We’re pleased to announce the speakers for the 4th annual Artist Rights Symposium on November 20, this year hosted in Washington, DC, by American University’s Kogod School of Business at American’s Constitution Hall, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016. The symposium is also supported by the Artist Rights Institute and was founded by Dr. David Lowery, Lecturer at the University of Georgia Terry College of Business.
The four panels will begin at 8:30 am and end by 5 pm, with lunch and refreshments. More details to follow. Contact the Artist Rights Institute for any questions.
SHOW ME THE CREATOR – Transparency Requirements for AI Technology, moderated by Linda Bloss-Baum, Director of the Kogod School of Business’s Business & Entertainment Program
CHICKEN AND EGG SANDWICH: Bad Song Metadata, Unmatched Funds, KYC and What You Can Do About It, moderated by Chris Castle
NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF AI: Current initiatives to protect creator rights and attribution, moderated by John Simson, Program Director Emeritus, Business & Entertainment, Kogod School of Business, American University
Additional confirmed speakers to be announced soon.
Summary: The fight over frozen mechanicals continues to pay off as songwriters log another cost of living increase for physical/downloads while streaming falls farther behind.
The Copyright Royalty Board adjusted the US statutory mechanical royalty for physical carriers like vinyl, CDs and downloads annually during the current rate period. This is entirely due to the success of public comments by the ad hoc songwriter bargaining group that persuaded the Copyright Royalty Judges to reject the terrible “frozen mechanicals” settlement negotiated with the NMPA, NSAI and RIAA.
As it turned out, once the judges rejected the freeze as unfair, the labels quickly agreed to a fair result that increased the physical/download rate from a 9.1¢ base rate to the 12¢ rate suggested by the Judges which went a long way to making up for the 15 year freeze at 9.1¢. In fact, if it had just been presented to the labels to begin with, a tremendous amount of agita could have been saved all round.
Crucially, not only did the base rate increase to 12¢, the judges also approved a prospective cost of living adjustment determined by a formula using the Consumer Price Index. The end result is that unlike streaming mechanicals paid by the streaming services like Spotify (i.e., not the labels) the value of the increase from 9.1¢ to 12¢ has been protected from inflation during the rate period (2023-2027).
Unfortunately, the streaming services were allowed to reject a cost of living for streaming mechanicals, notwithstanding the Judges’ and the services’ acceptance of an COLA-type adjustment to the multimillion dollar budget of the Mechanical Licensing Collective. That COLA is ased on a government measurement of inflation (the Employment Cost Index) comparable to the CPI-U that is used to increase the services’ financing of salaries and other costs at the Mechanical Licensing Collective. So those who are paid handsomely to collect and pay songwriters get a better deal than the songwriters they supposedly serve.
What is the increase in pennies this year for the physical/download mechanical rate? The Judges determine the inflation-adjusted rate every year during the five year rate period (2023-2027). The calculation is made in December for physical/download with reference to the CPI-U rate announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of December 1, which means the rate published on November 11. The new rate goes into effect on January 1, 2025.
At this point, there does not seem to be any indication that there will be a large spike in inflation between now and November 11, so we can use the September rate (just announced in October) to make an educated guess as to what the 2025 statutory rate increase will be for physical/downloads (rounded down):
So we can safely project that the base rate will increase from 12.4¢ for 2024 to about 12.6¢ in 2025 without firing a shot. If you have a 10 x 3/4 rate controlled compositions clause, that means the U.S. controlled pool on physical will be approximately 94.5¢ instead of the old frozen rate of 68.25¢.
It’s important to note a couple things about the relevance of CPI-U as a metric for protecting royalty rates from the ravages of inflation. First of all, the CPI-U is a statistical smoothing of the specific rates for particular goods and services that it measures and doesn’t reflect the magnitude of changes of some components.
For example, the September CPI-U increased by 0.2% on a seasonally adjusted basis. However, the shelter index and the food index increased at higher rates:
The shelter index rose by 0.2%, and the food index increased by 0.4% Together, these two components contributed over 75% of the monthly increase in the all items index.
Chris Castle said, “These are good benchmarks to keep in mind as we head into a new rate setting period in a year or so when I expect songwriters to demand a COLA for streaming mechanicals. No more poormouthing from the services. If they can give it to MLC, they can give it to the songwriters, too.”
We’ve had a pretty good track record over years of spotting astroturf operations from the European Copyright Directive to ad-supported piracy. Here’s what we believe is the latest–“the People’s Bid for TikTok,” pointed out to us by one of our favorite artists.
The first indication that something is fake–we call these “clues”–is in the premise of the campaign. Remember that the key asset of TikTok is the company’s algorithm. That algorithm is apparently responsible for curating the content users see on their feeds. This algorithm is highly sophisticated and is considered a key factor in TikTok’s success. The U.S. government has argued that the algorithm could be manipulated by the government of the People’s Republic of China to influence what messaging is promoted or suppressed.
In April, President Joe Biden signed a law requiring TikTok’s PRC-based parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. by mid-January 2025. This law was the culmination of years of Congressional scrutiny and debate over the app’s potential risks.
So–who is behind the “People’s Bid” since given that the “People’s Bid” seems to be making a proposal that will only be acceptable to the People’s Republic of China? We say that because of this FAQ on the People’s Bid site disclaiming any interest in acquiring the algorithm that PRC has essentially claimed as a state secret for some reason:
The People’s Bid has no interest in acquiring TikTok’s algorithm [which is nice since the algo is not for sale]. This is not an attempt to rinse and repeat the formula that has allowed Big Tech companies to reap enormous profits by scraping and exploiting user data. The People’s Bid will ensure that TikTok users control their data and experience by using the app on a rebuilt digital infrastructure that gives more power to users.
Oh no, The People’s Bid has no interest in that tacky algorithm which wasn’t for sale anyway. Good of them. So who is “them”? It appears, although it isn’t quite clear, that the entity doing the acquiring isn’t “The People’s Bid” at all, it’s something called “Project Liberty.”
The FAQ tells us a little bit about Project Liberty:
Project Liberty builds solutions that help people take back control of their digital lives. This means working to ensure that everyone has a voice, choice, and stake in the future of the Internet. Project Liberty has invested over half a billion dollars to develop infrastructure and alliances that will return power to the people.
They kind of just let that “half a billion dollars” drop in the dark of the FAQ. What that tells us is that somebody has a shit-ton of money who is interested in stopping the TikTok ban. So who is involved with this “Project Liberty”? The usual suspects, starting with Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain and a slew of cronies from Berkman, Stanford, MIT, etc. Color us shocked, just shocked.
