Business
Page: 100
The Tampa Police Department announced the arrest of three people on Monday (July 29) in connection with deadly shooting of rapper Julio Foolio last month. According to WFLA, three individuals — Sean Gathright, 18, Alicia Andrews, 21, and Isaiah Chance Jr., 21 — were arrested in Jacksonville and charged with premeditated first degree murder and […]
Neil Zlozower, a veteran rock photographer who’s snapped images of Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen, is suing Warner Records over a Facebook post featuring a picture of Tom Petty — the latest of more than 50 lawsuits the litigious photog has filed over the past decade.
In a case filed in Los Angeles federal court, Zlozower accuses Warner of infringing the copyright to his photo, which depicts ’70s-era Petty sitting in front of a record player. His lawyers claim the image was posted in 2020 to the official Facebook page for Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, which Warner allegedly controls.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant has not implemented adequate internal policies to verify copyright ownership before content use, indicating a gross negligence in legal compliance, which is essential for a company with defendant’s reach, capabilities, and level of sophistication,” Zlozower’s lawyer Craig Sanders writes in the July 23 complaint.
Warner’s alleged failure to employ such copyright protections indicates “de facto willful infringement” by the company, the lawsuit claims — a key accusation, since under U.S. copyright law “willful” violations can result in increased damages of up to $150,000 per work.
A spokesman for Warner did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
The case is hardly the first for Zlozower, who has also photographed Prince, Van Halen and countless other bands and artists over a decades-long career. Since 2016, court records show he’s filed a whopping 57 copyright lawsuits against a wide range of defendants in federal courts around the country, demanding monetary damages over the alleged unauthorized use of his photographs.
Many of his cases have targeted media companies, including CBS, Buzzfeed and Vice. But he’s also twice sued Universal Music Group, once over an image of Elvis Costello and another time over a photo of Guns N’ Roses. A different case targeted Ticketmaster, accusing the Live Nation unit of using an image of Ozzy Osbourne guitarist Zakk Wylde. In 2019, Zlozower sued the guitar maker Gibson over claims that the company used a shot of Eddie Van Halen without permission.
Copyright lawsuits over the unauthorized use of photographs on the internet are extremely common, with hundreds filed in the federal courts each year. The photographers and attorneys who bring them say it’s their only real recourse against rampant online theft of their intellectual property, often by sophisticated companies that should know better.
“Photographers who are serious about protecting their copyright have no other choice but to file suit in [court] when an infringer refuses to negotiate,” says David C. Deal, an attorney who represents photographers in such cases. “Photographers are the overwhelming losers in the digital age because they are properly compensated at a fraction of the rate at which their intellectual property is copied and used by others.”
But critics have questioned the tactics of some particularly litigious photographers and their attorneys, suggesting they’re using litigation itself as a business model — namely, by leveraging the threat of huge damages and prohibitive costs of to win as many small “nuisance” settlements as possible.
In 2019, a federal judge sharply criticized David Oppenheimer, a North Carolina photographer who filed more than 170 such lawsuits. As detailed by The Assembly, Judge Martin Reidinger cited Oppenheimer’s big demands and high volume of cases before saying that he “appears to be using the copyright laws as a source of revenue, rather than as redress for legitimate injury.”
A year earlier, a New York federal judge used harsher language about Richard Liebowitz, a Long Island attorney who filed thousands of such photo infringement cases. Judge Denise Cote labeled the lawyer a “copyright troll” — which she defined as someone who aims to win “quick” settlements that are “priced just low enough” that it makes financial sense to simply “pay the troll rather than defend the claim.”
“As evidenced by the astonishing volume of filings coupled with an astonishing rate of voluntary dismissals and quick settlements in Mr. Liebowitz’s cases in this district, it is undisputable that Mr. Liebowitz is a copyright troll,” the judge wrote in her 2018 decision.
In November 2021, Liebowitz was suspended from practicing law in New York over a pattern of misconduct, including “behavior that made a mockery of orderly litigation processes.” Earlier this year, he was disbarred by the state for failing to comply with court orders and making false statements.
