Silicon Valley’s answer to Charles Ponzi may be called StubHub or its parent company Viagogo. I’m sure you’ve run into the StubHub grift. A band releases tickets for a show, the bots descend and having grabbed the best seats turns to StubHub and its ilk to resell the ill-gotten tickets at ever higher prices. Everyone denies they did anything wrong, they had no idea where their tickets were coming from. Instead of being prosecuted for wire fraud and other bad juju, these ticket scalpers allow reselling of botted tickets on a grand scale. All the while decrying bots as an illegal practice while leaving out the “but we make money together” part. See Better Online Ticket Sales Act (“the BOTS Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45c.
However vile is this grift, it’s kind of an old story. The only thing that’s breaking news about a Ponzi scheme is not the ghost of Charles Ponzi. Rather, its when smart people–you know, your betters–fall for it yet again. But StubHub revealed yesterday in the Georgia Legislature that they actually thought they would put one over on a wiley old committee chairman who just didn’t buy the huge helping of Smarm by the Bay when the Silicon Valley lobbyists oiled their way into the Georgia House of Representatives Regulated Industries Committee. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to fool and old fox and Valley Boys are not early risers.
The Chairman caught onto the con very quickly, and David Lowery helped to highlight the scalper scam. But the thing you always have to remember about our brilliant friend David is that he’s been known to pick up his pen and write the song that struggled to be written or the song that was not well received, but five years later be promoted as his best work. That’s why he’s got so many loyal fans. David takes know your customer to a whole new level, so was the perfect subject matter witness for the committee.
So here’s the new twist. What if you didn’t have a ticket but thought that you could get one, no problem once they went on sale–thanks to your friendly neighborhood ticket bot farmer. But what if StubHub made a market for people to buy the opportunity to buy a ticket at some point in the future. That’s right–selling the botted ticket itself isn’t enough for these people.
Now they want to sell bot futures.
The seller could not sell the ticket yet because there was no ticket available. But why leave money on the table?
The seller of these future contracts was confident enough to make a contract with someone of unknown business acumen or sophistication who they convince that the seller would have a ticket available by the time the underlying tickets went on sale. As a market maker, StubHub would bring buyers and sellers together in a supposedly arms length transaction–I guess, I mean how would you really know how arms length it was–and the seller sold the buyer a contract to deliver a future ticket. Let’s call these contracts “futures” or “naked call options”. Or perhaps we should call them “securities.”
So just like short sellers have to cover their shorts, when the tickets get released somebody has to come up with the real tickets. Somebody would have to be confident they could get the very ticket described in the option contract–like you would be if you were the beneficiary of botting. Which, as StubHub will tell you, is illegal. So I’m probably just being cynical.
Technically, “botting” is circumventing “a security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website or online service that is used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules.”
Personally I think it’s worth asking if the act of selling the futures contract is itself a violation of the BOTS Act as a circumvention of various elements. StubHub may have a legal opinion telling them this is outside the BOTS Act, but let’s ask the FTC, shall we?
On the other hand, if StubHub is selling securities, there’s a whole different regulatory agency that should be examining their business, or it could just be Silicon Valley’s answer to hawala.
So when is a ticket a security? One way we can determine this is through a U.S. Supreme Court case that gives us a pretty clear test. One way—and it’s just one way–that an option on a ticket might be regulated as a security is if it is determined to be an “investment contract” under the test in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.[1]
The Howey test asks if:
1. there is an investment of money or some other consideration, [Yes]
2. in a common enterprise, [yes]
3. with a reasonable expectation of profits, [oh, yes]
4. to be derived from the efforts of others. [Mos Def]
So that’s pretty inclusive criteria. Before anyone brushes aside the possibility that the SEC could determine a futures contract to buy tickets to be a security, take a close look at those criteria because how the basic question is answered is one to discuss thoroughly with your securities litigation lawyer (or engage one). That advice may be a good idea whether you are either an issuer or an endorser of at the ticket or ticketing platform..
One might say that a one-off sale of a unique product—which is truly “nonfungible” in the sense that there is only one of the product in existence—may be less likely to be determined a “security” under the Howey test. But while any one ticket is a one-off, there are many tickets available to many shows as a general rule, so tickets probably are pretty fungible.