But these people never spend their own money and probably aren’t working for free, so who’s got the dough? Someone who doesn’t seem to care about acquiring the TikTok algorithm from the Chinese Communist Party?
Forbes tells us that this transaction is just a little bit different than what “The People’s Bid” or even the “Liberty Project” would have you believe if all you knew about it was from information on their website. The money seems to be coming in part, maybe in very large part, from one Frank McCourt whom you may remember as a former owner of the Los Angeles Dollars…sorry, Dodgers. In fairness, McCourt isn’t exactly making his plans a secret. He had his Project Liberty issue a press release as “The People’s Bid for TikTok”, which is actually Frank McCourt’s bid for TikTok as far as we can tell and as reported by Forbes:
Billionaire investor and entrepreneur Frank McCourt is organizing a bid to buy TikTok through Project Liberty, an organization to which he’s pledged $500 million that aims to fight for a safe, healthier internet where user data is owned by users themselves rather than by tech giants like TikTok parent ByteDance, Meta and Alphabet.
That’s more like it. We knew there was a sugar daddy in there somewhere. That’s much more in the Lessig style. Big favor, little bad mouth.
Of course, users owning their data is not the entire story by a long shot. Authors owned their books and Google still used the vast Google Books project to train AI.
Forbes adds this insight about Mr. McCourt:
Best known as the former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, McCourt spent most of the past decade focused on investing the approximately $850 million in proceeds from the team’s 2012 sale via his company McCourt Global.
He sprinkled money into sports, real estate, technology, media and an investment firm focused on private credit. In January 2023, McCourt stepped down as CEO of McCourt Global to focus on Project Liberty but remains executive chairman and 100% owner.
McCourt’s assets are worth an estimated $1.4 billion, landing him on Forbes’ billionaires list for the first time this year—though his wealth is a far cry from the estimated $220 billion valuation of ByteDance.
Which brings us to ByteDance. Is there another Silicon Valley money funnel with an interest in ByteDance? One is Sequoia Capital, which was also an original investor in Google which was an original investor in Professor Lessig and his various enterprises including Creative Commons. Sequoia’s ByteDance investment came in the form of one Neil Shen who runs Sequoia’s China operation recently spun off from the mothership. If you don’t recognize Neil Shen, he’s the former member (until 2023) of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party and its United Front Work operation. (According to a Congressional investigative report, The United Front operation is a strategic effort to influence and control various groups and individuals both within China and internationally. This strategy involves a mix of engagement, influence activities, and intelligence operations aimed at shaping political environments to favor the CCP’s interests. United front work includes “America Changle Association, which housed a secret PRC police station in New York City that was raided by the FBI in October 2022.”)
McCourt said he is working with the investment firm Guggenheim Securities and the law firm Kirkland & Ellis to help assemble the bid, adding that the push is backed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web [OMG, it must be legit!].
McCourt joins a host of other would-be suitors angling to pick up a platform used by 170 million Americans. Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced in March he’s assembling a bid, as well as Kevin O’Leary, the Canadian chairman of the private venture capital firm O’Leary Ventures.
TikTok, meanwhile, has indicated that it’s not for sale and the company has instead begun to mount a fight against the new law. The company sued to block the law earlier this month, saying that spinning off from its Chinese parent company is not feasible and that the legislation would lead to a ban of the app in the United States starting in January of next year.
But it’s the people‘s bid, right? Don’t be evil, ya’ll.
Let’s boil it down: TikTok would have been, up until President Biden signed the sell-or-ban bill into law, a HUGE IPO. It’s also a big chunk of ByteDance’s valuation, which means it’s a big chunk of Neil Shen’s carried interest in all likelihood. TikTok is no longer a huge IPO, in fact, it probably won’t be an IPO at all in its current configuration, particularly since the CCP has told the world that TikTok doesn’t own its core asset, the very algorithm that has so many people addicted (and addiction which is what a buyer is really buying).
So the astroturf is not the Liberty Project of the People’s Bid. Whatever “the People’s Bid” really is, it’s much more likely to be as the financial press has described it–Frank McCourt’s bid. But only for the most high-minded and pure-souled reasons.
It’s about the money. Stay tuned, we’ll be keeping an eye on this one.
U.S. Representative Scott Fitzgerald joined in the MLC review currently underway and sent a letter to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter on August 29 regarding operational and performance issues relating to the MLC. The letter was in the context of the five year review for “redesignation” of The MLC, Inc. as the mechanical licensing collective. (That may be confusing because of the choice of “The MLC” as the name of the operational entity that the government permits to run the mechanical licensing collective. The main difference is that The MLC, Inc. is an entity that is “designated” or appointed to operationalize the statutory body. The MLC, Inc. can be replaced. The mechanical licensing collective (lower case) is the statutory body created by Title I of the Music Modernization Act) and it lasts as long as the MMA is not repealed or modified. Unlikely, but we live in hope.)
I would say that songwriters probably don’t have anything more important to do today in their business beyond reading and understanding Rep. Fitzgerald’s excellent letter.
Rep. Fitzgerald’s letter is important because he proposes that the MLC, Inc. be given a conditional redesignation, not an outright redesignation. In a nutshell, that is because Rep. Fitzgerald raises many…let’s just say “issues”…that he would like to see fixed before committing to another five years for The MLC, Inc. As a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Rep. Fitzgerald’s point of view on this subject must be given added gravitas.
In case you’re not following along at home, the Copyright Office is currently conducting an operational and performance review of The MLC, Inc. to determine if it is deserving of being given another five years to operate the mechanical licensing collective. (See Periodic Review of the Mechanical Licensing Collective and the Digital Licensee Coordinator (Docket 2024-1), available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-designations/2024/.)
The redesignation process may not be quickly resolved. It is important to realize that the Copyright Office is not obligated to redesignate The MLC, Inc. by any particular deadline or at all. It is easy to understand that any redesignation might be contingent on The MLC, Inc. fixing certain…issues…because the redesignation rulemaking is itself an operational and performance review. It is also easy to understand that the Copyright Office might need to bring in some technical and operational assistance in order to diligence its statutory review obligations. This could take a while.
Let’s consider the broad strokes of Rep. Fitzgerald’s letter.