According to federal court records, Liebowitz represented Zlozower in the vast majority of his copyright cases until 2021. In 2018, his firm filed nine lawsuits on behalf of the photographer, including one against Spotify over an image of Mötley Crüe on the band’s artist page. In the year 2019 alone, Liebowitz’s firm filed 14 more cases for Zlozower, including one against famed indie record store Amoeba Music.
According to Deal, many photographers face an “impossible position” on the modern internet: Allow for-profit businesses to exploit their works for free, or “insist on being properly compensated” and risk being labeled a “troll” when they take action in court. But even within that context of mass infringement, Deal says, Zlozower’s volume of litigation seems unusually high.
“The idea of one photographer filing an average of 5-6 cases per year strikes me as excessive,” Deal says, saying his own firm will only typically sue in a “very small percentage of cases” after exhausting every other option.
One of Zlozower’s earliest cases was filed against Mötley Crüe itself. Represented by Liebowitz, he accused the band in September 2016 of creating t-shirts and other concert merch for its 2014 “Final Tour” that were emblazoned with photos he had snapped of Nikki Sixx, Tommy Lee and other members during Crüe’s 1980s heyday. But unlike many such defendants, the band actually fought back.
During two years of litigation, attorneys for Mötley Crüe argued that the band had already paid decades earlier for the right to use those images, and that it had “continued to use them without objection ever since.” Crüe also filed its own countersuit, accusing Zlozower of infringing their trademarks and likenesses by using the band’s name and images to sell books and prints: “Zlozower never requested, nor received, consent to sell photographs depicting the likenesses of the band members of Mötley Crüe.”
But in 2020, the case against Crüe ended like many of Zlozower’s have: in a confidential settlement and the voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, without a final ruling on the merits. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed in court filings.
Zlozower and his current attorney, Sanders, did not return requests for comment from Billboard.
In a multi-partner deal, Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group and LL Cool J’s Rock The Bells have formed an alliance with producer and Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA. The goal: to expand and further solidify the music, brand, philosophy and lifestyle of the legendary and influential hip-hop collective.
“As we evolve from ‘Legendary Status’ to ‘Iconic Status,’ it’s only fitting and serendipitous that we join the team at Iconic Artists Group and Rock The Bells,” RZA (real name: Robert Fitzgerald Diggs) said in a statement announcing the alliance. “This partnership will help us continue to expound and expand the Wu-Tang Clan’s legacy.”
In addition to Wu-Tang Clan’s extensive catalog — which includes the multi-platinum albums Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Wu-Tang Forever and The W — the business alliance will encompass film, television, merchandise and brand partnerships such as a recently teased collaboration with Nike. Iconic Artists Group and Rock The Bells are also working with RZA to unify Wu-Tang Clan’s global communities through one unique online portal.
Trending on Billboard
Susan Genco, co-president of The Azoff Company, said in a release, “Wu-Tang Clan’s influence on hip-hop — and the way the world views hip-hop — is undeniable. The partnership with RZA and Iconic is committed to ensuring that the importance of WTC’s music and their message is celebrated now and for generations to come.”
“The Wu-Tang Clan’s brand and music have been cornerstones of hip-hop culture,” LL Cool J said. “Our partnership with Iconic Artists Group will enable us to leverage Rock The Bells’ multi-faceted platform — encompassing radio, e-commerce, licensing, content and live events — to unite and engage fans with this iconic brand. Together, we’ll guarantee that the Wu-Tang Clan’s legacy and timeless hip-hop remain powerful forces for generations to come.”
Prior to its formal announcement, the partnership has yielded several earlier Wu-Tang Clan legacy-expansion projects. The first “Wu-Tang x MLB Night” was held at San Francisco’s Oracle Park when the New York Yankees played against the Giants on June 1. Wu-Tang Clan Day was declared last year (Nov. 9) by New York City Mayor Eric Adams to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the release of the group’s pioneering debut album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). To further mark the occasion, the Empire State Building was lit up in the group’s colors: black and yellow.
