Tag: Phonorecords IV

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

Will the Copyright Royalty Board approve Big Tech’s attempted cover-up? 

By Chris Castle

[This MusicTechPolicy post appeared on Hypebot]

There’s an old saying among sailors that water always wins. Sunlight does, too. It may take a while, but time reveals all things in the cold light of dawn. So when you are free riding on huge blocks of aged government cheese like the digital music services do with the compulsory mechanical license, the question you should ask yourself is why hide from the sunlight? It just makes songwriters even more suspicious. 

This melodrama just played out at the Copyright Royalty Board with the frozen mechanicals proceeding. Right on cue, the digital services and their legions of lawyers proved they hadn’t learned a damn thing from that exercise. They turned right around and tried to jam a secret deal through the Copyright Royalty Board on the streaming mechanicals piece of Phonorecords IV. 

To their great credit, the labels handled frozen physical mechanicals quite differently. They voluntarily disclosed the side deal they made with virtually no redactions and certainly didn’t try to file it “under seal” like the services did. Filing “under seal” hides the major moving parts of a voluntary settlement from the world’s songwriters. Songwriters, of course, are the ones most affected by the settlement–which the services want the CRB to approve–some might say “rubber stamp”–and make law.

To fully appreciate the absolute lunacy of the services attempt at filing the purported settlement document under seal, you have to remember that the Copyright Royalty Judges spilled considerable ink in the frozen mechanicals piece of Phonorecords IV telling those participants how important transparency was when they rejected the initial Subpart B settlement.  

This happened mere weeks ago in the SAME PHONORECORDS IV PROCEEDING.

Were the services expecting the Judges to say “Just kidding”? What in the world were they thinking? Realize that filing the settlement–which IF ACCEPTED is then published by the Judges for public comment under the applicable rules established long ago by Congress–is quite different than filing confidential commercial information. You might expect redactions or filings under seal, “attorneys eyes only,” etc., in direct written statements, expert testimony or the other reams of paper all designed to help the Judges guess what rate a willing buyer would pay a willing seller. That rate to be applied to the world under a compulsory license which precludes willing buyers and willing sellers, thank you Franz Kafka. 

When you file the settlement, that document is the end product of all those tens of millions of dollars in legal fees that buy houses in the Hamptons and Martha’s Vinyard as well as send children to prep school, college and graduate school. Not the songwriters’ children, mind you, oh no. 

The final settlement is, in fact, the one document that should NEVER be redacted or secret. How else will the public–who may not get a vote but does get their say–even know what it is the law is based on assuming the Judges approve the otherwise secret deal. It’s asking the Judges to tell the public, the Copyright Office, their colleagues in the appeals courts and ultimately the Congress, sorry, our version of the law is based on secret information.

Does that even scan? I mean, seriously, what kind of buffoons come up with this stuff?  Of course the Judges will question the bona fides and provenance of the settlement. Do you think any other federal agency could get away with actually doing this? The lawlessness of the very idea is breathtaking and demonstrates conclusively in my view that these services like Google are the most dangerous corporations in the world. The one thing that gives solace after this display of arrogance is that some of them may get broken up before they render too many mechanical royalty accounting statements.

To their credit, after receiving the very thin initial filing the Judges instructed the services to do better–to be kind. The Judges issued an order that stated:

The Judges now ORDER the Settling Parties to certify, no later than five days from the date of this order, that the Motion and the Proposed Regulations annexed to the Motion represent the full agreement of the Settling Parties, i.e., that there are no other related agrements and no other clauses. If such other agreements or clauses exist, the Settling Parties shall file them no later than five days from the date of this order.

Just a tip to any younger lawyers reading this post–you really, really, really do not want to be on the receiving end of this kind of order.

Reading between the lines (and not very far) the Judges are telling the parties to come clean. Either “certify” to the Judges “that there are no other related agreements and no other clauses” or produce them. This use of the term “certify” means all the lawyers promise to the Judges as officers of the court that their clients have come clean, or alternatively file the actual documents.

That produced the absurd filing under seal, and that then produced the blowback that led to the filing of the unsealed and unreacted documents. But–wait, there’s more.

Take a close look at what the Judges asked for and what they received. The Judges asked for certification “that there are no other related agrements and no other clauses. If such other agreements or clauses exist, the Settling Parties shall file them no later than five days from the date of this order.”

What the Judges received is described in the purportedly responsive filing by the services:

The Settling Participants [aka the insiders] have provided all of the settlement documentsand, with this public filing, every interested party can fully evaluate and comment upon the settlement. The Settling Participants thus believe that the Judges have everything necessary to “publish the settlement in the Federal Register for notice and comment from those bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the” Settlement Agreement, as required under 37 C.F.R. 351.2(b)(2). The Settling Participants respectfully request that the Judges inform them if there is any further information that they require.

Notice that the Judges asked for evidence of the “full agreement of the Settling Parties”, meaning all side deals or other vigorish exchanged between the parties including the DSPs that control vast riches larger than most countries and are super-conflicted with the publishers due to their joint venture investment in the MLC quango.

The response is limited to “the settlement documents” and then cites to what the services no doubt think they can argue limits their disclosure obligations to what is necessary to “publish the settlement”. And then the services have the brass to add “The Settling Participants respectfully request that the Judges inform them if there is any further information that they require.” Just how are the Judges supposed to know if the services complied with the order? Is this candor?

It must also be noted that Google and the NMPA have “lodged” certain documents relating to YouTube’s direct agreements which they claim are not related to the settlement to be published for public comment. These documents are, of course, secret:

[And] are not part of the settlement agreement or understanding of the settling participants concerning the subject matter of the settlement agreement, and do not supersede any part of the settlement agreement with respect to the settling participants’ proposed Phonorecords IV rates and terms. Further, the letter agreements do not change or modify application of the terms to be codified at 37 C.F.R. 385 Subparts C and D, including as they apply to any participant. Rather, the letter agreements simply concern Google’s current allocation practices to avoid the double payment of royalties arising from YouTube’s having entered into direct agreements with certain music publishers while simultaneously operating under the Section 115 statutory license.

You’ll note that there are a number of declarative statements that lets the hoi polloi know that the Data Lords and Kings of the Internet Realms have determined some information involving their royalties is none of their concern. How do you know that you shouldn’t worry your pretty little head about some things? Because the Data Lords tell you so. And now, back to sleep you Epsilons.

So you see that despite the statements in the group filing to the CRB that the “Settling Participants” (i.e., the insiders) claim to have provided all of the settlement documents required by the Judges, Google turns right around and “lodges” this separate filing of still other documents that they think might be related documents with some bearing on the settlement that should be disclosed to the public but they apparently will not be disclosing without a fight. How do we know this? Because they pretty much say so:

Because the letter agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and have each only been disclosed to their individual signatories, each such music publisher having an extant direct license agreement with Google, Google and NMPA are lodging the letter agreements directly with the Copyright Royalty Judges, who may then make a determination as to whether the letter agreements are relevant and what, if anything, should be disclosed notwithstanding the confidentiality restrictions in each of the letter agreements.

Ah yes, the old “nondisclosure” clause. You couldn’t ask for a better example of how NDAs are used to hide information from songwriters about their own money.