Budget Transparency
Rep. Fitzgerald is concerned with a lack of candor and transparency in The MLC, Inc.’s annual report among other things. If you’ve read the MLC’s annual reports, you may agree with me that the reports are long on cheerleading and short on financial facts. It’s like The MLC, Inc. thought they were answering the question “How can you tolerate your own awesomeness?” That question is not on the list. Rep. Fitzgerald says “Unfortunately, the current annual report lacks key data necessary to examine the MLC’s ability to execute these authorities and functions.” He then goes on to make recommendations for greater transparency in future annual reports.
I agree with Rep. Fitzgerald that these are all important points. I disagree with him slightly about the timing of this disclosure. These important disclosures need not be prospective–they could be both prospective and retroactive. I see no reason at all why The MLC, Inc. cannot be required to revise all of its four annual reports filed to date (https://www.themlc.com/governance) in line with this expanded criteria. I am just guessing, but the kind of detail that Rep. Fitzgerald is focused on are really just data that any business would accumulate or require in the normal course of prudently operating its business. That suggests to me that there is no additional work required in bringing The MLC, Inc. into compliance; it’s just a matter of disclosure.
There is nothing proprietary about that disclosure and there is no reason to keep secrets about how you handle other people’s money. It is important to recognize that The MLC, Inc. only handles other people’s money. It has no revenue because all of the money under its management comes from either royalties that belong to copyright owners or operating capital paid by the services that use the blanket license. It should not be overlooked that the services rely on the MLC and it has a duty to everyone to properly handle the funds. The MLC, Inc. also operates at the pleasure of the government, so it should not be heard to be too precious about information flow, particularly information related to its own operational performance. Those duties flow in many directions.
Board Neutrality
The board composition of the mechanical licensing collective (and therefore The MLC, Inc.) is set by Congress in Title I. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the major publishers and their lobbyists who created Title I wrote themselves a winning hand directly into the statute itself. (And FYI, there is gambling at Rick’s American Café, too.) As Rep. Fitzgerald says:
Of the 14 voting members, ten are comprised of music publishers and four are songwriters. Publishers were given a majority of seats in order to assist with the collective’s primary task of matching and distributing royalties. However, the MMA did not provide this allocation in order to convert the MLC into an extension of the music publishers.
I would argue with him about that, too, because I believe that’s exactly what the MMA was intended to do by those who drafted it who also dictated who controlled the pen. This is a rotten system and it was obviously on its way to putrefaction before the ink was dry.
For context, Section 8 of the Clayton Act, one of our principal antitrust laws, prohibits interlocking boards on competitor corporations. I’m not saying that The MLC, Inc. has a Section 8 problem–yet–but rather that interlocking boards is a disfavored arrangement by way of understanding Rep. Fitzgerald’s issue with The MLC, Inc.’s form of governance:
Per the MMA, the MLC is required to maintain an independent board of directors. However, what we’ve seen since establishing the collective is anything but independent. For example, in both 2023 and 2024, all ten publishers represented by the voting members on the MLC Board of Directors were also members of the NMPA’s board. This not only raises questions about the MLC’s ability to act as a “fair” administrator of the blanket license but, more importantly, raises concerns that the MLC is using its expenditures to advance arguments indistinguishable from those of the music publishers-including, at times, arguments contrary to the positions of songwriters and the digital streamers.
Said another way, Rep. Fitzgerald is concerned that The MLC, Inc. is acting very much like HFA did when it was owned by the NMPA. That would be HFA, the principal vendor of The MLC, Inc. (and that dividing line is blurry, too).
It is important to realize that the gravamen of Rep. Fitzgerald’s complaint (as I understand it) is not solely with the statute, it is with the decisions about how to interpret the statute taken by The MLC, Inc. and not so far countermanded by the Copyright Office in its oversight role. That’s the best news I’ve had all day. This conflict and competition issue is easily solved by voluntary action which could be taken immediately (with or without changing the board composition). In fact, given the sensitivity that large or dominant corporations have about such things, I’m kind of surprised that they walked right into that one. The devil may be in the details, but God is in the little things.
Investment Policy
Rep. Fitzgerald is also concerned about The MLC, Inc.’s “investment policy.” Readers will recall that I have been questioning both the provenance and wisdom of The MLC, Inc. unilaterally deciding that it can invest the hundreds of millions in the black box in the open market. I personally cannot find any authority for such a momentous action in the statute or any regulation. Rep. Fitzgerald also raises questions about the “investment policy”:
Further, questions remain regarding the MLC’s investment policy by which it may invest royalty and assessment funds. The MLC’s Investment Policy Statement provides little insight into how those funds are invested, their market risk, the revenue generated from those investments, and the percentage of revenue (minus fees) transferred to the copyright owner upon distribution of royalties. I would urge the Copyright Office to require more transparency into these investments as a condition of redesignation.
It should be obvious that The MLC, Inc.’s “investment policy” has taken on a renewed seriousness and can no longer be dodged.
Black Box
It should go without saying that fair distribution of unmatched funds starts with paying the right people. Not “connect to collect” or “play your part” or any other sloganeering. Tracking them down. Like orphan works, The MLC, Inc. needs to take active measures to find the people to whom they owe money, not wait for the people who don’t know they are owed to find out that they haven’t been paid.
Although there are some reasonable boundaries on a cost/benefit analysis of just how much to spend on tracking down people owed small sums, it is important to realize that the extraordinary benefits conferred on digital services by the Music Modernization Act, safe harbors and all, justifies higher expectations of those same services in finding the people they owe money. The MLC, Inc. is uniquely different than its counterparts in other countries for this reason.
I tried to raise the need for increased vigilance at the MLC during a Copyright Office roundtable on the MMA. I was startled that the then-head of DiMA (since moved on) had the brass to condescend to me as if he had ever paid a royalty or rendered a royalty statement. I was pointing out that the MLC was different than any other collecting society in the world because the licensees pay the operating costs and received significant legal benefits in return. Those legal benefits took away songwriters’ fundamental rights to protect their interests through enforcing justifiable infringement actions which is not true in other countries.
In countries where the operating cost of their collecting society is deducted from royalties, it is far more appropriate for that society to consider a more restrictive cost/benefit analysis when expending resources to track down the songwriters they owe. This is particularly true when no black box writer is granting nonmonetary consideration like a safe harbor whether they know it or not.
I got an earful from this person about how the services weren’t an open checkbook to track down people they owed money to (try that argument when failing to comply with Know Your Customer laws). Grocers know more about ham sandwiches than digital services know about copyright owners. The general tone was that I should be grateful to Big Daddy and be more careful how I spend my lunch money. And yes I do resent this paternalistic response which I’m sorry to say was not challenged by the Copyright Office lawyer presiding who shortly thereafter went to work for Spotify. Nobody ever asked for an open check. I just asked that they make a greater effort than the effort that got Spotify sued a number of times resulting in over $50 million in settlements, a generous accommodation in my view. If anyone should be grateful, it is the services who should be grateful, not the songwriters.
