Music Modernization Act
AllTrack, a U.S.-based collection society founded in 2017, has announced the launch of a mechanical rights division. Now, AllTrack members can opt-in to get their mechanical royalties collected along with performance royalties, making AllTrack the only U.S. performance rights organization (PRO) to collect both through a single platform.
With the move, AllTrack tells Billboard it hopes to become a competitor of DIY publishing administrators like SongTrust or TuneCore Publishing which offer short-term deals for small independent songwriters, who are often looking for a stopgap solution to collecting royalties before they sign larger publishing deals.
The AllTrack mechanical collection service will charge a 15% administration fee for all royalties collected, and writers using the service must sign a 2 year agreement.
Trending on Billboard
Around the world, it is customary for collection societies to collect both performance and mechanical royalties on behalf of writers, but these have always been separate services in the United States, adding to the complexity of the royalty collection process for songwriters. Since the passage of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) in 2017, the legislation that simplified the mechanical royalty collection process for the streaming age, mechanicals for interactive streaming have been collected by the MMA-mandated Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC).
The MLC is open for any songwriter who wants to sign up. Unlike PROs, it does not charge an administration fee to any songwriter or publisher for collecting, matching and processing royalties, given the MMA ordered the streaming services to pay for the MLC’s operations. When a songwriter signs up for AllTrack’s mechanical service, those mechanicals still go through processing with the MLC, but AllTrack becomes the liaison that ensures the writer is properly registered and collecting royalties from the MLC. Essentially, the firm wants to offer a one-stop shop for independent writers who find the multi-society system of royalty collection to be too cumbersome.
AllTrack will also collect mechanical royalties for its clients in areas that don’t fall under the domain of the MLC, including social media services like TikTok, YouTube and Meta, as well as fitness and gaming applications.
“We’re thrilled to expand our services to include mechanical rights, which typically represent a significant portion of a music creator’s publishing income,” says Hayden Bower, founder and CEO of AllTrack. “Our integrated approach addresses the independent sector’s long-standing need for a simplified royalty collection process. AllTrack members can now receive the compensation they’re entitled to faster and more efficiently than ever before.”
The news comes just months after AllTrack announced that it had been accepted into CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers) and after the U.S. PRO system has come under more scrutiny. In September, Billboard broke the news that the House Judiciary Committee had sent a letter to the Copyright Office asking for further examination into PROs, citing “difficult to assess” royalty collections and the “proliferation of PROs.”
As the author of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), I am thrilled with the benefits it has provided music creators and music streaming services. Rarely does Congress come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to respond to a market problem with a comprehensive, collaborative and business-driven solution.
The bill updated copyright law for the digital generation, and the cornerstone of the legislation — the creation of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) — has been a shining example of an industry working together to solve major market challenges. However, recent attempts by streaming services to redefine the original intent of the statute, to benefit themselves, are concerning and must be corrected.
The MLC was created to solve a massive music industry problem. Streaming services often failed to find the correct copyright owners and therefore held on to large sums of money owed to songwriters and music publishers. This both kept earnings from rightful owners and also opened streaming services up to large amounts of liability — from which lawsuits were piling up, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. Both sides had a major incentive to find a better way forward.
Trending on Billboard
Along with my colleague, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), I authored a bill to establish a company that would be funded by the digital streaming companies, and governed by copyright owners, which would receive all of the streaming mechanical money owed and then distribute that money based on copyright ownership. The company would also operate a first-of-its-kind public database so that song ownership information would be more transparent than ever.
To create the MLC, the U.S. Copyright Office held an impartial designation period where anyone could campaign to run the company. A coalition representing the vast majority of the music publishing and songwriting industry came together and was selected.
In five short years, the MLC was activated and is now a towering example of success. It has distributed over $2 billion in royalties to publishers and songwriters. It has a match rate of over 90%. It operates the most accurate, open database of music rights information in the world.
Crucially, as the MLC is responsible for ensuring accurate payments to its songwriter and publisher members, the MMA made clear that it not only has the authority but is mandated to enforce the rights of its members if it determines any streaming service is not reporting or paying properly. Most recently, the MLC was forced to litigate against Pandora for underpaying royalties.
