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

[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!]

Read the comment by Kerry Muzzey

The launch of iTunes in 2001 began the democratization of music distribution: suddenly independent artists had a way to reach their fans without having to go through the traditional major label gatekeepers. Unfortunately most of those independent artists didn’t have a music business background to inform them about all of the various (and very arcane) royalty types and registrations that were required: and even if they did, Harry Fox didn’t let individual artists register for mechanicals until only recently.

The result? 19 years’ worth of unclaimed royalties by so many independent artists who have no idea how to access them.

We had hoped that the MMA would fix this, but the “black box” of unclaimed royalties is going to be distributed to the major publishers based on market share. We independent artists don’t have “market share” – but we do have sales and streams that are significant enough to make a difference to our own personal economies. A $500 unclaimed royalty check is to an independent musician what a $100,000 unclaimed royalty check is to a major publisher: it matters. Those smaller unclaimed royalty amounts are pocket change or just an inconsequential math error to the majors but they’re the world to an independent writer/publisher. And that aside, these royalties don’t belong to the majors: they belong to the creators whose work generated them.

Please, please, please: you have to make that database publicly accessible and searchable like Soundexchange does. There needs to be a destination where all of us can point our friends and social media followers to, to say “you may have unclaimed royalties here: go search your name.” They can’t remain in the black box and they can’t go to the major publishers. These royalties must remain in escrow and all means necessary should be used to contact the writers and publishers whose royalties are in that black box: absolute transparency is required here, as is a concentrated press push by the MLC to all of the music trades and music blogs (Digital Music News, Hypebot, et al) and social media platforms encouraging independent artists to go to the public-facing database and search their name, their publisher name, their band name, and by song title, for possible unclaimed royalties.

Please: the NMPA can’t be allowed to hijack royalties that do not belong to them. Publishers are fully aware of how complex royalty types and royalty collections are: they and the NMPA must make every effort here to ensure that unclaimed royalties reach their rightful legal and moral recipients.

@NorthMusicGroup’s Excellent Analysis of MLC Metadata Issues

It has been patently obvious from the first discussions of the Mechanical Licensing Collective several years ago that transitioning from a century of song-by-song licensing was going to be a highly costly and highly complex process.  The MLC was sold to songwriters on the idea that there would be no administrative costs to song copyright owners for participation in the MLC.  Why?  Because the services were going to pay for those administrative costs.  Like the world’s songwriters, we take them at their word.

Zero means zero.

Now that it is time to actually implement the MLC, addressing those administrative costs have become front and center.  The Copyright Office has put a number of issues out for public comment for purposes of drafting regulations covering that implementation including what metadata must be delivered to the MLC.  Those regulations are a significant inflection point for driving the industry toward metadata standards that start in the recording studio and end at the distribution point.

If we fail to seize this opportunity, it is not a very big leap to see a true morass at the MLC.  But before we deal with the prospective solution, the Copyright Office needs to address the retrospective problem.  Remember, the MLC is charged by the U.S. Congress with the task of licensing all songs in copyright that have ever been written or that ever may be written and is exploited under the blanket license.  The first clause of that disjunct is every song in copyright that has ever been written–in any language–and that’s a lot of songs.  And even more metadata.

The MLC “global rights database” is an empty vessel that must be filled and how that vessel is filled–and the cost of filling it–must be addressed now.  It is hard to believe that an organization that in the last nine months has failed to launch a website beyond what anyone could throw up with a Squarespace account is going to hit their January 1, 2021 deadline (the “License Availability Date”).

In addition to public comments, the Copyright Office is arranging for calls with interested parties provided that the party initiating the call document the discussion in a letter that is posted on the Copyright Office website.  You can read the letters here–if you know what to look for.  These calls tend to focus on some of the more bread and butter issues that one would have thought would have been resolved before any entity was designated as the MLC.  This is particularly confusing since the services get the benefit of the MMA safe harbor immediately, but may not be able to account to songwriters for the foreseeable future.  And the blanket license was kind of the point of the whole exercise.  And, of course, the coronavirus is the tailor-made WFH excuse that will mask a thousand failures.

