The @ArtistRights Watch Podcast: Episode 1: The Frozen Mechanicals Crisis with Guest @CrispinHunt

Nik Patel, David Lowery, and Chris Castle feature in this podcast where they discuss the current issues of artists’ rights in the music industry. Find the Artist Rights Watch on your favorite podcast platform here https://linktr.ee/artistrightswatchpod Please subscribe, rate and share!

On the first episode of the Artist Rights Watch, Nik Patel, David Lowery, and Chris Castle sit down with Ivors Academy Chair, Crispin Hunt to talk about the frozen mechanical royalties crisis currently playing out in the United States and how it threatens UK songwriters and indeed songwriters around the world.

Crispin gives us his invaluable analysis of how the frozen mechanicals crisis affects songwriters around the world and the highly effective #brokenrecord and #fixstreaming campaigns that Ivors Academy supports in the UK that has lead to a parliamentary inquiry and legislation introduced in the UK Parliament.

The “frozen mechanicals” crisis is rooted in a private deal between big publishers and their big label affiliates to essentially continue the freeze on the already-frozen U.S. mechanical royalty rate paid by the record companies for CDs, vinyl and permanent downloads. The private deal freezes the rate for another five years but does not even account for inflation. Increasing the royalty rate for inflation, does not actually increase songwriter buying power.

The major publishers and labels have asked the Copyright Royalty Board in the US to make their private deal the law and apply that frozen rate to everyone.

In the past, the music industry has experienced a $0.02 mechanical royalty rate that lasted for 70 years, and with the current mechanical royalty rate of $0.091 being set in 2006, advocates hope it’s not a repeat of the past.

In this Artist Rights Watch episode, we cover its numerous implications and consequences such as controlled compositions clauses, the Copyright Royalty Board, CPI and fixed increases, how the UK compares, and potential resolutions.

Below are some links for further reading on frozen mechanicals and Crispin Hunt:

Take the Artist Rights Watch Survey on Mechanical Royalties

Controlled Compositions Clauses and Frozen Mechanicals. Chris Castle

Controlled Compositions Clauses and Frozen Mechanicals

What Would @TaylorSwift13 and Eddie @cue Do? One Solution to the Frozen Mechanical Problem. Chris Castle

What Would @TaylorSwift13 and Eddie @cue Do? One solution to the frozen mechanical problem

The Trichordist posts on frozen mechanicals

https://thetrichordist.com/category/frozen-mechanicals/

The Ivors Academy Joins the No Frozen Mechanicals Campaign

https://thetrichordist.com/2021/06/07/the-ivors-academy-joins-the-no-frozen-mechanicals-campaign/

Year-End 2020 RIAA Revenue Statistics

Crispin Hunt

Below are our social links and terms of use:

Chris: http://www.christiancastle.com/chris-castle

David: https://twitter.com/davidclowery?s=20

https://www.instagram.com/davidclowery/

Nik: https://www.instagram.com/nikpatelmusic/

Website: https://artistrightswatch.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/artistrightswatch
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ArtistRights?s=20

Terms of Use: https://artistrightswatchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/arw-podcast-terms-of-use-v-1-i-1.pdf

Update: Copyright Royalty Board Calls for Public Comments on the Frozen Mechanicals Private Settlement–MusicTechPolicy

By Chris Castle

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

If you’ve followed the frozen mechanicals debate, you’ll know that one of the asks from commenters was that the Copyright Royalty Board not restrictively parse who could and could not comment on the private party settlement that the settling parties asked the CRB to impose on the world.

In case you’re not someone who reviews the Federal Register or the CRB docket on the Friday before a national holiday long weekend, I’m pleased to let you know that the CRB has published for comment just the draft regulations that private party settlement proposed (with a couple of ministerial changes by the CRB).

Comments are due no later than July 26, 2021. Comments need to reference docket number 21-CRB-0001-PR (2023-2027) and can be submitted online through eCRB at https://app.crb.gov according to the Federal Register notice filed by the CRB–if you have registered with the CRB and been approved for an account.

Of course, if you just click on that link provided in the Federal Register notice, the link just takes you to the landing page for the electronic document system at the CRB. There’s no obvious way to know what you had to do in order to file a public comment. I’m sure this oversight is not designed to confuse you, but just another example of the rarefied air they breath at the CRB. If you are used to using Regulations.gov to comment on regulatory agencies like the CRB, you will find this process a bit more complicated and bureaucratic.