RZA also hosts #WuWednesdays on LL Cool J’s SiriusXM channel 43. Launched last November, the weekly show presents new and classic tracks from Wu-Tang Clan’s members as well as exclusive DJ mixes and interviews.
Last December, the group announced its first Las Vegas residency, “Wu-Tang Clan: The Saga Continues …” After four sold-out shows in February and March of this year, the group will return to The Theater at Virgin Hotels Las Vegas for two more shows this fall: Sept. 27 and 28. Click here for ticket information.
“The Wu-Tang Clan is much more than a music group; they’re a cultural phenomenon,” stated Jimmy Edwards, president of Iconic. “We can’t wait to bring our unique strengths together to create something truly unparalleled.”
Alison Donald, Kobalt’s global head of creative, will depart the company at the end of July to pursue other opportunities, it was announced Monday (July 29). Donald joined Kobalt in 2017 to oversee the company’s A&R and creative in the U.K. and Europe for Kobalt Music Publishing and AWAL’s U.K. and Europe creative teams. She […]
Blackstone has officially completed its $1.6-billion acquisition of Hipgnosis Songs Fund (HSF), bringing an end to the six-year-old, London-listed investment trust that amassed a catalog of 65,000 copyrights including songs by Red Hot Chili Peppers, Journey, Shakira and Neil Young.
Following a shareholder vote on July 8 and a court approval on Friday (July 26), the acquisition scheme was delivered to the Guernsey Register on Monday (July 29), according to a regulatory filing. As a result, all HSF shares are now owned by Blackstone and trading was suspended on Monday. HSF shares are expected to be removed from the London Stock Exchange on Tuesday morning (July 30).
With the acquisition effective, Robert Naylor, Cindy Rampersaud, Francis Keeling, Christopher Mills and Simon Holden resigned from the HSF board. Ben Katovsky, CEO of Hipgnosis Song Management (HSM), and Dan Pounder, HSM’s CFO, were appointed to the board.
Trending on Billboard
The deal allows Blackstone to consolidate its interests under the Hipgnosis umbrella. In 2021, Blackstone launched a $1 billion partnership with HSM to acquire and co-manage music catalogs. Under the deal, Blackstone took a stake in HSM, the investment advisor to HSF, and formed Hipgnosis Songs Capital (HSC). HSC acquired rights to the music of some notable stars, including Justin Timberlake and Kenny Chesney in 2022 and Justin Bieber in 2023.
Led by former artist manager Merck Mecuriadis, HSF went public on July 11, 2018, and raised 200 million pounds ($260 million) to begin canvassing the music business in search of high-profile catalogs. Through subsequent offerings in 2019, 2020 and 2021, HSF brought its total capital raised to nearly 1.3 billion pounds ($1.67 billion). In March 2020, HSF became a constituent of the FTSE 250, an index that holds the 101st to 350th largest companies on the London Stock Exchange.
As the music industry soared on the back of streaming growth, the publicly traded HSF ran into turmoil. By 2021, a deflated share price hampered HSF’s ability to raise additional capital to acquire more catalogs. Shareholders were frustrated by a series of missteps and voted against continuation in 2023, which prompted HSF’s board to conduct a strategic review that produced evidence of overstated revenue and earnings. Mercuriadis stepped down as CEO of HSM in February and resigned his position as chairman in July. Blackstone emerged as the highest bidder in April, beating out Concord, which had made a $1.4-billion offer earlier that month.
According to 2023 Year-End data from the Recording Industry Association of America, revenues from vinyl records grew 10% to $1.4 billion, and accounted for 71% of physical format revenues last year. 2023 also marked vinyl’s 17th consecutive year of growth.
As vinyl’s vital place in music’s ecosystem continues, Nashville-based United Record Pressing also celebrates 75 years of pressing vinyl for artists including Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Dolly Parton, Adele and Stevie Wonder and numerous other artists.
“The sustained growth of the vinyl record market has been going for nearly 20 years at this point in the U.S., but particularly cool is how the medium has evolved into the people’s art object, and a creative opportunity for artists to tailor their records to reinforce aesthetics, inspiration, ideas or cultural touchpoints for more curious fans,” Cam Sarrett, United Record Pressing’s head of sales and marketing, tells Billboard in a statement. “Plus, it impactfully benefits artists big and small at the merch table on tour and bolsters community at independent record stores, a vital culture all its own.”
