| 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. |
Category: Artist Rights
Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: John Guertin of ClearRights
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.
Read the entire comment at this link.
Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: Abby North, North Music Group
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.
Read Abby’s full comment at this link.
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.
Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: Spirit Music Group
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.
Are You Better off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: Monica Corton
The Mechanical Licensing Collective has its operations and functions reviewed every five years by the Copyright Office. That review is required by Title I of the Music Modernization Act as written by the lobbyists. The Copyright Office noticed the first of these five year reviews on January 30.
The statutory purpose of the period review is so that Congress, in the person of the Copyright Office, can determine whether the operators of the Mechanical Licensing Collective who the Copyright Office appointed (or “designated”) should be permitted to continue for another five years. If the Copyright Office determines that the operators of the Collective will do a good job in the next five years, the head of the Office may reward them with the equivalent of a valuable new government contract or a “redesignation”.
The current operators of the Collective are The MLC, Inc., but there is nothing that requires the Office to allow The MLC, Inc. to continue being the mechanical licensing collective–the the Collective and The MLC, Inc. are not the same thing. Be clear that the entity that is being considered to be “redesignated” is The MLC, Inc., not the Collective. The Collective is a statutory entity and The MLC, Inc. is the organization that is permitted by the Copyright Office to operate as the Collective. (That’s confusing because someone allowed The MLC, Inc. to take the same corporate name as the statutory entity which was probably an oversight by the Delaware Secretary of State if not the Copyright Office itself.)
The five year review is important because it is the only chance for songwriters and publishers as well as the public to comment on whether they support rewarding The MLC, Inc. with another five years of operations and the tens and tens of millions of dollars in operating costs and high salaries paid for by the users of the blanket license–the services themselves–in the conflict ridden process imposed on songwriters and publishers by the government.
For reasons known only to them, the Copyright Office has chosen to conduct this five year review as though it were any other rulemaking rather than engaging independent experts to conduct a technology, financial, operational, and personnel audit of The MLC, Inc. from top to bottom. That choice is presumably based on some guidance from somewhere, but would seem to inevitably substitute opinions–however astute–for an empirical review using at least industry experts with the power to compel answers if not managerial science.
While this rulemaking approach has the benefit of allowing the public to comment, it fails to offer independent expert review of the very thing that the Office is being asked to approve. Instead, that “redesignation” decision will be based on whether or not the public caught the “right” issues, expressed them the “right” way, and were able to communicate their ideas persuasively. Assuming the public even knew of the opportunity in the first place.
It must be said that if we are going to solicit opinions, the first opinion we would be interested in hearing is from the Copyright Office itself. The Register, after all, is the one making the redesignation decision, not the MLC, the DLC, or any one commenter. It seems that comments would be more compelling if informed by the Copyright Offices own views, including the opportunity to comment on the Office’s methodology. It doesn’t look like we will know about that one until the next step in the rulemaking. A “proposed redesignation” does not seem particularly apt, so we will look forward to finding out after the fact how a large chunk of songwriter income is to be managed.
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 they 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.
The first comment is by Monica Corton, the highly experienced and respected publisher. You can read her comment at this link.
The Top Unmatched Recording List
While I believe this list exists, I have never received an email asking me to review such a list. I recently learned that you could ask for the list, but it comes in the DDEX format (like the unmatched songs list) and as an independent publisher, I do not have the capability to change this to a CSV format. As I explained before, it can easily be converted to a CSV file if you have the
right software. I think that conversion from the DDEX format to the CSV format should be a service done by The MLC. Otherwise, the only people who can benefit from the Top Unmatched Recording List are the largest companies with the resources to convert this list.Investment Policy
Why isn’t the investment policy made public and fully transparent to the membership? It is our money that they are investing, and I’d like to know the details as would many other publishers. Why did the board decide to not make the policy documents regarding investments available to the public?IPI Number Use Not Mandatory
The MLC doesn’t require publishers to use IPI numbers of songwriters in their registrations. As a result, there are a lot of duplicate registrations at The MLC/HFA that never get linked together because different registrants used different names for the same writer (e.g. Eminem, Marshall Mathers) which creates different registrations for the same song. If IPI numbers for songwriters
were mandatory, this would clear up this problem.
