State Champ Radio mechanical royalties
While the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s announcement last month about the “final final” Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board rate determination adjustment seemed to imply songwriters and publishers were due another roughly $400 million to, sources say the number likely overstates the coming financial windfall.
After a more than two year wait that included an appeal process, a remand, a new partial rate trial, and then the time to recalculate and resubmit adjusted play reports, sources say that number may correctly assess how much more money was earned and reported due to the CRB determination covering 2018 through 2022 — but it also likely includes payments that have already been made.
Within the total adjustment, about $250 million in net extra mechanical royalties will be paid out thanks to the adjustment, with practically all of that coming from the 2021-2022 period. Those royalties will be paid out beginning in May by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, the agency created by the Music Modernization Act to collect and disburse mechanical royalties from on-demand digital streaming services. This means adjusted monies paid out by the MLC will probably begin reaching songwriters from their publishers in the following quarter.
Trending on Billboard
The rest of the roughly $400 million adjustment comes from performance royalties. But sources at the U.S. performance rights organizations say they are surprised by the MLC’s claim that another $138 million has been discovered in the resubmitted play reports required by the final rate determination.
The MLC may be the best positioned to understand this, though. Because the mechanical rate formula calls for the digital service providers to report how much they paid in performance royalties each month — or estimate how much they will pay — the MLC has insight into how much was reported collectively for mechanical and performance royalties for the period of 2018-2022 before the rate determination was finalized. It also has insight into how much performance royalties totaled after the play reports were resubmitted with the adjustments due to that final determination. The final determination happened in August 2023, eight months after the 2018-2022 term ended, with the resubmitted reports due Feb. 9, 2024.
In contrast, the PROs themselves only know what they each individually have been paid, and each digital service only knows what they individually have paid out to each PRO. Neither of those sides can see the whole performance revenue pool like the MLC can, unless they share information with competitors, which is unlikely but possible. Consequently, sources at PROs and digital services say they are surprised and puzzled by the MLC’s announcement that more performance royalties were found due to the adjusted reports. Others say the MLC’s announcement has caused consternation between songwriters and PROs. One source at a PRO suggests that the MLC including performance royalties in its report was a “marketing mishap.”
PRO sources insist that whatever performance royalties came in have largely already been paid out, and they don’t expect any new windfalls. And sources at the digital services say that, from what they can tell, the streamers have already paid out all the performance royalties that were due and they don’t expect to be making further payments.
Meanwhile, sources at PROs say the MLC’s announcement has caused significant confusion, leading songwriters to inquire about when they will get additional payouts for performance and why they were not made aware of this sooner.
Even if the performance royalties have already been paid, many executives in the music industry are speculating about what caused such a significant increase. The all-in mechanical formula that was determined by the CRB in Phonorecords III, by itself, doesn’t do anything to change performance royalties, which are typically decided by private negotiations between PROs and streaming services.
It’s possible digital services made mistakes when they reported the monthly performance royalties the first time around. The MLC could also have made a mistake either when it added up all the interim royalties paid while parties were awaiting a final determination or when it subsequently adjusted performance royalties for the period.
Alternatively, some of the PROs could have negotiated deals that tie their performance rates to the statutory mechanical rate. That would mean when digital services reverted to paying a lower mechanical rate while the 2018-2022 rate was still being determined, they wound up paying lower performance royalty rates, too — which later increased after the final CRB rate determination. But while some PRO sources concede that they try to negotiate for at least 50% of the statutory rate as a floor, they also say they don’t have any deal triggers specifically tied to the mechanicalrate.
Another theory is that one or two of the PROs might have been operating under an interim royalty rate with one or more streaming services while working through negotiations, which hypothetically weren’t finalized until recently. If those performance royalty rates have now been decided, the adjustments could be reflected in this total reported number. But several sources say they aren’t aware of any instances where this has happened.
It isn’t unusual for there to be streaming royalty adjustments after the fact, even without a new subsequent “final final” rate determination, sources point out. As it is, streaming services will sometimes need to make estimates on reporting monthly performance and mechanical royalty payments and then later adjust if necessary once the period has closed. At that time, the new payment would be made and the expense adjustment would be reported to the MLC — not two years later, sources say.
