Royalties
Page: 2
Primary Wave Music has acquired the producer royalty and neighboring rights royalty streams for artist manager, music critic, and record producer Jon Landau.
This deal includes Landau’s points and neighboring rights royalties to songs by Bruce Springsteen, whom he worked with as a co-producer for Born To Run, The River, Darkness on the Edge of Town, The Promise, Born in the U.S.A., Live 1975-1985, Human Touch, Lucky Town and Tracks. The deal also entails his producer and neighboring rights royalties for his production on Jackson Browne’s The Pretender.
A Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee, Landau was a pivotal figure in rock music during his decades-long career. Landau got his start writing about music for publications like Crawdaddy and The Boston Phoenix and by 1967 he was hired by Jann Wenner as the lead writer for the brand new Rolling Stone publication, a position he held for a decade.
Trending on Billboard
By 1970, Landau was simultaneously writing for Rolling Stone and getting back to his roots as a lifelong musician by producing MC5’s studio album debut Back In The USA.
He got to know Springsteen in 1974 after he reviewed a performance by the singer-songwriter and called him the “future” of rock music. The following year, he co-produced Born To Run, cementing both his relationship with The Boss and his career as a producer. He would go on to co-produce eight more of his records. During this time, he also befriended Browne and produced 1976’s The Pretender, featuring songs like “Here Come Those Tears Again” and the title track.
Two decades later, Landau experienced another career peak as the manager for Shania Twain. He helped build the country-pop artist’s career, leading her to true super stardom with her 1997 album Come On Over, featuring the song “Man! I Feel Like a Woman!” and “You’re Still The One.”
Landau has also worked with artists like Natalie Merchant, Train, Alejandro Escovedo, Livingston Taylor and more.
“I thank all at Primary Wave for recognizing my contributions over the last fifty years and look forward to having an ongoing and productive relationship with them,” says Landau of the deal.
Marty Silverstone, president of global synch at Primary Wave, adds: “We’re honored to be partnering with Jon Landau and all of the legendary music he helped shape. He’s an influential figure in music, and we’re proud to welcome him to the Primary Wave family.”
The transaction between Landau and Primary Wave Music was facilitated by David Simone and Winston Simone.
SoundExchange is suing a free streaming service called AccuRadio over allegations that the company failed to pay royalties for music, claiming the streamer has “directly harmed creators.”
In a lawsuit filed Friday in Washington D.C. federal court, SoundExchange accused AccuRadio of violating the federal law that governs how radio-like services pay royalties to record labels and artists for the right to publicly perform copyrighted sound recordings.
SoundExchange – the non-profit that collects and distributes such “statutory royalties” – says AccuRadio had always paid its full bill until 2016, when its payments “slowed” and then finally stopped in 2018.
“AccuRadio has directly harmed creators over the years by refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected recordings,” said Michael Huppe, SoundExchange’s president and CEO said in a statement on Monday. “Today, SoundExchange is standing up for creators through this lawsuit to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work. We hope AccuRadio will immediately reverse course and pay what they owe for the use of the music that sits at the foundation of its service.”
Trending on Billboard
Founded in 2000, AccuRadio boasts that it is “the only online music streaming service curated by human beings, not algorithms.” The company offers hundreds of ad-supported free music channels that users can further customize, including skipping songs they don’t like.
According to SoundExchange, after AccuRadio stopped paying its royalty bill, the two sides have attempted to negotiate a solution for years, including a so-called forbearance agreement last year in which the streamer agreed to make a set down payment and then regular additional payments. But after three months, SoundExchance claims AccuRadio defaulted on that agreement, too.
“The cumulative amount of defendant’s underpayment – which harms SoundExchange, as well as the performing artists and copyright owners on whose behalf it collects and distributes royalties – continues to grow with each passing month,” SoundExchange’s lawyers write in their complaint.
In addition to demanding payment, the lawsuit is seeking a preliminary injunction that would immediately force AccuRadio to either pay up or stop offering copyrighted music to its listenership.
