Category: artist rights

The Intention of Justice:  In Which The MLC Loses its Way on a Copyright Adventure

by Chris Castle

ARTHUR

Let’s get back to justice…what is justice?  What is the intention of justice?  The intention of justice is to see that the guilty people are proven guilty and that the innocent are freed.  Simple, isn’t it?  
Only it’s not that simple.

From And Justice for All, screenplay written by Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson

Something very important happened at the MLC on July 9:  The Copyright Office overruled the MLC on the position the MLC (and, in fairness, the NMPA) took on who was entitled to post-termination mechanical royalties under the statutory blanket license.  What’s important about the ruling is not just that the Copyright Office ruled that the MLC’s announced position was “incorrect”—it is that it corrected the MLC’s position that was in direct contravention of prior Copyright Office guidance.  (If this is all news to you, you can get up to speed with this helpful post about the episode on the Copyright Office website or read John Barker’s excellent comment in the rulemaking.)

“Guidance” is a kind way to put it, because the Copyright Office has statutory oversight for the MLC.  That means that on subjects yet to be well defined in a post-Loper world (the Supreme Court decision that reversed “Chevron deference”), I think it’s worth asking whether the Copyright Office is going to need to get more involved with the operations of the MLC.  Alternatively, Congress may have to amend Title I of the Music Modernization Act to fill in the blanks.  Either way, the Copyright Office’s termination ruling is yet another example of why I keep saying that the MLC is a quasi-governmental organization that is, in a way, neither fish nor fowl.  It is both a private organization and a government agency somewhat like the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Whatever it is ultimately ruled to be, it is not like the Harry Fox Agency which in my view has labored for decades under the misapprehension that its decisions carry the effect of law.  Shocking, I know.  But whether it’s the MLC or HFA, when they decide not to pay your money unless you sue them, it may as well be the law.

The MLC’s failure to follow the Copyright Office guidance is not a minor thing.  This obstreperousness has led to significant overpayments to pre-termination copyright owners (who may not even realize they were getting screwed).  This behavior by the MLC is what the British call “bolshy”, a wonderful word describing one who is uncooperative, recalcitrant, or truculent according to the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang.  The word is a pejorative adjective derived from Bolshevik.  “Bolshy” invokes lawlessness.

In a strange coincidence, the two most prominent public commenters supporting the MLC’s bolshy position on post-termination payments were the MLC itself and the NMPA, which holds a nonvoting board seat on the MLC’s board of directors.  This stick-togetherness is very reminiscent of what it was like dealing with HFA when the NMPA owned it.  It was hard to tell where one started and the other stopped just like it is now.  (I have often said that a nonvoting board seat is very much like a “board observer” appointed by investors in a startup to essentially spy on the company’s board of directors.  I question why the MLC even needs nonvoting board seats at all given the largely interlocking boards, aside from the obvious answer that the nonvoters have those seats because the lobbyists wrote themselves into Title I of the MMA—you know, the famous “spirit of the MMA”.)

Having said that, the height of bolshiness is captured in this quotation (89 FR 58586 (July 9, 2024)) from the Copyright Office ruling about public comments which the Office had requested (at 56588):

The only commenter to question the Office’s authority was NMPA, which offered various arguments for why the Office lacks authority to issue this [post-termination] rule. None are persuasive. [Ouch.]

NMPA first argued that the Office has no authority under section 702 of the Copyright Act or the MMA to promulgate rules that involve substantive questions of copyright law. This is clearly incorrect. [Double ouch.]

The Office ‘‘has statutory authority to issue regulations necessary to administer the Copyright Act’’ and ‘‘to interpret the Copyright Act.’’  As the [Copyright Office notice of proposed rulemaking] detailed, ‘‘[t]he Office’s authority to interpret [the Copyright Act]  in the context of statutory licenses in particular has long been recognized.’’

Well, no kidding.

What concerns me today is that wherever it originated, the net effect of the MLC’s clearly erroneous and misguided position on termination payments is like so many other “policies” of the MLC:  The gloomy result always seems to be they don’t pay the right person or don’t pay anyone at all in a self-created dispute that so far has proven virtually impossible to undo without action by the Copyright Office (which has other and perhaps better things to do, frankly).  The Copyright Office, publishers and songwriters then have to burn cycles correcting the mistake.  