Performance and mechanical royalties have a see-saw effect where an increase in one will result in a decrease in the other. That’s because the formula for calculating the mechanical rate includes a first step in the formula that initially acts as a cap for an all-in publishing royalty pool that combines the two. This has publishers worried. If the services have already fulfilled all of their performance payments and the PROs have paid out all the received performance royalties, then how can the services now claim that $138 million as an additional deduction in the resubmitted reports? By claiming additional performance payouts, that would likely reduce the potential mechanical royalty payouts on the resubmitted report.
Aside from whether more money is coming, how these publishing royalties are paid — as performance or mechanicals — matters to publishers and songwriters.
For example, if that newfound $138 million in performance royalties needed to be paid out, it would likely mean that only about $120 million to $125 million of it would flow to songwriters and publishers because of the PROs’ overhead expenses.
If, instead, that $138 million was mechanical royalties, the songwriters and publishers would get all of that because the MLC has no overhead expense deduction since digital services finance the operation. But, instead of it getting paid out separately and directly split between publishers and songwriters, these royalties are paid to publishers, who then distribute royalties to their writers, but usually after recouping. So, the difference in where the payment comes through matters significantly to songwriters and publishers.
Overall, this adjustment seems to weigh more favorably for the mechanical royalty pool. Previously, during the interim period, the $2.77 billion in total publishing royalty payouts from digital services were weighted 50.93% to mechanical and 49.07% to performance. But after adjustments, including subtracting a slight overpayment in mechanicals for the years of 2018-2019, the $3.16 billion in total publishing royalties paid out by digital services to the PROs and the MLC works out to 52.63% paid in mechanical and 47.37% to performance, or nearly a two-percentage point increase for the former.
Eventually, when the MLC digs into the resubmissions and compares them to the earlier monthly play reports, it will likely be able to discern if the additional $138 million is coming across the board from all services or if a specific service or two accumulated the bulk of the new reported performance royalties. But if that doesn’t solve the mystery, another process is beginning that could bring in an answer. Last month, the MLC served notice on some 50 digital services that it is performing audits on them. If all else fails, that should bring some clarity to the mystery.
The Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) has announced its new Supplemental Matching Network, which consists of five companies that specialize in data matching. This is aimed to help The MLC continue to up its match rate, which is currently at 90%. (According to The MLC, the match rate is defined as the percentage of total royalties processed that were able to match to a registered work in its database.)
The first five companies included in the Supplemental Matching Network are Blokur, Jaxsta, Pex, Salt and SX Works (a SoundExchange company). The list of companies that are part of the network may grow in the future to continue to bolster The MLC’s matching process. The MLC conducted qualitative evaluations of these vendors before choosing to partner with them, including testing the products through pilot programs as well as a “Request for Information.” This is the same process that The MLC has used for other strategic vendors.
While these five vendors will all provide key data to The MLC, the companies do not specifically address the most difficult songs to match: those created by DIY, unsigned songwriters, many of whom are still unaware of The MLC.
“We conducted an extensive due diligence process to select the initial set of vendors for our Supplemental Matching Network,” says Andrew Mitchell, head of analytics & automation at The MLC. “These vendors bring complementary technologies and capabilities that can be effectively leveraged to serve our members. This network reflects our ongoing commitment to evolve in innovative ways to best achieve The MLC’s mission.”
The MLC is a non-profit organization based in Nashville. It was formed as part of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), a landmark law that created a new blanket license for musical work mechanical royalties that greatly simplified the music licensing process for digital services like Spotify, Apple Music and more. It passed in 2018.
Previously, the industry operated on a piecemeal licensing system that was complicated for the services and also the music business, leading to a pool of over $400 million in unallocated streaming royalties because the compositions’ owners couldn’t be found. (This is colloquially known in the business as “black box” money, although The MLC uses the term “historical unmatched royalties.”) The MLC was tasked to implement and administer this new blanket license and distribute the money in this stagnant royalty pool. It officially opened its doors on Jan. 1, 2021.
