Category: Artist Rights

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.

by Trichordist Editor

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]

by Trichordist Editor

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. 

Stock buybacks artificially increase share price. Now why might Spotify want to juice its own stock price?

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.

Has anyone seen them in the same room at the same time?

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

by Trichordist Editor

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.” 

by theinvisiblestagehand

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.

by Trichordist Editor

MLC “ReUp” Proceeding Highlights Ownership Issues for Your Musical Works Database When You Correct To Collect?

Guest post By Chris Castle

Ever wonder who owns the registration data you have slaved to correct and recorrect at your own cost when you “Play Your Part” to “Correct to Collect” at the MLC?

Remember the sainted Music Modernization Act allowed the lobbyists a vehicle to create their mechanical licensing collective in the US that was going to solve all of Big Tech’s problems. The MMA, unsurprisingly, also gave Big Tech a brand new copyright infringement safe harbor arising out of the Spotify class actions. Generations of the children of lawyers and lobbyists will be put through college–thank you songwriters!

One of the few things Congress got right in Title I of the Music Modernization Act is the five-year review of the mechanical licensing collective. Or more precisely, whether the private company previously designated by the Copyright Office to conduct the functions of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC, Inc.) should have another five years to continue doing whatever it is they do.

Impliedly, and I think a bit unfairly, Congress told the Copyright Office to approve its own decision to appoint the current MLC or admit they made a mistake. This is yet another one of the growing list of oversights in the oversight. Wouldn’t it make more sense for someone not involved in the initial decision to be evaluating the performance of the MLC? Particularly when there are at least tens of millions of dollars changing hands as well as some highly compensated MLC employees, any one of whom makes more than the Copyright Royalty Judges. The MLC’s budget (paid by the services they oversee) was $32,900,000 in 2023 and will be $39,050,000 this year because, you know, the budget is indexed to inflation, just like streaming mechanicals…oh sorry. Not like streaming mechanicals.

Who Owns the Database?

What happens if the Register of Copyright actually fires The MLC, Inc. and designates a new MLC operator? The first question probably should be what is The MLC, Inc.’s plan for a hand off to a successor. But since that doesn’t exist, it instead should be what happens to the vaunted MLC musical works database and the attendant software and accounting systems which seem to be maintained out of the UK for some reason.

I actually raised this ownership question in a comment to the Copyright Office back in 2020. In short, my question was probably more of a statement: ‘‘The musical works database does not belong to the MLC or The MLC and if there is any confusion about that, it should be cleared up right away.” 

The Copyright Office had a very clear response:

While the mechanical licensing collective must ‘‘establish and maintain a database containing information relating to musical works,’’ the statute and legislative history emphasize that the database is meant to benefit the music industry overall and is not ‘‘owned’’ by the collective itself….Any use by the Office referring to the public database as ‘‘the MLC’s database’’ or ‘‘its database’’ was meant to refer to the creation and maintenance of the database, not ownership. [85 FR at 58172, text accompanying notes 30 and 31.]

So if the current operator of the MLC is fired, we know from the MMA and the Copyright Office guidance that one thing The MLC, Inc. cannot do is hold the database and its attendant systems hostage, or demand payment, or any other shadiness. These items do not belong to them so they must not assert control over that which they do not own. Neither does the database belong to any contractor if for no other reason than the MLC, Inc. cannot transfer to a contractor something that the MLC, Inc. doesn’t own in the first place.

Another thing that doesn’t belong to The MLC, Inc. is the hundreds of millions of black box money that the MLC, Inc. has failed to distribute in going on four years. I’ve even heard cynics suggest that the market share distribution of black box will occur immediately following The MLC, Inc.’s redesignation and the corresponding renewal of HFA’s back office contract which seems to be worth about $10 million a year all by itself.

What would also have been helpful would be for Congress to have required the Copyright Office to publish evaluation criteria for what they expected the MLC’s operator to actually do as well as performance benchmarks. Like I said, it’s a bit unfair of Congress to put the Copyright Office in the unprecedented position of evaluating such an important role with no usable guidance whatsoever. Surely Congress did not intend for the Copyright Office to have unfettered autonomy in deciding what standards to apply to their review of a quasi-governmental agency like the MLC? Yet Congress seems to have defaulted to the guardrail of the Administrative Procedures Act or some other backstop to sustain checks and balances on the situation.

But at least the ownership question is settled.

by Trichordist Editor

MTP Interview: We ask @Creators_ECSA President @Helienne Lindvall to Explain the European Parliament’s Streaming Economy Report from the Committee on Culture and Education

This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy by Chris Castle.

The Culture and Education of the European Parliament issued an important report on the state of the creative economy. Our friend Helienne Lindvall, President of the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, gives us some insights into the report and the context.

I know ECSA was involved in testifying for the EU cultural diversity report, can you tell us a little about the report, what prompted it and how does it help or hurt?

Streaming and the amount of issues it brought with it has been at the top of the agenda for European songwriters since the launch of Spotify. As an Ivors Academy Board Director, I was part of the inception of the UK #FixStreaming campaign which resulted in the UK Government calling for a complete overhaul of music streaming, and for the creation of music industry working groups to fix these problems. Meanwhile, similar lobbying efforts have been applied in Brussels by music creators across Europe. The EU has a fine history of promoting, supporting and protecting culture – in 2019, legislators proved it by adopting the DSM Copyright Directive. Now we need it to step up to help create a sustainable streaming environment. 

