The Nature of Collective Licensing

Music Technology Policy

The main reason why it is profitable to establish a firm would seem to be that there is a cost of using the price mechanism. The most obvious cost of “organising” production through the price mechanism is that of discovering what the relevant prices are. This cost may be reduced but it will not be eliminated by the emergence of specialists who will sell this information. The costs of negotiating and concluding a separate contract for each exchange transaction which takes place on a market must also be taken into account.  Again, in certain markets, e.g., produce exchanges, a technique is devised for minimising these contract costs; but they are not eliminated. It is true that contracts are not eliminated when there is a firm but they are greatly reduced.

The Nature of the Firm by R.H. Coase, Economica (1937) 386 at 390-91.

Buy Low, Sell High

Maybe you’ve…

View original post 2,038 more words

Bumps Not Dumps: Merlin’s Pandora Catastrophe Continues

Merlin’s DMX-style direct deal with Pandora is the gift that keeps on giving.  As we expected, Pandora introduced their Merlin deal in the ratesetting preceding in Washington that sets all of our sound recording royalty rates for any service that uses the webcasting and simulcasting compulsory license.  This is done at the “Copyright Royalty Board,” which is three rate-court judges who rule on the rates we get paid on services like Pandora and Clear Channel/IHeartMedia.  This is different than the ASCAP and BMI rate courts for songwriters.

The way this works is similar to the “Chris Harrison Special” that DMX pulled with ASCAP and BMI.  The way this stunt works is that Pandora (under Chris Harrison’s guidance) goes out and finds some gullible label to make a direct deal with them at a low royalty rate.  (Harrison was the DMX lawyer who Pandora hired, likely because he did such a good job of screwing songwriters at DMX that Pandora wanted his special skills brought to their own end of the sty.  Harrison, aka Songwriter Enemy #1, has since gone on to greener pastures at SiriusXM where his special skills can be put to use in the Sirius direct licensing program–more on that later.)

They usually accomplish this by paying a big advance or giving the label some other incentive to make that direct deal.  Pandora then tries to use that low royalty deal as a “benchmark” for the Copyright Royalty Board to use as evidence of a market rate deal when setting the “willing buyer/willing seller” royalty rates that apply to everyone BUT the label that got the goodies for making the direct deal.

You can see that Pandora wants to make a direct deal with a royalty rate that is BELOW the current statutory rate that applies to the rest of us.  Why?  Because the assumption is that the current statutory rate will INCREASE in the current rate proceeding.  So if you’re Pandora, you want to try to find as many ways to screw artists and songwriters that you can, so you want to make as many of these “direct deals” as you can so you can put them in front of the Copyright Royalty Board to get the judges to IGNORE the goodies that incentivized the label to make the direct deal in the first place and ONLY look at the penny rate as evidence of an arms length “market rate” for the royalty rate that will apply to the rest of us who don’t get (and may not even want) the goodies.

The Chris Harrison Special

This is exactly the kind of “Chris Harrison special” that Pandora ran against us in the current rate setting (called “Web IV”).  The gullible label in this case is the Merlin label group.  What goodies did Merlin get?

1.   Advance:  Because we haven’t seen a copy of the Merlin deal with Pandora (or any side deals) we don’t really know what Merlin got in the way of an advance for Merlin labels or a flat fee for Merlin itself.  Even though Pandora had to file a copy of its Merlin deal with the Copyright Royalty Board in Web IV, the public version of that deal has the deal points blacked out.  That’s right–the very terms that Pandora and Merlin are using to screw the rest of us are secret.  Funny how The Verge hasn’t gotten a leaked copy of that deal.

2.  Steering Payola:  As David wrote in his comment to the FCC about the broadcasters request for a waiver of the payola rules, Pandora’s contract with Merlin allows Pandora to pay Merlin a lower royalty the more music they play from Merlin labels, called “steering”.  Remember–Pandora is now an FCC licensed broadcaster, so the payola rules apply to Pandora, and steering looks an awful lot like pay to play–a discount on royalties is just another form of payment.  David wrote the FCC to ask them to look into whether the Merlin steering deal with Pandora was even legal. Using forks and knives to eat their bacon!

3.  Direct Payments:  Merlin agreed that all artist royalties under the direct deal with Pandora should be paid through SoundExchange just like the compulsory license.  We really don’t know how this will work from a practical viewpoint.  This is kind of like what happens if a songwriter’s publisher pulls out of ASCAP or BMI because of the bizarre rate court rulings, but the writer wants to keep their writer’s share with their PRO.  It’s every bit as screwy.

We can’t believe that any Merlin label actually asked their artists if they wanted their records to be included in this direct deal rather than just get paid the compulsory rate directly from SoundExchange because the cost of accounting will probably exceed the royalty in many cases (through no fault of SoundExchange, by the way).  It appears that the only logical explanation for why Merlin wanted the artists to get paid directly in this screwed up deal was for the political cover it gave them.