Learn more about the five new vendors below:
Blokur
A music data and licensing platform that works with music rights owners and online platforms to connect music and companies providing online experiences. It is built on data matching and rights identification technology to ensure accurate payment.
Jaxsta
Jaxsta is a database for music credits, sourced from the official owners of that data. This includes record labels, distributors, publishers and industry associations. It provides recording matching services for PROs, MROs, CMOs and publishers, helping identify recordings to their underlying musical works. They assist in collecting payment for mechanical, performance and synch royalties.
Pex
Pex specializes in content identification and UGC data powering copyright compliance. Pex’s music recognition technology (MRT) is designed to identify works at scale, including modified audio, live versions and cover versions, so rightsholders can capitalize on all of the content they own.
Salt
Salt is a digital royalty collection platform that helps music societies streamline their disjointed music rights and royalty systems into one global network. Salt processes usage, matches ownership and calculates distributions, providing societies with matching and royalty–processing infrastructure
SX Works Global Publisher Services
SX Works Global Publisher Services, a SoundExchange company, provides administration solutions to music publishers, self-published songwriters and organizations who own, represent and/or engage with music to manage their repertoire across the music ecosystem. SX Works’ team and technology provides partners with access to metadata designed to ensure that musical works can be accurately licensed, identified and paid for their usage.
In the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s (The MLC) third annual membership meeting, the Nashville-based non-profit organization revealed that it has distributed $1.5 billion in total royalties to date to songwriters and publishers, up by about $500 million from March.
This year marked the Music Modernization Act‘s fifth anniversary since passing into law — the landmark occasion that instructed the MLC’s formation. As part of the law, a new blanket license was created for musical work (also known as “song” or “composition”) mechanical royalties that greatly simplified music licensing for digital services like Spotify and Apple Music, among others.
The previous, piece-meal system was not only complicated for the services — it also led to a growing pool of over $400 million in streaming royalties that were unallocated because the compositions’ owners couldn’t be found. (This is colloquially known in the business as “black box” money, although the MLC uses the term “historical unmatched royalties.”) The MLC was tasked to implement and administer this new blanket license and distribute the money in this stagnant royalty pool. It officially opened its doors on Jan. 1, 2021.
According to its latest report, The MLC has completed 31 monthly royalty distributions to date, each one of them completed on time or early. Its match rate for all royalties processed through October is also up 1% since their last reporting in March, rising from 89% to 90%. According to the MLC, the match rate represented the percentage of total royalties processed that were able to match to a registered work in their database.
The MLC reported a membership of 32,000 people — 9,000 of which joined in 2023 — and touts 33 million works in its database, with data for over 3 million works added in 2023 alone. An MLC spokesperson clarified that this metric means that there were 3 million new songs this year, calculated by taking the total number of songs registered at the beginning of the year and comparing that to the total number registered at the end of September.
During the membership meeting, The MLC also announced some new board appointments. Alisa Coleman was re-elected by The MLC’s Class B Members to serve on The MLC’s Board of Directors for a second three-year term; The MLC’s Class A Members selected Troy Verges to fill the open seat as a songwriter director of the board, a position previously held by Craig Wiseman; The Class A Members selected Kevin Kadish to serve a second three-year term as a songwriter director of the board. (The Class C membership will not change in 2024.)
“We are proud of these accomplishments, particularly in reaching the milestone of distributing over $1.5 billion in royalties,” said Kris Ahrend, CEO of the MLC. “We have effectively illuminated the black box by empowering our members with several tools that enable them to take actions intended to eliminate the black box. We look forward to continuing our work to fulfill our mission of ensuring songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers receive their mechanical royalties from streaming & download services in the United States accurately and on time.”
As part of the five year anniversary of the MMA, Congress hosted a committee hearing in June to review its impact on the music business so far. Ahrend, along with Garrett Levin (then-president and CEO, Digital Media Association), Michael Molinar (president, Big Machine Music), Abby North (president, North Music Group), Daniel Tashian (songwriter, producer) and David Porter (songwriter, producer) all spoke as witnesses.