The Judges noted when rejecting the similar initial frozen mechanical regulations that:

Parties have an undeniable right of contract. The Judges, however, are not required to adopt the terms of any contract, particularly when the contract at issue relates in part, albeit by reference, to additional unknown terms that indicate additional unrevealed consideration passing between the parties, which consideration might have an impact on effective royalty rates. 

So there’s that.

What this all boils down to is that the richest and most dangerous corporations in commercial history are accustomed to algorithmically duping consumers, vendors and even governments in the dark and getting away with it. The question is, if you believe that sunlight always wins, do they still want to hide as long as they can and then look stupid, or do they want to come clean to begin with and be honest brokers.

As Willie Stark famously said in All the King’s Men, “Time reveals all things, I trust it so.”

by Trichordist Editor

More Bizarre Goings On At the Copyright Royalty Board, this time with additional Google, fava beans and a fine Chianti

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

by Chris Castle

One of the main beefs I’ve had with the Copyright Royalty Board is the secrecy in plain sight. Very few people follow what’s going on there, yet every time you move a rock, another toad hops out. Now that we are turning our attention to the streaming mechanical proceeding–which as we were told ad nauseam is the important one, don’t you know–the first thing we find is the shameful antics of Google on full display.

Remember–the Copyright Royalty Board split the rate proceedings in two. One was for the physical and download mechanical (paid by record companies) and one for the streaming mechanical (paid by digital music services), all under the compulsory license which was adopted for the huge benefit of each music user. And of course if it’s compulsory it takes (there’s that word again) away the rights of songwriters to bargain and set their own price without government intervention. (There are alternative ways to do this such as the Nordic model of extended collective licensing that David Lowery discussed in an important blog post a few years ago.)

The Copyright Royalty Judges are given the unenviable task of divining what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in the open market. Of course that willing/willing rate is a complete legal fiction because in the novella of statutory rates there hasn’t been an open market for over 100 years which for rate setting purposes means there has never been an open market for songwriters. Why? Not sure, really, but there must have been an original sin, the novella tells us so. We can only assume that when that writer room door closes, those pesky songwriters just naturally start colluding, unlike Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Spotify and especially Google. Google who have never been prosecuted for violating the Controlled Substances Act for which they paid a $500,000,000 fine and who we let take over our children like they were a trustworthy television network or something.

So since there’s never been an open market because the government took the songwriters’ rights back in 1909 in this case (and 1941 in the case of the ASCAP consent decree), you can well imagine that a cottage industry of executives, lawyers and lobbyists have grown up to service the bizarre rate setting process that has totally lost their way in my view. It’s hard to believe when we read the shenanigans going on in front of the Judges that this is all designed to determine the value of songs. There are 38 lawyers billing time in the streaming proceeding which will raise the transaction cost of the proceeding to an absurd and Kafka-esque level, but it does help you understand why the lobbyists think that proceeding is so important–it’s definitely more important to them.

Which leads us to the extremely Googley discovery request that Google has filed and the Judges appear to have approved. In a nutshell, Google has said that they only way that the rates can be set is if the Judges force the National Music Publishers Association and the Nashville Songwriters Association International to turn over all to Google of your accounting statements and licenses so Google can determine if the past earnings back up the NMPA and NSAI royalty claims made by their many Lecterian lawyers.

But don’t feel bad–it’s not like they will be turning over the data to the public, just to Google. What a relief, right?

Here’s what the order actually says:

That’s right–Google wants “Music Publishers” to produce all the royalty statements for the most successful songwriters in the world to “test” whether songwriters are struggling financially. Given that this will involve many, many statements which probably have to have personally identifiable information redacted, it’s going to take many hours which is great for those who get paid by the hour but not so great for those who get paid by the song.

Is there no other way to determine whether mechanical royalties have declined to subsistence levels? Surely there must be, and you know what else? There’s also a way to test whether mechanical royalties have declined to below subsistence levels which is really the point here, right?

Yes, I got your test right here, soulless Google lawyers.

But wait, there’s more. Google also wants to raise transaction costs on songwriters by forcing the production of all “free market” licenses. (“Free market” benchmarks are themselves a laughable concept in a hugely distorted market that still suffers from the governments negligent wage and price control of a 2¢ rate from 1909 to 1978).

And given the parameters of the Copyright Royalty Board, the Judges seem to have granted Google’s request in part for the statements and entirely for the licenses.

You do have to ask whether there’s anything songwriters can do to keep their confidential royalty statements and license agreements out of the hands of the Leviathan of Mountain View. It does seem that there could be a process to intervene in the Phonorecords IV case to stop this from happening. Just because Google is trying to prove that songwriter income has not been decimated when we all know it has been does not seem to require the humiliation of having your royalty statements put on display. This is definitely something to speak about to your lawyer and your publisher.

This entire exchange is exceptionally bizarre because the “Copyright Owners” are the NMPA and NSAI, neither of whom own copyrights, send statements or enter licenses. And yet there seems to be an assumption that some group of publishers are bound by the order. I can only assume that the publishers who are on the receiving end of this order are the music publisher affiliates of the CRB participants at the group level of Sony, Universal and Warner, although the order doesn’t really demonstrate that connective tissue because…well, it doesn’t. Publisher affiliates are not participating and if the principle and policy is that every stand alone affiliate of a corporate parent is participating and subject to discovery because the corporate parent is…well, that’s an interesting proposition.

Before you heave a sigh of relieve that only the songwriters signed to a major will have their privacy invaded by the greatest privacy invader of all time, that would be Google hands down, just realize the cost of what can happen if you were to have the temerity to think you could participate in the Copyright Royalty Board. 

You can have one of the biggest corporations in commercial history that rips you off every minute of every day and essentially prints money in the public market that they use to destroy your rights and creations sick their army of soul-crushing lawyers on you to prove that songwriters are dying penniless because of Google’s income transfer. And still pay you a number that starts many decimal places to the right and laugh about it over steaks at The Palm with fava beans and a fine Chianti.

by Trichordist Editor

Survey Results: Physical and Download Mechanical Rates Survey–Artist Rights Watch

Many readers participated in the Physical and Download Mechanical Rates Survey that various organizations have sent to their members over the last few weeks. Here are the results of the main questions for which we had 361 respondents who self-selected their participation. (Other answers included comments which we chose not to publish for privacy reasons.). 

The results suggest that participants were mostly informed songwriters who had never been asked before what they thought about the issues in the Copyright Royalty Board. We would have to conclude that any of our regular readers would be a bit skewed toward knowledgeable because between the Trichordist, MusicTechPolicy, ARW, Hypebot and Celebrity Access we were probably carrying a very high percentage of the available information on the frozen mechanicals issues.

It also is striking how few respondents said they had ever been asked what they think about any mechanical rates (physical, download, streaming), an important and easily measurable issue. This is something to add to the learning from this episode. It may be that our data is skewed, but even so we didn’t expect that 68% would say they’d never even been asked their opinion. An easy way to find out what people think about something is to ask them. 

by Trichordist

Is @UMG coming to the party on unfrozen mechanicals?

By Chris Castle

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

I have it on good authority from someone close to the talks not authorized to speak on the record that Universal is taking the lead on solving the now un-frozen mechanicals crisis. This obviously needs to be confirmed and may not be final, but I think it’s well worth posting about.

