@mboyle1: Amazon Leads Masters of Universe in Push to Nationalize Music Industry

[Editor Charlie sez:  Here’s a shocker…Trump says he won’t sign “The Amazon Bill”!?  Who in the world could have predicted that!]

Amazon is at the forefront of a well-funded, powerful, Silicon Valley-led push to force the federal government to nationalize the music industry, thereby creating a system where the government props up certain companies — such as Amazon — to be beneficiaries of and have control over, while also profiting from, music production….

Sources close to the White House and those in regular contact with President Trump and his closest associates say the president has a serious problem doing anything to help Amazon — especially creating a special government board that would allow the company billionaire Jeff Bezos owns to profit, with government assistance and control, from music royalties.

“The president was irate when he heard about this,” a source close to the president said. “He’s calling it ‘The Amazon Bill.’ There is no chance he will sign that bill that passed the House.”

Read the post on Breitbart News.

@andreakayeshow: More socialism is not the right note for music industry reform

[Editor Charlie sez:  Fasten your chin straps, free marketeers are starting to come out against the Mechanical Licensing Collective part of the Music Modernization Act.]

Rather than foster the growing marketplace addressing this complex issue, the bill imposes a Washington top-down approach that ostensibly benefits crony lobbyists and corporations while short-circuiting creative innovators.  It is a classic example of a backroom swamp deal that robs Peter to pay Paul.  In this case, Peter is the American people, and Paul is the biggest crony actors in the music industry.

Read the post on American Thinker

@SESAC: Fact Sheet on SESAC’s Proposal to Improve the Music Modernization Act

[Editor Charlie sez:  What SESAC says about not endorsing the Mechanical Licensing Collective portion of the bill rings true based on other things we’ve heard.]

There has been a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation this week regarding SESAC. We’re setting the record straight so truthful answers can dispel unfortunate distortions about our position on MMA.

If SESAC thinks it has a better proposal than the MMA – why did it wait nearly 2 years and at the very end of the process to offer it?

This is not a last-minute effort. The legislative process is designed to be open, iterative and deliberative so legislation can be reviewed and improved with input from all stakeholders before it becomes law.

  • We have been an active part of this legislative process all along – supporting the broader AMP Act since it was introduced in July 2015 and the Classics Act since it was introduced in July 2017, which are now part of the Omnibus Music Modernization Act.
  • The single collective idea was introduced in the House on Dec. 21, 2017. SESAC actively stated in meetings as early as last winter that we never endorsed or supported the portion of the Bill that creates a national monopoly to administer online rights, despite continuing pressure to do so. Since then we have had dozens of meetings with Members of Congress and senior staff, and have had hundreds of communications with policy makers and others in an effort to improve the Bill, not derail it.

If SESAC thinks its proposal offers a middle ground, why doesn’t any other music organization support it?

The SESAC proposal is a compromise, accommodating all of the outcomes desired by the Bill’s stakeholders. Not to be confused with the Cruz Amendment, our proposal – clearly outlined below – enhances the Collective, maintains competition, and ultimately drives better royalty distributions to songwriters.

How does SESAC think its proposal can pass Congress when every major digital streaming company – Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify and Pandora opposes it?

We believe our proposal, once clearly understood and evaluated on the facts, will earn the support of the majority, and that outstanding issues can be resolved through the legislative process. We continue to support the goals of the MMA and feel confident it will be enacted into law by the end of the year.

Here’s a summary of what was proposed:

  • SESAC’s proposal for the MMA promotes competition and accountability—that ultimately benefit songwriters, not insiders
  • The proposal authorizes independent Certified Administrators (CAs), chosen fairly based on their track record of delivering results for songwriters, to handle the administration and distribution of royalties
  • An honest, open marketplace – as proposed by SESAC – empowers choice of who can best handle royalty distribution.
  • SESAC’s proposal does not change the provisions that ensure digital giants like Amazon, Google and other DMPs are held accountable, and that royalties and copyrights are handled responsibly.
  • SESAC’s proposal strengthens the Collective by reinforcing it as the sole authority for:
    • filing blanket licenses
    • resolving song disputes
    • establishing and managing a comprehensive, definitive copyright database
    • administering and distributing unmatched (Blackbox) royalties

We respect all songwriters and wholeheartedly support the goals of the MMA. Read The Facts.