URP has been a central contributor to vinyl sales since 1949, when the company was formed by John Dunn, Joe Talbot and Ozell Simpkins. The pressing plant was an offshoot of Bullet Records, one of Nashville’s first indie record labels. In 1949, the same year that RCA created the first 45 and seven-inch records became popular in jukeboxes across America, Bullet Records earned a massive hit with Francis Craig’s song “Near You,” which spent 17 weeks atop Billboard’s pop charts. They opened Southern Plastics (which would later become United Record Pressing) to keep up with the demand for the song. By 1962, the company had moved operations to Nashville’s Chestnut Street. The company’s founder Ozell Simpkins also designed the building and URP’s machines.
John Dunn and Ozell Simpkins
Courtesy of United Record Pressing
By the 1960s, Southern Plastics had established a deal to handle singles record pressings for Motown Records. Given that there were few accommodations available to Black artists, producers and executives in the South during that time, the company also created what would become known as the “Motown Suite,” a space to host Black artists, producers and executives when they visited Nashville. Today, that space has been preserved and is used to host special events, such as album release parties.
In the 1970s, Southern Plastics was renamed United Record Pressing. As in-house labels began shuttering their in-house pressing operations, soon URP became the foremost independent record pressing plant in the Southeast. Two decades later, URP acquired Dixie Record Pressing, which allowed the plant to begin pressing 10-and 12-inch records in addition to their 7-inch records. As vinyl began to reemerge and surge in popularity, especially in the mid-2000s, URP began pressing new versions of albums from Johnny Cash, Jimmy Hendrix and Bob Dylan as well as new vinyls from contemporary artists including Adele, Swift, Harry Styles and Kendrick Lamar.
In 2017, URP consolidated operations into a new, larger facility on Allied Drive in Nashville, in order to keep up with demand for the company’s vinyl pressing services. In 2021-2022, the company added nearly 50 presses and added approximately 15,000 square feet to its facilities.
United Record Pressing
Tennessean/USA Today
Today, URP’s more than 120 staff members oversee 64 on-site pressing machines, with the capacity to press over 80,000 records per day.
Beth Proctor, United Record Pressing’s longest-standing employee, has been with the company for approximately four decades.
“I came to United in the ‘80s, and quickly learned there rarely is a dull moment pressing vinyl records. I fell in love with the owners, employees and the family environment,” Proctor told Billboard via a statement. “Then, [with] our customers, a lot of whom have become great friends over the years.”
Here, as URP celebrates 75 years of providing vinyl for consumers, we look at 15 distinct recordings that the company has pressed over the decades, ranging from the 1940s through to the 2020s.
Francis Craig Band, “Red Rose”/ “Near You”
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has published a report on its music industry. The report is part of the Japanese government’s “Grand Design and Action Plan for a New Form of Capitalism 2024.” In this plan, several strategies for revitalizing the industry are listed, including “strengthening command structures within content creation industries,” […]
All audio, lighting, video and stage production on the main stage at this year’s Lollapalooza will be entirely powered by a hybrid battery system, the festival announced Monday (July 29).
According to organizers, that makes Lollapalooza the first major U.S. music festival to have a main stage run entirely on a hybrid battery system. Typically, diesel generators power the stages at large-scale events.
Lollapalooza’s hybrid-powered stage will deploy over 1.5 MWh of battery storage capacity. A representative for the festival tells Billboard that the batteries are reusable and will be charged using diesel generators that run on biodiesel fuel (typically made from renewable sources like vegetable oil, animal fat or recycled cooking grease and used as a cleaner-burning alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel). That’s similar to systems that power hybrid vehicles.
The batteries, manufactured by Swedish industrial tools and equipment company Atlas Copco, will be deployed by CES Power, which provides temporary event power generation, power distribution, and HVAC for festivals, film and broadcast, major events, and industrial projects. The system is being deployed via a partnership between Live Nation’s sustainability initiative Green Nation, T-Mobile and CES Power.