As far as I can tell, you register at this link: https://app.crb.gov/register/index and complete the required fields only. They might have told you that in the Federal Register, but you know, busy people. I emphasize the required fields because when you first look at it you may think that only lawyers can register because the CRB asks for your bar number which you probably don’t have. I don’t know why they do this unless they think that lawyers will be the most frequent users, but don’t be put off. You don’t have to be a lawyer to comment and you only have to provide the required fields and get your email address confirmed in order to start the account registration process.

Eventually your account will be activated allowing you to “File a Document”. Naturally, all the days that you have to wait for CRB to activate your account will count against the 30 day comment period and apparently all calendar days will be counted against your 30 days including the days that CRB are closed like the upcoming national holiday on July 5.

So the punchline there is that if you are planning on filing a comment or think that you might be interested, register for an account right away and do not leave your ability to be heard to the tender mercies of the government’s technical support staff.

It is also worth noting that the CRB clearly states that once adopted by the CRB, the private party settlement will apply to everyone:

If the Judges adopt rates and terms reached pursuant to a negotiated settlement, those rates and terms are binding on all copyright owners of musical works and those using the musical works in the activities described in the proposed regulations.

So they are telling you very clearly that the private party settlement and frozen mechanicals will be the law of the land if the CRB says so. Even though the CRB is all powerful when it comes to your rates, it is important to comment so that there is a full record for appeals.

It is one thing for the CRB to adopt a private party settlement that applies to every songwriter in the world when they reasonably believe that the settlement represents the consensus view.

It’s quite another thing for them to adopt that settlement when they have clear evidence that it does not. And unlike other government regulatory agencies, the way this game is played is that the CRB doesn’t have to have a consultation with anybody, they don’t hold round tables, they don’t do any inquiry. The only people they really have to listen to are the people who can afford to get in front of them which is a very, very expensive process.

These people are referred to by the CRB as the “Participants” and focus on this sentence in the Federal Register notice:

The Judges may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants not party to the agreement if any participant objects and the Judges conclude that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.

The emphasis on “participants” is in the original–meaning the Judges of the CRB want to make sure you understand that an objection by a mere member of the public is not enough for them to reject a private party settlement under their rules. So any participant in the proceeding who objected in the proceeding should probably also object in the comments just to be sure that they don’t get game-ified.

So what to comment on? Most obviously the frozen rates and that’s a common sense thing given all the reporting on the vinyl boom that entirely undercuts the idea that physical is unimportant (of course Big Tech would like everyone to believe that vinyl is unimportant so they have a carotid crushing stranglehold on songwriters).

But you may also want to ask the CRB to require that the settlement document and the side deal referenced in the proposed settlement also be disclosed so that everyone knows what the consideration is for freezing the rates.

Plus as many commenters astutely raise, how can you approximate a free market rate using a “willing buyer/willing seller” standard when the willing buyer and willing seller are essentially the same entity? This is particularly true when songwriters have publishing deals and have essentially given up their “willing seller” status. Like so many other sloppy drafting glitches in Title I of the Music Modernization Act, this one should have been obvious from the beginning. And maybe it was.

Public comments are a way to get actual market conditions in front of the CRB because there was absolutely none submitted as part of this proposed private party settlement.

More to come on this, but the clock is ticking for any commenters. And if this entire CRB process seems overly complex and bureaucratic compared to even the Copyright Office rulemakings, it does raise the obvious and separate question about why it’s done this way in the first place and why there isn’t an independent advocate for independents.

Copyright Office Regulates @MLC_US: Selected Public Comments on MLC Transparency: @MusicReportsInc

[Editor Charlie sez: The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing many different ways to regulate The MLC, which is the government approved mechanical licensing collective under MMA authorized to collect and pay out “all streaming mechanicals for every song ever written or that ever may be written by any songwriter in the world that is exploited in the United States under the blanket license.”  The Copyright Office is submitting these regulations to the public to comment on.  The way it works is that the Copyright Office publishes a notice on the copyright.gov website that describes the rule they propose making and then they ask for public comments on that proposed rule.  They then redraft that proposed rule into a final rule and tell you if they took your comments into account. They do read them all!

