A2IM – The Trichordist

Updates for Nov. 20 @ArtistRights Symposium at @AmericanU @KogodBiz in Washington DC

We are announcing the time schedule and speakers for the 4^th annual Artist Rights Symposium on November 20. The symposium is supported by the Artist Rights Institute and was founded by Dr. David C. Lowery, Lecturer at the University of Georgia Terry College of Business.

This year the symposium is hosted in Washington, DC, by American University’s Kogod School of Business at American’s Constitution Hall, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016. We are also pleased to have a Kogod student presentation on speculative ticketing as part of the speaker lineup.

Admission is free, but please reserve a spot with Eventbrite, seating is limited!

The symposium starts at 8:30 am and ends with a reception at 4:30pm. The symposium will be recorded as an audiovisual presentation for distribution at a later date, but will not be live-streamed. If you attend, understand that you may be filmed in any audience shots, questions from the floor or still images. The symposium social media hashtag is #ArtistRightsKogod.

Schedule

8:30 — Doors open, networking coffee.

9:00-9:10 — Welcome remarks by David Marchick, Dean, Kogod School of Business

9:10-9:15 — Welcome remarks by Christian L. Castle, Esq., Director, Artist Rights Institute

9:15-10:15 — THE TROUBLE WITH TICKETS: The Challenges of Ticket Resellers and Legislative Solutions:

Kevin Erickson, Director, Future of Music Coalition, Washington DC
Dr. David C. Lowery, Co-founder of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, University of Georgia
Terry College of Business, Athens, Georgia
Stephen Parker, Executive Director, National Independent Venue Association, Washington DC
Mala Sharma, President, Georgia Music Partners, Atlanta, Georgia

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq., Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

10:15-10:30: NIVA Speculative Ticketing Project Presentation by Kogod students

10:30-10:45: Coffee break

10:45-11:00: OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ISSUES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LITIGATION: Kevin Madigan, Vice President, Legal Policy and Copyright Counsel, Copyright Alliance

11:00-12 pm: SHOW ME THE CREATOR – Transparency Requirements for AI Technology:

Danielle Coffey, President & CEO, News Media Alliance, Arlington, Virginia
Dahvi Cohen, Legislative Assistant, U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff, Washington, DC
Ken Doroshow, Chief Legal Officer, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington DC

Moderator: Linda Bloss-Baum, Director of the Kogod School of Business’s Business & Entertainment Program

12:00-12:30: Lunch break

12:30-1:30: Keynote: Graham Davies, President and CEO of the Digital Media Association, Washington DC.

1:30-1:45: Coffee break

1:45-2:45: CHICKEN AND EGG SANDWICH: Bad Song Metadata, Unmatched Funds, KYC and What You Can Do About It

Richard James Burgess, MBE, President & CEO, American Association of Independent Music, New York
Helienne Lindvall, President, European Composer & Songwriter Alliance, London, England
Abby North, President, North Music Group, Los Angeles
Anjula Singh, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, SoundExchange, Washington DC

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq, Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

2:45-3:15: Reconvene across street to International Service Founders Room for concluding speakers and reception

3:15-3:30: OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LEGISLATION: George York, Senior Vice President International Policy from RIAA.

3:30-4:30: NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF AI: Current initiatives to protect creator rights and attribution

Jeffrey Bennett, General Counsel, SAG-AFTRA, Washington, DC
Jen Jacobsen, Executive Director, Artist Rights Alliance, Washington DC
Jalyce E. Mangum, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Copyright Office, Washington DC

Moderator: John Simson, Program Director Emeritus, Business & Entertainment, Kogod School of Business, American University

4:30-5:30: Concluding remarks by Linda Bloss-Baum, Director of the Kogod School of Business’s Business & Entertainment Program and reception.

November 12, 2024November 14, 2024 by Trichordist Editor

NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS RIGHTS: New Speaker Update for Nov. 20 @ArtistRights Symposium at @AmericanU @KogodBiz in Washington DC

We are announcing more topics and new speakers for the 4^th annual Artist Rights Symposium on November 20, this year hosted in Washington, DC, by American University’s Kogod School of Business at American’s Constitution Hall, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016. The symposium is also supported by the Artist Rights Institute and was founded by Dr. David Lowery, Lecturer at the University of Georgia Terry College of Business.