Trending on Billboard
“We have set a goal to build a more sustainable future for music festivals, which requires taking bold steps to find solutions that can reinvent how we operate and in turn, build industry trust in new technology so that major live events can see a path towards becoming more energy efficient,” Jake Perry, director of operations and sustainability at C3 Presents, which produces Lollapalooza, said in a statement.
“Solutions like the ones Lollapalooza are pioneering not only contribute toward our global Green Nation goal of cutting our emissions in half by 2030, but they provide local benefits as well through reduced noise and air pollution which creates a better experience overall for the artists, fans and crew,” added Lucy August-Perna, head of global sustainability at Live Nation. “We look forward to sharing the results and learnings from Lollapalooza with our network of over 200+ festivals around the world who are committed to raising the bar for more sustainable live events.”
Major events have historically been reticent to incorporate hybrid battery power due to concerns about its reliability, but such batteries are becoming more popular on the live scene as the technology advances. This past May, California’s Mill Valley Music Festival became the first U.S. festival to be powered by 100% renewable energy through the use of batteries.
This isn’t the first time Lollapalooza has experimented with green energy on its main stage. Last August, Billie Eilish‘s headlining set at the festival was partially run on a solar-powered battery system via an initiative with environmental nonprofit Reverb.
Lollapalooza 2024’s headliners include Meghan Thee Stallion, Hozier, SZA, Stray Kids, The Killers, Future and Metro Boomin, Blink 182, Melanie Martinez, and Skrillex.
Singer-songwriter K. Michelle has signed with BBR Music Group/BMG Nashville, home to artists including Jelly Roll, Lainey Wilson and Jason Aldean, the company announced today (July 29).
Tennessee native Michelle grew up absorbing the music of artists ranging from Whitney Houston to The Judds. She’s released six albums so far, including her 2013 debut Rebellious Soul and 2016’s More Issues Than Vogue, both of which reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200. With 2023’s I’m The Problem announced as her final R&B project, Michelle has begun the process of releasing her debut country album, and putting her full expanse of musical artistry on display. She then issued songs including “Tennessee” and introduced her alter-ego, Puddin.
Michelle’s signing to BBR/BMG Nashville comes as several Black country artists continue to reach new career heights. Most notably, Shaboozey‘s “A Bar Song (Tipsy)” recently topped Billboard‘s country radio-focused Country Airplay chart, and has logged multiple weeks atop Billboard‘s all-genre Hot 100, and also topped the charts in multiple radio formats. Shaboozey was among the country artists featured on Beyoncé‘s country-influenced Cowboy Carter project, which heralded both Black country music trailblazers including Linda Martell, as well rising Black country artists Willie Jones, Brittney Spencer, Reyna Roberts, Tanner Adell and Tiera Kennedy. Beyoncé’s own “Texas Hold ‘Em” dominated the Hot Country Songs chart for 10 weeks.
Trending on Billboard
K. Michelle was recently featured on the project A Tribute to the Judds last year, singing the Judds’ signature “Love Can Build a Bridge” with Jelly Roll and the Fisk Jubilee Singers. They also performed the song live at the 57th annual CMA Awards in November. Last month, Michelle also performed at CMA Fest for a second time, making her Nissan Stadium debut as well performing at the Chevy Vibes Stage.
“When we first met K. Michelle, she radiated her passion for country music,” said Katie Kerkhover, vp of A&R at BMG, in a statement. “It’s the fabric of who she is because the lyrics represent truth. She’s built an incredible fanbase with her unique vocals anchored with storytelling at its heart and that is what transcends genres.”
“I have been ready. I am grateful for this moment,” Michelle said in a statement. “Rebels and Real Outlawz, it’s time! I am excited and want to thank my BMG Team. I am happy to finally sing the music I grew up on. I am a country girl at heart and can’t wait to share my country music with you.”