You really do have to get up early in the morning to put one over on a wiley old Georgia committee chairman. You can tell just by looking at the body language that he believes what another wise old bird told me as a youngster. If something feels illegal, it probably is.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID C. LOWERY ON HB 398
My name is David Lowery and I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify today on the StubHub legislation. By way of introduction, I am the founder of the musical groups Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven and a lecturer at the University of Georgia at Athens Terry College of Business. I have filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Google v. Oracle and Frank v. Gaos, testified before Congress on the topic of fair use policy[1] and I am a frequent commentator on copyright policy at the U.S. Copyright Office. I advocate on artist rights in a variety of outlets, including founding and hosting the Artist Rights Symposium at the Terry College of Business (in its fourth year), my blog at TheTrichordist.com as well as Politico, the New York Times, Hypebot and other publications. Most notably I led the successful songwriter class action lawsuit against Spotify for failing to properly license and compensate self-published writers. Finally, I am a recipient of the National Music Council’s prestigious American Eagle Award “in recognition of his longstanding dedication to protecting the rights of music creators.” With this award I am in the company of such American music luminaries as Quincy Jones, Dizzy Gillespie and Stephen Sondheim.
In the interests of full disclosure, my wife has been a talent buyer at the iconic 40 Watt Club in Athens for many years and now works for LiveNation in a senior capacity. My testimony today is my own based on my own experiences over many decades in the music business with my bands and my own research into ticketing. My testimony today will focus on the effects of automated ticket scalping on Georgia’s many artists and resilient music ecosystem, but much of my concerns apply to all ticketed events from sporting events at taxpayer funded venues, to nonprofit fundraisers or even pledge drives for public broadcasting stations.
The Artist-Fan Social Contract Suffers When Bots Attack: Artists and their fans enjoy a kind of social contract. The vast majority of fans are small-dollar contributors that sustain their favorite artists. Artist do not price their tickets at a face value that captures the present value of all revenue the artist will make on a single show. Tickets are priced with the idea that the costs of sustaining the artist, paying the road crew, gasoline, sound, lights and vehicle equipment rental, housing, and promotion and marketing for an entire tour is amortized over an entire tour or leg of a tour.
Pricing tickets must be decided so as to allow current and potentially new fans to see the band live which is the railhead of the artist-fan relationship and is one of the most delicate touch points of that relationship. We do not want to price out loyal fans or new fans.
Ticket scalping has long been a problem that interfered with that social contract. Like many other areas of our lives, when bots attack, humans suffer. Companies like StubHub appear to allow or even welcome bot swarms as part of their business model and for all their Silicon Valley know-how, this Big Tech company seems to be unable to control their platform to avoid inflicting this suffering on fans and artists.
Unlike the careful decision-making that goes into setting ticket prices for a tour in the pre-StubHub era, ticket prices set by these online market makers seem to play an arbitrage game that attempts to extract the maximum price that ticket traders are willing to pay for that one essential artist with the best seating and a well-heeled clientele, rather than the small dollar donor to the artist’s sustenance. This arbitrage (some would say illegal market cornering) allows StubHub to free-ride on the artists reputation, marketing and other investments in their brand as well as the particular concert.
Ticket scalping has largely become another Silicon Valley racket in my view. It is virtually impossible for artists to compete and it is impossible for all but the richest fans to get the tickets they want to see the artists they love at a price they can afford. I have come to the realization that it is impossible for artists and fans to fix the problem because it has become a free-rider problem. StubHub isn’t operating because of “fan freedom” or other feel-good bromides. They are drawn to the business for one reason.
StubHub wants to take a skim off the artist’s value and the fan’s love and enthusiasm by commoditizing this exchange at scale. StubHub’s platform is not that different than a commodities exchange; the good could be a Cracker show, a Bulldog’s football game, or a pork belly. StubHub doesn’t seem to care; they do it for the money and just for the money.
Is StubHub Selling Securities as an Unlicensed Broker Dealer in Violation of the General Solicitation Rule? I call the Committee’s attention to a phenomenon I discovered in my research for today’s hearing: StubHub appears to be making a market in selling opportunities to buy tickets, i.e., a commodity, that have yet to go on sale. In other words, StubHub appears to be selling an option to buy a ticket in the future that does not yet exist and that the seller doesn’t own. The careful wording of their boilerplate disclaimers is a little too clever, and suggests they are aware of this practice. (Please see Exhibit A that details the author’s purchase of what appears to be the promised delivery of a ticket in the future, rather than the purchase of an already existing ticket).
This practice appears to be selling an option to buy a commodity in the future by an unlicensed broker dealer in a general solicitation to the public without complying with applicable federal or state securities laws.
Paying it Forward: Resale Royalties for Scalpers: StubHub may refuse to police itself but the State of Georgia can recover some of the value of StubHub’s free riding by establishing a resale royalty to be distributed to artists and venues for transactions occurring in Georgia. California already has a similar law on the resale of fine art. This is a very intriguing idea that would essentially force scalpers to return some of the value they have extracted from the artist’s brand to the state in which the transaction took place. I speak of the resale royalty as returned to artists and venues, but I am program-agnostic. The payment should also be returned to the performers, universities, or taxpayer funded venues around the state.
The resale royalty could be a way to continue to support communities that were hard hit by COVID and venues that survived based on the Save Our Stages funding. It would be better to fund this support from parasitic free riders than from hard working Georgia taxpayers.