Dumps Not Bumps

How is this fair for Merlin artists?  We’re not trying to speak for them, but by the looks of things, they need to wake up and smell the coffee.  We’ve heard of increases in royalty rate the better you do (“bumps”) but we’ve never heard of decreases in royalty rate the better you do (“dumps”).  Can you imagine the cocktail party conversation?  “Hey, man, I’m so special I get dumps from my label.”

It’s not enough that the royalty should be lower the more times you’re played or that your royalty should be lower the more times someone else is played, a deal that seems tailor made for the CRB to use to screw artists.  Surely that kind of royalty rate is not in anyone’s Merlin label record deal.

It’s also not enough that you don’t get told if there’s a Merlin side deal or what the terms of the Merlin side deal are, it’s not enough that your deal is going to be used by Pandora to screw every other artist–no, on top of it all, the cost of giving your label political cover has to make it so that the reporting administration for that political cover has to cost more than anyone else and may actually cost more than you make.

And who pays for that?  Who pays those additional reporting costs? Pandora?  Unlikely.  Merlin?  Even less likely.  More likely it’s SoundExchange, which may mean those costs (including the cost of fighting about it in the CRB) get “socialized” across all the featured artists, non featured artists and sound recording owners (often the same people at the featured artists).

How Can CRB Give Weight to an Illegal Payola Contract?

It’s pretty clear that the Copyright Royalty Board should give no weight to the Merlin contract in setting rates for the rest of us at least not until the FCC rules on David’s question to them in the Clear Channel payola waiver case.  Even if the FCC yields to Pandora’s lobbying power and upholds the deal, the Merlin deal still has nothing to do with anyone but Merlin, even if the steering contract isn’t illegal under the payola laws.

RAIN reports that Pandora is crowing about a ruling of the Register of Copyright that told the Copyright Royalty Board they were able to consider the direct deal as a “benchmark”:

The CRB judges asked for an opinion on the admissibility of specific direct-license benchmark agreements as evidence in their current proceedings. Today, the Copyright Office deemed that Pandora’s rate deal with indie label collective Merlin Network is admissible as a valid benchmark for the Copyright Royalty Board’s rate-setting proceedings.

Pandora’s antics would make you think they felt like they’ve won something major.  As we read the Register’s ruling, all she really said was that the CRB could consider “potentially probative benchmark agreements.”   We are mystified how a potentially illegal contract can have “potentially probative value” in setting the rates in a market that is itself defined by the compulsory license.

There’s a valid point to be made here that the CRB should not consider the Merlin deal at all when setting the compulsory rate because it really has no relation to everyone else’s deal.

Hopefully the CRB is on to Pandora’s “Chris Harrison Special” and will disregard it altogether.  Of course, if the CRB uses the Merlin rate minus goodies as a “benchmark” for our rates, then Pandora will have succeeded in screwing artists once again, and then we’ll all have to deal with that.

image

ATX Music Office and TALA Host “Get Your Money!” From SoundExchange and the Union IP Funds

Another great result from the Austin Music Census!

Music Technology Policy

If you live in Austin, the ATX Music Office and Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts are hosting a workshop to help you “Get Your Money!”  This workshop is focusing on SoundExchange and the union IP funds.  Both SoundExchange and the AFM/SAG-AFTRA IP Rights Distribution Fund make a big effort to encourage artists and musicians to sign up and claim money that each organization may already be holding for creatives.

REGISTER AT EVENTBRITE ADMISSION IS FREE!

The workshop is the first of a series co-sponsored by ATX Music, Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts and Capitol View Arts.

This is a “how to” event led by Don Pitts of the ATX Music Office, Sean Glover of SoundExchange and TALA volunteer attorney Chris Castle to help Austin artists sign up for SoundExchange and the union IP funds.  The idea for the workshop grew out of the ATX Music…

View original post 191 more words

Guest Post: @JanitaArtist’s #IRespectMusic Interview for Forbes That Forbes Refused to Publish

Music Technology Policy

Janita

[Editor Charlie sez: Hot on the heels of the Steven Johnson debacle in the New York Times, we find out that our friend Janita was approached by Forbes to do an interview about the #irespectmusic campaign–an offer that was quickly withdrawn once Forbes found out what she had to say.  So naturally…here it is.]

Guest Post by Janita

I have great respect for journalists, and I respect Forbes magazine. As a newly-minted American citizen myself, I’ve gained a deep love and understanding for the inherent––in fact unique––importance reporters have in U.S. society. So, I was excited and honored when told I’d been “confirmed to be the subject of a major Q&A with Forbes.com,” specifically about my involvement in the #IRespectMusic campaign.

I was sent five thought provoking questions from the writer at Forbes, and I answered them as authentically and truthfully as I could. I sent the completed written interview back.

View original post 1,365 more words

Guest Post: A response to Michael Geist’s Defense of Bootleg Beatles Records by Canadian Music Publishers Association’s Executive Director, Robert Hutton

Music Technology Policy

[This post by Canadian Music Publishers Association Executive Director Robert Hutton is reprinted with permission from the CMPA’s Sept. 3, 2015 newsletter.]

