Content Creators Coalition (c3) Warns Congress About Artist And Songwriter Opposition To “Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act”

PRESS RELEASE 

September 22nd, 2017

Content Creators Coalition (c3) Warns Congress About Artist And Songwriter Opposition To “Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act”

Washington, D.C. – The Content Creators Coalition (c3) today sent the following letter to the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee warning that consideration of H.R. 3350, the so called “Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act,” would spark a backlash in the artist community and could derail the Committee’s work to create a consensus copyright reform legislation:

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:

As an artist and songwriter-run advocacy organization, we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3350, the “Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act.”  Recognizing the importance of this issue to our constituents, this letter is signed by every member of our Executive Board.

The Content Creators’ Coalition (c3) strongly supports the Committee’s continual efforts to find consensus around broader copyright reform and to ensure that music licensing is more transparent, particularly to third party beneficiaries of recording contracts.  There is little dispute among stakeholders that music licensing, in particular the licensing of musical works, is needlessly opaque.  Publishers and record labels agree on this point, as do songwriters, performers and musicians, as well as music servicers and businesses who use music and musical works.  There is clearly an opportunity for the Committee to find consensus on these issues.

However, H.R. 3350 does not further efforts to reach consensus – instead, it represents a one-sided approach that would fail to simplify music licensing.  We are deeply concerned about the bill’s onerous registration system and financial penalty (forfeiture of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees) for songwriters or publishers who fail to register their works in a new database, created and run by the government.

As a matter of principle, an intellectual property right, like any other property right, should not be subject to forfeiture and the law should help creators understand and protect their rights – not create obstacles courses for them to navigate on pain of losing control over their creative work.  This bill, by contrast, actually incentivizes the appropriation of creators’ work based on technical or other often innocent shortcomings, removing key deterrents that should discourage music services from doing so.

The record keeping mandates in the bill are voluminous and incredibly vague. Terms like “catalog number” are undefined and could mean a number of things. Other requirements are intricate, time consuming and in many cases, appear impossible to satisfy.  How is an artist supposed to register every album on which one of her songs has been recorded, including recordings by other artists they may not even know about?  If these requirements are time consuming and uncertain for successful and well-known songwriters and publishers, they will be impossible for independent songwriters.

Most importantly, the bill also thwarts the Committee’s to create a consensus copyright reform legislation. Both the “Fair Play Fair Pay Act,” creating a terrestrial performance right in the United States, and the “CLASSICS Act,” have support from music creators and digital service providers.  While we respect the long standing and good faith efforts of Chairman Sensenbrenner to address these issues, H.R. 3350 only enjoys the support of businesses that use music and is so lopsided it would be a toxic “poison pill” in any copyright reform legislation effort.

We urge the Committee to reject H.R. 3350 and to press ahead at full speed with more genuine music licensing reform.  Thank you for considering our views.

Melvin Gibbs, President

John McCrea, Vice President

Tommy Manzi, Treasurer

Rosanne Cash

Tift Merritt

Matthew Montfort

Jeffrey Boxer, Executive Director

 

cc: The Honorable Daryl Issa
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Jack Morse: The secret, illicit [piracy] underside of Google Drive

 

[Editor Charlie sez:  From the “Stop Me Before I Infringe Again” Dept….]

Turns out that Google Drive is a whole lot less buttoned up than you may have thought.

The file-sharing service typically associated with spreadsheets and office life has a dirty little secret, and it’s one that our Mountain View overlords may not be so stoked on. Namely, the service is a haven for illegal file-sharing.

The offending goods reportedly include both your standard video files as well as a unique twist on the file sharing MO: Instead of uploading entire movies or shows to Drive itself, people are dropping in scores of unlisted YouTube links.

 

Essentially, the idea is that unlisted links are less likely to be spotted by automated systems crawling for this sort of thing and are therefore less likely to be pulled. Putting a collection of those links in one Drive and sharing it over social media is like passing around a secret phonebook containing the listings for all your favorite pirated content.

Read the post on Mashable

@mhuppe: THE FUTURE OF RADIO: TIME FOR BROADCASTERS TO EMBRACE DIGITAL

Radio’s relationship with the music industry has changed dramatically in a few short years.

In its prime, radio was the dominant medium for music discovery – both new hits and back catalog. Today, radio exists in a sea of options and online alternatives for music enjoyment.

For many people, radio is no longer the primary source for listening to music. Indeed, radio’s most frequent listeners are 20% to 30% less valuable to the music industry (in terms of per capita expenditures) than less frequent listeners.