I want to call your attention to an excellent confirming letter by Abby North that hits many of these issues head on.  We’re really glad that she raised these issues with the Copyright Office so that the Office gets the perspective of independent publishers and songwriters who are expecting the MLC to cover the cost of preparing and delivering their metadata.

This passage is particularly illuminating:

Realistically, rightsholders with more than just a few works must have access to batch works registration tools: an excel spreadsheet template must be created and made available, and a method for that spreadsheet to be validated and then imported into the works database must be made available.

For the MLC database to have truly comprehensive, standardized and accurate works data and be compatible with global Collective Management Organizations (CMOs), the MLC must accept CWR as a works registration format. The MLC must also provide or support an affordable tool for creation of CWR files.

Common Works Registration (CWR) is the works registration standard utilized by most collection management organizations around the world.

There are multiple concerns related to the use of Common Works Registration (CWR) by the MLC. The first concern is pricing and availability of CWR software.

CWR is currently available as part of very expensive rights management software used by many mid- sized and large publishers. For rightsholders who do not have the budget or need for such rights management tools, there must be reasonably priced CWR availability to all rightsholders that need to register many musical works.

The second issue relates to whether a publisher IPI will be required by the MLC for a rightsholder to be allowed to submit a CWR file.

Currently, only publishers (as opposed to writers) may receive CWR Submitter IDs and be recognized as submitting parties. To affiliate as a publisher with ASCAP costs $50. To affiliate as a publisher with BMI costs $250. It is not reasonable to require a rightsholder to pay to get a publisher IPI, just so that rightsholder may submit CWR files to register its works.

The CWR specifications indicate a writer may be a CWR submitter. However, according to my research querying many of the world’s largest CMOs, those CMOs do not accept CWR files directly from writers, unless the writer is also a publisher with a CWR Submitter ID.

One reason for this is that the file-naming requirements within the CWR spec require a CWR Submitter ID. Another reason is simply that Writers thus far have not attempted to submit CWR files.

It would be advisable for the MLC to accept works registration files in the CWR data standard, but modify the CWR specified file-naming convention such that a submitter could be a rightsholder with no CWR Submitter ID.

I commend North Music Publishing’s comment to you as Abby North raises may critically important points that I fear will be swept under the rug.

It is important to note that there is a huge difference between ASCAP and BMI charging to affiliate and the costs of complying with the MLC’s registration formalities.  (Realize that MLC registration formality is different than a copyright registration filed with the Copyright Office.)  ASCAP and BMI compete with each other and unlike the MLC neither affiliation is required by the Copyright Act.

Another difference is that ASCAP and BMI are not funded by the music users (or collective licensees) and neither represented to songwriters that the music users would pay the entire cost of administration–including submitting metadata, tax documents, correcting mistaken registrations, and otherwise complying with the MLC’s formalities.  This is particularly mystifying to ex-US songwriters who have quite a different experience with their local collecting societies.

Because if “the services will pay for it” doesn’t include these out of pocket costs taken–there’s that word again–by the Congress by imposing the formality in the Music Modernization Act, then it looks like the only thing that “administration” does cover is the tens of millions of the cost of the MLC’s rather luxurious overhead.  Overhead that looks even more luxurious with each passing day in the time of the virus.

If these issues that Abby North raises do not get fixed, there is really something wrong going on.

 

The US Copyright Office solicited comments from the public about the operations of the Mechanical Licensing Collective.  Those first round of those comments (called “initial comments”) were due in November and the second round of those comments (which are called “reply comments” because they essentially comment on the initial comments) were due December 20.

The Songwriters Guild of America filed initial comments and also filed reply comments.  We’re going to post SGA’s reply comments in three parts and then we’ll post other commenters who we think made really good points (like CISAC and BIEM among others).  Note that SGA’s comment includes a post by Chris Castle, but we are going to link to that post rather than reproduce it as you may have already read it.