Royalty Adjustments at The MLC
The MLC will not credit or debit a publisher for an incorrect royalty payment due to a change in registration unless they are directly responsible for the error. If you missed the snapshot because The MLC didn’t process a Catalog Transfer Form on time, the new publisher will not be credited, and it is their responsibility to contact the old publisher and get the incorrect royalty
payment paid between them rather than through The MLC. The MLC doesn’t consider a bad registration at HFA as the cause of an incorrect payment even though it is the HFA data that caused the incorrect payment. Every other PRO and CMO does internal debits and credits for incorrect payments and adjustments, especially when there is a transfer of a new catalog. The
minute The MLC is served notice of via a Catalog Transfer Form, all royalties should be put on hold until the transfer is confirmed and set up by The MLC.
The Consensus for Conditional Approval of The MLC, Inc. by the @CopyrightOffice
By Chris Castle
I am pleased to see that there is a consensus against more happy talk among commenters in The MLC, Inc.’s five year review of its operations at the Copyright Office. The consensus is an effort to actually fix the MLC’s data defects, rogue lawmaking and failure to pay “hundreds of millions of dollars” in black box royalties. But realize this is not just the songwriter groups you would expect to see raising objections (discussed in excellent Complete Music Update post). It’s also coming from some commenters who you would not expect to see criticizing The MLC who may not come right out and say it, but are essentially proposing a conditional redesignation.
When did Noah Build the Ark? The Two Arguments for Conditional Approval
There is a significant group, and sometimes from unexpected corners, who fall into two broad camps: One camp is “approve The MLC, Inc. with post-approval conditions” that may lead to being disapproved if not accomplished until the next five year review rolls around.
The other camp, which is the one I’m in if you’re interested, is to spend some time now getting very specific. The specifics are about crucial improvements The MLC, Inc. needs to put into effect and payments they need to make. This would be accomplished by bringing in advisory groups of publishing experts, especially from the independent community, roundtables, other customary tools for public consultations. But–the redesignation approval would occur only after The MLC, Inc. accomplished these goals.
Either way, the consensus is for conditions if not the timing. I’m not going to argue for one or the other today, but I have some thoughts about why delayed approval is more likely to accomplish the goals to make things better in the least disruptive way.
Remember, once The MLC, Inc. is approved, or “redsignated,” then all leverage to force change is lost. Why? Because if the last five years is any guide, exactly zero people will enforce the government’s oversight role and everyone knows it.
Putting operations-based obligations on The MLC, Inc. to be responsive to their members before they get the valuable approval preserves leverage and will force change one way or another, The reward for successfully accomplishing these goals is getting approved for another term (or the balance of their five year review). Noah built the Ark before the rain.
What if we fired them?
I’m actually pleased to see the consensus for conditional approval. Simply firing The MLC, Inc. would be disruptive (and they know it), mostly because the Copyright Office hasn’t gotten around to requiring that a succession plan be in place so that firing the MLC would not be disruptive. That’s a failure of oversight. You can’t expect the MLC to make it easy to fire themselves.
The simple solution to this pickle is for the Copyright Office to make any redesignation conditioned upon certain fixes being accomplished on an aggressive time frame. I say aggressive because they’ve had five years to think about this; it shoudln’t take long to at least implement some fixes. But if we don’t make it conditional the MLC will lack the incentive to actually fix the problems.
A conditional approval would simply say that if the MLC cleans up its act, say in the next 24 months, then they will be officially redesignated. If they don’t, it’s on to the next after that 24 month deadline.
Conditional Approval
I have to say I was encouraged by the number of commenters who said that The MLC, Inc. needs some very definite performance goals. Many commenters said that those goals needed to be met in order for The MLC, Inc. to get approved for another five years until the next review. I’m not quite sure how you approve them for another five years with performance goals unless you are really saying what some commenters came right out and said: Any approval should be conditional.
I think that means that the Copyright Office needs a plan with two broad elements: One, the plan identifies specific performance goals, and then two, establishes a performance timeline that The MLC, Inc. must meet in order for this current “redesignation” to become final.
That “conditional redesignation” would incentivize The MLC, Inc. to actually accomplish specific tasks like everyone else with a job. The timeline will likely vary based on the particular task concerned, but impliedly would be less than five years. There’s a very good reason to make the approval conditional; there’s just too much money involved. Other people’s money.
The Black Box
Every comment I read brings up the black box. Commenters raised different complaints about how The MLC, Inc. is managing or not managing the matching that is required for the black box distribution contemplated by Congress. They all were pretty freaked out about how big it is, how little we know about it, and the fact that the board of The MLC, Inc. is deeply conflicted because the lobbyists drafted an eventual market share distribution. Strangely enough, there’s every possibility that the market share distribution will happen, or could happen, right after the redesignation. Also known as losing on purpose in a fixed fight.
There’s an easy correction for that one–don’t do the market share distribution, maybe ever.