“RATHER THAN RESIST THE DIGITAL AGE, RADIO MUST EITHER RIDE THE DIGITAL WAVE OR HAVE IT CRASH ON TOP OF THEM.”

We urge radio to adapt to the new digital reality because the global music ecosystem is better off with a vibrant, innovative broadcast radio industry.

But time is running out for broadcasters to change the way they do business.

Read the post on MusicBusinessWorldwide

More on Facebook’s Charm Offensive: @LeonLazaroff: Facebook’s Video Ambitions Spur Talks With Music Industry

[Editor Charlie sez:  More on royalty deadbeat Facebook’s charm offensive, this time from Jim Cramer’s The Street featuring quotes from David Lowery.  And notice–no mention of takers for the hillbilly deal offer.]

For years, Facebook chose not to pay licensing fees to music labels or songwriters despite the site’s billions of hours of uploaded music. The world’s most popular social media platform argued that because the site didn’t make it possible for users to search for a particular song, in the manner of Alphabet Inc.’s (GOOGL) YouTube, it wasn’t using music to drive sales….

Yet as Facebook’s priorities have evolved, so has its view on music. As CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly said of late, Facebook is focused on becoming a hub for premium video content, both from advertisers and users as well as original content for its Watch and other platforms.

As a result, Facebook has begun to negotiate licensing deals with the industry’s three major music labels as well as Merlin BV, which represents hundreds of independent distributors, according to a person familiar with the talks. A deal is likely to take place within months rather than years, the source said. News that Facebook had offered the labels hundreds of millions of dollars so that its users might legally upload music to the site was initially reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, Sept. 5.

“It’s a major win for songwriters in that Facebook is actually admitting they need licenses,” said David Lowery, a lecturer in the music business program at the University of Georgia and frontman for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven. “If you expect to get major brands to spend big money on video advertising that’s professionally produced, you absolutely need licenses. That’s what’s driving this.”

Read the post on The Street

@copyright4u: Can a tweet be protected by copyright? If so, who owns the copyright?

Answer: Yes, a tweet can be protected by copyright.

This is a question that’s been in the news recently, after the text of a shirt worn by Frank Ocean and sold by an online retailer was discovered to have been copied from someone’s tweet without authorization.

Read the post on the Copyright Alliance

@daveweigel: Breaking from tech giants, Democrats consider becoming an antimonopoly party

A messy, public brawl over a Google critic’s ouster from a Washington think tank has exposed a fissure in Democratic Party politics. On one side there’s a young and growing faction advocating new antimonopoly laws, and on the other a rival faction struggling to defend itself.

At issue is a decades-long relationship between Democrats and tech companies, with Democratic presidents signing off on deregulation and candidates embracing money and innovations from firms like Google and Facebook. Now, locked out of power and convinced that same coziness with large corporations cost them the presidency, Democrats are talking themselves into breaking with tech giants and becoming an antimonopoly party.

The argument had a breakthrough last week when it was reported that Barry Lynn, a monopoly critic and longtime scholar at the Google-funded New America Foundation, was leaving and taking his 10-person initiative with him.

Lynn, who has been critical of Google, had praised European regulators for hitting the company with a $2.7 billion antitrust fine. The foundation, which has received more than $21 million from Google, removed Lynn’s comments from its website.

“A lot of people see this as a tipping point,” Lynn said of his departure in an interview. “This is something that’s upset people on both sides of the aisle.”

Read the post on Washington Post

SoundExchange Reaches Out to Help Texas Flood Victims

Press Release

For SoundExchange members based in Houston and throughout the Gulf Coast, SoundExchange wants to make sure you receive your royalties in this time of tragedy.

sound exchange logo

SoundExchange’s Senior Director of Artist and Industry Relations Linda Bloss-Baum sent the Texas Music Office a statement today that reads:

“Our next royalty distribution will be made in late September.  If you currently receive your SoundExchange royalties via physical checks, you can update your account so we can send you your royalties via Direct Deposit. We hope this makes it easier for you to access your royalties at this difficult time. To update your account, please complete our Direct Deposit form.

“We will also need either a voided check OR a bank authorization letter. If you use a bank authorization letter, the bank authorization letter should be on bank letterhead with your account information (routing number and account number). It should indicate the name on the account, and be signed by a bank official.

“We have a dedicated member of our industry relations team standing by to expedite getting our artists and rights holders set up to receive their royalties via direct deposit.  Please send the form and support document to tiarap@soundexchange.com and we will rush to get it processed for you.”