The Copyright Office has a boatload of new rules to make in order to regulate The MLC.  (That’s not a typo by the way, the MLC styles itself as The MLC.)  The comments are starting to be posted by the Copyright Office on the Regulations.gov website.  “Comments” in this world are just your suggestions to the Copyright Office about how to make the rule better.  We’re going to post a selection of the more interesting comments.

There is still an opportunity to comment on how the Copyright Office is to regulate The MLC’s handling of the “black box” or the “unclaimed” revenue.  You can read about it here and also the description of the Copyright Office Unclaimed Royalties Study here.  It’s a great thing that the Copyright Office is doing about the black box, but they need your participation!

This comment from Music Reports gives some interesting insights into how The MLC is favoring the NMPA’s formerly wholly-owned Harry Fox Agency (HFA) which has been on the wrong side of most of the licensing debacles.  Chris posted some analysis on MediaNet’s comment and criticisms of the HFA-The MLC contract as well as its rather odd timeline as revealed at The Copyright Office roundtables on the next cluster jam, the unclaimed royalties.  At least that has the entertainment value of watching them steal in plain site with the Copyright Office drinking game of who will make the excuses for them this time like we don’t notice.  We’re not big MRI fans (or MediaNet fans for that matter), but when they’re right, they’re right.

The sad truth is that this entire MLC exercise has become about the rich getting richer from a data land grab for independent songwriters and publishers who have been duped into thinking it’s all for their benefit.  It was all so predictable, but nobody listened.  This is what they wanted, and now they’ve got it.  How about a rule that says if you had your fingerprints on any part of the debacle of the last 20 years, you are immediately disqualified?  Bye bye HFA, NMPA, MRI, MediaNet.  Unfortunately that is not and never will be the rule because these are the same people who make the rules and are the same people who gave songwriters frozen mechanicals from 1909-1978 and are still freezing the 9.1¢ statutory royalty for fourteen years.

MRI could have done with some editing, but stick with it, they make a lot of sense.]

Read Music Reports entire comment here.

Music Reports generally agrees with, endorses, and echoes the views of MediaNet as stated in the response to the NOI it filed today. 

Music Reports also takes note of the MLC’s selection of HFA as a major provider of the capabilities required for its core operations. While the MLC is narrowly limited by the MMA to the principal purpose of administering the blanket license for Section 115-compliant audio-only streaming music services in the United States, and specifically prohibited from storing data about or administering public performance licenses, HFA/SESAC is not so constrained. 

On the contrary, HFA/SESAC is free, as a non-regulated, for profit commercial music rights administration service, to administer any type of mechanical licenses. Moreover, SESAC, administers performance rights on a for-profit basis in competition with other PROs. Being hired by the MLC does not change the fact that HFA/SESAC is in competition with other commercial music rights administration services that are not the beneficiaries of a long term, highly-paid contract with the MLC. This is fair enough, so far is it goes. 

But as noted above, the boundaries between HFA/SESAC’s database and that which the MLC must build and make publicly available are completely unknown [want to bet that’s because they don’t exist?], as is the timeframe during which the former will substitute for the latter, and whether a proprietary MLC database built independently of HFA’s data will ever be the basis on which the MLC renders royalty distributions.

What is known, however, is that the MLC will enjoy publicity generated by its own statutory mandates (subsidized by the DLC), by the DLC itself, and by the Office, all of whom are authorized and required to devote budgetary allocations to direct publishers’ attention to registering their rights data with the MLC (the database of which is, for the foreseeable future, that of HFA/SESAC). Notwithstanding that the primary purpose of these provisions may be to publicize the existence of the database and of available unclaimed royalties, the consequence will be the direction of resources toward the focus of copyright owners’ attention on just one of several important, pre-existing music rights registries. This is in effect a set of reinforcing government subsidies of which one private enterprise, in competition with other marketplace actors, is the beneficiary. 

To the extent HFA/SESAC directly benefits unfairly from a privileged place in the data ecosystem by virtue of this arrangement, the goal of the MMA to create a healthier music rights administration ecosystem will be perversely harmed by the creation of an uneven playing field that penalizes the investments in data made by other services. To be sure, other commercial services are free to compete with HFA to offer services to the MLC and others in the marketplace. But over time, a privileged place in the market’s information flow may distort competition to the determent of copyright owners and their administrators, DMPs, and the public. 

Luckily, the Office can prevent this result quite simply by requiring that the MLC provide access to its public database on a competition-neutral basis. 