We’re pleased to add an overview of artificial intelligence litigation in the US by Kevin Madigan, Vice President, Legal Policy and Copyright Counsel from the Copyright Alliance and an overview of international artificial intelligence-related legislation by George York, Senior Vice President International Policy from RIAA. We’re also announcing our fourth panel and speaker line up:

NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF AI: Current initiatives to protect creator rights and attribution

Jeffrey Bennett, General Counsel, SAG-AFTRA, Washington, DC
Jen Jacobson, Executive Director, Artist Rights Alliance, Washington DC
Jalyce E. Mangum, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Copyright Office, Washington DC

Moderator: John Simson, Program Director Emeritus, Business & Entertainment, Kogod School of Business, American University

Panels will begin at 8:30 am and end by 5 pm, with lunch and refreshments. More details to follow. Contact the Artist Rights Institute for any questions.

Admission is free, but please reserve a spot with Eventbrite, seating is limited! (Eventbrite works best with Firefox)

Previously confirmed panelists are:

Keynote: Graham Davies, President and CEO of the Digital Media Association, Washington DC. Graham will speak around lunchtime.

CHICKEN AND EGG SANDWICH: Bad Song Metadata, Unmatched Funds, KYC and What You Can Do About It

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq, Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

SHOW ME THE CREATOR – Transparency Requirements for AI Technology:

Moderator: Linda Bloss-Baum, Director of the Kogod School of Business’s Business & Entertainment Program

THE TROUBLE WITH TICKETS: The Economics and Challenges of Ticket Resellers and Legislative Solutions:

Kevin Erickson, Director, Future of Music Coalition, Washington DC
Dr. David C. Lowery, Co-founder of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, University of Georgia
Terry College of Business, Athens, Georgia
Stephen Parker, Executive Director, National Independent Venue Association, Washington DC
Mala Sharma, President, Georgia Music Partners, Atlanta, Georgia

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq., Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

October 31, 2024 by Trichordist

CHICKEN AND EGG SANDWICH: Bad Song Metadata, Unmatched Funds, KYC and What You Can Do About It: Speaker Update for Nov. 20 @ArtistRights Symposium at @AmericanU @KogodBiz in Washington DC

We’re pleased to announce additional speakers for the 4^th annual Artist Rights Symposium on November 20, this year hosted in Washington, DC, by American University’s Kogod School of Business at American’s Constitution Hall, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016. The symposium is also supported by the Artist Rights Institute and was founded by Dr. David Lowery, Lecturer at the University of Georgia Terry College of Business.

The Symposium has four panels and a lunchtime keynote. Panels will begin at 8:30 am and end by 5 pm, with lunch and refreshments. More details to follow. Contact the Artist Rights Institute for any questions.

Admission is free, but please reserve a spot with Eventbrite, seating is limited! (Eventbrite works best with Firefox)

Keynote: Graham Davies, President and CEO of the Digital Media Association, Washington DC. Graham will speak around lunchtime.

We have confirmed speakers for another topic!

CHICKEN AND EGG SANDWICH: Bad Song Metadata, Unmatched Funds, KYC and What You Can Do About It

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq, Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

Previously confirmed panelists are:

SHOW ME THE CREATOR – Transparency Requirements for AI Technology:

Moderator: Linda Bloss-Baum, Director of the Kogod School of Business’s Business & Entertainment Program

Moderator: Christian L. Castle, Esq., Director, Artist Rights Institute, Austin, Texas

October 21, 2024October 21, 2024 by Trichordist Editor

Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)

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 A2IM, the American Association of Independent Music. You can read the entire comment here. A2IM raises some good points including suggesting that the redesignation be conditioned on The MLC, Inc. meeting beneficial targets. We have emphasized parts of the quote for impact but that emphasis is not in the original.

Distribution of Unmatched Royalties
A2IM is deeply concerned with the processes around the so-called royalty “black box” and finds the present searchability of unmatched royalty data to be insufficient. The Copyright Office should consider conditioning MLC redesignation on further delay in the distribution of these funds, presently estimated at over $300 million, until the MLC fully implements improvements to the system that result from this periodic review.

Under the Act and subsequent regulation, if the MLC is unable to locate the rightful copyright owner of a particular work, the MLC will deposit accrued but undistributed royalties in the black box, and after three years, the funds may be released to music publishers based on market share. A2IM strongly supports all efforts to fully distribute digital audio mechanical royalties to rights holders, and commends the MLC for seeking to improve the enormous amounts of unmatched royalties present at the time of the Act because the DSPs were not able to match and pay to the respective copyright owners.