And yet here we are again in the same place. Except this time the services have a safe harbor against the entire world which I believe has value greater than the operating costs of the MLC. I’d be perfectly happy to go back to the way it was before the services got everything they wanted and then some in Title I of the MMA, but I bet I won’t get any takers on that idea.
Instead, I have to congratulate Rep. Fitzgerald for truly excellent work product in his letter and for framing the issue exactly as it should be posed. Failing to fix these major problems should result in no redesignation—fired for cause.
The Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), the Society of Composers & Lyricists (SCL) and the Music Creators North America (MCNA) coalition –on behalf of over ten thousand US songwriter and composer members and their heirs and with the support of tens of thousands more represented by our organizations’ affiliated International Council of Music Creators (CIAM)– offer our sincerest thanks and support to US Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) for his stalwart efforts in seeking to protect our rights through much needed operational and structural improvements to the US Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). The MLC collects and distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties to songwriters and composers through their music publishing administrators each year.
Following the filing by our coalition in May, 2024 of comments expressing conditional support for re-designation by the US Copyright Office of the current MLC if –and only if– certain reforms are instituted to improve its transparency, operational fairness and accuracy in distributions (https://www.songwritersguild.com/site/potential-re-designation-mlc-and-dlc) Representative Fitzgerald came forward with his own letter to the Copyright Office dated August 29, 2024 asserting the need for reforms in full basic harmony with our own positions. His Congressional office is one of many with whom our groups have had impactful and productive discussions concerning the need for closer governmental oversight of the MLC process in order to protect American music creator rights, as clearly intended by Congress in the Music Modernization Act enacted five years ago.
–improved outreach and accuracy in identifying and contacting owners of unmatched “black box” royalties (potentially approaching one billion dollars in unmatched and/or undistributed funds by 2025), and
–improved MLC board neutrality, balance and fairness.
As to this latter issue, the Congressman was forthright in acknowledging that the MLC board has conducted itself more as an advocate solely for the corporate music publishing industry rather than, as Congressionally intended, an unbiased body charged principally with protecting creator’ rights and royalties.
There are several problems related to the presence on the MLC board of only four songwriter/composer directors as compared to ten music publisher representatives (a unique imbalance compared to all other music royalty collectives around the world), including the fact that “permanently” unmatched royalties are to be distributed by the MLC on a “market share” basis.
That construct means that music publisher board members stand to benefit by NOT properly identifying and distributing royalties to their actual creator-owners, the very task legislatively assigned to the MLC at the time of its Congressional creation. Moreover, the alleged songwriter organizations’ representative appointed as the non-voting board overseer for music creator interests has proven to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for corporate interests in direct opposition to the creators’ interests it purports to safeguard. We are aware of no other American music creator group that supports continuation of this facade of creator “representation.”
Our groups appreciate the consistent outreach and earnest work of MLC chief executive officer Kris Ahrend, but we join Congressman Fitzgerald and his supporting colleagues in the House and Senate in insisting that the enumerated reforms cited in our Copyright Office submissions must be considered essential prerequisites to MLC re-designation (including endorsement by the MLC Board of Congressional action to equalize board representation between music creators on the one hand and their corporate copyright owners and administrators on the other). Our coalition will meanwhile continue its work on Capitol Hill and with the Copyright Office advocating for genuine protections of independent, individual music creator rights by the MLC.
Let’s get back to justice…what is justice? What is the intention of justice? The intention of justice is to see that the guilty people are proven guilty and that the innocent are freed. Simple, isn’t it? Only it’s not that simple.
From And Justice for All, screenplay written by Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson
Something very important happened at the MLC on July 9: The Copyright Office overruled the MLC on the position the MLC (and, in fairness, the NMPA) took on who was entitled to post-termination mechanical royalties under the statutory blanket license. What’s important about the ruling is not just that the Copyright Office ruled that the MLC’s announced position was “incorrect”—it is that it corrected the MLC’s position that was in direct contravention of prior Copyright Office guidance. (If this is all news to you, you can get up to speed with this helpful post about the episode on the Copyright Office website or read John Barker’s excellent comment in the rulemaking.)
“Guidance” is a kind way to put it, because the Copyright Office has statutory oversight for the MLC. That means that on subjects yet to be well defined in a post-Loper world (the Supreme Court decision that reversed “Chevron deference”), I think it’s worth asking whether the Copyright Office is going to need to get more involved with the operations of the MLC. Alternatively, Congress may have to amend Title I of the Music Modernization Act to fill in the blanks. Either way, the Copyright Office’s termination ruling is yet another example of why I keep saying that the MLC is a quasi-governmental organization that is, in a way, neither fish nor fowl. It is both a private organization and a government agency somewhat like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Whatever it is ultimately ruled to be, it is not like the Harry Fox Agency which in my view has labored for decades under the misapprehension that its decisions carry the effect of law. Shocking, I know. But whether it’s the MLC or HFA, when they decide not to pay your money unless you sue them, it may as well be the law.
The MLC’s failure to follow the Copyright Office guidance is not a minor thing. This obstreperousness has led to significant overpayments to pre-termination copyright owners (who may not even realize they were getting screwed). This behavior by the MLC is what the British call “bolshy”, a wonderful word describing one who is uncooperative, recalcitrant, or truculent according to the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang. The word is a pejorative adjective derived from Bolshevik. “Bolshy” invokes lawlessness.
In a strange coincidence, the two most prominent public commenters supporting the MLC’s bolshy position on post-termination payments were the MLC itself and the NMPA, which holds a nonvoting board seat on the MLC’s board of directors. This stick-togetherness is very reminiscent of what it was like dealing with HFA when the NMPA owned it. It was hard to tell where one started and the other stopped just like it is now. (I have often said that a nonvoting board seat is very much like a “board observer” appointed by investors in a startup to essentially spy on the company’s board of directors. I question why the MLC even needs nonvoting board seats at all given the largely interlocking boards, aside from the obvious answer that the nonvoters have those seats because the lobbyists wrote themselves into Title I of the MMA—you know, the famous “spirit of the MMA”.)
Having said that, the height of bolshiness is captured in this quotation (89 FR 58586 (July 9, 2024)) from the Copyright Office ruling about public comments which the Office had requested (at 56588):
The only commenter to question the Office’s authority was NMPA, which offered various arguments for why the Office lacks authority to issue this [post-termination] rule. None are persuasive. [Ouch.]