Anticorruption Protections: When observing the amount of money and the number of high value transactions fixed by StubHub and other online marketplaces—effectively in cash—I am struck by the potential for bad actors to use the platform to hide cash transfers. I see no reason why StubHub should be treated differently than a bank in reporting these transactions to authorities such as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Revenue.
I would encourage the Committee to work with these agencies to determine the need for more detailed reporting of the origin and destination of higher dollar transactions, such as $10,000 in a single deal or series of deals closed by StubHub and its progeny. It is also apparent that the Georgia Department of Revenue is not likely receiving proper short term capital gains reporting from StubHub.
Conclusion: If this seems that these recommendations seem to advance the heavy hand of government, I will dispute that—these recommendations allow StubHub an opportunity to fix its own wagon. As Judge Patel told Napster in 2001, you created this monster, now you fix it. Further as StubHub has come before this august body to urge legislation that would regulate the practices of its market competitors, artists and venues it’s only fair that StubHub receive the same treatment.
[1]See The Scope of Fair Use: Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (Jan. 28, 2014) (statement of David Lowery) [hereinafter Scope of Fair Use].
Georgia’s music advocacy coalition GMP along with artists and independent venues have been raising the alarm about a draft bill in the Georgia State Legislature that would seemingly limit ticketing fees. In reality the language of the bill makes it clear that this is simply a Trojan horse bill that seems to limit artist fan clubs, indie venues and others to sell face value non-transferable tickets to fans.
Despite what Washington DC lobbyists posing as fans might claim, I can tell you that in my experience what music fans want is face value tickets directly purchased from venues and artists. Out of necessity these tickets must be non-transferable to keep them from being scooped up by shady organized groups apparently working in concert with StubHub and others who scalp or make a market for scalpers.
The biggest contributing factor to outrageous ticket prices is not the ticketing fees, but the StubHub markup. StubHub knows that artists and venues are sick of StubHub making it impossible for fans to buy tickets at face value, that’s why they have been going from state to state, getting legislators to pass laws that block venues, promoters and especially artists from selling non-transferable tickets. In the case of Georgia draft legislation mandates that resold tickets be sold only through a “licensed broker.”
You know, like StubHub. This is lawfare.
It is not widely understood, but those pre-sales of tickets at face value by artists directly to their fans are technically resales, because artists generally buy them upfront from the concert promoters. This extraordinarily cynical bill would essentially end this long standing part of the artist-fan social contract. It is simply designed to make the state of Georgia safe for StubHub’s exploitative free-riding business model.
So how did Georgia legislators find themselves in the business of making the world safe for StubHub? Well perhaps because they thought they were doing the bidding of a grassroots organization supposedly representing fans frustrated by high ticket prices. In particular a group called Fan Freedom. (www.fanfreedom.org) has been all over the capitol pretending to speak for fans.
And this group is not limiting its efforts to Georgia. We know of four states where this “grassroots organization representing fans” is simultaneously pushing similar bills. How does a grassroots organization simultaneously push bills in Washington, Florida, California, Maryland and Georgia?
Maybe it’s not a grassroots organization.
According to publicly available sources. Fan Freedom was launched by StubHub’s then owner eBay in 2011. The stated goal was to convince lawmakers that primary sellers like Live Nation and Ticketmaster should not be allowed to place limits on ticket transferability. The astroturf group partnered with the National Consumers League to mask ticket resellers’ objections to the anti-scalping measures as “consumer opposition.”
Fan Freedom Project was initially managed by Jon Potter, a long-term political consultant who has been involved with other industry-funded astroturf efforts and founded the Digital Media Association, the trade association for Big Tech against artists and songwriters–which has been on the wrong side of every creator issue known to man or beast.
In 2019, the Tech Transparency Project reported that one group he was behind, the Connected Commerce Council (3C), was not the organic collection of small businesses it presented itself as, but effectively a front for his DiMA pals Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
Fan Freedom Project’s president since 2016 has been Chris VanDeHoef, the former the director of government relations for TicketNetwork who now runs a government relations firm called Penn Lincoln Strategies. Yet he is apparently running around the capitol intimating he represents “fans.”
In Georgia the “grassroots” Fan Freedom Project is paying big money to Cornerstone Government Affairs which is headed by Chris Carpenter who was legislative counsel to Gov Roy Barnes. I say big money because GA only requires noting of expenditures that exceed $10k and based on what they were paid by other clients its likely to be a lot more than 10k. Plus they have registered five lobbyists. Five lobbyists in a single state for a grassroots organization? That’s 1970s tobacco industry level of lobbying! And they are doing this in fives separate states simultaneously.
