The United Nations has backtracked on a pact with the Chinese telecommunications giant Tencent Holdings to provide videoconferencing and text services for the international organization’s 75th anniversary, following backlash from U.S. officials and lawmakers as well as human rights groups. Critics claim the arrangement rewards a company that has enabled Beijing’s digital surveillance efforts and stifled free speech on the internet in China.
Late last month, the U.N. sparked a political firestorm when it announced plans to enlist the help of the Chinese social media and video game giant to serve as a platform for an online discussion with millions of netizens around the world on the future of the U.N. in the run-up to its 75th anniversary observance. Over the following weeks, U.S. lawmakers and human rights advocates pressed the U.N. to ditch the deal, saying it would tarnish the international organization’s reputation as a champion of free expression and human rights.
MusicCanada commissioned an outstanding survey by Abacus Data using serious data-driven methodology to credibly measure the Canadian public’s experience with the COVID shut down of live music and expectation for reopening. Instead of glorified “Who’s Hot”-level casual polls you see cropping up here and there, The Locked-Down Blues: Canadians, Live Music and the Pandemic sets the gold standard for the kind of data-driven serious national opinion study that policy makers can actually use to plan how to get out of this corner.
The study measures many different factors, including the more intangible questions of what trust level fans will require before they come back to live music. Regardless of what distancing or contamination standards are imposed, none of that matters much if the fans don’t trust it enough to come out to hear live music in cities like Toronto and Austin.
For example, the study found this reaction:
DESPITE WANTING TO GO, CANADIANS, EVEN THOSE WHO LOVE LIVE MUSIC, SAY THEY WILL BE RELUCTANT TO GO BACK TO LIVE MUSIC EVENTS BEFORE A VACCINE FOR COVID IS FOUND.
Even if they are permitted to go to live music events, many Canadians, including those who love live music the most, will be reluctant to return for some time.
We asked respondents how soon they will feel comfortable enough doing several activities, once physical distancing restrictions are lifted. In almost all cases, fewer than 40% said they would feel comfortable in a few months or less. For most, the time horizon was much longer with many saying they may never feel comfortable again.
For example, 43% said it would take six months or more before they would feel comfortable going to a music festival or a concert in a large venue. Another quarter said they may never feel comfortable going to those types of events again.
I find it hard to believe that there’s going to be an appreciable geographical distinction between Canada and any other country on these issues. But this study provides a gold standard for other studies in other countries, all of which should be done and done using a robust and defendable methodology.
So let’s be clear–this study is giving you the hard truth. It is not some Chamber of Commerce hoorah or conclusion-driven clap trap. It also tells us that the idea that you can just turn the lights back on and people will flock to the clubs may be looking at the wrong ball. It has serious implications for the entire music industry across all genres.
But–it especially has serious implications for cities like Austin. Given that the City of Austin commissioned the Austin Music Census in 2015, another robust data-driven study that produced unwelcome dire conclusions, it is astonishing that the blinking red light in the Census was completely ignored. Not only were Austin musicians poorer than the City seemed to think they were, the entire local ecosystem was essentially dependent on live music. For example, streaming was a negligible source of revenue for Austin musicians–think maybe someone would have wanted to look into that issue as a matter of industrial strategy? And is there anything about the “Live Music Capitol of the World” that gives you a clue that maybe you might want to start thinking about why all the eggs were in that basket? As Mark Twain said, if you’re going put all your eggs in one basket, watch that basket. Or at least don’t ignore it.
Since the City did such a thorough job of ignoring the Census for so long, I wonder if they’re going to be able to figure out how to solve the current crisis. Or if maybe somebody actually would like Austin to turn into just another college town with a Google campus, self-driving cars busily scraping rider data while stacked up on I-35 and Uber Eats Your Soul.
We can be grateful to Music Canada for commissioning this study and getting it out at the perfect time for policy makers to have some meaningful data driven reality conducted in a manner that could stand up to peer review. And show the world the gold standard for how to develop policies that actually solve a problem because you better know what the problem is you want to solve.