Five years ago, the music industry celebrated the passage of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), a landmark piece of legislation that streamlined the way songs are licensed to streaming services and created the Mechanical Licensing Collective (and the lesser-known digital licensing coordinator) to put the new license in action. Now, the MLC and DLC are going through the first-ever MMA-mandated “re-designation” process, a routine five-year review of their operations, to ensure that the organizations are working effectively.
At the end of the process, experts believe the MLC’s position as the organization that administers the blanket mechanical license will be reaffirmed. But this process still represents a rare opportunity for stakeholders — like songwriters, publishers and streaming services — to discuss what they think these organizations have done well, and how they could improve operations for the next five years.
Trending on Billboard
As the re-designation, which has no set end date, stretches onwards, the relationship between some of the stakeholders has become increasingly contentious. In a guest column for Billboard, Doug Collins, a former member of Congress and co-author of the MMA, accused streaming services of “trying to redefine [the MMA’s] intent.” In a blog post on its website, the National Music Publishers’ Association also called out the streaming services, which are represented by trade organization Digital Media Association (DiMA), saying DiMA was using the MMA review as “an opportunity to re-write history and undermine the MLC’s progress.”
All of this is made more bitter by what’s happening outside of the MLC re-designation: Spotify recently decided to bundle audiobooks to its premium tier offerings. Now, the service argues it owes songwriters a lower royalty rate, given it now also needs to pay book publishers from the same price tag. In reply, the NMPA launched a multi-faceted campaign to try to stop Spotify from doing this, and the MLC filed a lawsuit, calling Spotify’s move “improper.” Meanwhile, the MLC also sued Pandora, which it alleges was not paying royalties properly or on time. The MLC additionally decided to audit all of the streaming services earlier this year.
The MLC differs from other collection societies in a number of ways, one of which being that the streaming services, not the songwriters and publishers, pay for its operational costs. While much has been said about DiMA and the streaming services’ position on the MLC and the MMA, the trade organization has largely remained quiet in the press.
To better understand the streaming services’ position, Billboard spoke with DiMA’s president/CEO Graham Davies to help balance the record. “The whole industry has benefited from the success of putting right what was a failing market prior to the MMA,” Davies says. “We are robust in defending the MMA. We’re only five years in. We’ve got some things to resolve, but we can do those while working with the MLC.”
What are a few things you think the MLC has done well in its first five years of operation?
The services have worked with the MLC and the publishers to get this thing up and running within the allotted time and that is remarkable and amazing. To me, that is absolutely a key success. That has also meant that the MLC has been able to get the licenses going and get the money flowing, which is something that the services greatly benefit from and appreciate.
Another aspect that I think is positive is that they have made their database available and accessible to everyone. That is something which we’ve started to see other societies around the world now looking into doing and realizing how important that is. The data the whole industry works on has significant problems, but it’s essential. I think the fact that the MLC was obligated to open up its database has enabled visibility as to what the data issues are and it’s helped us all to start to clean it up.
You have submitted comments during the re-designation process, detailing your perspective on what could be improved at the MLC. What are the main concerns you have?
We started out with three themes: transparency, efficiency, neutrality. I think they remain our key themes. I think transparency and efficiency kind of go together in that the services have met all of the funding requirements of the MLC to get it up and running. In the next phase, we want to see more transparency behind the MLC’s investments and how that will turn into increased efficiency. By the end of the year, the services will have invested $200 million in the MLC since the beginning, both in terms of startup and operating costs. So how will that turn into the MLC being a state of the art, efficient operation that is cost effective for the next five years? We’re asking questions about that. When you’ve got royalties at stake, how much is it sensible to spend to pay that out? Again, these are very common baseline metrics that sit within any collecting society. We would love to have that information now going forward, so we can just be really sure that the funding requests are appropriate.
You submitted comments on behalf of both DiMA and the digital licensee coordinator (the DLC), which is also being re-designated. For those who are unfamiliar, what is the relationship between the DLC and DiMA?
Where the MLC and the DLC differ is that there’s not a requirement for the DLC to exist, whereas there is a requirement for the MLC to exist — the blanket license cannot be administered without an MLC. The DLC is there primarily as an interface on operational matters between the service community and the MLC. While DiMA has six members, the DLC has many more members of the service community involved. DiMA administers the DLC, so the running of the DLC is done by DiMA, and we have a cost charge for the time we spend on doing the DLC.
