts were made to determine how music creators should share in these revenues? and; 

(iv) How do the provisions of the MMA (such as those that require mandatory accrual and turnover by the DMPs to the MLC of ALL unclaimed/unmatched royalties so that they may be researched for matching –and failing that effort– distributed according to the statutory provisions that protect music creator rights) apply to these royalties and Negotiated Agreements. 

@SGAWrites and Society of Composers & Lyricists Proposal for Secret Deals — Artist Rights Watch–News for the Artist Rights Advocacy Community

Press Release: @SoundExchange Praises European Union Court Decision On Equal Treatment for Creators

Sep 08, 2020

In Affirming “National Treatment” Principle, European Court of Justice Rejects Unfair Treatment of Music Creators Based on Nationality

Washington, DC – September 8, 2020 – SoundExchange praised the European Court of Justice’s ruling ordering European Union countries to treat music creators equally regardless of their nationality, recognizing this as an important milestone in the fight to ensure music fairness.

The ECJ ruling stemmed from a case in Ireland regarding whether US music creators should be paid royalties when their music is played on Irish radio or in places such as restaurants or bars. Some countries deny foreign music creators royalties for the use of their work even though royalties are otherwise paid to artists who are nationals of those countries.

The ruling has broad implications for music creators around the world. By adopting the principle of “national treatment” – that a country should provide foreign entities the same benefits and protections as it would its own citizens – the ECJ is setting the stage for all artists to be paid royalties when their music is played on EU radio broadcasts and public performances.

“Today’s decision by the European Court of Justice reflects a growing global recognition that countries should treat all music creators the same, regardless of their nationality. The ECJ reaffirmed equal treatment as a fundamental principle of how nations engage with one another,” said SoundExchange President and CEO Michael Huppe.

“We appreciate the leadership of Ireland’s RAAP in advancing the cause of fairness within the global community of music creators. We urge EU member states to quickly follow suit so that ALL musicians and labels, from whatever territory, can be properly respected for the benefits they provide beyond their home country,” added Huppe.

The ruling comes as the United States and United Kingdom undertake negotiations on a post-Brexit trade agreement. A broad spectrum of organizations representing artists, publishers, musicians and managers have urged negotiators to insist that national treatment be included in the final US-UK trade agreement.

Unfair treatment denies US music creators an estimated $330 million in direct global royalty payments a year. For more information on the Fair Trade of Music campaign, please go to www.fairtradeofmusic.com.

Press Release: @SoundExchange Praises European Union Court Decision On Equal Treatment for Creators — Artist Rights Watch

YouTube is (Still) Loaded with White Nationalist and Neo-Nazi Music, But no Advertiser Boycott? #StopHateForProfit

By now you are probably aware of the campaign to get brands to stop advertising on Facebook because of the prevalence of hate speech. The campaign has been endorsed by a number of civil rights organizations including The NAACP and Anti-Defamation League.  The campaign owes much of it’s success to Sleeping Giants (twitter handle @slpng_giants) a largely anonymous social media activist group.  Sleeping Giants was the force behind successful advertiser boycotts of Breitbart and Fox News.  Facebook is now their biggest trophy.

Over the last decade, my fellow bloggers at the Trichordist have documented the prevalence of white nationalist and neo-nazi music on YouTube.  Here are just a few examples:

2013

https://thetrichordist.com/2013/11/07/ytma-artists-can-help-clean-up-youtube-an-open-letter-to-jason-schwartzman-lady-gaga-spike-jonze-m-i-a-arcade-fire-and-macklemore/

2014

https://thetrichordist.com/2014/04/15/youtube-still-serving-ads-on-hate-rock-videos/

https://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/13/will-the-new-youtube-streaming-service-feature-all-the-hate-rock-currently-featured-on-youtube/

2015

https://thetrichordist.com/2015/07/16/advertisers-how-is-youtube-any-different-than-reddit/

2017

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/02/15/forget-pewdiepie-here-are-100-hate-rock-bands-that-youtube-still-hosts/

YouTube advertisers have periodically reacted to these reports by pulling advertising.  But YouTube continues to be loaded with hate rock.  You can verify this yourself by checking the Southern Poverty Law Center list of white nationalist bands and then searching on YouTube.  Here are some screenshots from my most recent search.

Fortress, Kill Baby Kill, The Bully Boys, Skrewdriver, Final War, etc.  The gang is ALL there!  And not all these videos were “user-generated content.” Many of these were official uploads by music distributors like CD Baby (Bully Boys).  And of course, many of these videos were monetized by YouTube.

So if advertisers are concerned that their ads will end up next to hate speech shouldn’t the #StopHateForProfit boycott also include YouTube? Then again maybe some advertisers just don’t care? (See below).