This year, Fan Freedom Project hired a firm called Johnson & Blanton to lobby on its behalf in Florida, where legislation was recently introduced that would require primary sellers to offer transferable tickets. While StubHub is also actively lobbying in Florida. It has retained the firm Metz, Husband & Daughton as lobbyists in Florida since 2021. This is not a grassroots operation, its industrial scale mega-corporate lobbying operation.
Artist have no problem with The State of Georgia helping fans by limiting high ticket pries and add on fees. Further most artists would be willing to accept a compromise where they offer both transferrable and non-transferable tickets at different prices. If that’s really what consumers really want. Indeed other industries, like hotels, rental cars companies and airlines offer both refundable and non refundable tickets. There is some good legislation to be made here, but first we have to be clear, the way the bill is currently written it gives StubHub a free-ride on efforts and investments of Georgia artists, venues, promoters and fans.
[Chris Castle says: It’s like the antichrist without the morals. Voice over actors are being attacked by purveyors of artificial intelligence so that the actor’s voices can be re-used without consent or compensation even if they didn’t consent or at least didn’t object. Not only that, but voices can be used to train AI to speak in a completely different context. This is way worse that Netflix composer buyouts.
Check your name/image/likeness clauses folks–voice actors will not be the only ones caught up in the AI hellscape.]
AN OPEN LETTER FROM NAVA AND THE VOCAL VARIANTS TO THE VOICE OVER COMMUNITY
AI or Synthetic Voices are on the rise. We’re a group of concerned voiceactors working with union and non-union performers alike to make sure we don’t lose our voices forever by signing away our rights to various companies. Long story short, any contract that allows a producer to use your voice forever in all known media (and any new media developed in the future) across the universe is one we want to avoid.
So we have put together some things we can all do to avoid the decimation of our industry.
“Owned by a Chinese company that employs Chinese Communist Party members, TikTok harvests significant amounts of data from a user’s device, including details about a user’s internet activity.”
Governor Greg Abbott today announced a statewide model security plan for Texas state agencies to address vulnerabilities presented by the use of TikTok and other software on personal and state-issued devices. Following the Governor’s directive, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of Information Resources developed this model plan to guide state agencies on managing personal and state-issued devices used to conduct state business. Each state agency will have until February 15, 2023 to implement its own policy to enforce this statewide plan.
“The security risks associated with the use of TikTok on devices used to conduct the important business of our state must not be underestimated or ignored,” said Governor Abbott. “Owned by a Chinese company that employs Chinese Communist Party members, TikTok harvests significant amounts of data from a user’s device, including details about a user’s internet activity. Other prohibited technologies listed in the statewide model plan also produce a similar threat to the security of Texans. It is critical that state agencies and employees are protected from the vulnerabilities presented by the use of this app and other prohibited technologies as they work on behalf of their fellow Texans. I thank the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas Department of Information Resources for their hard work helping safeguard the state’s sensitive information and critical infrastructure from potential threats posed by hostile foreign actors.”
To protect Texas’ sensitive information and critical infrastructure from potential threats, the model plan outlines the following objectives for each agency:
Ban and prevent the download or use of TikTok and prohibited technologies on any state-issued device identified in the statewide plan. This includes all state-issued cell phones, laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and other devices of capable of internet connectivity. Each agency’s IT department must strictly enforce this ban.
Prohibit employees or contractors from conducting state business on prohibited technology-enabled personal devices.
Identify sensitive locations, meetings, or personnel within an agency that could be exposed to prohibited technology-enabled personal devices. Prohibited technology-enabled personal devices will be denied entry or use in these sensitive areas.
Implement network-based restrictions to prevent the use of prohibited technologies on agency networks by any device.
Work with information security professionals to continuously update the list of prohibited technologies.
In December 2022, Governor Abbott directed state agency leaders to immediately ban employees from downloading or using TikTok on any government-issued devices. The Governor also informed Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Speaker Dade Phelan that the Executive Branch is ready to assist in codifying and implementing any necessary cybersecurity reforms passed during the current legislative session, including passing legislation to make permanent the Governor’s directive to state agencies.
Governor Abbott has taken significant action to combat threats to Texas’ cybersecurity, including signing the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act in 2021 to fortify certain physical infrastructure against threats that include hostile foreign actors.
[From ArtistRightsWatch: Editor Charlie sez: There are no words for the arrogance.]
Speaking on the company’s fourth quarter earnings call, Ek said certain mistakes were made after the company heavily invested in high-growth areas like podcasts, telling investors: “I probably got a little carried away and over-invested.”
Ek, who called out a shaky macroeconomic environment, emphasized the company will be tightening investments in 2023 across the board as the music streaming giant doubles down on streamlining efficiencies “with greater intensity.”
The US is still the only Western democracy that stiffs artists on royalty payments for radio airplay. Let’s fix that!