The harsh but near certain fact is if there is an announced market share distribution of the black box, the MLC (and everyone involved) will be sued before the actual distribution. It almost doesn’t matter how clean it is. So why do it at all? The MLC is supposed to set an example to the world, right? (And we know how much the world loves it when Americans say that kind of thing.) What if we said that the market share distribution was just bloodlust by the lobbyists salivating over a really big poker pot? On reflection, it should be put aside particularly because Congress may not have been told how big the black box really was if anyone knew at the time. Ahem….what did they know and when did they know it?
The Interest Penalty
This actually goes hand in hand with another interpretation of the black box provisions of Title I of the MMA which requires the payment of compound interest for black box money to be paid by The MLC, Inc. to the true copyright owner. That compound interest accrues at the “federal short term rate” in effect from time to time (that rate is adjusted monthly and is currently 5.01%). MLC’s interest obligation accrues in an account set up for the true copyright owner’s benefit, not for the recipients of the market share distribution.
Interest runs from the time the unmatched money is received by the MLC until it is matched and paid. There could easily be several different interest rates in effect if the unmatched royalties stay in the black box for months or particularly years. This concept is elaborated in a comment by the Artist Rights Institute. (And of course, why doesn’t the interest run from the time the black box is first held rather than the much later date that the unmatched is paid to the MLC?)
Title I requires this “penalty” the same way that it requires the statutory late fee which itself has been the subject of much negotiation. It is important to note that the word “penalty” does not appear in Section 115, but both the interest rate and the late fee are obviously “penalties” in plain English and in plain site. You don’t have to call it a thing a penalty in order for it to be a penalty. It doesn’t stop being a penalty just because the statute doesn’t define it as one, just like a large furry animal with big teeth, big claws, a loud roar and really bad breath who wants to eat you stops being a bear just because it doesn’t have a sign around its neck saying “BEAR”. Particularly when the furry animal has you by throat.
Align the Incentives
I have to imagine that a penalty of compound interest would incentivize both the MLC and the licensees who pay its bills to match that black box right quick. If a third party is paying the statutory interest penalty which is how it is now according to MLC CEO Kris Ahrend’s testimony to Congress (under oath), then there’s really no incentive for the MLC to pick up the pace on matching and there’s even less incentive for the licensees to make them do it.
It makes sense that the MLC is to maintain an account for each copyright owner (or maybe for each unmatched song since the copyright owner is not matched), so it only makes sense that these accounts and compound interest would be maintained on the ledger of the MLC rather than in a third party bank account, much less a mutual fund. It would be pretty dumb to just lump all the money into one account and run compound interest on the whole thing that would have to be disaggregated and paid out every time a song is matched. Assuming matching was the object of the exercise.
Plus, there’s nothing in Title I that says that black box money has to be put in a bank account that accrues interest so that the MLC doesn’t have to pay this penalty for being slow. Again, the word “bank” does not appear in Section 115. It definitely doesn’t say a federally insured bank account, a bank in the Federal Reserve system, or the like–because the statute does not require a bank. I would argue that if Congress meant for the money to be kept in a bank they would have said so.
Even so, I have to believe that if you want to an insurance company and said I will bring you the “hundreds of millions of dollars” if you write me a policy that will cover my interest expense and insure the corpus, somebody would take that business. If they can write derivatives contracts for fluctuations in natural gas futures in global energy markets, I bet they could write that policy or my name’s not Jeffrey Skilling.
William of Ockham Gets Into the Act
What makes a lot more sense and is a whole lot simpler is that Congress wanted to incentivize the MLC to match and pay black box royalties quickly. Congress established the compound interest penalty to add jet fuel to that call and response cycle following the jurisprudential theory of subsidiarity.
That penalty is part of the normal costs of operating the MLC therefore should be paid as part of the administrative assessment, i.e., by the services themselves. If the MLC sits on the money too long, the services can refuse to cover the interest costs beyond that point and the MLC can then pass the hat to the board members who allowed that to happen. Again, subsidiarity principles suggest that it is good government to create the incentive to fix a problem in the pocketbook of the one who is best positioned to actually get it fixed.
So everyone has a good incentive to clean out the black box. Brilliant lawmaking. I don’t think that’s such a bad deal for the services since they are the ones who sat on the money in the first place that produced the initial hundreds of millions of dollars for the black box. They got everything else they wanted in the MMA, why object to this little detail? Let’s try to hold down the hypocrisy, shall we?
There may be some arguments about that interpretation, but here’s what Congress definitely did not do and about which there should definitely not be an argument. Congress did not authorize the MLC to use the black box money as an investment portfolio. Nowhere in Title I is the MLC authorized to start an investment policy or to become a “control person” of mutual funds. Which they have done.