Recall that the crisis pertains to the so-called “Subpart B” mechanical royalties paid by record companies for permanent downloads, vinyl and compact discs. The mechanical rate has been frozen at 9.1¢ since 2008 and the Copyright Royalty Judges recently rejected a settlement among the NMPA, NSAI, Sony, Universal and Warner to extend the freeze in the Phonorecords IV proceeding. Having rejected the proposed settlement, the next step could be knock down, drop dead, drag out litigation that would, in my view, be totally unnecessary. Or the next step could be the labels and publishers submitting a new proposed settlement and asking for the Judges’ approval. 

Also recall that the Judges hinted at a potential deal they would like to see in their rejection of the proposed settlement that would essentially uplift the current 9.1¢ rate by an inflation factor since the rate was set in 2008, bringing the minimum statutory rate for all “Subpart B” configurations to 12¢ that would be further uplifted by an annual cost of living adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U in this case).

We’ve written about this topic so much that you’re probably sick of hearing about it–but if this source turns out to be correct, it’s a real step in the right direction by Universal taking a leadership role that will no doubt be controversial.

As I understand it, Universal may propose a minimum statutory rate of 10¢ for permanent downloads and 12¢ for both vinyl and CD configurations. All three rates would be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (in a similar way that the Judges just indexed the webcasting royalty in Webcasting V applicable to sound recordings). This rate would apply to all songs–not just to George Johnson–as one would expect.

There’s no way to know at this point today whether all the participants in the Phonorecords IV proceeding will accept these terms, including George Johnson who has held out for a much higher minimum statutory rate. Some may scratch their head over why the download rate is less, but my suspicion is that it’s because Apple and Amazon have been inflexible on increasing the wholesale price and I could understand why a label would give themselves some headroom on downloads going into what will surely be highly inflationary times but at the same time agreeing a cost of living adjustment. (When the dust settles, it may be worth a discussion in the artist rights community about whether to campaign against Apple and Amazon.)

I do think it’s commendable if Universal is taking the first step toward bringing fairness to a process that has been unfair for many years. We’ll see what happens, but it looks like it could be light at the end of the tunnel. Watch this space.

by Trichordist Editor

What’s Next for Unfrozen Mechanicals? One proposal.

It was a big week for songwriters last week! The Copyright Royalty Judges rejected the frozen mechanicals settlement put forward by the majors in the current rate-setting proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board thanks in part to the best audience in the world–that would be you! All that hammering on the issue paid off.

We also acknowledge the hard work of all the commenters who spoke straight from the heart and of course songwriter George Johnson who has been fighting the good fight in the Copyright Royalty Board all by himself for years now. We’re also very grateful to the Judges for a well-thought out ruling and a thorough vetting of the issues, George’s many filings and the songwriter public comments.

The question we’ve heard a lot in recent days is where do we go from here? Clearly the answer is “Up” but how far up is the question. We need to be mindful of the economic impact that increased rates will have on independent labels in particular, but at the same time acknowledge that all record companies have gotten the benefit of frozen rates for 16 years and that songwriters have taken it in the shorts for a long, long time.

The Judges seem to be hinting at a deal in their ruling (remembering this is the rate for physical and downloads only (called “Subpart B rates”) and not for Spotify-type streaming which is not affected by these rate changes). Here’s the relevant quote from the ruling:

Commenters advocated application of an inflation adjustment beginning, at a minimum, in 2006. See, e.g. [Songwriters Guild of America] Comments at 4; [Monica] Corton Comments at 4; [Kevin] Casini Comments at 4. According to the proponents of a cost of living adjustment (COLA) applied to the 2006 rates, that adjustment would yield a 2021 royalty rate of $ 0.12 (an upward 31.9% inflation adjustment over the sixteen-year period). See, e.g., SGA Comments at 4. SGA conceded that the COLA extrapolation cannot be considered dispositive on the issue of new rate-setting, but they contended that it does “starkly demonstrate the outrageous unfairness that has been imposed on the music creator community over a period of more than an entire century.”

Step one, then, could be to increase the minimum statutory rate to 12¢ (or 13¢ depending on how you do the math) with customary adjustments for the “long song” formula for songs over 5 minutes.

That increase in the rate would be significant and probably the biggest rate increase ever on a percentage basis for the statutory rate. Will that satisfy everyone? Probably not, but it’s a step forward.

But–and this is a big but–that’s not the end of the story. We do not want to be right back in the same position in a few years time. One way to avoid this is to increase the new rate for inflation every 12 months (called “indexing”) the same way that the webcasting rates are indexed for sound recordings.

The Judges also hint at indexing as a potential solution to avoid just another rate freeze:

[George Johnson] has long advocated inclusion of an inflation index in royalty rates set by the Judges, including the…rates at issue here. In support of his advocacy, GEO has filed 27 pleadings, including motions seeking imposition of an inflation index on section 115 rates and periodic notices of U.S. inflation rates. His plea is bolstered by the many commenters who, almost unanimously, included this suggestion.

So the way this would work is that starting in 2023, the current 9.1¢ rate would be increased to 12¢. After 12 months, the rate would be increased by the Consumer Price Index (the CPI-U rate) for each 12 month period until 2027 when new rates would get decided by the CRB in the next rate proceeding (Phonorecords V). Example: If the CPI is 10%, then the minimum statutory rate would increase to 13.2¢ for the next 12 months. If the CPI in the second year was also 10%, then the 13.2¢ rate would be increased to 14.52¢ and so on until the last year of the period (2027). (Of course we can’t tell today what the CPI will be in 2023.)

Given the Judge’s rejection of the frozen rates, it is very doubtful that there will ever be another freeze, but we have to stay alert and vocal. When the new rates come up, we all have to pay attention.

It’s important to remember that “indexing” to inflation just preserves buying power. Meaning that 12¢ today is what 9.1¢ was worth in 2006. Would it be the fair thing to index all the way back to 1909? Sure, but while the Judges hint at going back further (the “at a minimum” reference), the Judges may not be inclined to go further back than 2006 when the current freeze started, but we’ll see what happens.

We’d be very interested in hearing from you with any questions you have or other ideas for solutions. Obviously, this post is just sharing ideas with our audience and isn’t a formal statement by any particular person or group. There may be a number of proposals coming out and we’ll of course post them on Trichordist.

It must also be said that George Johnson has yet to weigh in on the situation and may very well have a different idea. There’s also some twists and turns to sort out, such as the black box “MOU” (the fourth of its name) but especially the controlled compositions rates that the Judges discussed in some detail (as Judge Barnett said, “The disparity between the static rate and the dynamic market is even more stark when considering the “controlled composition clause.””).

In any event, feel free to comment and we welcome the discussion.

by thetrichordist

#FrozenMechanicals Take 2: @sealeinthedeal Finds Some Facts on the NMPA Tax Return and MOU FAQ

[A little context: The public comments on the majors’ proposed settlement at the Copyright Royalty Board that freezes mechanical royalties on vinyl and CDs are again attracting first rate reporting and arguments. Public comments are designed to help the Copyright Royalty Judges focus on important nuances before they tell us all what’s fair.

Enter the connection between extending the fifteen year-old frozen mechanical rate for another five years in return for what may well be hundreds of millions under the unmatched “late fee waiver” settlement (total settlement value still undisclosed). It’s become obvious after the majors’ 11th hour reply comment in “#FrozenMechanicals Take One” that the majors have tied a settlement on what is essentially the late fee on black box mechanicals at the participating labels to getting a freeze on mechanicals. You can ask yourself how much of a risk it is that major publishers will sue their major label affiliates and what kind of a settlement avoiding that risk might drive.