All the comments focus on some central themes that seem to be on everyone’s mind which can be boiled down to oversight, oversight and more oversight.  While the DLC controls the MLC’s purse strings, the MLC has been given largely uncontrolled power over songwriters that needs to be checked by the government on behalf of the governed.  SGA’s comment can be boiled down to its motto:  Protect Songwriters.

Reply Comments of the Songwriters Guild of America, Inc.
Re: Notice of Inquiry Issued by the United States Copyright Office Concerning the Orrin
G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act of 2018 Titled “Blanket License
Implementation Regulations”

I. Introduction and Statement of Interest

These Reply Comments are respectfully submitted by the Songwriters Guild of America, Inc. (“SGA”), the longest established and largest music creator advocacy and copyright
administrative organization in the United States run solely by and for songwriters, composers, and their heirs. Its positions are reasoned and formulated solely in the interests of music creators, without financial influence or other undue interference from parties whose interests vary from or are in conflict with those of songwriters, composers, and other authors of creative works.

Established in 1931, SGA has for 88 years successfully operated with a two-word
mission statement: “Protect Songwriters,” and continues to do so throughout the United States and the world.

SGA’s organizational membership stands at approximately 4500 members, and through its affiliations with both Music Creators North America, Inc. (MCNA) (of which it is a founding member) and the International Council of Music Creators (CIAM) (of which MCNA is a key Continental Alliance Member), SGA is part of a global coalition of music creators and heirs numbering in the millions. Of particular relevance to these comments, SGA is also a founding member of the international organization Fair Trade Music, which is the leading US and international advocacy group for the principles of transparency, equitable treatment, and financial sustainability for all songwriters and composers.

These Reply Comments are meant to supplement the initial comments (“Initial Comments”) filed by SGA in its submission dated November 8, 2019 (see Attachment A), the full content of which is hereby repeated and reconfirmed.

The two most important points stressed by SGA in those Initial Comments were as follows:

1. The obvious and overwhelming necessity for inclusion of music creator information in
the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s (“MLC”) musical works database; and,

2. The equally imperative necessity for robust US Copyright Office oversight of the MLC’s
carrying out of its statutory duties, commitments and activities, especially regarding the
identification of unmatched works and royalties.

It was originally anticipated that SGA’s Reply Comments would focus chiefly on the recommendations submitted by other individuals and organizations as part of the initial round of inquiry. Intervening events concerning the activities of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) since SGA’s initial submission, however, have caused SGA to recalibrate its focus. Due to the importance of conveying to the US Copyright Office (“USCO”) and the Librarian of Congress some of the very concerning information that has come to light over the past several weeks, SGA believes its Reply Comments must now of necessity deal principally and forthrightly with those issues rather than with the critiquing of submissions filed by its colleagues.

II. Additional, Recent Developments Illustrating the Necessity for Close Scrutiny and Oversight of the MLC by the USCO and the Library of Congress

A. The Resignation of Recording Artist/Songwriter/Music Creator Activist David Lowery from the MLC, and the Process of Replacing Music Creator Members on the MLC Board and Committees Prior to its designation by the USCO and the Librarian of Congress as the organization that would serve as the MLC, the entity established principally by the major music publishing conglomerates and known as the NMPA/MLC conducted an extensive campaign aimed at gaining industry support for its MLC candidacy.

As part of that campaign, it and its affiliated music creator and publisher organizations frequently raised the participation of recording artist/songwriter/music creator activist David Lowery on the Unclaimed Royalties Oversight Committee (“URO Committee”) as potentially the most compelling proof of the entity’s commitment to ensuring that the voice of the independent music creator would always be heard.

Throughout his career, Mr. Lowery has been an outspoken advocate for the rights and interests of musical artists and creators. His mere presence within the NMPA/MLC’s proposed Committee structure legitimized for many the group’s candidacy among independent songwriter and composer groups. Those organizations might otherwise have objected more strenuously to an entity controlled in large part by the multi-national music publishing conglomerates being designated to serve as the MLC.