Here’s the survey:
Leaders from the cluster of live music venues along Red River Street have asked the city to dedicate $35 million to purchase venue properties in the area, as part of a larger menu of programs and spending to preserve those businesses in the face of prolonged closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
On Tuesday the Red River Cultural District delivered a six-page policy proposal to members of City Council asking for music venues to be considered for possible immediate relief using money from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Other recommendations included streamlined permitting for music venues, completion of long-planned streetscape improvements and improved services for the large homeless population located near the district.
The proposal comes as city staffers are assembling an initial framework for how best to use the $170.8 million the city has available from the CARES Act, which directs recipient governments to use the funds for a combination of emergency response, public health and economic recovery needs.
The Copyright Office announced that it is extending deadlines for certain filings including the compulsory mechanical license:
The Acting Register of Copyrights is extending the temporary adjustments to certain timing provisions under the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 national emergency. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act authorizes the Register to temporarily adjust statutory deadlines for copyright owners and other affected parties if she determines that a national emergency declared by the President is generally disrupting the normal operation of the copyright system. Under this authority, the Copyright Office has announced adjustments relating to certain registration claims, notices of termination, and section 115 notices of intention and statements of account [as required for the compulsory mechanical license for songs].
These emergency modifications originally were set to expire on May 12, 2020. Because, however, the disruptions caused by the national emergency remain in effect, the Acting Register is extending them for up to an additional sixty days, or through July 10, 2020. For further details, please visit the Office’s Coronavirus page.
There are a number of deadlines relating to Title I of the Music Modernization Act (the massive amendment to the compulsory mechanical license that created the blanket compulsory license and the MLC which is now “The MLC”). These deadlines are suspended under the new emergency powers of the Copyright Office. The emergency powers last for the duration of the declared national emergency as do the suspensions of deadlines. When do you think the national emergency will get undeclared? Our bet is that it will last well into at least first quarter of next year because so much stimulus and state economic relief depend on the existence of a declared national emergency.
And what else happens in first quarter of next year? Wanna guess?
The suspension of deadlines could also apply to the launch of “The MLC.” Our bet is that the Copyright Office will not extend the hard wired January 1, 2021 “License Availability Date” (which is the date that the new blanket compulsory license is available to music services) but will extend the deadlines that The MLC is required to send statements and payments to songwriters, publishers and potentially foreign authors societies (like SACEM) who theoretically collect mechanical royalties from The MLC and not under a direct license.
There’s also the potential for new deadlines in the regulations that are currently being drafted that may include disclosures for things like whether The MLC can actually function. Things like that.
It’s unclear if the Copyright Office is also empowered to suspend the payment deadlines from the digital services to The MLC under the “administrative assessment” that involves the payment of $60 million of startup and operating costs or thereabouts. Even if the emergency powers could include those payments, our bet is that those millions and millions and millions will flow just fine in the time of the virus. Songwriters may go hungry, but some payrolls will get paid.
According to the Copyright Office notification:
While the MMA’s most significant change is to establish a new, blanket license for digital music providers (DMPs) to be administered by a mechanical licensing collective (MLC), this blanket license is not yet available. DMPs and other licensees must continue to comply with section 115’s conditions on a song-by-song basis during the current transition period. The emergency relief outlined below is directed at obligations accruing during this transition period and is unrelated to activities of the MLC. [So far.] This relief is also necessarily limited to obligations related to the statutory section 115 license and is unrelated to obligations that stem from direct licensing agreements between private parties….
The Copyright Office has become aware that, as a result of the COVID-19 national emergency, some entities, including at least one DMP and its licensing administrator, may be prevented from serving NOIs and SOAs in a timely manner due to an inability to physically process paper notices and statements resulting from a shutdown of corporate offices….
List of Affected Works and Licenses: Entities making use of this adjustment must track how they use it and must maintain a record of licenses by copyright owner for which they have made use of the adjusted timing provisions. They must also keep a list of the affected musical works. Over time, the Office expects the list of licenses with respect to the number of copyright owners to remain the same, or decrease, as copyright owners opt-into electronic delivery, while the list of affected works may increase as new sound recordings continue to be released.