We recently read the article posted by Michael Geist to his website earlier this week on the matter of Stargrove Entertainment’s legal action against parties allegedly impeding their sale of recordings which were, at the time, in the public domain in Canada.

We are frequently asked by our members and international partners to offer some counterbalance to Mr. Geist’s views and have been reluctant to do so until now, feeling that it is best not to feed the flames or enter into something that is not based on facts or fairness.

CMPA has no interest in or ability to comment on a legal action. We have no position in the matter, nor can we. We are not going to comment here about the legal aspects of this case.

However…

View original post 1,777 more words

Please Vote for “The New Artist Rights Grassroots Advocacy” Panel at SXSW

Blatant Trichordist self-promotion alert!  Please consider voting for “The New Artist Rights Grassroots Advocacy” panel in the SXSW Panel Picker.

We think this will be a great panel with the triumvirate of David Lowery, Blake Morgan and Chris Castle talking about how you can get involved with true grassroots artist rights advocacy.  As far as we can tell, there’s no other panel like it at SXSW.

The panelists will also discuss their experiences with artist rights advocacy, the #irespectmusic campaign, Pandora, artist pay for radio play, testifying before Congress, comments with the Copyright Office, Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.

You can vote for the panel at this link before the deadline on September 4 (Friday).  We’d really appreciate it. We’ll let you all know how the voting turns out.

Thanks!

News from the Goolag: What if You Make a Deal with Spotify and It Turns Out to Be With YouTube?

Music Technology Policy

We’ve all heard from numerous sources that Spotify is in the middle of renegotiating their license agreements with at least the major labels.  What has gotten less attention is YouTube’s interest in buying Spotify.  Spotify’s exit to an IPO is getting cloudier by the day as another tech bubble bursts in Wall Street alongside a volatile stock market, one should not rule out an acquisition of Spotify and who better to do it than Google’s wholly-owned YouTube subsidiary.

Remember that we saw this July 21, 2014 story in Re/Code by the highly credible tech journalist Kara Swisher:

Omid Kordestani, who has just temporarily replaced Nikesh Arora as chief business officer of Google, is joining the board of Spotify, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

In addition, sources said, one of the search giant’s former execs, Shishir Mehrotra, will become a special adviser to CEO Daniel Ek and the company’s management.

View original post 280 more words

The MIC Coalition’s Revolving Door: The DOJ’s Google Lawyer Reviewing SESAC Acquisition of HFA

Google and Pandora’s “MIC Coalition” calls on former Google lawyer in Dept of Justice to go after SESAC and force more songwriters under the government’s boot.

Music Technology Policy

MIC Coaltion 8-15

Remember the MIC Coalition?  This is the uber lobbying group that Google and Pandora founded along with the National Association of Broadcasters to stop artist pay for radio play.

The MIC Coalition is missing two of its original members–Amazon and NPR both ran for the hills after less than three months being involved.  Now we know why.

Not content to stop artist pay for radio play, the MIC Coalition is now complaining to the Department of Justice about SESAC’s recent acquisition of the Harry Fox Agency.  Many journalists received this email from the Glen Echo Group, one of the MIC Coalition’s DC shilleries:

From: Aaron Alberico
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Subject: MIC Coalition Members Urge Attorney General to Reject Calls to Weaken ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees

I wanted to share with you the attached letter from the association members of the MIC Coalition to U.S…

View original post 509 more words

Google’s Uncertain Trumpet: Why is YouTube still hidden in the search alphabet?

Music Technology Policy

You’ve no doubt heard that Google has rearranged the deck chairs to reorganize the company.  The general idea is that Google is establishing a holding company titled “Alphabet”–please resist the urge to point out that Google now owns the alphabet.  What underlies the restructuring is that Google has essentially succeeded in its initial business play to organize the world’s information whether the world likes it or not.  Now Google is setting about commoditizing all of it.  Not just music, books, movies, television programming.

All of it.

With the European Commission breathing down their necks in what appears to be a vigorous antitrust indictment, one can’t help noticing that breaking up Google will be that much simpler after the Alphabet reorganization than before.  So while the spin that Google is putting on the reorganization is that of confidently going a new direction into the future, there may actually be greater uncertainty…

View original post 1,268 more words

Power Transition, Lawfare and the Spotify/Google Interlocking Directorate

Long read but worth it for insight into the Google/Spotify alliance against Apple!

Music Technology Policy

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.

Hamlet, by William Shakespeare

Power Transition in Business

When a relatively unequal competitor is about to overtake a dominant competitor, lawfare is most likely to break out when the less dominant competitor perceives their opportunity to replace that hegemon.  At this point in the power relationship, the less dominant competitor may seek interlocking relationships with other less dominant competitors in the relevant market in order to attack the hegemon by reducing competition with each other and coordinating lawfare operations against the hegemon.

These interlocking boards or corporate relationships may work well when there is something in it for the allied less dominant competitors that helps each of them in ways that do not harm each of them.  For example, in an alliance of two less dominant competitors G and S against hegemon A, this will be particularly true if company…

View original post 3,472 more words