NMPA 2018 Tax Return
NMPA 2019 Tax Return

Fair enough, right? Well, maybe not. Thanks to excellent open-source research by Austin music lawyer Gwendolyn Seale in her new frozen mechanicals comment, it turns out that there are a couple of loose ends. First, the National Music Publishers Association’s tax returns for 2018 and 2019 suggest that the organization received several million dollars from the late fee waiver program over two years.

Where that money finally came to rest is unclear but something about the size of that sum sounds like “employee year-end performance bonus” to me although that’s just a guess. (Not the first time the unmatched issue has come up–remember the New York Attorney General back in 2004 who dropped the hammer on labels and at least one publisher who had egregious cases of unpaid royalties to people like David Bowie, John Mellencamp, David Matthews, Dolly Parton and Sean Combs.)

Gwen also did a deep dive on past late fee waiver settlements (commonly called “MOUs”) dating back to 2009 or so. These also had similar connective tissue between past mechanical royalty freezes and the late fee settlement dating back many years. (It would not be a shock if some of the more cold-blooded publishers preferred taking the late fee than the black box royalties because a late fee is an interest payment that may not have to be shared with their writers…just sayin’. Let’s not forget who works for whom.)

Not only is the CRB being asked to repeat the sins of the past with the justification that they accepted it before, Gwen discovered yet another wrinkle in the open-source rules of the prior MOUs–you have to join the NMPA and pay dues in order to get paid with what is ostensibly your own money. See what they did there? That’s probably old news to those who also read the establishment press, but worth mentioning in case you missed it.]

Gwendolyn Seale, Esq.

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge Suzanne Barnett

Copyright Royalty Judge David R. Strickler

Copyright Royalty Judge Steve Ruwe

US Copyright Royalty Board

101 Independence Ave SE / P.O. Box 70977

Washington, DC 20024-0977

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY

IN RE DETERMINATION OF ROYALTY RATES AND TERMS FOR MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING PHONORECORDS (Phonorecords IV)

Honorable Judges,

I am a music lawyer in Austin, Texas, and represent songwriters throughout the state of Texas. I appreciate the judges reopening the comment period with respect to the proposed settlement (“Proposed Settlement”) submitted by the three major labels, the National Music Publishers Association (“NMPA”) and the Nashville Songwriters Association International (“NSAI”) which, if adopted by the Judges, would freeze the statutory mechanical royalty rate at 9.1 cents for physical products and permanent digital downloads through 2027. For reference, my prior comment regarding the Proposed Settlement can be found in the footnote below,[1] and the purpose of this supplemental comment is to highlight the relevance of the Memorandum of Understanding 4 (“MOU4”) between the three major labels and the RIAA on the one hand and the NMPA and a select group of music publishers on the other hand (collectively “MOU Parties”) in the Judges’ consideration of the Proposed Settlement. As the Judges will see below, MOU4 appears to be additional consideration for the Proposed Settlement — consideration which is only able to be enjoyed by NMPA members. Binding the world’s songwriters to this Proposed Settlement when the overwhelming majority of songwriters cannot even reap the benefits of the additional consideration demonstrates there is no reasonable basis to adopt the rates and terms of the Proposed Settlement industrywide, and further, doing so would be patently unjust.

Please note that the views I am expressing here are not made on behalf of any client or the State Bar of Texas.

  1. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF MOU4 MORE THAN SUGGESTS IT IS ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

When the three major labels, the NMPA and NSAI submitted their motion to adopt the Proposed Settlement to the CRB, included was the following language that raised concerns during the first round of comments:  

Concurrent with the settlement, the Joint Record Company Participants and NMPA have

separately entered into a memorandum of understanding addressing certain negotiated

licensing processes and late fee waivers.[2]

In my prior comment, I posed the question, “[if] this Memorandum of Understanding is irrelevant to the proposed settlement, why would it be referenced in the motion to adopt the settlement?” At the time of drafting the prior comment, I will honestly say I was not too familiar with the previous MOUs and associated NMPA Late Fee Programs (“Late Fee Programs”). Subsequently, I began perusing through the sparse number of media articles concerning the MOU stemming from Phonorecords I (“MOU1”), along with information listed on the Late Fee Program website, and the text of each MOU to date (MOU1, MOU2 and MOU3). Examining the text of the MOUs was eye-opening; it became readily apparent that each, and their associated Late Fee Programs, would never have come into existence if the MOU Parties had not submitted settlement proposals to the Judges in connection with mechanical rates for physical product and permanent downloads (i.e., the mechanical royalties paid by record companies). In other words, there is no Proposed Settlement without MOU4 and there is no MOU4 without the Proposed Settlement – the two are inextricably intertwined.  The longstanding history of this practice is first exhibited in the language from Section 1.0 of MOU2:

This MOU 2 shall not go into effect unless a proposed settlement of the 2013-2017 Proceeding is submitted to the Copyright Royalty Judges for approval, which the Parties anticipate happening promptly after this MOU 2 has been entered into by all Parties[3].

The key word to examine here is “unless.” MOU2 would not go into effect unless a proposed settlement was submitted to the CRB in Phonorecords II (2013-2017). If the MOU Parties had not presented the proposed settlement in Phonorecords II to the CRB, MOU2 would have never gone into effect and thus, no Late Fee Program for that time period.  A close review of the plain language of MOU2 is critical as it more than suggests MOU2 served as additional consideration for the proposed settlement in Phonorecords II, which extended the 9.1 cent mechanical rate freeze for physical products and permanent downloads that commenced in 2006.

Fast-forward to the language in Section 2 of MOU3, where the same condition is visible:

This MOU 3 is a separate, conditional agreement that shall not go into effect until NMPA and SME submit a motion to adopt a proposed settlement of the 2018-2022 Proceeding as to rates and terms presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. Part 385 Subpart A to the Copyright Royalty Judges, which the Parties anticipate happening promptly after this MOU 3 has been signed by all of the Parties. It is understood that SME, UMG, WMG, RIAA and NMPA will sign this MOU 3 at the outset, and that NMPA will use its best efforts to obtain the signatures of all the music publishers represented on its Board of Directors as additional Parties to this MOU 3 by October 28, 2016. The term of this MOU 3 shall commence on the date when a motion to adopt such a settlement is submitted to the Copyright Royalty Judges (the “Effective Date”), and continue until the End Date…[4]

Despite the removal of the word, “unless,” exhibited in MOU2, and the replacement with the word, “until,” the analysis remains the same. MOU3 appears to have been additional consideration for the proposed settlement in Phonorecords III, which furthermore extended the 9.1 cent mechanical rate freeze for physical products and permanent downloads.[5]

Finally, the same condition is found in MOU4’s language:

This MOU4 is a separate, conditional agreement that shall not go into effect until NMPA, SME, WMG’s affiliate Warner Music Group Corp., and UMG submit a motion to adopt a proposed settlement of the Phonorecords IV Proceeding as to statutory royalty rates and terms for physical phonorecords, permanent downloads, ringtones and music bundles presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. Part 385 Subpart B (the “Subpart B Configurations”), together with (1) certain definitions applicable to Subpart B Configurations presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.2 and (2) late payment fees under Section 115 for Subpart B Configurations presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.3, together with certain definitions applicable to such late payment fees presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.2, for the rate period covered by the Phonorecords IV Proceeding, which the Parties anticipate happening promptly after this MOU4 has been signed by SME, UMG, WMG, RIAA, NMPA, Sony Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. (the “Initial Signatories”)…