The distribution of unmatched royalties, however, currently follows a dubious formula. This policy clearly benefits the major music publishers and penalizes smaller songwriters/publishers. Failure to match occurs for numerous reasons, but many are related to scale. Lesser-known songs from genres with less broad commercial appeal, songs with titles in foreign languages, and songs tied to digital files with less robust data all can lead to unmatched royalties, and all these factors are more likely to occur with musical works from the independent sector, and from publishers with smaller market share. At present, there remain too few options and too many hurdles for matching and claiming works, meaning that barriers to entry in freeing royalties from the black box pool persist to an unacceptable extent.

Furthermore, the current matching tool is not versatile enough to effectively match many titles, leaving a significant number of songs unmatched and contributing royalties to the black box. The present system fails to account well for partially matched songs, meaning instances of works authored by multiple songwriters represented by multiple publishers matched to one or more entities with royalty rights, but not to all such creators. The MLC often cites numbers of matched royalties without specifying the percentage of titles that are fully matched versus partially matched. It is crucial for the MLC to provide clear statistics on fully matched, partially matched, and unmatched titles to ensure transparency and build trust among rights holders.

There are also many instances of royalties being mismatched, and there is no easy recourse for rights holders to resolve these issues. The MLC must acknowledge this problem and establish a straightforward process for rights holders to report and correct mismatches. Moreso, the MLC must invest in improving the matching tool to enhance its accuracy, efficiency, and ease of use so that those most impacted (predominantly independent artists and writers) can claim their royalties.

Addressing unmatched royalties requires an all-hands-on-deck approach. Many legacy songwriters suffer because their publishers do not prioritize entering or updating relevant data. One easy improvement would be for the MLC to create a mechanism providing songwriters with recourse in this situation.

June 17, 2024June 18, 2024 by thetrichordist

A Response to A2IM’s Objection to the New Statutory Mechanical Rates: Part 2

By Chris Castle

This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy, continued from Part 1

The American Association of Independent Music, the independent label trade association, filed comments with the Copyright Royalty Board opposing increasing the mechanical royalty to songwriters from the “frozen rates” to the 12¢ (plus cost of living adjustment) settlement rate of the participating record companies with the NMPA and NSAI. I wrote a reply to the A2IM comment that was timely filed with the CRB–barely. I will repost that comment in a few parts here on MTP. As I had about 10 minutes to write the comment due to the lateness of the A2IM filing, I will add some bracketed language to make it a bit less inside baseball.

Unfortunately, A2IM chose not to participate in the Phonorecords IV proceeding and came in a bit late to the party complaining of the check. Nobody stopped them from participating; it appears they put it all on red and it came up black. This is important because unlike independent songwriters who cannot afford the cost of participating at the CRB hearings, A2IM could have participated but chose not to.

As I told the Judges in my comment, I will focus on a few issues raised by A2IM regarding the CRB settlement process in general, the penny rate structure of the mechanical royalty system in the United States, and their proposal that mechanical licensing for physical configurations be handed over to the Mechanical Licensing Collective.

The Longer Table

I actually was pleased to join A2IM at their annual Indie Week conference recently in New York on a panel devoted to this very topic. I am well aware that they believe their members will be disproportionately affected by the increase in cost although I have not seen the data. After many years in the music business, I will take on faith for purposes of this letter that they are correct.

I completely concur that the negotiation process for CRB needs a relook if not an overhaul. I made the point on the A2IM panel that David Lowery and I intend to host a conference devoted largely to this subject [on November 15] at the University of Georgia at Athens. Dr. Lowery and I are both of a mind that this issue needs to be vetted by the Copyright Office in their roundtable format.

However, I do not concur that the Subpart B resolution should be derailed at the 11^th hour because of these structural issues that lawmakers no doubt will need to resolve. The time for A2IM to have made their views known in Phonorecords IV has long passed. They had the opportunity to participate in the proceeding, which individual songwriters could not afford to do, and they did not. They had the opportunity to comment on the first and second comment periods for what became the rejected settlement and they did not. They had the opportunity to insert themselves in the second settlement and appear not to have done so until filing a comment on the last day at the 11^thhour.

Derailing the settlement for this purpose at the 11^th hour is inappropriate. Whether the Judges can even accomplish what is asked of them, I respectfully leave to Your Honors to decide, but I do think there’s a question of authority here. I do support including all these topics being on the table for Phonorecords V as do many other commenters.

What is the Actual Cost to Labels of the New Rates?