On July 5, 2019, the NMPA/MLC was indeed selected as the official MLC, and Mr. Lowery was simultaneously approved to serve on its URO Committee. Within a few short weeks after that announcement, however, Mr. Lowery resigned from the URO Committee and disassociated himself from the MLC with the statement that he “lacked the bandwidth” to carry out the watchdog role he had hoped to fill. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Lowery began to publish commentaries highly critical of certain decisions and activities being carried out by the MLC (and highly revealing of his apparent reasons for resigning), the gravity of which issues will be discussed further, below.

Mr. Lowery’s sudden and unexpected departure from the MLC and the URO Committee,
however, has raised even more immediate concerns within the independent music creator community, not only as to the reasons why he might have resigned, but also over the process by which he will be replaced. It is the position of SGA that a system which would allow the MLC board of directors (consisting of ten music publisher representatives and just four music creators) to select and/or approve replacement directors and committee members on behalf of the creative community, without meaningful input from creators or approval by the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights, is an absurdity. Such an unbalanced, unchecked process would virtually guarantee the removal of what little influence actual music creators have over future MLC activities and decision-making—a result wholly inconsistent with Congressional and Executive intent (especially as regards the crucial work of the URO Committee).

As SGA pointed out in its comments to the US Copyright Office dated April 22, 2019 concerning the original designation of the MLC (see Attachment B):
With the knowledge that ‘permanently’ unmatched royalties will eventually be
distributed on a market share basis to them, [the] largest music publishers will almost certainly do all they can to influence, hamstring and obscure the search process…. It will take highly experienced, non-conflicted and strongly independent-minded board members of the Mechanical [Licensing] Collective to resist this pressure, and to act in ways that fulfill their duties up to the mandated standards of fairness, transparency and accountability set forth in the Act.

The necessity for those characteristics in board members is amplified by the fact that the Mechanical Collective board may even override the recommendations of its own, statutorily established Unclaimed Royalties Oversight Committee if it sees fit to do so. It thus falls to the Register of Copyrights to serve as investigator, analyst and arbiter concerning this crucial, threshold issue of appropriate board and committee member selection as part of its evaluation of the competing candidates for designation as Mechanical Collective.

In honing in on its concerns regarding that specialized duty of the Register, members of Congress took the opportunity in both the Senate and House Reports to elaborate on their expectations regarding the qualifications of board and committee members proposed for service by any Mechanical Collective candidate, and the obligation of the Copyright Office under the direction of the Register to use its own, appropriate judgement in independently evaluating and verifying the credentials of those directors and committee members proposed. That Congressional posture was undoubtedly taken to ensure that all board and committee members of the Mechanical Collective possess the proper background and abilities to execute their duties to protect the rights of creators and other interested parties without conflict, pursuant to the terms of the Act.

Specifically, the applicable section of the Senate Report reads:

The Board of Directors of the new collective is required to be composed of individuals matching specific criteria. The detailed requirements concerning the overall framework of the Board of Directors of the collective and its three committees, the criteria used to select individuals to serve on them, and the advance publication of their names and affiliations all highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate individuals. Service on the Board or its committees is not a reward for past actions, but is instead a serious responsibility that must not be underestimated. With the advance notification requirement, the Register is expected to allow the public to submit comments on whether the individuals and their affiliations meet the criteria specified in the legislation; make some effort of its own as it deems appropriate to verify that the individuals and their affiliations actually meet the criteria specified in the legislation; and allow the public to submit comments on whether they support such individuals being appointed for these positions. It has been agreed to by all parties that songwriters should be responsible for identifying and choosing representatives that faithfully reflect the entire songwriting community on the Board.” (emphasis added) S. Rept. 115-339 at 4-5.

The otherwise identical section of the House Report concludes on the following note:

During the entire discussion of the legislation, it has been agreed to by all parties that songwriters should be responsible for identifying and choosing the songwriter representatives on the Board. The Committee strongly agrees with such an approach. (emphasis added) H. Rept 115-651 at 5.