The plain text of MOU4 and likewise, the plain text of MOU2 and MOU3 demonstrates MOU4 serves as additional consideration for the Proposed Settlement. If this is the case, the Proposed Settlement does not provide a reasonable basis for establishing Subpart B rates and terms because MOU4 is consideration which can only be enjoyed by select participants in Phonorecords IV, while songwriters worldwide are bound to rates and terms they do not approve and for which they receive no benefit of the MOU4 bargain. Further, in a stunning display of pretzel logic, if a self-published songwriter even wants to reap the benefits of MOU4, such songwriter would have to join the NMPA as a publisher to participate in Late Fee Program – which would entail paying to join an organization that has agreed multiple times to freeze the mechanical royalty rate for physical and download formats.[6]

Songwriters, including those who have submitted comments in this proceeding, have made it abundantly clear that they do not support extending a mechanical royalty rate freeze. So, the question becomes whether the Judges believe it is just and reasonable to subject songwriters to a rate freeze that they oppose, understanding that they will either never benefit from the additional consideration for the freeze or will have to pay dues to a party proposing the freeze they oppose to benefit from the additional consideration. Therefore, I ask the Judges to please determine whether MOU4 is additional consideration for the Proposed Settlement.

2. IF ALL SONGWRITERS ARE TO BE BOUND TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, ADDITIONAL TRANSPARANCY IS WARRANTED

The MOU Parties stated in their “Comments in Further Support of the Settlement of Statutory Royalty Rates and Terms for Subpart B Configurations” (“Reply Comment”) that they did not present MOU4 to the Judges as they regarded it to be routine and irrelevant to the Judges’ determination of the Proposed Settlement.[7] The MOU Parties further stated the payments under the previous MOU processes have resulted in hundreds of millions being properly paid to publishers and songwriters and enabled more successful identifications of musical works.[8] Additionally, the MOU Parties contended the history of the MOUs is no secret, pointing to a couple of articles from 2009-2010 and the NMPA Late Fee Settlement website.[9]

While the MOU Parties can generally state MOU4 and prior MOUs are no secret, the MOU process to date has hardly been transparent. While some media outlets published information about MOU1 in 2009-2010, over the last decade there has been virtually no reporting on the MOU program, encompassing MOU2 and MOU3. With respect to MOU1, outlets reported approximately $275 million was paid out from the labels and distributed to publishers via marketshare methodology.[10] Amounts paid out pursuant to MOU2 and MOU3 have not been publicly disclosed – and should be if MOU2 and MOU3 were additional consideration which continued the mechanical rate freeze to the present day.

The MOU Parties further state, “[c]ontrary to the conspiracy theories of others, there is no secret payoff to major publishers or to any other MOU participant.”[11] It is not conspiratorial to simply point out that the public is unaware of the amounts payable to publishers under these MOUs; it is further obvious the major publishers benefit from a settlement system which distributes funds to publishers in accordance with major label and HFA data via marketshare methodology. Additionally, according to the NMPA’s 2018 and 2019 IRS 990 filings, “Royalty Late Fee Program” was listed as an income line-item, reflecting $2,908,988.00 and $768,368.00, respectively, as revenue for the organization. If in fact this line item pertains to commissions taken by the NMPA on prior Late Fee Programs established by the MOUs, there is absolutely a payoff to a MOU participant, albeit, not secret.

Note that I have no issue with the notion of these MOUs and the Late Fee Programs, or which sums are paid out to whom, provided that the MOUs and associated Late Fee Programs are truly irrelevant deals that do not serve as additional consideration for settlements to freeze the statutory mechanical rate for physical and download configurations industrywide.  

3. IF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS NOT WITHDRAWN, THE JUDGES SHOULD APPLY DIFFERENT RATES AND TERMS TO PUBLISHERS AND SELF-PUBLISHED SONGWRITERS WHO DO NOT OPT INTO MOU4 AND THE LATE FEE PROGRAM

Notwithstanding the repeated practice of the CRB adopting settlements freezing the mechanical rate for physical products and permanent downloads proposed by parties who wield the most power in the music business, the current situation is different and should be treated as such. Many songwriters oppose the Proposed Settlement but cannot afford to participate in this proceeding. Songwriters and other key songwriter advocacy organizations oppose this Proposed Settlement, proffering comments that the Proposed Settlement is unreasonable because songwriters do not wish this revenue stream to be frozen for yet another five years during a vinyl resurgence amid a worldwide pandemic that continues to ravage the world’s economy. While there has been considerably more public outcry with respect to this proceeding than those prior, luckily, there are solutions available which will reverse this course and are entirely within the control of the MOU Parties and the Judges.

First, the MOU Parties can withdraw the Proposed Settlement and voluntarily agree to a rate increase for Subpart B configurations – and continue to proceed with their Late Fee Program. This act will not only bring the entire songwriter and music publisher communities together, but also it will serve to extinguish one of the streaming services’ key benchmarks in their testimony (since every streaming service participant in Phonorecords IV is using this Proposed Settlement to justify their abysmal streaming rate proposals).

Alternatively, if the foregoing is not an option, the terms of the Proposed Settlement should apply only to the MOU Parties and the NMPA publishers that subsequently opt-into the Late Fee Program, while the Judges determine different rates to be applied to everyone else. To be clear, again, I have no issue with the concept of MOU4 or the Late Fee Program, rather it is inequitable for songwriters to be bound to the terms of a settlement which they do not support, particularly when they do not receive any benefit from the consideration attached to the settlement. 

CONCLUSION:

Prior to this Phonorecords IV proceeding, it appears the only person who publicly opposed any settlement to freeze the statutory mechanical rate for physical and download configurations was George Johnson, a pro se self-published songwriter participant. While the Judges’ determination of rates and terms for physical and download configurations in Phonorecords III is final, I believe it is worth briefly revisiting an excerpt from the Judges’ determination which addressed Mr. Johnson’s opposition to the Phonorecords III settlement:

But, Mr. Johnson has not even hinted at evidence to support his argument that the representative negotiators are engaged in anti-competitive price-fixing at below-market rates. The very definition of a market value is one that is reached by negotiations between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither party being under any compulsion to bargain.[12]

While Mr. Johnson may not have articulated his opposition to the Phonorecords III proposed settlement in a lawyer-like manner, he clearly understood years ago that there was something awry with respect to these proposed settlements. It is evident that the “something awry” happens to be these MOUs, which I never would have realized had the Judges not reopened the comment period to specifically address MOU4. The representative negotiators in these settlements represent “willing buyers” and “willing sellers” who are effectively the same parties at the corporate level. The “willing sellers” (i.e., the major publishers/ NMPA) are under compulsion to bargain so they can enjoy the compensation associated with the Late Fee Program. When such a settlement is adopted and applied industrywide, we are posed with an end result of “unwilling sellers” (i.e., songwriters worldwide) tethered to below-market rates who will not enjoy the benefits of the additional consideration – MOU4 and the associated Late Fee Program. 