Our position on the MMA is that preserving competition will help songwriters. The only change in the compromise SESAC has offered is that the Private Certified Administrators must compete to be hired to process and distribute the royalties based on the database maintained by the Collective. It is our belief that this change ensures healthy free market competition, which will drive better and more accurate royalty distributions to songwriters. Additionally, the proposed amendment will not impact any other aspects of the law, the governance of the Collective, or payments to songwriters in any way. Here are the facts:

  • Songwriters keep all their seats.
  • It does not change the governance or structure of the Collective.
  • Digital music companies continue to pay for the Collective.
  • The Collective remains the administrator of unmatched (or Blackbox) royalties.
  • The Collective remains the single place for filing notices of blanket licenses.
  • The Collective remains the curator of the authoritative database for mechanical licensing.
  • The Collective remains the judge of conflicting claims under blanket licenses.

It is because of our dedication, loyalty and commitment to our songwriters that we stand by this compromise and continue to wholeheartedly support the goals of the Music Modernization Act.

 

@NSAIOfficial: Why Blackstone/HFA/SESAC Proposal Will Kill the Music Modernization Act

From the Nashville Songwriters site:

WHY BLACKSTONE/HFA/SESAC PROPOSAL WILL KILL
MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT

PLEASE HELP AND DO YOUR PART – CONTACT SESAC TO HELP SAVE THE
MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT! (CONTACT INFO BELOW)

The Music Modernization Act (MMA) provides a simple answer to a very complex problem in music licensing. One of the main reasons the streaming companies have agreed to a fair rate standard that will likely result in a royalty hike for songwriters is efficiency; so they won’t have to go to a large number of multiple sources to obtain mechanical licenses.  Instead they will get one blanket license from the new Music Licensing Collective (MLC) run by songwriters and music publishers.

Blackstone’s (parent company for SESAC who purchased The Harry Fox Agency in 2015) proposal would legally require each streaming service to hire another company to issue licenses, collect and distribute royalties IN ADDITION to the MLC.  This added step would be costly to songwriters, who will pay NOTHING to the MLC and collect 100% of their royalties, because we’ve already negotiated with streaming companies to get them to pay the admin costs!

This proposed amendment is an attempt to make sure The Harry Fox Agency keeps their current business by forcing the death of the MMA, or gets more business because their proposal FORCES streaming companies to hire an agency IN ADDITION to the MLC to issue and administrate mechanical licenses.

The Digital Media Association has said they will not support the Blackstone proposal, nor pay for it. Neither will music publishers, record companies, NSAI or anyone else who worked for years to create a bill that Blackstone is trying to kill at the very last minute.

Under the MMA, The Harry Fox Agency will have every opportunity to become a vendor and do business on behalf of the MLC if they prove they can do a good job, thus promoting efficiency and competition.  Instead, they want the government to REQUIRE and guarantee them business.

Blackstone owns both HFA and SESAC.  Concerned songwriters should CONTACT SESAC and ask them to withdraw this proposal and support the Music Modernization Act as drafted.  Call them at (615) 320-0055, email: licensing@sesac.com or tweet @SESAC to express your concern.  Tell Blackstone, SESAC, Harry Fox to work with us so together we can find a mutually agreeable solution and pass the most important songwriter legislation in decades.