You’ve mentioned that the last five years of the MLC have been a “startup phase” and you’d like it to be more efficient in the future. What areas do you think the MLC is potentially overspending or inefficient?
The areas we want to point to come into our other theme of neutrality as well. Others have claimed that we have said that the MLC should not be able to undertake enforcement, and that’s absolutely not true. Obviously, we have raised issues about what the budget should be and how the MLC goes about undertaking litigation. In terms of other areas of cost efficiency, we’ve also asked, what is the balance between how much time and effort [the MLC] is spending to try and pay out their royalties? We should look at that. We’ve also raised questions around how much outreach and education activities are appropriate. For us, I think in most areas, it comes down to understanding in more detail — what’s the plan? Why spend that amount? We’d also like more detail in the area of outsourcing and contracts the MLC has started.
As we’ve seen in the last six months or so, the MLC has started to play a role in enforcement, and that means, essentially, that if the streaming services are paying for the MLC, and then the MLC files a lawsuit against a streaming service, then streaming services are paying for litigation or auditing against themselves. We’ve seen that now with Pandora and Spotify. Do you believe that the MLC has a definite enforcement authority?
We’ve been clear that there is a required undertaking for enforcement, particularly for the section 115 license and making sure our services are paying appropriately. There is auditing ability as well. We totally understood that that was part of the accepted rules. What we have said is that there has to be some process for resolving conflicts prior to jumping to litigation. Litigation is very expensive. It was a feature of the pre-MMA period that we want to avoid.
We think there has to be a role for the Copyright Office on issues which are contentious, where the interpretation of law is the issue. If it’s purely an enforcement of the defined section 115 and the operation of that, that’s what we would deem to be enforcement and that’s within the general operation of the MLC. But if we are in an environment where the MLC has an ability to spend whatever it likes on whatever litigation it wants to, we do not believe that is the intention of this construction.
This is also where we have neutrality concerns. Within our comments, we have flagged areas where we believe the MLC has not acted in a neutral way, whether that’s in relation to how they handled issues with the service community or in relation to the songwriters.
What would you ideally want to see the MLC do if a situation arose where they felt like a streaming service wasn’t doing things by the book, rather than going to litigation?
We would expect there to be a pre-litigation dispute mechanism, and for that to be codified as a process whereby the MLC can state its position and then the service is able to respond to that. If it is a dispute within the grounds of normal enforcement, then the MLC will have exhausted that process first and then can proceed with enforcement. When it’s something which is an interpretation of the statute or the law, then we are proposing that at the end of that dispute mechanism, it is then referred to the Copyright Office because they are the ones that have this oversight, rather than jumping to enforcement in the court of law.
No one is able to change any part of what the MMA already states during this re-designation, so is this proposed change even possible?
Our interpretation is that the MMA doesn’t give the MLC the ability to go beyond its enforcement into interpretation of law. Referring back to the Copyright Office’s recent ruling with termination rights — you can see that the Copyright Office will take on a clear oversight role. In our view, we just need to use the Copyright Office in the correct way.
This isn’t about changing the MMA. Actually, we would argue we just want the MLC to operate within the direction of the law. The MMA is about [section 115 of U.S. Copyright Law]. That’s clear. Moving beyond 115 into interpreting the boundaries of 115 and 114 is not what the MMA provides them the scope to operate within. For those situations, they should go to the Copyright Office for review.
Recently, you took issue with the NMPA and their initial comment that said that “Congress did not intend for the MLC to be neutral when it comes to protecting the interest of copyright owners.” Can you tell me more about your view on that statement?
The MMA was not a one-sided piece of legislation. It wasn’t made to serve just one constituency. I think part of its success was the fact that it actually brought all sides of the industry together. It had something that was supported by all sides. If we were to follow that argument and say the MLC only exists for the rightsholders and should pay no regard to what the service community thinks or feels or has a view on, well, then why have the service community pay for the operating costs of this and have the service community in an observer role on the board?