[Editor Charlie sez: Anyone who tells you that artists can’t pass legislation to get fair pay for radio play is either a charlatan or full of shit and they are not on our side of the football.]
U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), along with Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), introduced the bipartisan American Music Fairness Act to ensure artists and music creators receive fair compensation for the use of their songs on AM/FM radio. This legislation will bring corporate radio broadcasters in line with all other music streaming platforms, which already pay artists for their music.
Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) led the legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“From Beale Street to Music Row to the hills of East Tennessee, Tennessee’s songwriters and artists have undeniably made their mark,” said Senator Blackburn. “However, while digital music platforms compensate music performers and copyright holders for playing their songs, AM/FM radio stations only pay songwriters for the music they broadcast. This legislation takes a long overdue step toward leveling the music industry playing field and ensuring creators are fairly compensated for their work.”
“California’s artists play a pivotal role in enriching and diversifying our country’s music scene, but for too long, our laws have unfairly denied them the right to receive fair compensation for their hard work and talent on AM/FM radio broadcasts,” said Senator Padilla. “As we celebrate the accomplishments of our musical artists at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles this weekend, we must commit to treating them with the dignity and respect they deserve for the music that they produce and that we enjoy every day.”
“Protecting one’s intellectual property is the signature right of every American who dares to invent. Every artist who first picked up a drumstick, sang to their mirror, or wrote lyrics from the heart did so because they had a dream and wanted to share it with the world. I look forward to working with stakeholders and colleagues to achieve this overdue reform,” said Congressman Issa.
“The United States is an outlier in the world for not requiring broadcast radio to pay artists when playing their music, while requiring satellite and internet radio to pay,” said Chairman Nadler. “This is unfair to both artists and music providers. I’m proud to sponsor the American Music Fairness Act which would finally correct this injustice. This is what music creators want and deserve.”
“It’s clear that the movement for music fairness continues to gain momentum, bringing us closer than ever before to ending Big Radio’s ability to deny artists the fair pay they deserve. This week’s House and Senate introductions of the American Music Fairness Act is evidence of that. We thank Senators Padilla and Blackburn and Representatives Issa and Nadler for their leadership in the effort to secure economic justice for our nation’s music artists and creators, and look forward to working together to drive continued progress in the coming months,”said Congressman Joe Crowley, Chairman of musicFIRST.
“Music creators have been forced to give away their work for far too long. It is time for Congress to demonstrate that they stand behind the hard-working Americans that provide the music we all love by finally passing the American Music Fairness Act. This bill has the broad support of artists, labels, small broadcasters, unions, and others because it strikes a fair balance by respecting creators for their work and protecting truly local broadcasters. No more excuses, no more waiting in line for their turn. Music creators demand the economic justice AMFA provides,” said Michael Huppe, President and CEO of SoundExchange.
“As we prepare to focus our attention on celebrating music this weekend at the GRAMMY Awards, the Recording Academy also renews its commitment to ensuring music creators are always compensated fairly for their work. We applaud Reps. Issa, Nadler, McClintock, and Lieu and Senators Padilla, Blackburn, Feinstein, and Tillis for reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act and look forward to working with them to build on the historic progress we made last year on this important legislation,” said Harvey Mason jr., CEO of the Recording Academy.
“The American Music Fairness Act is practical compromise legislation that has already passed the House Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support last Congress. It takes a smart, calibrated approach towards solving a decades old problem in the radio industry. When enacted into law, AMFA will ensure recording artists and copyright owners are paid fairly for recorded music regardless of the technology used to broadcast it while carefully protecting small and noncommercial stations to preserve truly local radio our communities depend upon,” said Mitch Glazier, Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
“For far too long, our broken and unfair system has let AM/FM radio stations — many of which are owned by just a few massive media corporations — get away with refusing to pay artists when they play their music. While these big corporate broadcast companies gobble up billions upon billions in advertising dollars, the session and background musicians, whose work makes all of it possible, receive no compensation whatsoever for their creations. It’s time to right this wrong, and the American Music Fairness Act aims to do just that. It’s vital that Congress protects the livelihoods of those who create the music we know and love,” said Ray Hair, International President of the American Federation of Musicians.
“I want to thank Congressman Jerry Nadler, Congressman Darrell Issa, Senator Alex Padilla and Senator Marsha Blackburn for their leadership on this crucial legislation. When you consider the billions of dollars the big radio corporations generate in revenue and profits, it’s shocking that recording artists, vocalists and musicians don’t receive a penny when their work is played on AM/FM radio. Since when do workers in America get exploited without pay? This is an unfair and egregious loophole especially since both streaming and digital services pay for the use of artists’ work. AM/FM radio has had a free ride for decades and it’s time to put a stop to it! I urge Congress to fix this outdated practice by passing the American Music Fairness Act,” said Fran Drescher, President of SAG-AFTRA.