[And a Tweet with guidance from the top music lawyer who is the driving force behind the legislation:]

https://mobile.twitter.com/dinalapolt/status/1022573867666104320

The only way I can think of that both Variety’s original statement and the correction could be true would be if there were a voluntary retroactive unmatched payment by the digital services as part of the deal for the Music Modernization Act. Even so, $1.5 billion is awfully generous, even for the biggest companies in commercial history. But then, if it is a voluntary payment, how would you ever know if it isn’t also voluntarily disclosed?

via Billions and Billions: Carl Sagan Meets the Music Modernization Act — Music Technology Policy

Content Creators Coalition & MusicAnswers Applaud the Revision and Passage of the Music Modernization Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee

PRESS RELEASE

[Washington, D.C.] – The Content Creators Coalition and MusicAnswers released today the following statement on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote in support of the Music Modernization Act.

C3 and MusicAnswers applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to advance the Music Modernization Act, while incorporating key changes we had urged to make the legislation stronger, more transparent, and more equitable.

The MMA will strengthen the music ecosystem and all its participants, including songwriters, publishers, performing rights organizations, artists, record companies, music services and fans. It ensures digital music services will pay fair royalties for every song they stream, establish a better standard for determining royalty rates, and eliminate some out-of-date provisions of the PRO consent decrees. In return, digital music services get certainty, legal protection, and new streamlined tools to bring more music to more people at lower cost.

It’s a reasonable bargain, and, therefore, we have consistently and publicly supported the basic construct of the legislation.

We are especially grateful that the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), was willing to engage with our organizations on ways to improve the bill and include in the Managers Amendment approved today key protections for creators and the public.

As a result, the MMA now provides greater transparency, including rigorous audits to make sure that royalties are flowing to the correct parties, a commitment to educating all music creators about their rights and the royalties due them collected under the new Music Licensing Collective (MLC), a requirement to study and follow best practices in order to find the proper owners of unclaimed royalties, and increased clarity regarding who owns the data generated by the new system.

While we support the legislation and are proud of the changes we have achieved as artist and songwriter advocates, we continue to have concerns about three key issues: whether the entity that is designated as the MLC is being foreordained by the bill and precludes competition with the MLC; the composition of the Board of Directors of the MLC, which is unduly tilted towards major publishers; and the methods used to distribute royalties from works where even using best practices the authors could not be identified.  We urge the full Senate and the House to consider further improvements to those flawed provisions and we call on the Copyright Office to ensure in implementation of the final legislation that no stakeholder group can dominate the MLC and that all royalties are distributed in a fair and equitable and non-self-interested manner.

The process leading to this moment has been strong in many ways. But it has also included its fair share of divide-and-conquer tactics and efforts by powerful incumbent forces to crowd out grassroots organizations like ours and to divide the music community within itself.  We believe that we are strongest when we respect and support each other – a lesson too many in our business still have yet to learn.

We are deeply appreciative of the partnership c3 and MusicAnswers have forged. Together, we represent thousands of writers, producers, performers, and music business professionals, and over the past few weeks we have worked steadfastly to pursue improvements in the MMA. We look forward to future collaboration and welcome the involvement of other collaborative groups and individuals.

[Editor Charlie sez: In this post David Lowery goes after the narcissist Senator Ron Wyden who is opposing the House of Representatives unanimous and bipartisan vote for the pre-72 fix in the CLASSICS Act part of the Music Modernization Act. Wyden has long been in the pocket of Big Tech and Google Amazon’s huge crony capitalist data centers sucking down power off the Columbia River hydroelectric with tax breaks and pork. He’s using the anti-democratic secret “hold” system to screw artists and defy his colleagues. We say he gets nothing.]

One of the things the Music Modernization Act (MMA) does is fix what is essentially a typo in copyright law that allows a handful of digital services (Google, Sirius, Pandora etc) to not pay royalties to performers on Pre-1972 recordings. This part of the Music Modernization Act is commonly referred to as “The Classics […]

via Seriously, What is Sen Ron Wyden’s Problem? Cruel, Ignorant or Corrupt? — The Trichordist