Publishers should get ready to welcome a royalty windfall now that the Copyright Royalty Board has printed its Phonorecord III final determination in the Federal Register — the last step to make the new rate structure official, concluding a more-than-four-year royalty row between publishers and streaming services.
The question is, how much that bonus will be.
While various industry estimates are all over the place with some even reaching another $400 million, by Billboard estimates, the just announced determined rates — finalized eight months after the 2017-2022 term expired — could yield up to another $250 million in underpaid mechanical royalties flowing from digital services to publishers and songwriters.
Now, digital services like Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube and Pandora have six months to review and adjust past payments made for U.S. mechanicals to the new rates. Doing that will take a complicated assessment of past payments and applying them under the new finalized structure.
The ruling increases U.S. mechanical royalties each year during the five-year period using a multi-pronged formula based on choosing between either the royalties calculated using a “headline rate” tied to a percentage of the streaming service’s total revenue; or another pool that is calculated by using the lesser of either a percentage of total content cost — i.e. what’s paid to labels — or 80 cents per subscriber. Under the new finalized determination — which for the percentage of service revenue prong, is the same as the initial determination for the 2018-2022 term — the headline rate increased from 11.4% of service revenue in 2018 to 12.3% in 2019 to 13.3% in 2020 to 14.2% in 2021 and to 15.1% in 2022.
From there, performance royalties that are negotiated with and paid out to rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI are subtracted from the all-in pool, leaving just the mechanicals behind. The mechanicals are then measured against a 50-cents-per-subscriber floor, and whichever is bigger becomes the final mechanical royalty pool paid out to publishers and songwriters.
Until an appeal of the initial CRB rate determination initiated by independent songwriter George Johnson and joined by most of the big digital services sent it back to the CRB in July 2020, most of the streamers had been paying royalties under the high escalating rates from the initial Phonorecords III determination. But with the remand, in the fall of 2020, most services reverted to paying music publishing royalties using Phonorecords II rates from 2013-2017 while the appeal was sorted out. As an example, looking at just 2020 rates, that meant digital services abandoned the royalty structure that paid 13.3% of service revenue or 24.1% of total content cost and switched back to using the prior headline rate of 10.5% of service revenue and 21% of total content cost.
(This article uses rates and math associated with what’s known as the stand-alone portable streaming model — i.e., a single paid subscription — because it’s the dominant model that produces the most revenue in the U.S. marketplace. The rate formula has different percentages and parameters for other models like bundled, ad-supported, family or student tiers.)
Under the CRB judges’ final determination published in the Federal Register, the Phonorecords III royalty calculation keeps the escalating rate structures for on-demand streaming for the percentage of revenue prong in the formula but abandons an escalating rate structure for the cost-of-content prong. So, in the case of a single paid subscriber, that prong will apply 21% of total content costs to build an all-in pool to cover both mechanical and performance royalties, instead of the previously used — from the initial 2018-2022 determination announced in 2019 — annual escalating rates that in 2022 would have culminated at 26.1% of total content costs. That means in months where the total content cost became the all-in prong, the streaming service most likely overpaid publishers under the new rate structure.
In addition to eliminating an escalating rate structure for that prong, the CRB judges reapplied a ceiling for the total content bucket limiting what digital services would have to pay publishers. The initial 2018-2022 determination took out the ceiling mechanism, which would have meant that every time labels negotiated a higher rate, the music publishers and songwriters would also automatically benefit by a higher rate. Now, services reviewing their previous payments will need to measure the total cost of content bucket against the 80-cents-per-subscriber ceiling. Whichever of those two buckets is lower is then measured against the headline bucket and, this time, whichever is larger is chosen as the all-in bucket.
Reinstating the ceiling and jettisoning the escalating rate structure for the total content all-in pool could mean publishers were actually overpaid tens of millions of dollars for the 2018-2020 years, Billboard estimates based on Mechanical Licensing Collective and Harry Fox Agency royalty calculations data obtained from publishing sources. That amount, however, will be more than offset by the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional payouts that digital services will have to make for 2021 and 2022.