The Judges have a duty to all songwriters – from the millions who are unaware the CRB exists, to the millions who do not have the financial resources to participate in CRB proceedings, to the millions who do not speak English (in this country and abroad) and cannot follow this proceeding if they wanted to– to determine whether this MOU4, a side agreement which benefits a select few, is in fact additional consideration for the Proposed Settlement which would freeze statutory mechanical royalty rate for physical products and permanent downloads through 2027. And if the Judges determine this is true and the MOU Parties are unable to withdraw the Proposed Settlement, the Judges should establish different rates and terms to be applied to all other songwriters and publishers.

Thank you for re-opening the public comment period and for your consideration.

Gwendolyn Seale

November 22, 2021

[1]Prior Comment, available at https://app.crb.gov/document/download/25534.

[2] Motion to Adopt Settlement of Statutory Royalty Rates and Terms for Subpart B Configurations, Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (May 25, 2021) (Proposed Settlement).

[3] Memorandum of Understanding 2 at 1.

[4] Memorandum of Understanding 3 at 2-3.

[5] This analysis is further exhibited by the content in this article, which provides a recap of the 99th NMPA annual meeting: https://www.musicweek.com/publishing/read/us-publishers-push-for-music-industry-unity-at-nmpa-agm/065029.

[6] FAQ 8, available at http://www.nmpalatefeesettlement.com/mou3/faq.php; FAQ 3, available at https://www.nmpa.org/boardmembers/faqs/.

[7] Comments in Further Support of the Settlement of Statutory Royalty Rates and Terms for Subpart B Configurations,  Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (August 10, 2021).

[8] Id.

[9] Id. 

[10]Publishing Briefs: NMPA Late Fee Site, Melvin Brown, Peermusic, BILLBOARD (Jan. 8, 2010), available at https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/publishing-briefs-nmpa-late-fee-site-melvin-brown-peermusic-1213394/

[11] See supra note 6.

[12] 37 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. 16–CRB–0003–PR] Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III); Subpart A Configurations of the Mechanical License.

by Trichordist Editor

#FrozenMechanicals Take 2: Chelsea Crowell, Erin McAnally, and Abby North Comments to CRB

[Trichordist says: The Copyright Royalty Board reopened the comments on frozen mechanical song royalties in Phonorecords IV rate setting and the filings are coming in, especially from songwriters! We will be posting the comments (or excerpts from the long ones. First up is a straight from the heart contribution from Chelsea Crowell, Erin McAnally and Abby North.]

Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 385
[Docket No. 21–CRB–0001–PR (2023–2027)]
Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords IV)

Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge Suzanne Barnett
Copyright Royalty Judge Steven Ruwe
Copyright Royalty Judge David R. Strickler
US Copyright Royalty Board
101 Independence Ave SE
Washington, DC 20024

SECOND REOPENING PERIOD COMMENTS OF ABBY NORTH, ERIN MCANALLY
AND CHELSEA CROWELL

To Your Honors:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit additional comments, now that the details of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU4) apparently related to the Subpart B mechanical rate
settlement negotiated by the NMPA, NSAI and three major labels have been made available.

Only the NMPA’s 300 or so publishers are potential parties to the MOU, assuming the opt in
terms are the same as those of MOU3 (http://nmpalatefeesettlement.com/mou3/faq.php). The
publishers that opt in to the MOU4 settlement will receive money for their participation, and in
exchange for this money, the NMPA Board members have agreed to freeze the Subpart B
mechanical rate at the $.091 rate that’s been in place since 2006.

In this exchange, NMPA publishers have a stream of revenue (the MOU4 money) that offsets the
negative effect of the lack of rate increase in the Subpart B mechanical.

Although foreign CMOs could opt into the current MOU3 settlement, rightsholders that are not
NMPA members may not opt in and will not receive the buffer that the MOU4 money provides,
yet they are subject to the frozen mechanical rate that is an apparent condition of the negotiation
related to the proposed settlement of the Subpart B rates and terms.

Thousands, if not tens of thousands of songwriters in the world have songs published or
administered by those NMPA publishers that are party to the rate freeze settlement, but neither
these songwriters nor the vast number of songwriters around the globe were given a say in the
decision to freeze the mechanical rate.

The concern we have is not that there is a settlement. The concern is that the settlement does not
provide for a base rate greater than $.091, plus annual increases to adjust for inflation.

To quote the NMPA’s Supplemental Comments: “…mechanical royalties from Subpart B
configurations now constitute only a small part of total mechanical royalty revenue in the U.S.,
and that share is expected to get smaller during the period covered by this proceeding.”

That concept only resonates with a corporation that aggregates thousands or millions of
copyrights.

To an individual songwriter or a small rightsholder, it doesn’t matter if Subpart B mechanicals
constitute 1% or 15% or 50% of total royalties. Why? Because every single penny counts.

When an individual is paying a mortgage, tuition or a car payment, every single penny counts.
When a health crisis occurs, every penny counts. When existing off the very low streaming
royalties generated by even a hit song, every penny counts.

Physical and download mechanicals are still an extremely relevant revenue stream to individual
songwriters and small publishers.

At the current retail price of $.99 for a download, the $.091 mechanical is 9.2%.

The streaming royalty pool for songs is roughly 10.5% of the total, possibly as much as 15.1%,
per the CRB III hearing results (after all this time, still under appeal). The NMPA has suggested
an increase of the streaming royalty rate to 20%. This would be an exceptional improvement.

How is the download royalty not at least the same percentage as the streaming royalty?

Why is the value of a downloaded song less than that of one that is streamed?

We suggest the Subpart B rate and the streaming mechanical rate (based on percentage) should
be on no less than a most favored nations basis with one another.

To songwriters and most publishers, every royalty type and every revenue stream matters. The
move from physical to digital, the unbundling of albums in favor of singles and the unlivable
streaming royalty rates absolutely substantiate the need for an increase in Subpart B mechanicals,
at least to reach the percentage paid on the streaming side, and with periodic adjustment for
inflation. 3

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these additional comments, and we ask the Judges to
recognize that songwriters and small publishers are individuals who do not have the luxury of
collecting royalties from the aggregation of hundreds of thousands of works.

It is not fair that songwriters signed to the NMPA publishers have a frozen mechanical rate
forced on them, and it is remarkably egregious that non-NMPA publishers and their writers are
also forced into this horrible reality.

Respectfully,

Abby North, North Music Group LLC
Chelsea Crowell, Songwriter
Erin McAnally, Songwriter/Factory of Strange Tones

by Trichordist

Don’t Forget: CRB Comments Due Monday on Frozen Mechanicals

If you were wondering why your mechanical royalty is still 9.1¢ on vinyl and downloads, it’s because the rate was set by the government through an agency called the Copyright Royalty Board.  As it turns out, the Copyright Royalty Board is currently deciding what your mechanical royalty should be for 2023-2027 on physical and downloads. 

You probably noticed that your mechanical hasn’t increased since 2006–nearly a generation of songwriters have grown up with that frozen rate. (For more background on this, read Chris’s post on frozen mechanicals and controlled compositions.) 

The NMPA, NSAI and the major labels are trying to get the Copyright Royalty Board to extend the freeze another five years with not even an inflation increase. (For more background on frozen mechanicals, The Trichordist has a bunch of posts about it.)

The public does get to comment on these rates. The frozen rates are so bad that the comments were all opposed to the proposed settlement. The comments were so negative that the Copyright Royalty Board took the unprecedented step of re-opening the public comments.

