Why do we think OpenAI and Sam Altman have not gotten the memo. We all need to make sure that they do get the memo.
Tag: Mike Huppe
@MikeHuppe: Should Streaming Services Change How Artists Are Paid?
Over the last decade, we’ve seen the size of the music revenue pie grow significantly as the popularity of streaming services has skyrocketed. Today, streaming accounts for 84% of U.S. recorded music revenue. Over 90 million people in the U.S. subscribe to one or more music streaming services for the price of a few cups of coffee a month. And global revenue from music streaming, both paid and ad-supported, is predicted to grow to $90 billion by 2030.
Yet, since the inception of music streaming, a core question remains unanswered: How should these streaming services pay music creators? How do we slice up the revenue pie? It’s a question of fairness with no easy answer.
Pro Rata Model Vs. User-Centric Model
Currently, the primary model for the distribution of digital royalties is the “pro rata model.” Under this approach, all music usage and royalty payments are aggregated across the platform. In other words, listeners’ subscription fees pour into a single pot of money, which is then divided (pro rata) across the billions of streams every month on the service. The percentage that creators are paid is proportional to their number of streams across the overall platform.
As an alternative, some services are starting to experiment with a new “user-centric” or “fan-centric” model whereby a particular person’s subscription dollars are divided up only among the artists to whom they specifically listen. None of your subscription payment goes to artists that you don’t stream. And there are other variations on this individual-focused approach (such as the “ethical pool” or the “creator support” models).
@SoundExchange Payments and Payees Up in 2019
[Editor Charlie sez: Thank you Mike Huppe and the SoundExchange team!]
SoundExchange annual payouts rise 13.1%, or $105.4m, from $802.8m (2018) to $908.2m (2019).
Another interesting stat from SoundExchange: in Q4 2019, the number of payees getting checks from the org stood at 37,035 – up 8.7% on the 34,048 payees receiving money from SoundExchange in Q4 2018.
Those 37,035 payees in the last quarter of 2019 shared $218.8m, while the 34,048 payees from the prior year quarter shared a slightly larger amount, at $345m.
Read the post on Music Business Worldwide
and on Hypebot SoundExchange Annual Payouts Up 13%
@MikeHuppe: Bringing MMA Across the Finish Line
by Michael Huppe, President and CEO, SoundExchange
The Music Modernization Act (MMA) now has the support of 76 Senators. As it nears the finish line, SiriusXM is going door-to-door in the Senate in a last-ditch effort to block the MMA, a bill backed by an historic coalition of thousands of music creators, songwriters, producers, labels, publishers and digital music services—all of whom have been working for years to get Congress to reform music licensing laws.
For longtime advocates, it will come as no surprise that SiriusXM is trying to scuttle the MMA at the last minute. This is, after all, precisely what they did 20+ years ago when Congress first enacted legislation giving performers the right to be compensated when digital services use their music. Back then, Sirius stepped in during the final throes of the legislative process to argue that having to pay for music—their primary product—could “disrupt” their nascent business plans. They argued for a special royalty rate–one that effectively forced artists to subsidize their business and gave them a competitive advantage against other companies. That special treatment has gone on for over two decades ago now. We don’t think such a sweetheart deal was justified back then; but it’s indefensible now.
Once separate companies, SiriusXM is now the sole satellite radio company in the U.S. It generates revenue well over $5 billion annually, the huge majority of which comes from its more than 32 million subscribers. To put that into context, U.S. wholesale revenue for the entire record industry was $5.9 billion in 2017. Yes, a single company, SiriusXM, makes nearly as much from subscribers in the United States as all record labels and artists combined make from all sources.
Make no mistake about it: SiriusXM would not have a business without recorded music. And yet, SiriusXM has profited for decades by getting music at a special market distorting rate set under a different standard than all its thousands of internet radio competitors. Specifically, the rates set for internet radio are established under a “willing-buyer/willing seller” standard – another way of saying artists and labels are supposed to be paid a fair market rate for their recordings. When setting satellite radio rates, by contrast, the government can – and has – set rates lower than fair market value based on four amorphous policy factors. The impact is not academic: the lower rate standard has cost creators billions of dollars over the last 20 years.
Multi-billion dollar companies should not be subsidized by musicians – and all competing streaming platforms should play by the same rules.
Seems obvious right? It is, and that’s one of the reasons the Music Modernization Act passed the House of Representatives unanimously (as in 415-0; think on that for minute) and is on the verge of passage in the Senate.
The music community is united around the MMA because it ensures fair treatment for music creators and a level playing field for digital radio services. It is a win-win, and the compromises SiriusXM has proposed are inconsistent with the principles upon which the bill is centered. We look forward to the Senate moving this bill — and with it all of music — forward.
@mikehuppe: Broadcast Radio Makes an Ironic Plea for Fairness
SoundExchange’s CEO says it’s time radio starts paying all music creators fairly for their work.
On Monday, a group of radio broadcasters penned a letter in support of the National Association of Broadcasters’ (NAB) push for deregulation of the $14 billion radio industry. Their letter was based on the NAB’s petition to the FCC this past June, in which the NAB sought to allow expanded broadcaster ownership of radio stations (i.e., increased consolidation) throughout the country. The NAB’s justification: broadcasters must adjust their business model to the realities of the new streaming world.
As a representative of the many creative parties who help craft music, we are frequently on the opposite side of issues from the NAB. And while I can’t comment on NAB’s specific requests, I was delighted to find so much common ground in their FCC filing in June….
I agree with the NAB that the law should “finally adopt rules reflecting competitive reality in today’s audio marketplace” and should “level the playing field” for all entities in the music economy.
If radio truly wants to modernize, it can start by taking a giant leap into the 21st century and paying all music creators fairly for their work. Stop treating artists like 17th century indentured servants, just so radio can reap bigger profits. If radio wants to have rules that reflect the music industry of today, then that should apply across the board.
We should resolve this gaping unfairness to artists before we begin talking about allowing radio to consolidate even further.
Artist Rights Watch--News for the Artist Rights Advocacy Community 