Billboard doesn’t have all the data necessary to calculate mechanical revenue on a month-by-month basis for each digital service, but looking at overall payments and reports to the Mechanical Licensing Collective can provide a simplified ballpark estimate on how much is owed to publishers and songwriters over the Phonorecords III five-year period.
First, let’s look at the first three years when it’s likely that services overpaid publishers and songwriters because they used the since-abandoned initial determination’s escalating percentages for the total content pool when calculating royalties. With Spotify, for example, according to data obtained by Billboard for the streamer’s Premium Individual tier, the headline rate royalty bucket won out most of the time for two of those years — 2019 and 2020 — to become the all-in bucket. Since the headline bucket rates are the same before and after the remand, it’s likely there were relatively minimal overpayments during that period. In 2018, however, Spotify’s total cost of content bucket appears to have won out all year — and that was at a higher rate of 22%, not the remanded 21%, and without a ceiling. So, in that year alone, Spotify likely overpaid by as much as $10 million on that tier alone, Billboard estimates, and is due to receive that money back from publishers and songwriters.
Based on that, and not knowing what kind of label licensing deals all digital services have, Billboard calculates — and some industry financial sources agree — that as much as $50 million in over-payments might have been paid by the digital services to publishers and songwriters overall during the 2018 through October 2020 period.
For that period, any overpayments will mostly be sorted out directly between the digital services and the publishers because the Mechanical Licensing Collective — created following the Music Modernization Act was signed in 2018 — hadn’t begun operating yet. Though, the organization will need to be involved in in recalibrating royalty payments that came from unmatched and unpaid royalties, which digital services turned over for those years at the MLC’s inception.
For 2021 and 2022, however, once the MLC began operating, the organization will be responsible for managing any royalty adjustments, once the new data and additional funding is received from the digital services.
In 2021, U.S. digital services reported $9.76 billion in estimated service revenue to the MLC, while the all-in publishing revenue totaled $1.31 billion — or 13.38% of service revenue — according to Billboard estimates based on MLC data obtained by Billboard. Taking a simplified across-the-board approach applying that year’s 14.1% headline rate against the total revenue of $9.76 billion would deliver nearly $1.39 billion in mechanical royalties — a $80 million bonus to publishers and songwriters.
For 2022, the payouts will likely be even greater. That year, digital services reported $10.78 billion in service revenue to the MLC and paid out a total of $1.45 billion in mechanical and performance royalties — or 13.5% of total revenue. Applying the 15.1% headline rate for that year produces about $1.63 billion in all-in publishing revenue — making for an extra $175.1 million in mechanical royalties.
Combined, 2021 and 2022 could yield an additional $255 million in mechanical royalties, by Billboard‘s best estimates. Depending on how much services can claw back from overpayments made during 2018 through October 2020, Billboard estimates publishers and songwriters will receive a windfall of $200 million to $250 million.
Once those payments are settled, it will be up to publishers to figure out payments to their songwriters under the new rate structure.
Beyond the windfall expected due to adjustments for over payments in 2018-2020 and the much larger underpayments in 2021-2022, Billboard estimates that the MLC holds an additional $350 million or so in unmatched or unclaimed royalties. In March of this year, the MLC reported to Billboard that it had paid out over $200 million of the $427 million pool in mechanical royalties it was handed from the years prior to when it began operating on Jan. 1, 2021. Sources say that since then, the prior 2021 unclaimed and unmatched pool has been further reduced with a total of almost $300 million now paid out. That leaves around $130 million in unclaimed royalties.
But what about 2021 and 2022? Since the MLC began, it has been matching about 90% of royalties from recordings to songs. In addition to the remaining 10% of songs that are not yet matched to recordings, there are songs building up the unpaid royalties pool because their credit claims do not add up to 100%. If a portion of a song’s credits are not claimed, that portion of the song’s royalties goes into the unclaimed and unmatched pool. Consequently, the overall payout rate the MLC is making nowadays comes out to about 84% of mechanical royalties received from digital services, according to sources, which is a considerable improvement compared to the 68–72% digital services matched and paid prior to the MLC’s launch.