That reopened comment period ends on Monday, November 22. You still have time to comment so make sure you set up your commenter account with the Copyright Royalty Board.  Chris has a good post on MusicTech.Solutions that explains how to get your account.

Your comments matter! The Copyright Royalty Board has to take into account the public’s participation in the rules they make and nobody has ever objected to the frozen mechanical rate before (mostly because nobody knew it was happening back in Washington, DC). And here we are 15 years later.

by Trichordist Editor

#FrozenMechanicals Crisis: Unfiled Supplemental Comments of @helienne Lindvall, @davidclowery, @theblakemorgan and @sealeinthedeal

[Chris Castle says: Here’s the context of this post. As it turns out, the CRB extended the filing deadline for comments due to what they said was a technical difficulty, although we have yet to meet anyone who couldn’t file their comment on time. This extension seems contrary to the CRB’s February revised rules for filings by participants. The CRB procedures presciently have an email filing procedure in the case of technical problems arising out of their “eCRB” document filing system. It will not surprise you to know that the NMPA, NSAI, and major labels filed what is essentially a reply comment after the close of business on the last day of the extension, after at least our if not all commenter accounts were disabled, the practical effect of which was that no one could respond to their comments through the eCRB, i.e., on the record.

We tried, and drafted a reply to the most important points raised in the majors’ comment. We emailed our comment to the CRB during business hours on the next day in line with the CRB’s own “Procedural Regulations of the Copyright Royalty Board Regarding Electronic Filing System” (see 37 CFR §303.5(m)) or so we thought. But not so fast–we were told by an email from a nameless person at the CRB that we would need to file a motion in order to get approval to file the comment less than 24 hours late for good cause–which of course, we are not able to do since we are not “participants” in the proceeding. See how that works? According to this person’s email, we’d also need to contact CRB technical support to get our accounts reopened which would make the comment later still even if we were able to file a motion. Instead, we decided to just post our reply comment on the Internet. A wider audience. Unfortunately not part of the record, but we’ll see what happens.]

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF HELIENNE LINDVALL, DAVID LOWERY, BLAKE MORGAN  AND GWENDOLYN SEALE OBJECTING TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SUBPART B RATES

            This comment is in reply to the comment[1] filed by the Copyright Owners and the Joint Record Company Participants (the “Majors”) time-stamped after the close of business on August 10, 2021 and made available on the CRB docket the morning of August 11, 2021, i.e., after the deadline established by the Judges in the Proposed Rule published at 86 FR 33601 that would codify the Proposed Settlement.[2] 

            We ask the Judges’ leniency in permitting our late-filed supplemental comment to be made a part of the record in hopes that our responsive discussion will be helpful to the Copyright Royalty Board in resolving the frozen mechanicals crisis.

            This comment is filed on behalf of Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery and Blake Morgan who timely filed their comment on July 26, 2021[3] in accordance with the proposed rule.  This comment is also filed by Gwendolyn Seale who timely filed her own comment[4] in accordance with the proposed rule.  Their respective biographical information may be found in their previously filed comments.

            We will briefly discuss what we think are the essential points the Judges should consider that the Majors have raised in their comment.

I. Discussion

            A.  Authority:  As multiple commenters have stated, it is unclear whether the NMPA and NSAI have been authorized by their respective memberships of over 300 music publishers and over 4,000 songwriters to propose and/or accept a settlement freezing the statutory rate for Subpart B configurations through 2027. Thus, we ask the Judges to seek out evidence demonstrating that self-published songwriters and independent publishers have authorized the NSAI and NMPA to accept this Proposed Settlement.  We do not question the integrity of the Majors, but we do have questions about the negotiation process that have yet to be answered. 

            References to a broad “consensus” must be questioned because there is both a lack of evidence of consensus and also evidence in the record that at least 12 international songwriter groups object to the Proposed Settlement.  Independent songwriters, including Ms. Lindvall, Mr. Lowery and Mr. Morgan, also object.  It seems simple enough for the Judges to require some evidence of consent to the Proposed Settlement given the awesome power of the government that the Judges are essentially asked by Congress to delegate to the Majors through a voluntary negotiation.  This seems to us to be good cause for further verification of authority to make the deal in the first place.

            B.  The Judges Predicted the Current Opposition in their Phonorecords III Determination: 

The Majors rely on a citation that both demonstrates the foresight of the CRB and on balance tends to support our position that the NMPA and the NSAI likely lack the requisite authority to negotiate on behalf of all the world’s songwriters.  The Majors invite the Judges to participate in a thought experiment[5] that actually serves quite well to highlight the issues we have raised in the respective comments regarding both the authority of the NMPA and NSAI and the implied below-statutory rates bootstrapped indirectly by means of the freeze:

As the Judges have noted, “NMPA and NSAI represent individual songwriters and publishers,” and would not “engage[] in anti-competitive price-fixing at below-market rates,” since they must “act[] in the interest of their constituents” lest their constituents “seek representation elsewhere.” [Phonorecords III] at 15298.[6]

Respectfully, the problem is way beyond seeking representation elsewhere—the problem is that there was likely no “representation” in the first place if you take “representation” in the legal sense (such as that of a common agent) which we gather is how the Judges intended the use of the word.  Likewise, there is a difference between an agent’s principal and a “constituent”, i.e., a difference between one who expressly authorizes an agent to represent them in certain circumstances and one who is allowed to vote on who that representative is to be.  Neither is the case for many songwriters who have commented in the record for the current proceeding.  We will leave their record to speak for themselves as to why they have sought “representation elsewhere” but it appears that it is for the same reason that they are not participants in the proceeding—they can’t afford the justice and this is why they ask the Judges to give special weight to their comments in the CRB’s deliberations.

            But the Major’s thought experiment and speculation continues in an interesting coda regarding below statutory licensing (generally not permitted as a matter of contract in likely tens of thousands of co-publishing and administration agreements):

And certainly it would not be in the interest of any major publisher to agree to extend a below-market mechanical royalty rate to the competitors of its sister record company.[7]

While the thought experiment and speculation sound innocuous, consider what is being said here.  First, the Majors identify their interest as that of “major publishers”; not all publishers, not all songwriters, but “major publishers.”  Then the Majors go on to say that it would not be in the interest of the major publishers to give a “below market” rate to their sister record company’s competitors. 

            Of course, there is no market rate in the U.S. and essentially never has been; the Judges have the unenviable task of divining a market rate to be made statutory.  We would therefore modify the thought experiment to include “below statutory”.  Now we are left with the assertion that major publishers use the statutory rate to protect their record company affiliates from competition—not that they fulfill their role as true blue fiduciaries for their songwriters by refusing to grant below-statutory rates (either directly or indirectly), but rather being hard on the competitors of their affiliates.   And they are using their market power to impose a rate on the world that they seem to say protects their affiliates.  Extending the frozen mechanical rate certainly doesn’t protect their songwriters—the Judges have ample evidence that many songwriters object to the extension.  But in the Majors’ own words we now know cui bono, and the benefit goes back to Phonorecords III and likely earlier.

            But let us extend the thought experiment a little bit further.  Who is an unrelated “competitor” of the three major labels and all their distributed labels, DIY operations like The Orchard, joint ventures and so on and on and on?  That must be a pretty small group of true independents who have cobbled together a distribution network for the Subpart B configurations to deal with the logistics of manufacturing, warehousing, shipments, returns, and the like—branch distribution is what makes a major label a major.  Perhaps the Majors could provide some examples of these “competitors”?  Clearly though, the citation demonstrates that the Judges sensed many years ago the very situation now unfolding on the record in the frozen mechanicals crisis.