That investment policy also raises the question of who gets the upside and who bears the downside risk. If there’s a downturn, who makes the corpus whole? And, of course, when the ultimate market share distribution occurs, who gets the trading profits? Who gets the compound interest? Surely the smart people thought of this as part of their investment policy.
The Key Takeaway
You may disagree with the Institute’s analysis about what is and isn’t a penalty, and you may disagree about putting conditions on redesignation, but I think that there is broad agreement that there needs to be a discussion about forcing The MLC, Inc. to do a better job. I bet if you asked, the Congress clearly did not see the Copyright Office’s role as handing out participation trophies or pats on the head. And that should not be the community’s goal, either. This whole thing was cooked up by the lobbyists and they were not interested in any help. That obviously crashed and burned and now we need to help each other to save songwriters today and in future generations. If not us, then who; if not now, then when; if not here, then where?
[A version of this post first appeared on MusicTech.Solutions]
On the Internet, “Partners” Don’t Hear You Scream: Spotify CEO Makes a $350M “Bundle” While Sticking Songwriters with an ESG “Bundle” of Crap
Here’s a quote for the ages:
MICHAEL BURRY
One of the hallmarks of mania is the rapid rise and complexity
of the rates of fraud. And did you know they’re going up?
The Big Short, screenplay by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay,
based on the book by Michael Lewis
We have often said that if screwups were Easter eggs, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek would be the Easter bunny, hop hop hopping from one to the next. That’s is not consistent with his press agent’s pagan iconography, but it sure seems true to many people.
This week was no different. Mr. Ek cashed out hundreds of millions in Spotify stock while screwing songwriters hard with a lawless interpretation of the songwriter compulsory license. That interpretation is so far off the mark that he surely must know exactly what he is doing. It’s yet another manifestation of Spotify’s sudden obsession with finding profits after a decade of “get big fast.”
The Bunny’s Bundle
Let’s look under the hood at the part they don’t tell you much about. Mr. Ek evidently has what’s called a “10b5-1 agreement” in place with Spotify allowing staggered sales of incremental tranches of the common stock. Those sales have to be announced publicly which Spotify complied with (we think). And we’ll say it again for the hundredth time, stock is where the real money is at this stage of Spotify’s evolution, not revenue.
As a founder of Spotify, Mr. Ek holds founders shares plus whatever stock awards he has been granted by the board he controls through his supervoting stock that we’ve discussed with you many times. These 10b5-1 agreements are a common technique for insiders, especially founders, who hold at least 10% of the company’s shares, to cash out and get the real money through selling their stock.
A 10b5-1 agreement establishes predetermined trading instructions for company stock (usually a sale so not trading the shares) consistent with SEC rules under Section 10b5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 covering when the insider can sell. Why does this exist? The rule was established in 2000 to protect Silicon Valley insiders from insider trading lawsuits. Yep, you caught it–it’s yet another safe harbor for the special people. Presumably Mr. Ek’s personal agreement is similar if not identical to the safe harbor terms because that’s why the terms are there.
As MusicBusinessWorldWide reported, Mr. Ek recently sold $118.8 million in shares of Spotify at roughly the same time that he likely knew Spotify was planning to change the way his company paid songwriters on streaming mechanicals, or as it’s also known “material nonpublic information”.
As Tim Ingham notes in MusicBusinessWorldwide, Mr. Ek has had a few recent sales under his 10b5-1 agreement: “Across these four transactions (today’s included), Ek has cashed out approximately $340.5 million in Spotify shares since last summer.” Rough justice, but I would place a small wager that Ek has cashed out in personal wealth all or close to all of the money that Spotify has paid to songwriters (through their publishers) for the same period. In this sense, he is no different than the usual disproportionately compensated CEOs at say Google or Raytheon.
Spotify Shoves a “Bundled” Rate on Songwriters
Spotify’s argument (that may have caused a jump in share price) claims that its recent audiobook offering made Spotify subscriptions into a “bundle” for purposes of the statutory mechanical rate. (While likely paying an undiscounted royalty to the books.)
That would be the same bundled rate that was heavily negotiated in the 2021-22 “Phonorecords IV” proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board at great expense to all concerned, not to mention torturing the Copyright Royalty Judges. These Phonorecords IV rates are in effect for five years, but the next negotiation for new rates is coming soon (called Phonorecords V or PR V for short). We’ll get to the royalty bundle but let’s talk about the cash bundle first.