While I am prepared to take disproportionate impact on faith, I am less prepared to take disproportionate financial impact without more data. There is an assumption that A2IM labels all will have a one-to-one increase in costs because of the new rates, whatever they end up being. I’m not so sure about that and would want to know a few things including the following.

Many indie labels operate on a revenue share basis with their artists (or licensors). In those revenue share deals, the artist or licensor is paid a percentage of revenue that includes all mechanical royalties. In that structure, the new rates have arguably zero impact on the [independent] label.

Because of rate fixing dates in deals [with controlled compositions clauses] where the label does pay the mechanicals, the new rates would only apply to records delivered during the rate period, i.e., after January 1, 2023. Term recording artist agreements would typically include a controlled compositions clause as the Judges have noted in the Withdrawal Notice. In such an arrangement, the label would be paying a modest increase and could easily tell the artist that unless the artist-songwriter agreed to take still lower rates based on the previously frozen rates, the label would be unable to release their records.

A2IM does make a good point about the bull-headedness of the DSPs on permanent download rates. Perhaps the Judges could refer this issue to the Register for subsequent referral to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division to investigate these pricing practices. Congress seems focused on these kinds of issues at the moment.

[It is unfair for A2IM to complain of being excluded from settlement negotiations by the labels who did participate in the proceedings and who did negotiate a settlement with the NMPA publishers who also participated in the proceedings. Participating in the proceedings is a threshold condition for participating in a settlement of the proceedings. It’s hardly the case that the major labels conspired against the indies this time. If A2IM labels were concerned about being included in these negotiations there are a number of steps they could have taken, starting with participating in the bifurcated Subpart B proceeding–a much less expensive proposition than the streaming side.

There is also a threshold question–that A2IM does not really address–as to whether the CRB has the authority to unilaterally change U.S. mechanical licensing structure that Congress initiated in 1909 and has been based on a penny rate ever since, not to mention hundreds of thousands of term recording artist agreements and licenses incorporating those statutory rates. The entire US recording industry is built on statutory rates and controlled compositions clauses, not to mention the valuations of music publishing catalogs.

That change requested by A2IM is a question of such “magnitude and consequence” that it should require Congress to act based on both the CRB’s statutory authority, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in West Virginia vs. EPA as well as common sense. Not to mention there are other reasons why getting a CRB case before the Supreme Court could backfire and disrupt a process that in other important ways is working quite well.]

September 19, 2022 by theinvisiblestagehand

A Response to A2IM’s Objection to the New Statutory Mechanical Rates: Part 1

By Chris Castle

This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy

A2IM, the independent label trade association, filed comments with the Copyright Royalty Board opposing increasing the mechanical royalty to songwriters from the “frozen rates” to the 12¢ (plus cost of living adjustment) settlement rate of the participating record companies with the NMPA and NSAI. I wrote a reply to the A2IM comment that was timely filed with the CRB–barely. I will repost that comment in a few parts here on MTP. As I had about 10 minutes to write the comment due to the lateness of the A2IM filing, I will add some bracketed language to make it a bit less inside baseball.

Unfortunately, A2IM did not participate in the Phonorecords IV proceeding and came in a bit late to the party complaining of the check. Nobody stopped them from participating; it appears they put it all on red and it came up black.

As I told the Judges, I will focus on a few issues raised by the American Association of Independent Music regarding the CRB settlement process in general, the penny rate structure of the mechanical royalty system in the United States, and their proposal that mechanical licensing for physical configurations be handed over to the Mechanical Licensing Collective.

The Clean Slate

A2IM raises the idea of compensating songwriters on a percentage of wholesale basis which is how mechanicals are paid in many if not most other countries. I understand why labels favor this structure but I also understand why publishers and songwriters do not.

First, I am of the view that a percentage of wholesale royalty is incompatible with a compulsory license. [To my knowledge, the European countries operating on a percentage of wholesale basis do not have a compulsory licensing regime.] Imposing a compulsory obligation to have a third party set the “just compensation” for rights the government takes from the songwriter has that unconstitutional ring to it [see 5th Amendment and Takings by Prof. Richard Epstein, an oldie but goodie].

And that really is the problem with a percentage of wholesale royalty—it allows the conflicted record company to call the tune [for songwriters] which is the very definition of moral hazard. Having said all that, I am happy to have a conversation about a clean slate and reimagining of the entire structure as long as it really is a clean slate. Of course, that will mean throwing away the entire controlled composition structure.