Unfortunately, this has led DiMA, which represents the major streaming companies and has a seat on the MLC’s board, to attempt to reinterpret the original intent of the MMA. They are pushing the misguided idea that the MLC was meant to be “neutral” when it comes to enforcing the rights of copyright owners. Nothing could be further from our objective.
This definition of neutral is simply another way to take the voice away from those who have struggled to be heard when it comes to receiving what they are owed for their labors. This was never the intent.
Should the MLC not enforce and litigate when necessary to uphold the rights of its members, those members would have absolutely no recourse to defend their property rights. This notion of neutrality would make the MLC toothless and completely undermine the important role of the Collective. Allowing the MLC to dole out royalties is inextricable from its primary purpose of ensuring those royalties are correct.
It is a perversion of the legislation to attempt to convince current lawmakers that the MLC was meant to give equal weight to the opinions of the digital companies as the rights of songwriters. Of course, there is a massive incentive for DiMA and its membership to want the MLC to relinquish its role as enforcer of music creators’ copyrights. Billions of dollars in royalties are on the line.
The streaming services’ vision of a neutral MLC is not in line with the original intent of the MMA, and they know it because they were intimately involved in the lengthy negotiation of the language of the bill. The resulting legislation was fair and allowed for the collective and the courts to do their jobs when it comes to disputes.
The five-year milestone since the MMA was signed into law is an important time for reflection and refining. However, it is not a time to redefine the most important music legislation of our time.
Doug Collins is a lawyer and former Member of Congress representing Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District. He served as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee as well as Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. He introduced the Music Modernization Act along with the bill’s lead cosponsor, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
Emboldened House Democrats ushered in a new generation of leaders on Wednesday (Nov. 30) with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries elected to be the first Black American to head a major political party in Congress as long-serving Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team step aside next year.
Showing rare party unity after their midterm election losses, the House Democrats moved seamlessly from one history-making leader to another, choosing the 52-year-old New Yorker, who has vowed to “get things done,” even after Republicans won control of the chamber. The closed-door vote was unanimous, by acclamation.
“It’s a solemn responsibility that we are all inheriting,” Jeffries told reporters on the eve of the party meeting. “And the best thing that we can do as a result of the seriousness and solemnity of the moment is lean in hard and do the best damn job that we can for the people.”
Many in the music business are likely celebrating Jeffries’ election today. The Congressman, who has served as the U.S. representative for New York’s 8th Congressional District since 2013, has been a longtime champion of music creators. Among other efforts, he co-sponsored the Music Modernization Act, the most important copyright law passed in decades, as well as the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020, a.k.a. the CASE Act, which streamlined copyright disputes by creating a small claims tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office to adjudicate small claims infringement cases.
A noted hip-hop fan who once gave The Notorious B.I.G. a shout-out from the House floor, in 2018 Jeffries hosted the sixth annual “Hip-Hop on the Hill” political fundraiser. He was also an honoree at the Recording Academy’s GRAMMYs on the Hill in 2019, an annual event that honors congressional leaders and music creators who fight for creators’ rights. This September, Jeffries was honored by the RIAA as well, along with hip-hop pioneers Grandmaster Flash and MC Lyte, at RIAA Honors 2022: Hip-Hop, where he received the policy maker of the year award. (Billboard sponsored this event.)
This creator-friendly mindset may have stemmed in part from Jeffries’ days as a lawyer prior to entering politics. During that period, Jeffries worked on several copyright cases, including representing Lauryn Hill in a case brought by some of her collaborators. In a previous statement, National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) president David Israelite said that Jeffries “has a deep understanding of copyright law” and “may know the subject better than anyone else in Congress.”
In a statement sent to Billboard, Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason jr. applauded Jeffries’ election: “Since his first year in Congress in 2014, Hakeem has been a dynamic leader in shaping music policy and fighting for legislation that benefits and protects music creators. From signing on as a lead cosponsor of the Music Modernization Act in 2018 and the CASE Act in 2020, to being celebrated as a GRAMMYs On The Hill Honoree in 2019, he’s been a key ally to the music community and instrumental in achieving bipartisan support for music people. We’re thrilled for him to take on this new role, and we look forward to seeing how this will impact the important issues facing our ecosystem of music creators.”
It’s rare that a party that lost the midterm elections would so easily regroup and stands in stark contrast with the upheaval among Republicans, who are struggling to unite around GOP leader Kevin McCarthy as the new House speaker as they prepare to take control when the new Congress convenes in January.