 

@ColinRushing of @SoundExchange: Congress Should Eliminate the Market Distortion of AM/FM Radio’s Free Ride on the Backs of Artists

[SoundExchange Chief Legal Officer Colin Rushing lays it down before Senate Judiciary]

Throughout the 80 years that the terrestrial radio performance right has been under discussion, broadcasters have argued in many ways that they are special and deserve different treatment than other business interests. Their arguments that their special status should result in them not paying performers– never valid – have now also been overtaken by events.

They say AM/FM radio is important because it is free, but they are no different than any other free ad-supported music platform available to consumers. They argue that providing public service announcements and news information is a reason to require music to subsidize their platform, and yet many music platforms provide these same services, not to mention that most digital music platforms are delivered over devices that provide local emergency notifications.

To the extent that AM/FM radio may be promotional, this is not a trait that sets them apart from other music services that compensate performers. Nor does it justify an uncompensated “taking” of musicians’ property. Rate-setting proceedings and licensing negotiations take promotional value into account as a matter of course, along with many other variables.

The potential for promotion exists in a lot of licensing arrangements. Television broadcast of a professional basketball game may promote a local team, but no one would suggest that the NBA should surrender the broadcast rights for free because of that “promotional value.” Why should music be any different?

Read his written testimony on the SoundExchange website.

Monica Corton Consulting Suggestions to the Copyright Office for MMA Regulations

Monica Corton’s comment in the Copyright Office’s request for comments makes some excellent points (you can read the entire comment here), particularly about educating songwriters about the necessity of complying with the formalities of registering with the Mechanical Licensing Collective in order to get paid.  This question is important and again raises the question of who bears the direct transaction cost on songwriters for that registration which was not addressed in the Music Modernization Act.

Ms. Corton comes to a similar issue also raised by others regarding the black box, but has a great point that a helpful way to reduce the black box would be by requiring the copyright owners to pay for third party services to assist MLC in cleaning up the data.  That’s a great idea, although it does seem that the cost of MLC registration should be paid by the services  as part of the assessment (which would be more consistent with what was promised).  It would be simple to require the MLC to pay the third party vendors on an ongoing basis (and of course would not be able to write itself a loan from the black box to pay for those costs as David has pointed out).

We have bolded some of the language in Ms. Corton’s post to help connect the dots:

The [Music Modernization Act] does not require publishers to provide data to the MLC. This is a problem because it could mean that smaller independent publishers or self-published songwriters may not know that they have to submit their data to the MLC in order to get paid from the digital services. They may not understand that they will not get paid without submitting data and that their money will go into an unallocated account that gets liquidated by to publishers based on their market share.

This is why there was so much time devoted to the education piece of the MMA during the recent symposium at the Copyright Office on December 6, 2019. I attended the symposium and in the following week, I had conversations with John Raso of HFA and Bill Colitre at MRI. I spoke to them both about my concern for the education piece and told them I thought the MLC was missing an education committee which I would be happy to help put together. It should include music publishers, digital representatives and educators.

We need a year to promote and educate people about the MMA, the MLC, why it’s important to register, how to obtain all their necessary data (i.e. ISWCs, ISRCs, publisher splits etc.) and the steps required to submit an accurate registration. John Raso urged me to write to Alisa Coleman making this suggestion regarding adding an education committee to the MLC. I emailed Alisa Coleman on Monday, December 9, but I have not heard back from her.

It is the feeling among many independent publishers, songwriters and even some DSP representatives that there is no real will to educate the masses about the MLC and registration. The reason is a majority of the members of the MLC board stand to gain millions of dollars from unallocated royalties if the MLC does not locate the publishers/songwriters of these unclaimed works.

There is evidence for this. When the NMPA negotiated a $30 million dollar settlement with Spotify, Spotify offered up their unclaimed works files to the settlement group. Every publisher that participated in the NMPA Spotify Settlement was given the chance to claim those works. When David Israelite visited the AIMP in NYC to discuss the matter after the process was well underway, he informed the AIMP membership that something like 15-20% of the unclaimed works were eventually claimed. However, this means that 80-85% of those works still need to be matched to their rightful owners. These works are also most probably part of the NOIs that have been sitting at the Copyright Office and were filed by the DSPs to avoid liability. It is a massive undertaking to try to match these unclaimed works, however, a well thought out education initiative that is strategically based could probably solve at least 50-60% of the unclaimed works identification. I’m suggesting an “edutainment” approach where we utilize celebrity songwriter/artists to get our message out over YouTube and other social media sites. We raise awareness about the reasons why registration to the MLC is so important. We give great tutoring videos on how to locate your appropriate registration information and we assist in getting them to submit spread sheets with all of their data laid out in the best way that the MLC can ingest it.