NMPA first argued that the Office has no authority under section 702 of the Copyright Act or the MMA to promulgate rules that involve substantive questions of copyright law. This is clearly incorrect. [Double ouch.]
The Office ‘‘has statutory authority to issue regulations necessary to administer the Copyright Act’’ and ‘‘to interpret the Copyright Act.’’ As the [Copyright Office notice of proposed rulemaking] detailed, ‘‘[t]he Office’s authority to interpret [the Copyright Act] in the context of statutory licenses in particular has long been recognized.’’
Well, no kidding.
What concerns me today is that wherever it originated, the net effect of the MLC’s clearly erroneous and misguided position on termination payments is like so many other “policies” of the MLC: The gloomy result always seems to be they don’t pay the right person or don’t pay anyone at all in a self-created dispute that so far has proven virtually impossible to undo without action by the Copyright Office (which has other and perhaps better things to do, frankly). The Copyright Office, publishers and songwriters then have to burn cycles correcting the mistake.
In the case of the termination issue, the MLC managed to do both: They either paid the wrong person or they held the money. That’s a pretty neat trick, a feat of financial gymnastics for which there should be an Olympic category. Or at least a flavor of self-licking ice cream.
The reason the net effect is of concern is that this adventure in copyright has led to a massive screwup in payments illustrating what we call the legal maxim of fubar fugazi snafu. And no one will be fired.In fact, we don’t even know which person is responsible for taking the position in the first place. Somebody did, somebody screwed up, and somebody should be held accountable.
Mr. Barker crystalized this issue in his comment on the Copyright Office termination rulemaking, which I call to your attention (emphasis added):
I do have a concern related to the current matter at hand, which translates to a long-term uneasiness which I believe is appropriate to bring up as part of these comments. That concern is, how did the MLC’s proposed policies [on statutory termination payments] come in to being in the first place?
The Copyright Office makes clear in its statements in the Proposed Rules publication that “…the MLC adopted a dispute policy concerning termination that does not follow the Office’s rulemaking guidance.”, and that the policy “…decline(d) to heed the Office’s warning…”. Given that the Office observed that “[t]he accurate distribution of royalties under the blanket license to copyright owners is a core objective of the MLC”, it is a bit alarming that the MLC’s proposed policies got published in the first place.
I am personally only able to come up with two reasons why this occurred. Either the MLC board did not fully understand the impact on termination owners and the future administration of those royalties, or the MLC board DID realize the importance, and were intentional with their guidelines, despite the Copyright Office’s warnings.
Both conclusions are disturbing, and I believe need to be addressed.
Mr. Barker is more gentlemanly about it than I am, and I freely admit that I have no doubt failed the MLC in courtesy. I do have a tendency to greet only my brothers, the gospel of Matthew notwithstanding. Yet it irks me to no end that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and the tremendous productivity cost (and loss) of having to fix it. Was the MLC’s failed quest to impose its will on society covered by the Administrative Assessment? If so, why? If not, who paid for it? And we should call the episode by its name—it is a debacle, albeit a highly illustrative one.
But we must address this issue soon and address it unambiguously. The tendency of bureaucracy is always to grow and the tendency of non-profit organizations is always to seek power as a metric in the absence of for-profit revenue. Often there are too many people in the organization who are involved in decision-making so that responsibility is too scattered.
When something goes wrong as it inevitably does, no one ever gets blamed, no one ever gets fired, and it’s very hard to hold any one person accountable because everything is too diffused. Instead of accepting that inevitable result and trying to narrow accountability down to one person so that an organization is manageable and functioning, the reflex response is often to throw more resources at the problem when more resources, aka money, is obviously not the solution. The MLC already has more money than they know what to do with thanks to the cornucopia of cash from the Administrative Assessment. That deep pocket has certainly not led to peace in the valley.
Someone needs to get their arms around this issue and introduce accountability into the process. That is either the Copyright Office acting in its oversight role, the blanket license users acting in their paymaster role through the DLC, or a future litigant who just gets so fed up with the whole thing that they start suing everyone in sight.
Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica that a just war requires a just cause, a rightful intention and the authority of the sovereign (Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 40). So it is with litigation. We have a tendency to dismiss litigation as wasteful or unnecessary with a jerk of the knee, yet that is overbroad and actually wrong. In some cases the right of the people to sue to enforce their rights is productive, necessary, inevitable and—hopefully—in furtherance of a just cause like its historical antecedents in trial by combat.
It is also entirely in keeping with our Constitution. The just lawsuit allows the judiciary to right a wrong when other branches of government fail to act, or as James Madison wrote in Federalist 10, so the government by “…its several constituent parts may…be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”
That’s a lesson the MLC, Inc. had to learn the hard way. Let’s not do that again, shall we not?
Senators Cantwell, Blackburn, and Heinrich introduce the Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act), Giving Artists New Tools to Protect Against Deepfakes
“Deepfakes pose an existential threat to our culture and society, making it hard to believe what we see and hear and leaving individual creators vulnerable as tech companies use our art without consent while AI-generated content leads to confusion about what is real. Requiring transparency is a meaningful step that will help protect us all – ensuring that nonconsensual, harmful content can be removed quickly and providing a clear origin when our life’s work has been used.” – Dr. Moiya McTier, Human Artistry Campaign Senior Advisor
With widespread creative community support from organizations including the Artist Rights Alliance, SAG-AFTRA, the Recording Academy, RIAA, NMPA, NSAI, and more, the bill would set new federal transparency guidelines for marking, authenticating and detecting AI-generated content, protect journalists, actors and artists against AI-driven theft, and hold violators accountable for abuses.
Creates Transparency Standards: Requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop guidelines and standards for content provenance information, watermarking and synthetic content detection. These standards will promote transparency to identify if content has been generated or manipulated by AI, as well as where AI content originated. The bill also directs NIST to develop cybersecurity measures to prevent tampering with provenance and watermarking on AI content.
Puts Journalists, Artists and Musicians in Control of Their Content: Requires providers of AI tools used to generate creative or journalistic content to allow owners of that content to attach provenance information to it and prohibits its removal. The bill prohibits the unauthorized use of content with provenance information to train AI models or generate AI content. These measures give content owners—journalists, newspapers, artists, songwriters, and others—the ability to protect their work and set the terms of use for their content, including compensation.