Hmmm…”at least one DMP and its licensing administrator” eh? Wonder who that is? Why wouldn’t they just say the names? Wouldn’t you need to know that if you wanted to look for this “List of Affected Works and Licenses”? Particularly because maintaining a “List of Affected Works and Licenses” sounds like a potentially tall order if the DMP would happen to be Spotify and “its licensing administrator” would happen to be HFA. Our bet is that HFA is the prime beneficiary of this emergency treatment.
(You may be asking why HFA would be Spotify’s “licensing administrator” because you thought that HFA represented publishers. Well, they do both. This has been a topic of discussion from time to time, particularly in some of the many lawsuits against Spotify for failing to license songs. Don’t worry, there’s no conflict of interest there don’t you know.)
But…when you go to HFA’s website you see this new link at the top of the page above the navigation bar:
We expected that if you clicked on that link it would take you to HFA’s “List of Affected Works and Licenses”. Not so fast. Here’s what you see:
We gather that HFA has no intention of doing the work to post a “List of Affected Works and Licenses” even though posting that list is a key component of the benefit they get from changing the law…sorry…the emergency rules that were announced for their benefit.
Instead, this paragraph says how they’re handling the Copyright Office announcement:
So you’ve been instructed little publishers. That’s all the compliance you’re going to get.
Instead of posting a list, HFA states that they have notified all the affected publishers and have given them instructions on how to set up an online account. This probably means that the publisher was already an HFA publisher but hadn’t set up an online account to receive NOIs. Or if you are not an HFA publisher but are a Spotify publisher who HFA services for Spotify, then it’s possible that you got a notice in your Spotify statement that you needed to set up a new HFA online account in order to receive your statements and NOIs in the future.
You will supposedly still get your HFA paper check, you just won’t get the statement for what it means until you sign up (and maybe give HFA your data if you are not already an HFA publisher).
So according to HFA’s website you already know who you are, and HFA will send you notices electronically once you sign up–even though they have already “temporarily transitioned” you to electronic statements and NOIs that you won’t get until you sign up if you happened to notice that you were “notified.”
Our bet is that your last paper statement from HFA probably had a cover letter or other “notice” that you may not have read or read closely because you weren’t expecting it.
And when the national emergency is over–whenever that may be–HFA will transition you back to paper statements. Particularly if the national emergency ends after the License Availability Date and you get sucked into the compulsory blanket license?
And of course the service’s matching obligations to get their safe harbor under MMA will go forward smoothly and not be affected. (You know, the one they’re being sued for by Eminem’s publishers?)
Easy peasy, right? What could possibly go wrong? That entire process will go smooth as glass, we are so sure. Probably not. We’re about as sure about that as we are that absolutely no one will do anything about HFA’s failure to comply with the emergency regulations after they got the emergency suspension for their benefit announced to every songwriter and publisher in the world. For as King Louis XIV of France said, I am the law and the law is me.
Get it? Got it? Good.
The House’s antitrust chairman is pushing for a moratorium on mergers until the pandemic ends, warning that a “buying spree” by well-heeled companies and investors could wipe outcompetition from smaller players amid the cratering economy.
In an interview with POLITICO, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said he is pushing for the next coronavirus package to ban deals that aren’t directly related to companies about to fail.
His proposal would allow transactions only if a company is already in a bankruptcy or is otherwise about to fail. Any other deals would be on hold at least until the national pandemic declaration is lifted.
[Editor Charlie sez: Follow the money.]
Songwriters, producers and managers are asking why ASCAP isn’t paying them just when they need income the most.
Discontent is said to be brewing among ASCAP writers who are still waiting for their promised April income distribution. The PRO has already made its latest scheduled publisher payment but a letter from CEO Elizabeth Matthews went out to writers saying their money would be delayed. ASCAP’s letter blamed the fact that it works on a “cash basis” rather than an “accrual basis,” meaning payments are based on income received in the same quarter, rather than money stored up from previous quarters. And when closed businesses declined to pay stipulated licensing fees on time (or at all), they were caught with a shortfall.