Wednesday’s internal Democratic caucus votes of Jeffries and the other top leaders came without challengers. Cheers broke out after the elections.
The trio led by Jeffries, who will become the Democratic minority leader in the new Congress, includes 59-year-old Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts as the Democratic whip and 43-year-old Rep. Pete Aguilar of California as caucus chairman. The new team of Democratic leaders is expected to slide into the slots held by Pelosi and her top lieutenants — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina — as the 80-something leaders make way for the next generation.
But in many ways, the trio has been transitioning in plain sight, as one aide put it — Jeffries, Clark and Aguilar working with Pelosi’s nod these past several years in lower-rung leadership roles as the first woman to have the speaker’s gavel prepared to step down. Pelosi, of California, has led the House Democrats for the past 20 years, and colleagues late Tuesday granted her the honorific title of “speaker emerita.”
“It an important moment for the caucus — that there’s a new generation of leadership,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., ahead of voting.
Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri called the leadership election “historic” and a “time for change.”
While Democrats will be relegated to the House minority in the new year for the 118th Congress, they will have a certain amount of leverage because the Republican majority is expected to be so slim and McCarthy’s hold on his party fragile.
The House’s two new potential leaders, Jeffries and McCarthy, are of the same generation but have almost no real relationship to speak of — in fact the Democrat is known for leveling political barbs at the Republican from afar, particularly over the GOP’s embrace of former President Donald Trump. Jeffries served as a House manager during Trump’s first impeachment.
“We’re still working through the implications of Trumpism,” Jeffries said, “and what it has meant, as a very destabilizing force for American democracy.”
Jeffries said he hopes to find “common ground when possible” with Republicans but will “oppose their extremism when we must.”
On the other side of the Capitol, Jeffries will have a partner in Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as two New Yorkers are poised to helm the Democratic leadership in Congress. They live about a mile (1.6 kilometers) apart in Brooklyn.
“There are going to be a group, in my judgment, of mainstream Republicans who are not going to want to go in the MAGA direction, and Hakeem’s the ideal type guy to work with them,” Schumer said in an interview, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.
Jeffries has sometimes been met with skepticism from party progressives, viewed as a more centrist figure among House Democrats.
But Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., a progressive and part of the “squad” of liberal lawmakers, said she has been heartened by the way Jeffries and his team are reaching out, even though they face no challengers.
“There’s a genuine sense that he wants to develop relationships and working partnerships with many of us,” she said.
Clark, in the No. 2 spot, is seen as a coalition builder on the leadership team, while Aguilar, as the third-ranking leader, is known as a behind-the-scenes conduit to centrists and even Republicans.
Clyburn, now the highest-ranking Black American in Congress, is seeking to become the assistant democratic leader, keeping a seat at the leadership table and helping the new generation to transition.
But Clyburn faces an unexpected challenge from Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., who is openly gay and argued Wednesday in a letter to colleagues that House Democrats should “fully respect the diversity of our caucus and the American people by including an LGBTQ+ member at the leadership table.”
The election for the assistant leader post and several others is expected to be held Thursday.
Jeffries’ ascent comes as a milestone for Black Americans, the Capitol built with the labor of enslaved people and its dome later expanded during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency as a symbol the nation would stand during the Civil War.
His Brooklyn-area district was once represented by Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress, who was born on the same day as his election, Nov. 30, in 1924.
“The thing about Pete, Katherine and myself is that we embrace what the House represents,” Jeffries said, calling it “the institution closest to the people.”
While the House Democrats are often a big, diverse, “noisy family,” he said, “it’s a good thing.” He said, “At the end of the day, we’re always committed to finding the highest common denominator in order to get big things done for everyday Americans.”
The U.S. Copyright Office is quietly proposing a new rule to make sure that songwriters who invoke their termination rights actually get paid their streaming royalties, overturning a previous “erroneous” policy that could potentially have kept sending money to former owners in perpetuity.
Starting in 2020, groups like the Recording Academy raised alarm bells that a policy adopted by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the entity that collects and distributes streaming royalties) might lead to a bizarre outcome: Even after a writer takes back control of their songs, royalties might still flow to the old publishers that no longer own them — forever.