Without the education piece fully in place, I fear that a majority of the unclaimed works are going to be put in this unallocated fund and distributed by market share to the biggest publishers in the business. This has been the practice of every single NMPA settlement since the distribution of the NMPA Late Fee Settlement, and the major publishers, as well as the large independent publishers have benefited greatly from this practice.

In order to avoid this happening, I would like to support MRI’s suggestion that “the MLC make the raw data from the DSPs available to qualified, third party data processors, hired by such copyright owners, in order that they may verify the completeness and accuracy of such records and potentially claim ownership of musical works associated with the sound recordings listed in such records. Such efforts, to take place no less than six months prior to any liquidation event, would be meant to supplement, not replace, the MLC’s own efforts to identify the copyright owners of “unclaimed” musical works. In addition to promoting greater transparency in such matching efforts, these supplemental efforts will give music publishers-the parties best placed to identify their own works-a seat at the table as the MLC prepares for this critical initial distribution of unclaimed royalty funds. They will also reduce the burden on the MLC’s nascent claiming system and assist the MLC in bringing greater accuracy to the musical works database it will have established by such time.”

In light of the suggestions…for a third party representative to assist in claiming works, there needs to be an approved list of such “qualified third-party data processors” available on the MLC website. Many DIY songwriters will not know who these companies are and could get taken in by people who are not qualified. The Copyright Office should be the arbiter of providing the list of qualified third-party data processors. Certainly, MRI should be on this list.

 

Anonymous Comments from Startups/Songwriters on Open Letter for MLC/DLC Settlement

We’re getting comments on the settlement of the Mechanical Licensing Collective and Digital Licensee Coordinator (two lyrical titles for songwriter masters…NOT), proclaimed in their cozy proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board.  David discussed in his open letter to the Copyright Royalty Judges released over the weekend.

There was nary a startup to be seen as part of this negotiation so not surprisingly, some of the comments we got are from startups and everyone is worried about retaliation so commented anonymously.  Here’s a sample from startups:

The fee imposed by the biggest tech companies in the world on their competition is $5,000 for 5,000 recordings but $60,000 for 5,001 recordings?  WTF?  I never asked for this. Why doesn’t Spotify just write the check instead of all this penny pinching?

This is US only and is going to totally screw up my MFN deals with the labels if I use the blanket license because I have to match each label with the “fee”?  Thanks lawyers!

They keep saying this is like SoundExchange it is nothing like it. First off the yearly fee!  SoundExchange protects small webcasters and helps competition with a level playing field so you dont have another big rights payment.  What a sh*t show.

How can there be no public comment?  If the government sets a fee, don’t they have to put it for public comments and show back up.  This is like the British East India company.

Why would I pay $60,000 for US only?  For streaming only?  I pay for the startup costs?  Why don’t they pay for my startup costs?  Google & big guys started this thing I never wanted it. Let them pay for it.

Still trying to understand how this helps me…

This is the first I heard about the whole thing and they want more money?

From songwriters:

No one believes this is going to launch on time now I believe it even less.

So let me see… $60,000 yearly fee will increase or decrease the number of services competing for my songs? I will take a wild guess and say decrease.

Still trying to be positive about MMA but it gets harder all the time

 

 

PRESS RELEASE: SoundExchange Updates Client Portal to Provide Faster Payments and Transparency

PRESS RELEASE


New Feature Introduces Self-Service Management for Overlapping Claims

WASHINGTON, DC – November 6, 2019 – SoundExchange today introduced a suite of new features to its online client portal, SoundExchange Direct (SXDirect), that provide music creators with increased control and transparency into their royalty accounts through greater self-service. The groundbreaking “Overlaps & Disputes” tool notifies rights owners when other parties make competing ownership claims, enabling them to resolve overlaps as they occur. The efficiencies provided in this tool will result in fewer royalties being held up by disputes and thus faster payments.

“We are committed to raising the bar for the industry by providing innovative solutions for music creators,” said Michael Huppe, CEO of SoundExchange. “Music creators deserve to be paid fairly and accurately, and these new capabilities ensure they receive their royalties faster, too.”

To date, SoundExchange has distributed more than $6 billion in royalties to music creators, including distributing nearly $1 billion in 2018 alone.

“SoundExchange empowers rights owners and their representatives by focusing on transparency and efficiency,” said Paul Smelt, Co-Founder and Director of Global Master Rights. “These major updates will provide greater insight into catalog usage and significantly improve the overlaps and disputes process, distinguishing SoundExchange as one of the most user-friendly collection management organizations in the world.”

The recent update significantly expands the tools available to rights owners, enabling them to manage overlapping claims and upload new sound recordings directly into the SXDirect portal:

  • Overlaps & Disputes: provides rights owners with instant notification when there are overlapping claims to a sound recording and provides them with the ability to maintain or relinquish claims using a dashboard in SXDirect.
  • Submit Recordings: provides rights owners with a dashboard in SXDirect where they can add new sound recordings by providing the International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) and related metadata. These new sound recordings receive immediate validation so that they can be immediately accepted into SoundExchange’s Repertoire Database and therefore become available to claim and associate rights.