You Didn’t Build That
Don’t get it wrong, we don’t begrudge Mr. Ek the opportunity to be a billionaire. We don’t at all. But we do begrudge him the opportunity to do it when the government is his “partner” so they can together put a boot on the necks of songwriters. This is how it is with statutory mechanical royalties; he benefits from various other safe harbors, has had his lobbyists rewrite Section 115 to avoid litigation in a potentially unconstitutional reach back safe harbor, and he hired the lawyer at the Copyright Office who largely wrote the rules that he’s currently bending. Yes, we do begrudge him that stuff.
And here’s the other effrontery. When Daniel Ek pulls down $340.5 million as a routine matter, we really don’t want to hear any poor mouthing about how Spotify cannot make a profit because of the royalty payments it makes to artists and songwriters. (Or these days, doesn’t make to some artists.) This is, again, why revenue share calculations are just the wrong way to look at the value conferred by featured and nonfeatured artists and songwriters on the Spotify juggernaut. That’s also the point Chris made in some detail in the paper he co-wrote with Professor Claudio Feijoo for WIPO that came up in Spain, Hungary, France, Uruguay and other countries.
Spotify pays a percentage of revenue on what is essentially a market share basis. Market share royalties allows the population of recordings to increase faster than the artificially suppressed revenue, while excluding songwriters from participating in the increases in market value reflected in the share price. That guarantees royalties will decline over time. Nothing new here, see the economist Thomas Malthus, workhouses and Charles Dickens‘ Oliver Twist.
The market share method forces songwriters to take a share of revenue from someone who purposely suppressed (and effectively subsidized) their subscription pricing for years and years and years. (See Robert Spencer’s Get Big Fast.). It would be a safe bet that the reason they subsidized the subscription price was to boost the share price by telling a growth story to Wall Street bankers (looking at you, Goldman Sachs) and retail traders because the subsidized subscription price increased subscribers.
Just a guess.
The Royalty Bundle
Now about this bundled subscription issue. One of the fundamental points that gets missed in the statutory mechanical licensing scheme is the compulsory license itself. The fact that songwriters have a compulsory license forced on them for one of their primary sources of income is a HUGE concession. We think the music services like Spotify have lost perspective on just how good they’ve got it and how big a concession it is.
The government has forced songwriters to make this concession since 1909. That’s right–for over 100 years. A century.
A decision that seemed reasonable 100 years ago really doesn’t seem reasonable at all today in a networked world. So start there as opposed to the trope that streaming platforms are doing us a favor by paying us at all, Daniel Ek saved the music business, and all the other iconographic claptrap.
The problem with the Spotify move to bundled subscriptions is that it can happen in the middle of a rate period and at least on the surface has the look of a colorable argument to reduce royalty payments. If you asked songwriters what they thought the rule was, to the extent they had focused on it at all after being bombarded with self-congratulatory hoorah, they probably thought that the deal wasn’t “change rates without renegotiating or at least coming back and asking.”
And they wouldn’t be wrong about that, because it is reasonable to ask that any changes get run by your, you know, “partner.” Maybe that’s where it all goes wrong. Because it is probably a big mistake to think of these people as your “partner” if by “partner” you mean someone who treats you ethically and politely, reasonably and in good faith like a true fiduciary.
They are not your partner. Don’t normalize that word.
A Compulsory License is a Rent Seeker’s Presidential Suite
But let’s also point out that what is happening with the bundle pricing is a prime example of the brittleness of the compulsory licensing system which is itself like a motel in the desolate and frozen Cyber Pass with a light blinking “Vacancy: Rent Seekers Wanted” surrounded by the bones of empires lost. Unlike the physical mechanical rate which is a fixed penny rate per transaction, the streaming mechanical is a cross between a Rube Goldberg machine and a self-licking ice cream cone.
The Spotify debacle is just the kind of IED that was bound to explode eventually when you have this level of complexity camouflaging traps for the unwary written into law. And the “written into law” part is what makes the compulsory license process so insidious. When the roadside bomb goes off, it doesn’t just hit the uparmored people before the Copyright Royalty Board–it creams everyone.
David and friends tried to make this point to the Copyright Royalty Judges in Phonorecords IV. They were not confused by the royalty calculations–they understood them all too well. They were worried about fraud hiding in the calculations the same way Michael Burry was worried about fraud in The Big Short. Except there’s no default swaps for songwriters like Burry used to deal with fraud in subprime mortgage bonds.