            C.  Comparisons to Largely Unopposed Prior Rulemakings Compare Apples to Oranges:  We understand that the Majors claim to have proposed a similar settlement in Phonorecords III resulting in a freeze of the statutory rate for Subpart B configurations, and that the Judges then-adopted that settlement.  We also understand that there was little if any formal objection to that freeze in Phonorecords III at least by comparison to the number of objecting commenters in Phonorecords IV.  The Judges are now presented with a significant number of objectors who entirely reject the application of the Proposed Settlement to the world in a kind of bootstrapping move.  Respectfully, comparing the field in Phonorecords III to Phonorecords IV is comparing apples to oranges and creating a pomegranate.

            We also acknowledge the millions of dollars that the NMPA asserts that it spent litigating these rates some fifteen years ago, but this assertion perhaps proves too much.  The cost of participating in any of these proceedings is exactly the reason why objecting songwriters understandably rely entirely on the Judges to seek fairness and justice.  They cannot afford to participate in these proceedings themselves and trust the Judges to balance all the facts not just the arguments of rich people and corporations. 

Not only do the Majors gloss over the songwriters’ objections, but their reasoning is actually fallacious. Because both proceedings are called “Phonorecords” does not make them similar in regard to the frozen mechanicals crisis.  The facts on the ground are wildly different between III and IV.  Moreover, we hear a subtext in the Major’s argument that if a configuration experiences declining sales, that is a reason for the government to reduce the royalty rate.  Aside from a lack of statutory authority, this is also fallacious reasoning because the Majors have produced no evidence that the per-unit price for Subpart B configurations has declined, and if anything, we are informed that the dealer price has increased in the case of vinyl.[8] 

We respectfully ask that the Judges consider these flaws in the Majors’ positions and give them their due weight. 

            D.  The Elusive MOU:  The Majors tell the Judges that: 

The MOU entered into contemporaneously with the Settlement is irrelevant to the Judges’ consideration of the Settlement, and does not call into question the reasonableness of the Settlement.[9]

            Respectfully, if the MOU is “irrelevant” to the settlement, why did they bring it up at all?  Recall that we previously asked the Judges to question whether the MOU was additional consideration for extending the frozen mechanical rates.  While others may have, we did not concern ourselves with whether the MOU was a “sweetheart deal” as we knew nothing about it.  Rather our issue was whether the MOU was a quid pro quo of additional consideration for the frozen rates that was enjoyed by a limited group of participants in the settlement but was not enjoyed by strangers to the deal who were still subject to the frozen rate.  Indeed, it appears that this is exactly the case.  While we appreciate that the Majors have now disclosed the MOU as part of their Reply, nothing in the Majors’ comment ameliorates this fundamental concern.

            A significant reason why the concern still exists is language in the now-disclosed MOU that certainly has the ring of a quid pro quo directly related to extending the frozen Subpart B rates in Phonorecords IV:

This MOU4 is a separate, conditional agreement [the quid] that shall not go into effect until [the quo] NMPA, SME, WMG’s affiliate Warner Music Group Corp., and UMG submit a motion to adopt a proposed settlement of the Phonorecords IV Proceeding as to statutory royalty rates and terms for physical phonorecords, permanent downloads, ringtones and music bundles presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. Part 385 Subpart B (the “Subpart B Configurations”), together with (1) certain definitions applicable to Subpart B Configurations presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.2 and (2) late payment fees under Section 115 for Subpart B Configurations presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.3, together with certain definitions applicable to such late payment fees presently addressed in 37 C.F.R. § 385.2, for the rate period covered by the Phonorecords IV Proceeding, which the Parties anticipate happening promptly after this MOU4 has been signed by SME, UMG, WMG, RIAA, NMPA, Sony Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. (the “Initial Signatories”).[10]

            To the contrary, a fair reading of the MOU suggests, and may even require, that the consideration for the MOU is tied directly to extending the frozen rates in the Proposed Settlement.

            Moreover, we can revisit the authority issue raised above given language in the MOU.  Consider the following post-closing condition imposed on the NMPA by the plain terms of the MOU:

It is understood that only the Initial Signatories will sign this MOU4 at the outset, and that NMPA shall use its best efforts to obtain the signatures to this MOU4 by all of the remaining Parties within two (2) weeks thereafter.[11]

            If the NMPA had the authority to bind these many publisher “Parties” to the MOU, why would there be a need to impose such a post-closing condition on the NMPA?  There may be an explanation for this structure, but it is not obvious to us.

            We also find it somewhat unusual that neither the Reply of the Majors nor the now-disclosed MOU reference a dollar figure that is changing hands as far as we can tell.  This could be a lot of cash.  In the 2009 Billboard article cited by the Majors, the MOU that was the subject of that reporting was valued at “up to $264 million.” [12] However “routine” the MOU process is, a $264 million payment in a “pennies business” is not routine.  We would appreciate a further disclosure of the amount at issue in the current MOU.  As they say, it is evidently not a secret.

            Respectfully, it does not appear that one can completely exclude the relevance of the MOU as consideration for extending the freeze on Subpart B royalties at least on the face of the documents provided.  As strangers to the deal do not have the opportunity to subject these assertions to the crucible of cross-examination, we hope the Judges can welcome the reliance on them of those who cannot afford to participate in this proceeding.

II.  Conclusion

            In conclusion, we respectfully ask the Judges to consider the foregoing comments along with the many heartfelt and well-reasoned comments by others in Phonorecords IV.  Unfortunately, as is too often the case in the music business, we think that the sum and substance of the Majors’ argument is that “we are the wealthy and therefore we win.”

            We do not have to remind the Judges that this is the antithesis of our Constitutional system of government.

                                                                         Respectfully submitted.

Christian L. Castle

Gwendolyn Seale

[1] Comments in Further Support of the Settlement of Statutory Royalty Rates and Terms for Subpart B Configurations,  Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (August 10, 2021)(Reply).

[2] Motion to Adopt Settlement of Statutory Royalty Rates and Terms for Subpart B Configurations, Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (May 25, 2021) (Proposed Settlement).

[3] Comment of Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery and Blake Morgan, Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (July 26, 2021) available at https://app.crb.gov/document/download/25533

[4] Comment of Gwendolyn Seale, Docket No. 21–CRB– 0001–PR (2023–2027) (July 26, 2021) available at https://app.crb.gov/document/download/25534

[5] Reply at 5.

[6] Id. (emphasis added).

[7] Id.

[8] See, e.g., Samantha Handler, Copyright Panel Rethinking Song Royalties Streamers Pay, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 12, 2021) (“Royalties from downloads and CDs haven’t increased since 2006, but still make up a significant portion of income for independent songwriters.”) available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/copyright-panel-rethinking-song-royalties-streamers-pay

[9] Reply at 6 (emphasis added).

[10] Reply at 19, MOU-4 at 2 (emphasis added).

[11] Id. at 20, MOU-4 at 3.

[12] Ed Christman, NMPA, Major Labels Sign Terms of Agreement, Billboard (Oct. 7, 2009) available at https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/1264471/nmpa-major-%20labels-sign-on-terms-of-agreement.

by Trichordist Editor