It must be said that in countries with a percentage of dealer price mechanical royalty there [are] no controlled composition terms at all. So if we are to have the discussion, let’s have all the discussion for all the record companies including catalog. If we want to be like Europe, let’s be European.

We cannot overlook that changing that compensation system will throw royalty compliance examinations of every record company onto the table with great force. How can songwriters be asked to give up a system that has been in place since 1909 without knowing whether they have gotten a straight count heretofore?

It must also be said that if A2IM members feel justified in changing the entire U.S. mechanical rate system, there is nothing stopping them from creating such terms in their new signings under controlled compositions clauses. In fact, such arrangements might be a good laboratory to experiment with these alternative structures.

[To be continued.]

September 18, 2022 by theinvisiblestagehand

Save the date: A2IM Indie Week Panel with @musictechpolicy on the Impact on Indie Labels of Unfreezing Mechanicals

If you are coming to Indie Week, Trichordist readers might enjoy a panel Chris Castle is on to discuss the impact on indie labels of the Great Unfreeze!

Entitled How the CRB’s Rejection of Frozen Mechanicals Will Affect Your Label?, the panel goes off at 10:30 am ET on Wednesday, June 15 at the New York Law School.

Speakers are Victor Zaraya: Concord (Moderator), Danielle Aguirre: NMPA (National Music Publishers’ Association), Glen Barros: Exceleration, and Chris.

If you want to read up on the issues that caused the Copyright Royalty Board to reject the failed settlement, here’s some background:

Survey Results from Songwriter Survey on Frozen Mechanicals

Comments:

Rosanne Cash

Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, Blake Morgan

David Poe

Abby North, Erin McAnally, Chelsea Crowell

Kevin Casini

NMPA, NSAI, Sony, Warner, Universal Comment with Copy of MOU4

Chris will post about the panel afterward.

June 6, 2022June 6, 2022 by Trichordist

Muzzling Free Speech By Artists: IRFA Section 5 Analysis

The “Internet Radio Fairness Act” has a lot to concern artists. Today, we’re continuing our section-by-section analysis of the proposed legislation because knowing is half the battle. We’ve been looking at how the bill would affect current law: strikethrough text shows what the bill would remove, while underlined text shows what it would add.

SEC. 5. PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.

17 USC § 112 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings

(e) Statutory License.—

(2) Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws, any copyright owners of sound recordings and any transmitting organizations entitled to a statutory license under this subsection may negotiate and agree upon royalty rates and license terms and conditions for making phonorecords of such sound recordings under this section and the proportionate division of fees paid among copyright owners, and may designate common agents, on a nonexclusive basis, to negotiate, agree to, pay, or receive such royalty payments. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

17 USC § 114 – Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings

(e) Authority for Negotiations.—

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws, in negotiating statutory licenses in accordance with subsection (f), any copyright owners of sound recordings and any entities performing sound recordings affected by this section may negotiate and agree upon the royalty rates and license terms and conditions for the performance of such sound recordings and the proportionate division of fees paid among copyright owners, and may designate common agents on a nonexclusive basis to negotiate, agree to, pay, or receive payments.

(2) For licenses granted under section 106 (6), other than statutory licenses, such as for performances by interactive services or performances that exceed the sound recording performance complement—

(A) copyright owners of sound recordings affected by this section may designate common agents to act on their behalf to grant licenses and receive and remit royalty payments: Provided, That each copyright owner shall establish the royalty rates and material license terms and conditions unilaterally, that is, not in agreement, combination, or concert with other copyright owners of sound recordings; and

(B) entities performing sound recordings affected by this section may designate common agents to act on their behalf to obtain licenses and collect and pay royalty fees: Provided, That each entity performing sound recordings shall determine the royalty rates and material license terms and conditions unilaterally, that is, not in agreement, combination, or concert with other entities performing sound recordings.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

(4) In order to obtain the benefits of paragraph (1), a common agent or collective representing copyright owners of sound recordings must make available at no charge through publicly accessible computer access through the Internet the most current available list of sound recording copyright owners represented by the organization and the most current list of sound recordings licensed by the organization.

This section is far more troubling than it first appears.

The effect of IRFA as a whole would be to reduce the amount of royalties that companies like Clear Channel, Sirius XM Radio, and Pandora have to pay to recording artists.

For most companies, arrangements between buyers and sellers are negotiated on the open market. But for a number of reasons, the Copyright Act establishes a compulsory license for certain uses of digital sound recordings with the license terms and rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board.