Here’s how the Judges responded to David, you decide if they are condescending or if the songwriters were prescient knowing what we know now:
While some songwriters or copyright owners may be confused by the royalties or statements of account, the price discriminatory structure and the associated levels of rates in settlement do not appear gratuitous, but rather designed, after negotiations, to establish a structure that may expand the revenues and royalties to the benefit of copyright owners and music services alike, while also protecting copyright owners from potential revenue diminution. This approach and the resulting rate setting formula is not unreasonable. Indeed, when the market itself is complex, it is unsurprising that the regulatory provisions would resemble the complex terms in a commercial agreement negotiated in such a setting.
PR IV Final Rule at 80452 https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27410
It must be said that there never has been a “commercial agreement negotiated in such a setting” that wasn’t constrained by the compulsory license. It’s unclear what the Judges even mean. But if what the Judges mean is that the compulsory license approximates what would happen in a free market where the songwriters ran free and good men didn’t die like dogs, the compulsory license is nothing like a free market deal.
If the Judges are going to allow services to change their business model in midstream but essentially keep their music offering the same while offloading the cost of their audiobook royalties onto songwriters through a discount in the statutory rate, then there should be some downside protection. Better yet, they should have to come back and renegotiate or songwriters should get another bite at the apple.
Unfortunately, there are neither, which almost guarantees another acrimonious, scorched earth lawyer fest in PR V coming soon to a charnel house near you.
Eject, Eject!
This is really disappointing because it was so avoidable if for no other reason. It’s a great time for someone…ahem…to step forward and head off the foreseeable collision on the billable time highway. The Judges surely know that the rate calculation is a farce
But the Judges are dealing with people negotiating the statutory license who have made too much money negotiating it to ever give it up willingly although a donnybrook is brewing. This inevitable dust up means other work will suffer at the CRB. It must be said in fairness that the Judges seem to find it hard enough to get to the work they’ve committed to according to a recent SoundExchange filing in a different case (SDARS III remand from 2020).
That’s not uncharitable–I’m merely noting that when dozens of lawyers in the mechanical royalty proceedings engage in what many of us feel are absurd discovery excesses. When there are stupid lawyer tricks at the CRB, they are–frankly–distracting the Judges from doing their job by making them focus on, well, bollocks. We’ll come back to this issue in future. The dozens and hundreds of lawyers putting children through college at the CRB–need to take a breath and realize that judicial resources at the CRB are a zero sum game. This behavior isn’t fair to the Judges and it’s definitely not fair to the real parties in interest–the songwriters.
Tell the Horse to Open Wider
A compulsory license in stagflationary times is an incredibly valuable gift, and when you not only look the gift horse in the mouth but ask that it open wide so you can check the molars, don’t be surprised if one day it kicks you.
A version of this post first appeared on MusicTech.Solutions
They Deserve It: TikTok Forced Sale Legislation Advances to Senate
The most remarkable aspect of the pending legislation in Congress that would force a sale of TikTok is how much money and how many high profile lobbyists have taken the CCP’s shilling (or maybe yuan) to push the obviously corrupt company’s water. And yet…the legislation is advancing by leaps and bounds and TikTok is failing.
David was interviewed by Billboard to give a perspective. The headline here is that TikTok appears to be doing the same thing that Spotify was doing when Spotify was sued by Melissa Ferrick and David–using songs without a license.
The music industry’s view of the proceedings in Washington is mixed. The perspective of artists and songwriters is arguably best expressed by David Lowery, the artist rights activist and frontman for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, who also was one of more than 200 creators that, in early April, signed an open letter to tech platforms urging them to stop using AI “to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists.”
“The rates TikTok pays artists are extremely low, and it has a history — at least with me — of using my catalog with no licenses,” Lowery says. “I just checked to make sure and there are plenty of songs that I wrote on TikTok, and I have no idea how they have a license for those songs.”
As a result, Lowery says that while “I’m kind of neutral as to whether TikTok needs to be sold to a U.S. owner, the bill pleases me in a general way because I feel that they’ve gotten away with abusing artists for so long that they deserve it. I realize the bill doesn’t punish them for doing that,” he continues, “but that’s why a lot of musicians feel they really deserve it.”
The First Shot Across the Bow at the MLC’s “Redesignation” Proceeding #TheReup
We must always tell what we see. Above all, and this is more difficult, we must always see what we see.
Charles Peguy
By Chris Castle
The Reup is on! MTP readers will remember that The MLC, Inc. is in the beginning of its “redesignation” proceeding before the U.S. Copyright Office that we call “the rep,” because…because….well, you have to laugh at some point. Having appointed (or “designated”) The MLC, Inc. as the statutory mechanical licensing collective in 2019, the Copyright Office is required by statute to review The MLC, Inc. to see how they are doing with their exclusive monopoly over songwriter streaming mechanical collections.