In the case of the termination issue, the MLC managed to do both: They either paid the wrong person or they held the money.  That’s a pretty neat trick, a feat of financial gymnastics for which there should be an Olympic category.  Or at least a flavor of self-licking ice cream.

The reason the net effect is of concern is that this adventure in copyright has led to a massive screwup in payments illustrating what we call the legal maxim of fubar fugazi snafu.  And no one will be fired.  In fact, we don’t even know which person is responsible for taking the position in the first place.  Somebody did, somebody screwed up, and somebody should be held accountable.

Mr. Barker crystalized this issue in his comment on the Copyright Office termination rulemaking, which I call to your attention (emphasis added):

I do have a concern related to the current matter at hand, which translates to a long-term uneasiness which I believe is appropriate to bring up as part of these comments. That concern is, how did the MLC’s proposed policies [on statutory termination payments] come in to being in the first place? 

The Copyright Office makes clear in its statements in the Proposed Rules publication that “…the MLC adopted a dispute policy concerning termination that does not follow the Office’s rulemaking guidance.”, and that the policy “…decline(d) to heed the Office’s warning…”. Given that the Office observed that “[t]he accurate distribution of royalties under the blanket license to copyright owners is a core objective of the MLC”, it is a bit alarming that the MLC’s proposed policies got published in the first place. 

I am personally only able to come up with two reasons why this occurred. Either the MLC board did not fully understand the impact on termination owners and the future administration of those royalties, or the MLC board DID realize the importance, and were intentional with their guidelines, despite the Copyright Office’s warnings. 

Both conclusions are disturbing, and I believe need to be addressed.

Mr. Barker is more gentlemanly about it than I am, and I freely admit that I have no doubt failed the MLC in courtesy.  I do have a tendency to greet only my brothers, the gospel of Matthew notwithstanding.  Yet it irks me to no end that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and the tremendous productivity cost (and loss) of having to fix it.  Was the MLC’s failed quest to impose its will on society covered by the Administrative Assessment?  If so, why?  If not, who paid for it?  And we should call the episode by its name—it is a debacle, albeit a highly illustrative one. 

But we must address this issue soon and address it unambiguously.  The tendency of bureaucracy is always to grow and the tendency of non-profit organizations is always to seek power as a metric in the absence of for-profit revenue.  Often there are too many people in the organization who are involved in decision-making so that responsibility is too scattered.  

When something goes wrong as it inevitably does, no one ever gets blamed, no one ever gets fired, and it’s very hard to hold any one person accountable because everything is too diffused.  Instead of accepting that inevitable result and trying to narrow accountability down to one person so that an organization is manageable and functioning, the reflex response is often to throw more resources at the problem when more resources, aka money, is obviously not the solution.  The MLC already has more money than they know what to do with thanks to the cornucopia of cash from the Administrative Assessment.  That deep pocket has certainly not led to peace in the valley.

Someone needs to get their arms around this issue and introduce accountability into the process.  That is either the Copyright Office acting in its oversight role, the blanket license users acting in their paymaster role through the DLC, or a future litigant who just gets so fed up with the whole thing that they start suing everyone in sight.   

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica that a just war requires a just cause, a rightful intention and the authority of the sovereign (Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 40).  So it is with litigation.  We have a tendency to dismiss litigation as wasteful or unnecessary with a jerk of the knee, yet that is overbroad and actually wrong.  In some cases the right of the people to sue to enforce their rights is productive, necessary, inevitable and—hopefully—in furtherance of a just cause like its historical antecedents in trial by combat.  

It is also entirely in keeping with our Constitution.  The just lawsuit allows the judiciary to right a wrong when other branches of government fail to act, or as James Madison wrote in Federalist 10, so the government by “…its several constituent parts may…be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”  

That’s a lesson the MLC, Inc. had to learn the hard way.  Let’s not do that again, shall we not?

This post first appeared on the MusicTech.Solutions blog.

by Trichordist

@human_artistry Press Release: Senators Introduce COPIED Act to Combat AI Deepfakes

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.  
by Trichordist

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.

by theinvisiblestagehand

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.

by thetrichordist

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.

Read the entire comment at this link.

by Trichordist Editor

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