This is not a rightsholder-owned collective, which exists all around the rest of the world. Those organizations do not have any involvement of the licensees in the operation. The services just pay their license and that’s their level of involvement. I just think we’ve got to remember that the construction of the MLC was deliberately not like that from the start. The service community does have a vested stake in the running and the operation and the costs of the MLC because that’s what all parties agreed on.
Other collecting societies are able to advocate on behalf of their owners. PRS for Music, for example, will advocate on a particular issue. It’s really clear within the statute, however, that the MLC is not able to advocate. If it wasn’t expected to be neutral, then why can’t it advocate?
The text of the MMA never uses the word “neutral.” Are you saying you want this addressed in the law in some way?
The interpretation is in the structure. The MMA did say that the MLC is not allowed to advocate, ergo it cannot be partial to one particular stakeholder group. We’re not trying to rewrite the MMA; we’re happy with it. We just think that at this point in the evolution of the organization we need to temper some of the biases. I think we’ve been pretty consistent in saying the MLC has started to become too one-sided. I don’t think that’s good for the songwriters — it’s been really interesting to see the range of voices in the comment period [that also question The MLC’s neutrality]. We are suggesting a governance review.
Do you think a re-designation every five years is not enough on its own?
I think it’ll be interesting to see what the re-designation process brings forward from the Copyright Office. Maybe the Copyright Office leans in on governance and says, “We’ve heard enough, and we can come forward with ideas.” But the re-designation process is a different thing than a governance review, which would bring in a special team to actually dig into governance-related issues and bring forward recommendations and proposals that could then be implemented. It would be something more specific and something the MLC could just do. You wouldn’t need the Copyright Office to sponsor it, though they could if they wanted to.
Can you elaborate more about how it’s not in the MLC’s interest to be partisan in some of their views?
The services have invested in the MLC on the back of the MMA to make this a success and to enable us to grow the market. And growing the streaming market is in everybody’s interest. So in terms of the MLC carrying the confidence, trust and support of the whole industry, we’re all invested in that objective. We feel there’s nothing to be gained from the MLC acting in too partisan a way. The terminations situation is case in point. It’s not helpful because it ends up in a process, royalties get delayed. Anything that avoids litigation is good to us. We think these are all very sensible things which will hopefully make for a smoother running MLC over the next five years.
Doug Collins, co-author of the MMA, recently wrote a guest column with Billboard that says that DiMA and the services “want to give equal weight to the opinions of digital companies as well as the rights of songwriters.” He also said that The MLC is an institution that was not supposed to be neutral. What is your reply?
To the first point, DiMA and the DLC have not advocated for changing the board of the MLC. I don’t think it’s correct that we are advocating for any change. The quote was implying that we would have, what, 30% representation on the MLC board? I don’t know where he is going with that. We’ve been advocating for the MLC running in the way we believe it should be. Doug is right — as you said earlier, he didn’t put the word “neutral” into the MMA, but I think there are many references to improving the system for all stakeholders. It’s also not said in the MMA that the organization is supposed to be entirely partial to the interests of one stakeholder group, right?
Another issue we have raised is the licensing of public domain works. This is another example of where the MLC should act in a neutral way by not charging the services for a license on public domain works. Some of the services, especially the smaller ones or ones like classical streaming services, are really struggling, having to pay money on works which went out of copyright 200-300 years ago.
There’s a growing distrust of streaming services among people in the music publishing business, particularly because of the recent Spotify bundling feud. I’m wondering, given the NMPA and songwriter groups have been very outspoken against the things that streaming services are doing right now, do you think that it will be more difficult to work together in positive ways?
There are clearly some disputes. The MLC launched two rounds of litigation, and the NMPA has launched a lot more. It feels like a moment in time, rather than something that can be characterized as, “the streaming services are to be distrusted.” That’s not my perspective on the music industry. In the publishing industry, there are disputes and disputes will be resolved. There is always an element of tension in pricing. I can’t think of any other area of licensing where there is not a period of tension, a period where rightsholders are looking to maximize the value of the rights they have and the users are on the other side of that [wanting low prices].