Rapporteur Iban Garcia del Blanco and his fellow CULT MEPs took their time to really listen to and understand the reality that music authors (ie songwriters and composers) face, and our proposed remedies, and I think the report reflects that.

Is the report designed to shape future legislation or rulemaking in the EU?

We look forward to seeing the European Commission work on such a strategy and take concrete actions to build a fair and sustainable music streaming ecosystem for all music creators.. 

MEP Garcia del Blanco said at the press conference that he would prefer if the industry stakeholders could sit down and fix these problems without further legislation, but judging from our experience in the UK, certain areas are easier to get a consensus on than others. The UK metadata working group has set parameters for improvements, which I believe can easily be adopted across Europe and beyond. However, when it comes to remuneration and making it fairer for songwriters and performers, we have met with resistance from labels and platforms – unsurprisingly, perhaps. Getting increased transparency has also proved more difficult. If this resistance remains we will keep pushing for Government intervention and legislation. 

The report calls for a comprehensive and ambitious strategy based on independent data and a structured dialogue with all stakeholders, and we stand ready to work with the entire music value chain towards a fairer distribution of revenues, and we support the establishment of a European Music Observatory to collect and analyse data.

I noticed this language in the report calling on EU parliament:  “Calls for action to be taken at the European Union level to guarantee the visibility and accessibility of European musical works, considering the overwhelming amount of content constantly growing on music streaming platforms and the lack of Union rules to regulate them in a harmonised manner”.  and algorithmic dominance? 

It may come as no surprise that American and major label records still dominate on streaming platforms.

Is this designed to keep local language artists from being overwhelmed by English language tracks due to algorithmic bias or Spotify’s stream discrimination plans?

The short answer is: yes. During our stakeholder testimonials in the EU Parliament, Spotify claimed that streaming has increased diversity. And, yes, it may be true that some European countries have seen plenty of local acts in their local charts, though by no means all countries have experienced this, but on an international level there’s still a huge dominance of Anglo-American repertoire. Then we have the issue of the dominance of legacy artists and catalogue albums, such as ABBA, Fleetwood Mac and Elton John. 

In a post-Brexit reality, does the report have any effect on the UK?

The EU doesn’t have any legislative powers when it comes to the UK, due to Brexit, but as streaming is cross-border, as is the music industry, an improvement in either would have an impact on both. Some EU members have already implemented their own versions of equitable remuneration, such as Belgium and Spain – and France is establishing a streaming tax to support local music – but we would like to see solutions and changes that help ALL music creators, in particular songwriters, who currently are at the bottom when it comes to their share of the streaming royalty “pie”, and are finding it next to impossible to survive on their music, despite getting millions of streams. 

Given the attention that the Bad Dog story is getting, would the metadata accuracy proposals in the report help to stop outright fraud and impersonation? 

Yes, it would. Overall, we need more transparency, accountability and accuracy to deal with fraud. These are all words that get thrown around the industry willy-nilly but are rarely truly abided by. In this industry, companies rarely make an effort when it comes to accuracy unless there is an incentive for them to do so. What is the incentive for distributors and platforms to clean up their act and make an effort to prevent bad actors from profiting from fraudulent streams when they still get a share of those streams? I make the comparison to physical stores: If a supermarket sold counterfeit products, they’d be in trouble with the law. Why not these platforms and distributors? And this is before we even get into what’s happening on TikTok, which is the wild west when it comes to unlicensed usage. 

Does the metadata accuracy help to enforce “know your customer” type minimum indentifiable data requirements?

Accurate metadata is vital for so many reasons. Not only because more than 20% of all song revenue is unallocable and won’t go to the rightful recipient, but it will help in the fight against fraud. The way I put it to legislators is: You wouldn’t be able to buy a tuna sandwich in the supermarket without being able to read EXACTLY what is in it on the package, or the trader knowing who to pay for those ingredients. So how can it be legal for streaming services to accept, display and charge for recordings without knowing who created the underlying composition? How can they collect money without having any information on who to pay it to? And, as we’ve discovered with cases such as the Bad Dog story and Swedish criminal gangs using Spotify streams to launder money, that money could even be funding drug and weapons trafficking. 

Anything else you think is important about the report? 

The report calls for action when it comes competition issues and the dominance of a handful of labels and platforms, issues that we believe suppresses our bargaining power. It also stresses that authors, performers and other rights holders should be allowed to reserve and license the rights for the use of their work for AI training, and it acknowledges that this requires transparency. Overall it’s an important report that aims to correct the imbalances that have led to the unsustainable situation music creators find themselves in, and to build a sustainable, thriving and diverse cultural future. It couldn’t come soon enough. 

by Trichordist

In the fight for AI Justice, “The music industry is the tip of the spear” @MikeHuppe #IRespectMusic

Get smart about the NO AI Fraud Act with this MTP Mini Brief on the NO AI Fraud Act.

by Trichordist Editor