In 2021, digital services paid the MLC about $675 million in mechanical royalties, Billboard estimates, and in 2022, they paid about $740 million. If 16% of the royalties for those two years are unmatched or unclaimed, that would make for another $225 million. And when 2018-2020 is added in, the MLC has a little more than $355 million in unmatched or unclaimed royalties still to be doled out to publishers and songwriters.
In addition to the publishing royalties still held by the MLC, Billboard estimates the finalized CRB rate determination will result in $50 million in overpayments to publishers for the 2018-2020 period and about $250 million in underpayments for 2021-2022. Within those totals, some of those adjustments will impact the $350 million or so unmatched and unclaimed royalties still held by the MLC.
Songwriters have something to celebrate this holiday season. Though it seemed rulings on royalty rates for the period of 2018-2022 (Phonorecords III) and 2023-2027 (Phonorecords IV) would not receive final judgement by the Copyright Royalty Board in time for Christmas, there is finally clarity about at least one type of royalty. The board on Friday (Dec. 16) accepted a proposed settlement to hike the royalty rate for U.S. mechanicals for physical products (like vinyl records, CDs, cassettes), permanent downloads, ringtones and music bundles.
Taking effect on Jan. 1, 2023, as part of Phonorecords IV, songwriters will earn 12 cents per track or 2.31 cents per minute of playing time or fraction thereof, whichever amount is larger for physical products and permanent downloads. This will also include inflation-based adjustments for subsequent years of the rate period, a major change for composers who have historically been locked into stagnant penny rates for sales, despite the increasing cost of living. Ringtones will remain at the same rate as they were previously, and the money earned for each element of a music bundle will be decided according to the rates for that element.
The new ruling today approves what is known as “Settlement 2,” which was formed by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), as well as the major music companies: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group earlier this year.
As the name of the settlement implies, there was one that preceded it. In 2021, the same parties proposed “Settlement 1” which would have upheld the long-standing 9.1 cent penny rate for physical goods and permanent downloads. That proposed settlement was sent to the Copyright Royalty Board judges for approval last year, but it triggered backlash among some in the independent writer community.
The 9.1 cent rate has been in effect since 2006 and has not risen with inflation. George Johnson, an independent songwriter who often pushes back against settlements at the Copyright Royalty Board in favor of higher rates, and other interested parties objected to continuing this 9.1 cent rate for another five year period. They also noted other issues with Settlement 1, like the lack of adjustments for inflation, and questioned a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the major labels and the NMPA, which could have provided waivers on late fees the U.S. Copyright law allows when payment deadlines are missed.
In response to concerns, The CRB judges concluded the proposed settlement did not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory rates and terms as stated in proposed settlement 1.
For many years, the CRB rate proceedings have primarily focused on achieving fair compensation for streaming rates. In 2021, audio digital services paid out about $1.3 billion to publishers and songwriters, according to data from the Mechanical Licensing Collective.
While sales formats comprise roughly 15% of the recorded music market, the NMPA estimates those formats produce just 5% of U.S. publishing royalties. If streaming continues to grow at its current pace, some say that within three years these sales formats that are covered by the subpart B configurations might only account for 1% of publishing royalties.
The NMPA has also pointed out in the past that rate litigation is expensive — often in the tens of millions of dollars — as a reason why they have focused on fighting for high streaming rates rather than what formats are covered by subpart B, noting that the cost of litigation could end up equaling or outweighing whatever additional money a higher subpart B hike could achieve.
In Friday’s ruling, however, the court notes that the royalties generated by vinyl, CDs, downloads and other formats covered in subpart B “should not be treated as de minimis, or as a ‘throw away’ negotiating chip to encourage better terms for streaming configurations.” They also noted the improvements to Settlement 2 as “distinguishable” from the first proposed settlement.
The event marks the biggest rate increase for songwriters for physical goods and permanent downloads in almost two decades.
Now, just one final step remains: the register of copyrights has to check and make sure this is compliant with the copyright statute, and if approved — which is typical — this will go into effect at the top of the year. However, participating parties also have 30 days to file an appeal to the CRB’s determination.
-
Pages