It’s important to remember that the mechanical licensing collective (lower case) is a statutory body. Congress tasked the head of the Copyright Office with selecting an entity to actually do the work. In a shocker that rocked the industry, the Copyright Office selected (or “designated”) the favorite corporation of the National Music Publishers Association and the Nashville Songwriters Association International that styled itself “The MLC, Inc.”
The MLC, Inc. then turned right around and selected the Harry Fox Agency as its data vendor to actually run the accounting part of the collective–another shocker. If you thought you were going to escape the hubris and incompetence of HFA under the glorious revolution of the Music Modernization Act, tough break. So it is now the Copyright Office’s decision to either redesignate The MLC, Inc. (and by default, HFA) for another five years of holding onto your money in their vast black box, or find someone else.
And just to be clear, these exclusive appointments or “designations” last for five years. Every five years, Congress required the Copyright Office to take a critical look at the wisdom of their prior decision and determine after soul-searching and self-criticism whether they should ratify their previous genius by extending the monopoly another five years. As Congress said in the legislative history narrative:
The Register [the head of the Copyright Office] is allowed to re-designate an entity to serve as the collective every 5 years after the initial designation. Although there is no guarantee of a continued designation by the collective, continuity in the collective would be beneficial to copyright owners so long as the entity previously chosen to be the collective has regularly demonstrated its efficient and fair administration of the collective in a manner that respects varying interests and concerns. In contrast, evidence of fraud, waste, or abuse, including the failure to follow the relevant regulations adopted by the Copyright Office, over the prior five years should raise serious concerns within the Copyright Office as to whether that same entity has the administrative capabilities necessary to perform the required functions of the collective. In such cases, where the record of fraud, waste, or abuse is clear, the Register should give serious consideration to the selection of a new entity even if not all criteria are met pursuant to section 115(d)(3)(B)(iii).
So the way this is going to go down according to the Copyright Office is that they will seek a kind of thesis defense from each of The MLC, Inc. and the MLC’s counterpart for the digital services called the Digital Licensee Coordinator or “the DLC” which we often forget is there. Then the public gets to comment on how things are going.
Let’s understand how this game is played. Nobody likes to open the kimono and have their operations examined. But opening the kimono is actually a much bigger deal for the MLC than for the DLC. The MLC has a lot of functionality that perpetuates the same old spaghetti code from HFA and the need to hide it from sunlight. In my view the sense of entitlement and hubris is overwhelmingly stronger at The MLC, Inc. than at the DLC. Remember, the DLC pretty much just writes the overpriced checks to keep MLC executives in the style to which they have become accustomed (see Trichordist “Know Your MLC 2022“).
We are starting to get a sense of how the DLC is going to approach the reup proceeding given a recent blog post by Graham Davies, the new head of the Digital Media Association. DiMA essentially is the DLC. Technically, the DLC’s mission is to represent all users of the blanket mechanical license, and I think perhaps for the first time, the DLC will represent all the users both large and small, not just DiMA members. Let’s take a look at some of the points Graham raised.
The Insult of Governance
But first, remember that the MMA created the first US mechanical licensing CMO. This was an event that had been coming for oh, say 100 years round numbers. The first difference between the US and most other countries is that in the US there is not equal board representation between publishers and songwriters. This is an insult to songwriters.
That’s right–in the rest of the world, songwriters have at least equal representation. Just call it what it is, it’s an insult. And not a casual insult or the insult of low expectations. This insult is right in your face.
There will be a lot of rending of garments about the unfairness of the MLC’s board composition and that’s all fine, but know this: You will not change the board composition until you change the mindset that produced the board composition.
What is astonishing about how this happened is that before they get to Washington, all these publishers with board seats have good relations with songwriters and value their writers. Do we have arguments inside the family? Sure. But something happens to these publishers when they get to Washington, DC and they go rogue or they are encouraged to go rogue.
So I would encourage these board members to come back to your values and what you hold dear and don’t listen to the bad advice. The bad advice didn’t build your companies; your relations with your songwriters did. Yet there is such hostility toward this board composition that it will take you years to overcome the insult and the distrust it produced. It didn’t have to happen that way and it should not be allowed to continue.
No Free Lunch
The next big difference is that the cost of standing up and operating the MLC is born by the licensees. There is a reason that this doesn’t happen in any other country–it is a bullshit idea. It OBVIOUSLY produced an inherent conflict of interest at the outset. Does it shovel money onto the kitchen tables of the insiders? Of course. Does it feed into salaries, bonuses and T&E of the MLC? Oh, yes. So let’s see what Graham Davies has to say about this one.