Gives Individuals a Right to Sue Violators: Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general to enforce the bill’s requirements. It also gives newspapers, broadcasters, artists, and other content owners the right to bring suit in court against platforms or others who use their content without permission.
Prohibits Tampering with or Disabling AI Provenance Information: Currently, there is no law that prohibits removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information. The bill prohibits anyone, including internet platforms, search engines and social media companies, from interfering with content provenance information in these ways.
The Copyright Office is soliciting public comments about how things are going with the MLC to help the Office decide whether to permit The MLC, Inc. to continue to operate the Collective (see this post for more details on the “redesignation” requirement). We are impressed with the quality of many of the comments filed in the “Initial Comments” at the Copyright Office. As there will be an opportunity to comment again, including to comment on the comments, we will be posting selected Initial Comments to call to your attention. You can read all the comments at this link. If you are hearing about this for the first time, you have until June 28 to file a “reply comment” with the Copyright Office at this link.
You will see that there is a recurring theme with the comments. Many commenters say that they wish for The MLC, Inc. to be redesignated BUT…. They then list a number of items that they object to about the way the Collective has been managed by The MLC, Inc. usually accompanied by a request the The MLC, Inc. change the way it operates.
That structure seems to be inconsistent with a blanket ask for redesignation. Rather, the commenters seem to be making an “if/then” proposal that if The MLC, Inc. improves its operations, including in some cases operating in an opposite manner to its current policies and practices, then The MLC, Inc. should be redesignated. Not wishing to speak for any commenter, let it just be said that this appears to be a conditional proposal for redesignation. Maybe that is not what the commenters were thinking, but it does appear to be what many of them are saying. Perhaps this conditional aspect will be refined in the Reply Comments.
For purposes of these posts, we may quote sections of comments out of sequence but in context. We recommend that you read the comments in their entirety.
Today’s featured comment is from John Guertin, the highly knowledgeable independent publishing administrator who operates ClearRights in Austin, Texas. He works with many Texas artists whose music represents generations of Texas music vital to the Texas economy such as Marcia Ball, Guy Forsyth, Vallejo, Quiet Company and the South Austin Moonlighters.
Like other commenters, Mr. Guertin focuses on The MLC, Inc.’s failures to adopt world-class metadata standards. He offers insight to the Copyright Office similar to information the Office could get if they actually did a proactive deep dive on the MLC standards and practices rather than wait for commenters to get so disillusioned that they will sit down and write up their grievances when their frustration exceeds their fear of retaliation.
If Mr. Guertin is correct about bad old HFA data populating the MLC’s data, one consequence arises when the MLC, Inc. distributes its data feed to dozens of users. Does this mean that anyone who uses the MLC’s mediocre HFA data also has error-ridden data? What is the plan to unwind that one?
Lack of transparency How does the automated matching process work and what is the logic for a match? We submit quite a bit of data to The MLC, yet titles go unmatched. It is hard to understand how a match does not happen when the system has been provided the song title, writers, isrc and supplementary data such as iswc, recording artist etc. It begs the question, what is the matching logic? If the song title, isrc and songwriter match 100%, how is a match not created? Having worked in the digital music space in the early 2000s at the onset of online digital subscription and download services, there was a fuzzy logic matching employed to help clear thousands of songs at a time. A fuzzy logic matching criteria would have to require a certain percentage of a given data field to match and thus enable matches to be made when there was punctuation or additional wording in the sound recording title such as “Live”. It’s hard to understand how so many line items go unmatched at The MLC when there are small variations in titles etc. Is a fuzzy logic protocol being employed, and if so, is it too tight?
New System , Same Old Player The forward-facing organization we see is The MLC and its staff, however the vendor(s) used by the MLC is the same player, The Harry Fox Agency. The MLC data is often powered by and supplied by HFA. The HFA system, being a for profit, proprietary system, has been known for years to have old, outdated and/or incorrect data. One can often find the same song registered two, three or more times in the system. In most cases the publisher/owner is different or variant. This “bad data” has been allowed to proliferate the MLC system and has basically resulted in the same issues of old.
Having said vendor(s) also operating as match makers raises several concerns/questions, especially when incorrect matches are made based on this bad or outdated data. When an incorrect match is made (again how does this happen if the titles and songwriters don’t match yet publisher submitted data matches 100% and a match isn’t made?), the publisher is paid royalties.
The burden then falls upon the recipient to find the incorrect match, and then take action to remedy it by either returning monies to the MLC or having it deducted from future payments for other, non-related publishers and songs.
In some cases, the dollar amount of monies is significant and results in the publisher and/or songwriter being debited for the amount all at one time and unable to earn future royalties until the debited amount has been recouped. This can result in financial burden and distress for the publisher/songwriter. The publisher/songwriter may be dependent on these royalties to live on and due to no fault of their own, are subjected to a recoupment process for something they did not initiate. Why is this and why do we think this methodology works? Additionally, we are often told to contact the other party and get the money from them.
Lots of matches, yet even more unclaimed monies An 80-85% match rate seems impressive until you look at the amount of money that remains unmatched each month. Approx $20 million in monies each month go unmatched and/or unclaimed. That’s over $200 million in a year. How and when is this going to be addressed? Yes, it’s much easier to ignore that and simply distribute that money via market share. But does artist/songwriter X really need more limos and vacation homes when the large majority of these royalties are indie songwriters that either don’t know about this, don’t understand it, or have been frustrated over the years and trained to think that they get micro-pennies for their efforts? We can’t blame this segment for not being totally engaged or not being educated on the complexities of the music industry. If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we figure this out?
Lack of innovative strategy to clear the back-log of unmatched line items What exactly is the process used to currently address this [old mediocre HFA data] and how is it being measured? We are told that outside vendors are contracted to perform this function, yet we see approx. $20 million each month in unmatched royalties. Clearly this strategy is not reducing the amount of “black box” monies at a fast enough rate and raises several concerns.
The first is that our senior songwriters and publishers are not getting younger by the day. They do not have time to wait 5 or 10 years for this to be straightened out. Many depend on the fruits of their past labor to live on. They deserve better.
With regard to the apparent inability to make matches and reduce the unmatched royalties, there seems to be other ways to approach this, which may currently be employed but we don’t really know due to the lack of transparency. Many of these unmatched recordings are songs that are registered at PROs. Those PROs have the songwriters and publishers, along with any recording data submitted by the songwriters and publishers. This is a good source of data which also has the contact info for those entities. A strategic partnership with other industry organizations, such as the PROs, should be made to help share and communicate data to bridge the gap with missing data which would allow matches to happen.