In a new rule proposed last month, the agency said the MLC’s policy was based on an “erroneous understanding and application of current law.” Ordering the group to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” the Copyright Office’s says that when a songwriter gets their rights back, they should obviously start getting the royalties, too.
“It is not clear why the statute or the case law should be read as making one particular copyright owner the permanent recipient [of royalties] because it happened to be the owner immediately before termination occurred,” the agency wrote in the proposed rule, issued Oct. 19.
The proposed rule change was quickly hailed as a win for songwriters. In a statement to Billboard, Michelle Lewis of the Songwriters of North America said the ambiguity over termination had “created stress and uncertainty for many songwriters.” Todd Dupler, vp for advocacy & public policy at the Recording Academy, says the rule change is “big news” for songwriters.
“We’re very grateful to the Copyright Office for stepping in to do this,” Dupler says. “We think the reasoning is very clear and I think they’ve reached the correct outcome.”
The MLC did not return a request for comment on the Copyright Office’s proposed rule.
Termination empowers an author to reclaim the rights to their copyrighted work decades after selling them away. In the music business, if a songwriter sold a publisher the rights to a song that later became a smash hit, termination allows them to automatically to get those rights back years later (the rule kicks in between 35 and 56 years later, depending on when the song was sold). Created by Congress when it updated federal copyright law in 1976, termination was designed to level the playing field for creators, who usually lack leverage in negotiations with big companies and are often forced to fork over rights before they know they’re valuable.
But termination comes with an important exception. Even though a publisher must hand back the rights to the original song, they’re entitled to keep selling any existing “derivative works” they created when they owned it. That means that even after a songwriter wins back ownership of their song, they can’t suddenly send cease-and-desists over a famous sample, or sue over a movie that featured the song under a synch license. Those continue to be fair game, and any fees under existing licenses keep flowing back to their old publisher.
That exception makes sense; it would be unfair to let a terminating songwriter suddenly revoke existing licenses that were legal when they were granted. But it also creates difficult ambiguity for the MLC and its so-called blanket license — the streamlined system created by Music Modernization Act in 2018 to make it easier for digital services to get mechanical royalties to the right songwriters.
Say a songwriter terminates their publisher’s control of their music. The writer is now the owner of those songs — that’s easy to figure out. But by paying the MLC for access to the blanket license, Spotify arguably already has an existing license in place with the old publisher. So, isn’t the copy of the song on Spotify an existing derivative work? And shouldn’t the royalties from it continue to go to the old publisher under that license?
Under the MLC’s termination dispute resolution policy issued in 2021, it appeared that was the case. The rules seemed to choose who to pay based on when a song was uploaded to a digital streamer’s servers; if it was uploaded prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, the royalties would keep going to the old owner — seemingly forever.
The MLC’s approach was not intended as a scheme to hurt songwriters. According to the Copyright Office’s filing, the MLC saw it as a “middle ground,” aimed at preventing drawn-out disputes that would lock up royalty payments “to the disadvantage of both songwriters and publishers.”
But for the Recording Academy’s Dupler, the ultimate outcome still seemed at odds with the spirit of the Music Modernization Act, which he says was designed to “help songwriters get compensated fairly for their work.”
“It raised concerns for us that this ambiguity was going to have a negative impact on songwriters,” says Dupler. “We feel pretty confident that it was never the intent of Congress that songwriters wouldn’t be receiving those royalties after termination.”
In the new rule issued last month, the Copyright Office agreed with that sentiment. In a detailed legal analysis, the agency explained that services like Spotify and Apple Music were not creating “derivative works” when they uploaded songs to their servers, meaning there was no caveats that should be imposed on a songwriter’s termination. And even if there were, the office made clear that it did not matter anyhow, stating simply: “a terminated publisher is not entitled to post-termination blanket license royalties.”
“The Office concludes that the MLC’s termination dispute policy is inconsistent with the law,” the agency wrote. “The statute entitles the current copyright owner to the royalties under the blanket license.”
Under the new rule, it won’t matter who owned a song when it was first uploaded to a digital service. Instead, it would “make clear that the copyright owner of the musical work as of the end of the monthly reporting period is the one who is entitled to the royalties.”
The text of the Copyright Office’s proposed rule is available in its entirety on the agency’s website. The rule is now open to public comments, in which interested parties can either support the changes or offer opposition. Such groups have until Nov. 25 to weigh in.
-
Pages