“We are grateful that our champions are making it crystal clear that the fight for fairness continues in this new Congress. By reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act, Senators Blackburn and Padilla, along with Representatives Issa, Nadler, McClintock, and Lieu, as defenders of property rights and supporters of artistic expression, have put the mega broadcasting conglomerates on notice that it is time to erase their stain on America’s history,” said Dr. Richard James Burgess, President and CEO of the American Association of Independent Music.
Currently, the United States is the only democratic country in the world in which artists are not compensated for the use of their music on AM/FM radio. By requiring broadcast radio corporations to pay performance royalties to creators for AM/FM radio plays, the American Music Fairness Act would close an antiquated loophole that has allowed corporate broadcasters to forgo compensating artists for the use of their music for decades.
In recognition of the important role of locally owned radio stations in communities across the U.S., the American Music Fairness Act also includes strong protections for small, college, and non-commercial stations.
The American Music Fairness Act will positively impact artists and the music industry at large by:
Requiring terrestrial radio broadcasters to pay royalties to American music creators when they play their songs.
Protecting small and local stations who qualify for exemptions — specifically those that fall under $1.5 million in annual revenue and whose parent companies fall under less than $10 million in annual revenue overall — by allowing them to play unlimited music for less than $500 annually.
Creating a fair global market that ensures foreign countries pay U.S. artists for the use of their songs overseas.
The American Music Fairness Act is endorsed by: the AFL-CIO, the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the American Federation of Musicians, the Recording Academy, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), SAG-AFTRA and SoundExchange.
The Mechanical Licensing Collective, Inc. published its tax return for 2021 so you could have a look at the salaries of all those people who can’t manage to pay out the hundreds of millions in black box money to songwriters. Did the Copyright Office approve these nauseatingly rich salaries? We’re not going to point out the disparities in this little list but…. We can’t help but wonder how many songwriters make anything like these salaries?
New York, January 31, 2023 – TIDAL, the global music and entertainment platform, and Universal Music Group (UMG), the world leader in music-based entertainment, today announced that the two companies will work together to explore an innovative new economic model for music streaming that might better reward the value provided by artists and more closely reflect the engagement of TIDAL subscribers with those artists and music they love.
Streaming has revolutionized music, catalyzed industry growth, transformed the entertainment experience and provided incredible opportunities for engagement, to the benefit of artists and fans alike. As it has gained mass adoption over the past decade, there is more desire from all parties to look at how to best economically align fans’ interests with those of their favorite artists.
TIDAL and UMG will research how, by harnessing fan engagement, digital music services and platforms can generate greater commercial value for every type of artist. The research will extend to how different economic models could accelerate subscriber growth, deepen retention, and better monetize fandom to the benefit of artists and the broader music community.
“From day one, TIDAL has stood out as artist-first, leading with a premium subscription tier to pay artists more and experimenting with new ideas like fan-centered royalties to see if there are fairer and more equitable ways to get artists paid,” said TIDAL Lead Jesse Dorogusker. “We are setting aside our current fan-centered royalties investigation to focus on this opportunity for more impact. We’re thrilled to partner and learn along the way about the possibilities for more innovative streaming economics. This partnership will enable us to rethink how we can sustainably improve royalties’ distribution for the breadth of artists on our platform.”
“As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it’s become increasingly clear that music streaming’s economic model needs innovation to ensure a vibrant and sustainable future,” said Michael Nash, UMG’s Executive Vice President, Chief Digital Officer. “Tidal’s embrace of this transformational opportunity is especially exciting because the music ecosystem can work better – for every type of artist and fan – but only through dedicated, thoughtful collaboration. Built on deeply held, shared principles about the value of artistry and the importance of the artist-fan relationship, this strategic initiative will explore how to enhance and advance the model in keeping with our collective objectives.”
Suzanne Wilson General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights U.S. Copyright Office 101 Independence Avenue S.E. Washington D.C. 20559 Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Termination Rights and the Music Modernization Act’s Blanket License Docket No. 2022-5 Comment
Dear General Counsel Wilson:
Thank you for the opportunity to make this comment on the docket referenced above.[i]
I am a music lawyer in Austin, Texas and write this comment on my own behalf only and not on behalf of anyone else.
Others will address the substantive termination issues that are well-described and assayed in the Notice, so I will focus on the procedural tension between The Mechanical Licensing Collective, Inc. (“The MLC, Inc.”) currently designated as the mechanical licensing collective (“MLC”), its officers and directors, and the law as described in the Notice.
I argue that the need for this Notice is symptomatic of a larger problem in the relationship between Congress and The MLC, Inc. I hope the Office will consider resolving this tension as it has been authorized to do under the Music Modernization Act[ii] such as through regulations establishing the type of code of conduct that is common for other federal contractors.