As was noted above, there is an important temporal aspect to the management of music rights data. In order for two administrators to efficiently interoperate, they must be able to have a more or less shared contemporary view of the data about the works they are administering, even if they don’t always agree on every detail. 

Therefore, the specific prescription called for here is a combination of the points made in the previous sections above: (a) the Office should use its authority under the MMA to adopt such regulations as it deems necessary to clarify that the public database which the MLC must establish and maintain will be identical to or at least contain the same data as the database on which the MLC will distribute royalties; (b) the MLC should make its public database available contemporaneously with the commencement of its royalty distribution efforts; and (c) the MLC must offer eligible parties bulk, machine-readable access to such data “on a basis that is both comprehensive and as frequent as necessary to efficiently manage the licensing and royalty distribution activities of the mechanical licensing collective itself, and not less than daily access to changed information within a day of any change to such information.” 

Why So Secretive? Copyright Office’s Public Consultation on Setting Rules for MLC’s Operation: Future of Music Coalition

From the editors at The Trichordist

[The Copyright Office is bravely trying to regulate The MLC to keep the MMA from becoming a feeding frenzy for the data lords.  As Chris Castle said in his comment on what should be stamped “Confidential” and kept away from songwriters: “The premise of confidential information under Title I is that there is in rock and roll certain information deserving of government-mandated secrecy.”  Or as Otis said, too hot to handle.  Keep that in mind–when they say “confidential information” they mean information they can keep away from you.

We are going to excerpt some of the good comments that support independents in the other Copyright Office “rulemaking” consultation that just closed devoted to confidential treatment of data by The MLC and the DLC.  You can read them all here.]

The Future of Music Coalition made some great points in their filing, read the whole thing here.

Restrictions on use by MLC and DLC Vendors and Consultants FMC shares concerns expressed by other commenters about the possibility of vendors using confidential data for competitive advantage or purposes beyond what the MLC was created to do. There should be no provision for HFA to use confidential data for “general use”, even on an opt-in basis. The risk of anti-competitive harm is too great.

Copyright Office Regulates the MLC: Selected Public Comments on MLC Transparency: @zoecello

[Editor Charlie sez: The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing many different ways to regulate The MLC, which is the government approved mechanical licensing collective under MMA authorized to collect and pay out “all streaming mechanicals for every song ever written or that ever may be written by any songwriter in the world that is exploited in the United States under the blanket license.”  The Copyright Office is submitting these regulations to the public to comment on.  The way it works is that the Copyright Office publishes a notice on the copyright.gov website that describes the rule they propose making and then they ask for public comments on that proposed rule.  They then redraft that proposed rule into a final rule and tell you if they took your comments into account. They do read them all!

The Copyright Office has a boatload of new rules to make in order to regulate The MLC.  (That’s not a typo by the way, the MLC styles itself as The MLC.)  The comments are starting to be posted by the Copyright Office on the Regulations.gov website.  “Comments” in this world are just your suggestions to the Copyright Office about how to make the rule better.  We’re going to post a selection of the more interesting comments.

There is still an opportunity to comment on how the Copyright Office is to regulate The MLC’s handling of the “black box” or the “unclaimed” revenue.  You can read about it here and also the description of the Copyright Office Unclaimed Royalties Study here.  It’s a great thing that the Copyright Office is doing about the black box, but they need your participation!]

Comment by Zoë Keating:

Some version of the usage data that the DSPs report to the MLC should be easily accessible to the public so that songwriters do not need to hire a legal team in order to independently verify if their statements from the MLC are correct. Major publishers can and will continue to get usage reports directly from music services. Self-published songwriters must rely on the MLC to collect and administer royalties on their behalf. Given that the major publishers of the NMPA are directing the design of the MLC, transparency of the reported data from DSPs will help eliminate any conflicts of interest.

Related to this, given the past occurrence of and future likelihood of metadata reporting errors*, usage data for compositions that are unmatched to any owner should be publicly searchable. Songwriters and other entities should be able to search for likely misspellings and errors, thereby offering crowd-sourced assistance to the persistent problem of unmatched royalties. (*Anecdotally I have heard of metadata errors preventing the collection of mechanicals and it happened to me. The mechanical royalties for my songs went unclaimed for 10 years until 2019 until I was able to raise an employee of HFA via twitter who then “found” $5000 that had been unmatched due to an unspecified metadata error.)