For starters, here’s a headline: THE MONEY IS NOT HAPPY. Get it? What do you think happens when the money is not happy? Maybe, just maybe, you think they might not want to keep paying? Maybe just maybe they gave you your lead for five years and let you get good and hooked before they started reeling you in?
As Graham says:
All around the world, it is the rightsholders who bear the cost of the collectives licensing their rights, and copyright offices or similar government bodies often have oversight powers over the collectives to ensure that royalties are distributed fairly and the collectives operate efficiently.
In the US, unlike anywhere else in the world, legislators placed the burden of funding the collective’s operations on the licensees as opposed to the rightsholders. This particular arrangement was a feature of the statute, but means a collective’s traditional incentives for optimum performance are not inherently built in and may become skewed. [Now there’s a shocker.]
This structure makes it even more important that the Copyright Office ensures fair and efficient operation of the collective, including for those who fund it.
How can you read that and not realize that THE MONEY IS NOT HAPPY. See what you see. Anyone who believed that the licensees large and small would just go on writing the checks for absurd salaries and ridiculous travel and entertainment expenses must be from Washington.
Oversight Culture Clash
This goes hand-in-hand with the true problem with the entire megillah which is where Graham starts: Lack of oversight. Don’t blow past this.
Remember, DiMA represents the biggest corporations in commercial history and make no mistake–they own Washington, DC. So when the DiMA members look at this oversight issue, from their point of view the government works for them and the government is falling down on the job. The money is not happy. See what you see.
Oversight is a key part of Graham’s complaint.
As we embark on the redesignation process, oversight of the mechanical licensing collective is a key issue. Collective licensing is common for many rights in the music sector, because it is a sensible solution for reducing transaction costs and improving efficiencies between rightsholders and licensees….
The MMA mandated that the MLC be run by a Board made up largely of music publishers and some songwriters. While it makes sense for rights holders to have oversight over a collective of their rights, it has become apparent in the five years since the MMA was passed, that this structure, without guardrails and robust oversight, provides little incentive for the collective to carefully weigh risks and conduct rigorous cost-benefit analysis of decisions before action. [Like any CMO conducts a “rigorous cost-benefit analysis”–try not to laugh, but you get the idea.] This is of great importance because without a clearly circumscribed remit for The MLC, the positions the collective takes can have significant consequences for the functioning of the US music market.
The record shows that in passing the MMA, Congress chose to establish a collective that would serve as the administrator of the mechanical blanket license….Congress [did not] intend to write the collective a blank check. Indeed, Congress was astute in requiring that streaming services be responsible only for the reasonable costs of the collective. Such reasonable costs relate to the collective’s core functions – such as work registration and matching. Where The MLC has focused on these core functions, there is good work [no there isn’t], particularly in the context of the relatively short window from designation to operation [already making excuses]. However, where The MLC has gone beyond its remit, there has been, and continues to be cause for concern. Reasonable costs of the collective cannot include everything from traveling to distant countries to conduct outreach to songwriters far beyond the U.S. licensing system, to suing one of the licensees that pays its costs — using licensee money to pursue its allegations against a licensee on a novel legal theory. [This is the Pandora lawsuit filed by The MLC, Inc. I was wondering how long that would take to get under the skin.]
I take Graham’s point and understand his frustration (and discretion in not calling out the ridiculous salaries). But it must also be said that only lobbyists in the Imperial City would have drafted Title I of the MMA to provide for oversight of a private company by a government agency. That’s just idiotic. First of all, it’s really unfair to expect the Copyright Office to supervise the MLC’s travel and entertainment expenses. They barely have the resources to manage their own operations much less have oversight on Kris Ahrend’s tips in transit. It’s also just not in the cerebral culture of the Copyright Office to have the kind of dressing down relationship with the MLC that would be necessary for financial oversight.
I also have to call bullshit on this complaint about costs being framed as an oversight issue. Yeah, sure, I guess on some level everything is an oversight issue. But if anything, this is an issue for the board of directors at the MLC which includes the DLC. But in most companies it’s a management issue for the CEO and the CFO. So if Graham has a beef about T&E (which sounds like a legitimate beef and is not the first I’ve heard of it), he needs to take it up with the management. You know, the management that reports to the board the DLC sits on (nonvoting or not).
Alternatively, the operating budget of the MLC comes through the Copyright Royalty Board which approves the budget in the form of the “Administrative Assessment.” The DLC can raise these complaints about spending in that forum as well and really should.
So Graham raises some important points that we should be aware of as the MLC enters its all-important reup proceeding. Stay tuned for responses.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.