This tension is alarming. The Notice states the MLC “does not follow the Office’s rulemaking guidance”[iii] regarding terminations, and that The MLC, Inc. “declin[es] to heed the Office’s warning….”[iv] These disclosures are diametrically at odds with the clear intent of Congress in crafting the MLC’s role.[v]
The disclosures confirm clearly that there are governance and oversight controversies at The MLC, Inc. that in my view need to be conclusively disposed of, and quickly.[vi] These governance issues are symptomatic of what may be much greater problems with the administrative capabilities of The MLC, Inc. that may be metastasizing but have not yet risen to the level of a public inquiry.
The recklessness that gives rise to the Notice also highlights The MLC, Inc.’s general lack of accountability and suggests a conscious disregard for the Copyright Office’s oversight role on a significant matter of law that is not capable of proper resolution through any “business rules.”[vii]
I also note this troubling statement in the Notice:
But, having reviewed the MLC’s policy, the Office is concerned that it conflicts with the MMA, which requires that the MLC’s dispute policies ‘‘shall not affect any legal or equitable rights or remedies available to any copyright owner or songwriter concerning ownership of, and entitlement to royalties for, a musical work.’’[viii]
It seems clear that The MLC, Inc.’s conscious failure to comply with Congressional intent as well as the Office’s guidance is, or ought to be, a decision of some import that surely must have been taken by someone—that is, one or more persons—employed or appointed by the MLC. It seems likely to be a subject that would have been reviewed both by its General Counsel and as part of the millions in outside counsel fees[ix] spent by The MLC, Inc.
The fact that the decision-making process is not readily known is itself of concern and leads one to further consider developing a code of conduct for The MLC, Inc. to assure the Office, the Congress and the public of its administrative capabilities.
Respectfully, I request that you determine how this decision was arrived at and what internal controls The MLC, Inc. has put in place to assure the Congress, the Office and interested parties that these mistakes will not happen again. This should not be an “oh well” moment and should be taken seriously by The MLC, Inc.
If The MLC, Inc. fails to disclose what it is doing by establishing opaque “business rules”, it is essentially creating de facto regulations that have the practical effect of law or regulations made behind closed doors unless the Office or other oversight agency happens to catch them out. The public will never know that the business rule was established, how the “business rule” was arrived at, or have a meaningful opportunity to comment such as in response to this Notice.
For example, do the minutes of The MLC, Inc.’s board of directors or statutory committees reflect a discussion or vote on the adoption of the MLC’s policies on termination treatment? Did such a vote implicate any conflicts of interest? Who determined that there was or was not a conflict of interest in the MLC’s decision to adopt the termination policy, however it was taken? Were there any dissenting votes recorded? Did an officer or director of The MLC, Inc. certify the completeness of the record in these findings in the corporate minute book?
This leads to other concerns under public discussion regarding the hundreds of millions of “black box” monies being held by The MLC, Inc. Given that the public has very little information available to it regarding the results and implications of the MLC’s operational decisions, I respectfully request that you determine what, if any, financial implications have arisen as a result of The MLC, Inc.’s reckless failure to comply with the law and the guidance of the Office in implementing its termination policy. Such determination should likely include any funds[x] that The MLC, Inc. is apparently trading in the market for its own account.[xi] Any curative action required by the Office should, of course, be retroactive in scope which will require considerable before-and-after accounting disclosures.
It must be asked whether the “business rule” established for terminations increases or decreases the enormous black box which was of considerable interest to Chairman Leahy at the recent Copyright Office oversight hearing at which the Register testified.[xii] This is particularly true if the implementation of the business rule results in financial harm to interested parties who rely on The MLC, Inc. to get it right.
The subject of black box came up in the Questions for the Record from Chairman Leahy. The Copyright Office’s response to Chairman Leahy’s inquiry about the hundreds of millions in black box held by the MLC directed the Chairman to the MLC’s annual report for answers.
Respectfully, I find this odd. Chairman Leahy did not ask what the MLC told the world in its annual report; rather he asked, “What can the Copyright Office do to help ensure that the MLC is working to make sure that rightful owners of music works are identified and paid?”[xiii]The question is transitive: We have oversight of you, you have oversight of The MLC, Inc., therefore we have oversight of the MLC.
Surely no one is surprised by this. The question many have is why The MLC, Inc. itself—a quasigovernmental organization operated by inferior officers[xiv] of the United States–is not the subject of an oversight hearing at Senate Judiciary regarding the hundreds of millions it is sitting on. Maybe next time.