Further, it seems of particular importance that the Executive Branch also regards the careful, post-designation oversight of the Mechanical Collective board and committee members by the Librarian of Congress and the Register as a crucial prerequisite to ensuring that conflicts of interest and bias among such members not poison the ability of the Collective to fulfill its statutory obligations for fairness, transparency and accountability. The Presidential Signing Statement, in fact, asserts unequivocally that ‘I expect that the Register of Copyrights will work with the collective, once it has been designated, to ensure that the Librarian retains the ultimate authority, as required by the Constitution, to appoint and remove all directors.’(emphasis added)

Pursuant to such clear guidance from both Congress and the White House concerning the selection and replacement of music creator board and committee members, SGA urges the adoption by the USCO of regulations mandating inclusion in the MLC by-laws of a process that includes meaningful music creator participation in the selection process without music publisher interference, with further review and approval by the USCO and the Librarian of Congress of all music creator candidates for MLC board and committee service. To do otherwise would be akin to empowering the wolves to select the watchdogs that purportedly guard the sheep. And that is a result that is not only emphatically in conflict with Congressional intent, but one that is also guaranteed to produce exactly the opposite, long-term results Congress and the Executive Branchwere seeking by passage of the Music Modernization Act (“MMA”): remunerative fairness and justice for creators consistent with the principles set down in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

To be continued in Part 2.

via @SGAWrites Suggestions to @CopyrightOffice on MLC Operations Part 1 — The Trichordist

@davidclowery: National Security Arrest Puts Scrutiny on MLC Vendor ConsenSys and Contract Award Process

A friend that has long been involved in the technology startup world refers to any and all cryptocurrencies as “LaunderCoin.”  The point being that some significant portion of cryptocurrency activity is simply money laundering.   So it was no surprise when I saw the headline above come across my newsfeed.  Yawn.

A few paragraphs in though I nearly spit out my coffee.  This isn’t any old cryptocurrency expert this is the Ethereum Foundation’s “research scientist” Virgil Griffith.   Griffith is a well-known internet radical. The NY Times called once called him a “cult hacker.”  “Internet zealot” might be a better description.

From the press release accompanying the complaint:

“As alleged, Virgil Griffith provided highly technical information to North Korea, knowing that this information could be used to help North Korea launder money and evade sanctions.  In allegedly doing so, Griffith jeopardized the sanctions that both Congress and the president have enacted to place maximum pressure on North Korea’s dangerous regime.”

Assistant Attorney General John Demers said:  “Despite receiving warnings not to go, Griffith allegedly traveled to one of the United States’ foremost adversaries, North Korea, where he taught his audience how to use blockchain technology to evade sanctions.  By this complaint, we begin the process of seeking justice for such conduct.

 

So what does this have to do with the new Music Licensing Collective?  Well one of the two digital vendors announced by the MLC is ConsenSys.  ConsenSys is headed by Joseph Lublin who is the co-founder of Ethereum and COO of Ethereum Foundation.

Read the post on The Trichordist

@davidclowery: MLC Selects as “Digital Services Provider” the Company that Sent Fraudulent License Notices to Songwriters

The picture above shows dozens of backdated “NOIs” for compulsory mechanical licenses sent to me by HFA in 2016.  By purporting to be valid NOIs for licenses when they were not, HFA committed mail fraud. 

Music Row is reporting the music licensing collective board of directors has selected HFA as a digital service provider:

Technology company ConsenSys and mechanical licensing administrator Harry Fox Agency(HFA) received unanimous approval from the MLC Board to become the primary vendors responsible for managing the matching of digital uses to musical works, distributing mechanical royalties, and onboarding songwriters, composers, lyricists, and music publishers and their catalogs to the database.

The problem is that HFA was the 3rd party licensing contractor hired by Spotify and other streaming services to obtain licenses from songwriters and publishers.  HFA did not properly do their job leaving streaming services exposed to massive copyright infringement lawsuits (from people like me).  They created the problem that led to the creation of the Music Licensing Collective so now they are rewarded with the contract to run the matching of musical works and paying artists?!?!

Read the post on The Trichordist