Also, where is the data that is being used to match coming from? Most indie artists use aggregators such as CD Baby, TuneCore, Distrokid etc. to distribute to dsps. This is the source of data that feeds to dsps. Such aggregators allow the input of inaccurate data without verification. All one must do is write something in the required data column (i.e. songwriters) and it goes through the system and starts populating everywhere. So bad data in results in bad data going out and reducing the likelihood matches can be made. Industry wide cooperation is required if we are to streamline these processes and make things efficient.
The Copyright Office is soliciting public comments about how things are going with the MLC to help the Office decide whether to permit The MLC, Inc. to continue to operate the Collective (see this post for more details on the “redesignation” requirement). We are impressed with the quality of many of the comments filed in the “Initial Comments” at the Copyright Office. As there will be an opportunity to comment again, including to comment on the comments, we will be posting selected Initial Comments to call to your attention. You can read all the comments at this link. If you are hearing about this for the first time, you have until June 28 to file a “reply comment” with the Copyright Office at this link.
You will see that there is a recurring theme with the comments. Many commenters say that they wish for The MLC, Inc. to be redesignated BUT…. They then list a number of items that they object to about the way the Collective has been managed by The MLC, Inc. usually accompanied by a request the The MLC, Inc. change the way it operates.
That structure seems to be inconsistent with a blanket ask for redesignation. Rather, the commenters seem to be making an “if/then” proposal that if The MLC, Inc. improves its operations, including in some cases operating in an opposite manner to its current policies and practices, then The MLC, Inc. should be redesignated. Not wishing to speak for any commenter, let it just be said that this appears to be a conditional proposal for redesignation. Maybe that is not what the commenters were thinking, but it does appear to be what many of them are saying. Perhaps this conditional aspect will be refined in the Reply Comments.
For purposes of these posts, we may quote sections of comments out of sequence but in context. We recommend that you read the comments in their entirety. Today’s featured comment is by Abby North, who owns the independent music publisher and administrator North Music Group. Abby was kind enough to participate as a panelist at the 3rd Annual Artist Rights Symposium that David hosts at the University of Georgia Terry College of Business, and also testified at the House Judiciary Committee IP Subcommittee hearing held in Nashville to grade the MLC, Inc. (read Emmanuel Legrand’s reporting on that hearing at this link).
Abby has a number of ideas about meaningful changes that the MLC, Inc. ought to make to its operations and its approach to its fundamental job–timely and accurately accounting for all the money it receives.
MLC BUSINESS RULES THAT CONTRADICT LAW During the IP Subcommittee hearing held by Chairman Issa,6 the Chairman cautioned MLC, Inc. CEO Kris Ahrend, “…no question at all, what you’ve been making looks a lot like rules.”
The US copyright law permits authors or their heirs, under certain circumstances, to terminate the exclusive or non-exclusive grant of a transfer or license of an author’s copyright in a work. The ability to recapture rights via the United States copyright termination system truly provides composers, songwriters and recording artists and their heirs, a “second bite of the apple.” Many of my clients exercise this right and subsequently become the original publisher in the United States.
The MLC had made a unilateral determination that rights held at the inception of the new blanket license might remain, in perpetuity, with the original copyright grantee. The MLC initially ignored that the derivative work exception does not apply in the context of the mechanical blanket license.
Fortunately, the US Copyright Office stepped in to clarify that the appropriate payee under the mechanical blanket license to whom the MLC must distribute royalties in connection with a statutory termination is the copyright owner at the time the work is used. When The MLC envisions a new policy, members should be provided a mechanism to provide input related to this policy, prior to it being adopted.
Members must be given a greater voice in business rules and operations of The MLC. Hands-on music publishing administrators have deep insights into workflows, efficiencies and UI/UX. Members need to be consulted with and given opportunities to drive the future of The MLC’s website and technologies.
The MLC has made unilateral decisions regarding how it treats public domain works. It invoices the DSPs for streams of recordings that embody these public domain works, but no publisher is entitled to these royalties. That means the MLC may collect money it may not pay out. What rule gives The MLC the right to collect but not distribute?
COMMITMENT TO ISWC AS GLOBALLY UNIQUE IDENTIFIER FOR MUSICAL WORK Recently, the PRS (the UK-based Performance Rights Organization) completed a proof of concept that allowed record labels to request assignment of an ISWC to identify a musical work embedded in that label’s recording.
This proof of concept provides a necessary step in helping CMOs identify musical works, contributing parties and recordings of these works.
It also firmly demonstrates the global CMO ecosystem’s commitment to the ISWC as the globally unique identifier for the musical work. Every music publisher and every CMO…other than The MLC…relies on the ISWC to identify a musical work.
Instead, The MLC relies on the HFA Song Code, now also known as the MLC Song Code. The only societies in the world that use these codes are HFA and The MLC. Every other society identifies musical works with an ISWC, which unlike the HFA Song Code or MLC Song Code, functionally acts as a bridge to the International Party Identifier (IPI) and now, the International Standard Recording Code (ISRC).
For The MLC to some day truly be the gold standard in CMOs, it must follow the rest of the world’s lead and require and include the ISWC whenever the ISWC exists. The MLC Song Code may be used as a disambiguator, but it must be used in conjunction with an ISWC. This is how the other societies work: they have their own proprietary identifier, which accompanies the ISWC to allow positive identification of works.
In addition to ISWC as the work identifier shared by the world’s music publishing and rights management community, IPI is the global identifier for the songwriter and publisher. The MLC must commit to including the IPI for any writer or publisher that has been assigned an IPI.
SPEED OF CLAIMING AND MATCHING According to The MLC in its redesignation comments, “Finally, The MLC has already established itself as a leader in the industry, setting high standards for speed, volume, transparency, efficiency, outreach and member support.”
As of this writing, works I claimed manually in the claiming portal 73 days ago still have not been processed.
Unless I am misunderstanding the process, this means The MLC has already missed two distribution periods.
This is too much time. If there is an issue with the claims, there should be some human communication from The MLC explaining the issues.
If there are no issues, what could possibly be the cause of such a delay?
The oversight body must provide guidelines for The MLC regarding reasonable times from delivery of a match or claim by a member to processing by The MLC.
I also recommend the addition of an interface in the MLC portal for communication between The MLC and the member. For example, if every time I log in, I see a red flag in the interface indicating action is required on my part, I could potentially assist in speeding up the time The MLC takes to process my data. I also would be aware of any potential issues.