“By introducing this portal update, SoundExchange is once again demonstrating they are the vanguard on transparency in the music industry. Combining this with their powerful new self-service features, empowers sound recording copyright owners to submit ISRCs, make new claims, and resolve overlaps faster to maximize their royalty streams with a spirit of collaboration,” said Rob Gruschke, Vice President of Global Collective Rights at Beggars Group Media.

Additional features were introduced that are available to all music creators who use the SXDirect portal:

  • Associated Recordings: provides a display of all sound recordings currently associated with the music creator’s account and the claim percentage for each track.
  • Search & Claim: provides a way to search SoundExchange’s complete database of sound recordings, which includes ISRCs provided by rights owners and tracks that have been reported to SoundExchange as played but have not yet been associated with a rights owner-provided ISRC.
  • Upload History: provides music creators with a history of files that have been uploaded to SXDirect. These files include “Search & Claim” carts or rights owner-submitted sound recordings.

“The targeted use of automation gives music creators greater control of their accounts through self-service.  In this way we ensure that the business of music keeps up with the pace of their creativity,” said Jonathan Bender, Chief Operating Officer at SoundExchange.

These updates are now available to all music creators who have SXDirect accounts. Account holders can learn how to use these features by reading a new series of posts published to SoundExchange’s blog.

 

 

How to Contact the Court in PledgeMusic Case

PledgeMusic had posted this information on their website when we checked today:

As a result of the making of the order, the Official Receiver becomes liquidator of the company. Any enquiries should be forwarded to LondonB.OR@insolvency.gov.uk, quoting reference LQD5671373.

We gather that what that means is that if you are (1) an artist who is owed money by PledgeMusic, (2) a fan who gave money to an artist who you think did not receive your money from PledgeMusic, or (3) a vendor who didn’t get paid because PledgeMusic didn’t pay your artist, then you should write to that email address which we assume is for the “Official Receiver” who is now in charge of running the case.  (OK, that does sound like a character out of Harry Potter, but that’s how it is.)

We also assume because Pledge didn’t say that there is a deadline for submitting your claim there probably is one.  That’s probably why PledgeMusic didn’t say what the deadline was, a fact they almost certainly know very well.  Because if you fail to get your claim in on time, there’s more for them in the pot.  Ponzi to the very end.

You should take legal advice about what you should say and how to handle it, but if you can’t afford a lawyer you could say in your email that you think you are owed money, how much and why, and ask them what you should do about it.  It probably wouldn’t hurt to tell them what you have done to try to collect your money from Pledge and the approximate or exact dates you tried to get their attention.

And be sure to tell the Official Receiver if you think Pledge breached its obligations to you or otherwise did you wrong, threatened you, or any other bad stuff.

The Official Receiver probably frequently deals with people who are owed money and have no lawyer so don’t be shy about it.  The Insolvency Service (who actually appoints the Official Receiver) also responded to Chris Castle on Twitter:

Insolvency Service 1

We will keep you posted with more information as we find out.

The Countdown to Modernity: Copyright Royalty Board Posts Notices and Rules for MLC Assessment Proceeding–Artist Rights Watch

Since there was no advance commitment or agreement on the budget for the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) under Title I  of the Music Modernization Act, it appears that the clock is ticking on an agreement before the parties have to go before the Copyright Royalty Judges to be told what the budget (or the “assessment”) is to be.  The Copyright Royalty Board has beat the July 8 deadline for noticing the proceeding and has posted the notice and the rules for the hearing.

The “Notice announcing commencement of Initial Administrative Assessment proceeding and requesting Petitions to Participate” can be found here:

The regulations require the participation of the MLC and the Digital Licensee Coordinator (DLC) in the proceeding and permit the participation of copyright owners, digital music providers, and significant nonblanket licensees. 37 CFR 355.2(c)–(d).

The Judges hereby announce commencement of the proceeding, direct the MLC and the DLC to file Petitions to Participate, and request Petitions to Participate from any other eligible participant with a significant interest in the determination of the Initial Administrative Assessment…

Any participant that is an individual may represent herself or himself. All other participants must be represented by counsel….

Petitions to Participate and the filing fee are due on or before July 23, 2019.

The CRJ’s rules relating to the proceeding can be found here and have some relevant language relating to who can participate in addition to the MLC and DLC:

[T]he Judges believe that the views of other participants may be helpful, and perhaps essential, for the Judges to determine whether good cause exists to exercise their discretion to reject a settlement. The Judges, therefore, have modified [the regulations for the settlement negotiations and proceeding] to clarify that participants other than the MLC and DLC may participate in settlement negotiations and may comment on any resulting settlement.