It must also be said that the answer to Chairman Leahy goes on:
Notably, the MLC plans to wait to process historical unmatched royalties from the Phonorecords III rate period [2018-2022] until the Copyright Royalty Judges finalize those rates in the ongoing remand proceeding and digital music providers provide adjusted reports of usage and royalty payments. It is the Office’s understanding that the bulk of historical unmatched royalties come from that period.[xv]
Without getting into the timeline of what came when, how is it exactly that The MLC, Inc. took the decision in February 2021—nearly two years ago–to sit on top of hundreds of millions of other peoples’ money that they were somehow investing under their undisclosed “Investment Policy”? Was anyone asked? Who gave the MLC the permission to do this? Do they not hold the black box corpus in trust for songwriters and copyright owners yet to be identified? Does this not compound the already painful series of failures that resulted in the black box in the first place, the delay in accounting to songwriters (or their families) under Phonorecords III remand, and still more delay while legions of lobbyists and lawyers argue over the post-remand true up accountings?
The MLC reported $2,529,910 investment income on its 2021 US Federal tax return 990
Respectfully, there is also, of course, a larger question that the Office may consider answering: If The MLC, Inc. adopts a policy or takes some action outside of the law or its remit, is that policy binding on any future entities designated by the Office as the MLC?
These are all questions that I would expect to have answers that are readily available to the public given that The MLC, Inc. is in a position of public trust administering a compulsory license on behalf of the United States and has been given great privileges under the MMA.[xvi]
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
Christian L. Castle
CLC/ko
[i] U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Termination Rights and the Music Modernization Act’s Blanket License 87 FR 64405 (Oct. 25, 2022) (Doc. No. 2022-5) (hereafter “Notice”).
[ii]Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Public Law 115–264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (“MMA”) and specifically Title I thereof.
[v]See S. Rep. 115-339 (115th Cong. 2nd Sess. Sept. 17, 2018) at 7 (“Senate Report”). (“The collective is expected to operate in a transparent and accountable manner.”)
[vi] I would hope that this failure will be weighed and measured by the Copyright Office as part of The MLC, Inc.’s quinquennial review as is required under the legislative history. See, e.g., Senate Report at 5 (“[E]vidence 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.”)(emphasis added).
[vii] It must be said that the MLC’s disregard for this particular matter may present a moral hazard (at best) for the publishers represented by at least some of its board members.
[x]See the MLC’s annual report stating that the MLC invests the black box according to its internal “Investment Policy” established by its board of directors but not made public. MLC 2021 Annual Report at p. 4 available at https://www.themlc.com/hubfs/Marketing/23856%20The%20MLC%20AR2021%206-30%20REFRESH%20COMBINED.pdf(“Annual Report”) (“Investment Policy: This policy covers the investment of royalty and assessment funds, respectively, and sets forth The MLC’s goals and objectives in establishing policies to implement The MLC’s investment strategy. The anti-comingling policy required by 17 U.S.C. § 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(cc) is contained in [The MLC, Inc.’s] Investment Policy. The Investment Policy was approved by the Board in January 2021.”) (emphasis added).
[xi] Realize that every CMO is confronted with the decision about what to do with the royalty float and black box, but not every CMO decides to invest these funds in the market. If they do invest the funds, it is generally the case that any trading profits, dividends or interest goes to offset the CMO’s administrative costs that otherwise would be deducted from collected royalties. However, the MLC, Inc.’s administrative costs are paid by the users of the blanket license (making the United States, I believe, the only country in history or the world that charges for the use of a statutory license). Therefore, the return on the MLC’s investment of the songwriters’ money would not be used for the same purpose as all the world’s CMOs that follow a similar practice. The continuity in ownership for profits derived from The MLC, Inc.’s trading is also unclear; if The MLC, Inc.’s existing designation is not continued but securities are being held or profits generated, what happens?
[xii]Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office, Responses to Questions for the Record by Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the Copyright Office (Sept. 7, 2022), available at https://artistrightswatchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/qfr-responses-perlmutter-2022-09-07.pdf. (“Questions for the Record”) (“With respect to the historical, pre-2021, unmatched royalties, which were reported to be about $426 million, the annual report says that the MLC recently started distributing those that it has been able to match. It also says that the MLC has begun making associated usage data for historical unmatched royalties available to copyright owners, which will facilitate further claiming and matching.”)
[xiv] President Donald J. Trump, Statement on Signing the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (October 11, 2018) available athttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800692/pdf/DCPD-201800692.pdf (“Because the directors are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the Librarian must approve each subsequent selection of a new director.”)
[xvi]See, e.g., Senate Report at 5 (emphasis added). “For the responsibilities described in subparagraphs (J) [distribution of unclaimed royalties] and (K) [dispute resolution] of paragraph (3), the collective is only liable to a party for its actions if the collective is grossly negligent in carrying out the policies and procedures adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to section 115(d)(11)(D). Since the Register has broad regulatory authority under paragraph (12) of subsection (d), it is expected that such policies and procedures will be thoroughly reviewed by the Register to ensure the fair treatment of interested parties in such proceedings given the high bar in seeking redress.”
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.