SONGWRITER PORTAL The MLC’s website says it has distributed to “publishers and songwriters.” However, it must be clarified that the only songwriters that directly receive royalties from The MLC are selfpublished, self-administered songwriters that a) are aware of The MLC; b) have become members; and c) have delivered data to The MLC regarding their works and recordings of their works.
Songwriters that are either published or administered by a publisher have no mechanism with which to deliver corrections or missing data regarding their works. Instead, a songwriter that may have had one or many previous deals typically has no relationship with the previous publishers. Even songwriters in current publishing deals may not be able to get their calls returned much less convince their publishers to add or correct data in a timely manner.
Consequently, as many advocates have suggested since the roundtables that occurred prior to the inception of The MLC, The MLC must provide a portal within its website for published and/or administered songwriters to deliver data regarding their works. This data must then be reviewed by The MLC for accuracy, and then The MLC must communicate with the publishers to confirm accuracy and add the missing or corrected data to the public portal.
It is simply unfair that songwriters have no way to guarantee The MLC has the necessary data to pay these songwriters’ publishers if they are willing to do the matching work at their own expense.
According to the USCO’s website FAQs regarding Title 1 of The Musical Works Modernization Act, “Once established, the MLC will establish and administer a process by which copyright owners can claim ownership of musical works (and shares of such works).” In fact, even though an administered songwriter is the legal copyright owner of his/her musical works, The MLC provides no process by which that songwriter/copyright owner can claim ownership of musical works.
OVERCLAIMS TOOL The MLC recently added an Overclaims Tool – only for registrations made within the last 90 days. If you submit a registration and it conflicts with a work that’s older than 90 days, that conflict will not appear in your portal.
According to The MLC:
“Please note: A work can only go into overclaim if shares are added to the work within 90 days of the work’s registration, based on the “Creation Date” in the work details.
If you are attempting to claim shares over 100% on a work that was created more than 90 days prior, you will need to reach out to The MLC Support team here.”
As a publisher/administrator of works registered decades ago, how would I know if someone has attempted to claim my legacy work and created an overclaim?
I do not recall receiving any announcement seeking publishers to participate in working groups to provide input related to the Overclaims Tool. Experienced hands-on administrators should be given the opportunity to provide insights into functionalities of proposed additions to the MLC portal prior to development of the technology.
The Copyright Office is soliciting public comments about how things are going with the MLC to help the Office decide whether to permit The MLC, Inc. to continue to operate the Collective (see this post for more details on the “redesignation” requirement). We are impressed with the quality of many of the comments filed in the “Initial Comments” at the Copyright Office. As there will be an opportunity to comment again, including to comment on the comments, we will be posting selected Initial Comments to call to your attention. You can read all the comments at this link. If you are hearing about this for the first time, you have until June 28 to file a “reply comment” with the Copyright Office at this link.
You will see that there is a recurring theme with the comments. Many commenters say that they wish for The MLC, Inc. to be redesignated BUT…. They then list a number of items that they object to about the way the Collective has been managed by The MLC, Inc. usually accompanied by a request the The MLC, Inc. change the way it operates.
That structure seems to be inconsistent with a blanket ask for redesignation. Rather, the commenters seem to be making an “if/then” proposal that if The MLC, Inc. improves its operations, including in some cases operating in an opposite manner to its current policies and practices, then The MLC, Inc. should be redesignated. Not wishing to speak for any commenter, let it just be said that this appears to be a conditional proposal for redesignation. Maybe that is not what the commenters were thinking, but it does appear to be what many of them are saying. Perhaps this conditional aspect will be refined in the Reply Comments.
For purposes of these posts, we may quote sections of comments out of sequence but in context. We recommend that you read the comments in their entirety.
Today’s featured comment is from the well-regarded independent music publisher Spirit Music Group. Spirit makes a number of comments about important issues with the MLC, Inc.’s handling of metadata and other operational issues. If you are not immersed in metadata issues, it is easy to blow past these comments such as the MLC making data available in the common csv format (i.e., not only DDEX) is actually a serious complaint about a significant operational issue.
While you have to put Spirit down as an unambiguous supporter of redesignation, it is important to focus on how best to get the MLC, Inc. to implement the many commenters’ operational suggestions. We will see some of these comments confirmed with other commenters.
We would also point out a theme that will come up repeatedly–The MLC, Inc. knows who to take care of and who to respond to quickly. That is not the same thing as having methods and systems that take care of all members which the MLC can certainly afford given the tens of millions of dollars that the services spend on The MLC, Inc.
[T]he MLC has certainly met the minimum responsibilities under the MMA and has endeavored to provide additional functionality so rightsholders can receive their entitled royalties from DMS and has completed significant development in a short period. They are very receptive of our concerns and respond promptly and clearly. We look forward their continued development.
3:II.B. Member Tools 1. Development and Implementation of Tools and Functionality The implementation of the Matching and Claiming tools and offering the bulk data (at a cost to the recipient) gives rightsholders the visibility to identify omissions in payments; These tools are the first offered by a CMO in the United States and should set an example to the others.
For publishers with large catalogs, who are not one of the majors like ourselves, have the greatest obstacles. We represent significant works by The Who, Chicago, Billy Squier, Salt N Peppa, and many others. While the Matching and Claiming tools are great for self-published writers and the bulk data for majors, indie publishers do not have the means to maximize the use of these resources. We hope the MLC offers improvements to extract data in csv format from the Matching and Claiming tools.
We would also like to see more details in Match History to understand why certain claims are rejected.
2. Matching Methodology The MLC still uses the ISRC as the primary identify for matching. Expanding the identification process using song titles and CISAC codes, i.e., the IPI and ISWC can enhance matching, improve results, and reduce unmatched recordings.
Adjustments: The MLC’s adjustment policy does not allow for debits and credits of rightsholders in the event of an error. Additionally, credits to the entitled rightsholder are not delivered unless the funds are received from the party paid in error. CMOs around the world have policies in place to handle adjustments and the MLC should have similar procedures in place.
Criterion 3:IV. Investments in Resources and Vendor Engagement 3:IV.B. Subpplemental Matching Network The USCO asks the MLC to “…provide additional information about these (Blokur, Jaxsta, Pex, Salt, SX Works) relationships, including the specific functions that they perform, or have been asked to perform, the vendors’ relevant experience with clients and projects involving similar scale and type, or their industry-specific knowledge.” The MLC only satisfies a portion of this request by providing details about each of these companies functions. However, it does not provide the tasks they have been asked to preform or how the MLC plans to use these companies to improve the royalties that will ultimately be paid to the rightsholders.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.