So companies like Sirius XM and Pandora already have an advantage that many businesses don’t have: government-guaranteed access to the content that drives their business at a rate set by law. Compulsory licensing is compulsory: there is no opting in or opting out for artists.

But compulsory licensing doesn’t preclude direct licensing under the current law — that is, without IRFA. Copyright owners are — and always have been — free to negotiate privately with copyright users. Sirius XM has been particularly aggressive in recent years in pursuing such direct licensing, and Clear Channel is right behind Sirius with their own direct deals.

What does this mean for artists? First of all, in practice, this means that the rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board act as a ceiling — no licensee is going to pay more than the compulsory rate. They are guaranteed access to every sound recording on the market at the CRB’s rates.

So why would recording artists or sound recording owners want to accept a deal that gives, say, Sirius XM more rights for less money? (Bearing in mind that many artists own their sound recordings.)

Here’s one reason. During recent proceedings, Sirius XM Executive VP David Frear testified that “Among other things, [record companies] recognized that by entering into direct licenses with Sirius XM, they gained the potential for enhanced airplay and greater exposure for their recording artists.” Left unsaid was the corollary to this: refusing to enter into a direct license could mean less (or no) airplay.

Direct licensing, in conjunction with a compulsory licensing scheme, thus gives licensees all stick and no carrot. And when you’re terrestrial radio giant Clear Channel, or the only satellite radio provider, or Pandora — which accounts for 37% of all digital sound recording royalties — that’s a pretty big stick. (Pandora and Sirius XM together account for 90%.)

Section 5 of IRFA is perhaps the most pernicious part of the bill, for it would make it illegal for anyone to criticize digital sound recording licensees. If IRFA becomes law, artists and artist organizations will need to watch what they say in public in opposition to Sirius and Clear Channel’s direct licensing efforts.

This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole — it is already happening. The provisions of Section 5 seem to be a direct response to groups like American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), SoundExchange, and major record labels cautioning recording artists about the drawbacks to a push by Sirius XM to license recordings directly following the latest rate-setting proceedings.

In March 2012, Sirius XM filed a lawsuit against SoundExchange and A2IM alleging anti-trust violations for their efforts to resist what SoundExchange and A2IM saw as a raw deal from Sirius XM’s direct licensing push. Now, for starters, it might seem odd that a company with an effective monopoly on satellite radio is complaining that a non-profit nonexclusive collecting agency and a trade association representing hundreds of small companies are violating anti-trust laws.

But the allegations that Sirius made in the lawsuit should concern any artist. Sirius XM essentially argues that various public communications concerning its direct license program amount to anti-competitive behavior — not anti-competitive conduct, just speech.

One such communication identified in Sirius XM’s anti-trust suit includes this August 2011 blog post by A2IM. In its lawsuit, Sirius XM points specifically to a paragraph that states:

In general statutory licenses have been good for the independent music label community as statutory licenses insure that all music label copyrights, whether those of the major labels or those of independent labels or artists, are treated equally and paid the same rate amount for each stream (play) of that music. Under direct licenses there are cases where independents have received less than equitable rates.

And lest you think only industry groups would be caught in the crosshairs, it’s not unlikely that artist advocacy organizations could face legal liability. Sirius XM also refers to a statement made by the Future of Music Coalition, in its November 2011 newsletter:

Here at FMC, we want artists to get the money they’re owed for the use of their music on any platform. The statutory rate for digital performance plus direct payment via SoundExchange is an important piece of the compensation puzzle for creators. Bypassing it might benefit the bottom lines of major corporations in the short run, but it’s a dangerous thing for performing artists.

This is the type of explanatory speech — not conduct — that Sirius XM thinks is illegal and IRFA definitely would outlaw. Again, it would make it a violation of the Sherman Act for “any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing.” Whenever two or more artists are gathered, Sirius XM (and Clear Channel, and Google) will be there.

The statements above are already alleged by Sirius XM to violate existing anti-trust laws. To be clear, the allegations are absurd — these statements are clearly not urging an unlawful “boycott” against Sirius XM’s direct licensing, and even if they were, Sirius doesn’t lose out since it already has access to every sound recording on the market under the compulsory license. There’s also a much simpler and way less conspiratorial explanation to the public response that Sirius complains of: maybe the labels who spurned Sirius XM’s proposal just didn’t like the deal. But Section 5 of IRFA would ensure that the law explicitly prohibits any criticism of direct licensing deals.

So if IRFA becomes law, if you don’t like the deal, you better keep it to yourself.

November 8, 2012November 8, 2012 by Trichordist