“While defendant has defaulted on the payments due pursuant to the forbearance agreement, it continues to operate its multichannel internet radio service, providing access to over a thousand pre-developed music channels and access to millions of sound recordings,” the lawsuit reads. “Injunctive relief is reasonably necessary to stop defendant from abusing the statutory license and incurring further damages throughout the pendency of this litigation.”
AccuRadio did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Country star Randy Travis had members of Congress gushing and brought star power to an otherwise businesslike hearing titled “Radio, Music, and Copyrights: 100 Years of Inequity for Recording Artists,” held Wednesday (June 26) by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
“This is a great honor,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chair of the subcommittee, adding that the other three witnesses “will have to live in his shadow.”
Travis, who has had difficulty speaking since suffering a stroke in 2013, was represented at the hearing by his wife, Mary Travis. His circumstances made him a fitting witness and supporter of the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA), a bill that would create a performance right for sound recordings at terrestrial radio. Unable to sing, Travis has given up touring and relies on royalties for his long-term health care. A country artist who performed others’ compositions would benefit from royalties from continued airplay on terrestrial radio.
Trending on Billboard
“This piece of legislation is essential to correct 100 year old issue regarding artists and non payment for their work performed on the most prominent music platform in America — one which they helped to build and sustain,” said Mary Travis.
AMFA would establish fair market value for radio performance royalties similarly to how rates are set for streaming platforms. It also compels foreign radio stations to pay U.S.-based artists for the performance of their songs. Outside of the U.S., radio stations commonly avoid paying performance royalties to American artists and record labels despite the existence of a similar performance right in those countries.
The bill would task the Copyright Royalty Board, the three-judge body that determines streaming, satellite radio and mechanical royalties rates, with setting the royalty rates for the new license. Under AMFA, stations that earn less than $1.5 million in annual revenue (and whose parent companies make less than $10 million in annual revenue) to pay $500 annually. Small, non-commercial stations with annual revenue less than $100,000 would pay as little as $10 per year.
“I think you’ve gotten the balance exactly right,” Mike Huppe, president and CEO of SoundExchange, told members of the committee. While small broadcasters would pay modest fees under AMFA, the large national corporations that dominate the broadcasting industry would pay more. Huppe argued they could easily afford it. “This is a $15 billion business in the US,” he said. “Eighty-eight percent of all Americans listen to radio. The biggest broadcast groups are becoming bigger and more powerful.”
Radio broadcasters don’t see it that way, though. Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, warned the committee that any additional royalties would be too much. “AMFA would impose a new royalty on local radio that is financially untenable for broadcasters of all sizes,” he said. Eddie Harrell Jr, regional vp and general manager of Radio One, agreed. “Make no mistake that a new performance royalty imposed on local stations would create harm for local stations, listeners and the recording industry itself,” said Harrell. Local broadcasters, he said, “are operating on extremely tight margins right now.”
The most dire warnings from LeGeyt and Harrell often centered around AMFA’s threat to radio stations’ ability to serve their communities. Because stations’ revenue are not growing, Harrell explained, any additional expense threatens services stations provide to their communities — he cited a program that collects donated items for needy families — and undermine their ability to broadcast during natural disasters. “Those are the things that are lost in what we do as opposed to just playing the music and so our ability to lead community efforts like that would be impacted by any new expense that we’d have to endure.”
While Huppe acknowledged the value radio stations provide to their communities, he wondered why musicians shouldn’t be paid when stations pay to syndicate talk radio shows and license sporting events. “Why should Randy Travis have to be the one to bear the load of this community effort and all the charitable work?,” Huppe asked.
Artificial intelligence’s threat to the music business was interspersed into the conversation about performance rights and royalties. Travis proved an exceptional witness on this topic, too, having recently released his first new track since his stroke in 2013, “Where That Came From,” with the help of generative AI software to recreate his voice. (Issa paused the hearing for a minute to play the song over the loudspeakers by pressing his smartphone next to his microphone.) “His piece of AI work was humanistic and artistic,” said Mary Travis. “And that’s the difference [between] the good and the bad AI.”
When asked by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) if users of generative AI software should be able to create unauthorized copies of a singer’s voice, Mary Travis was succinct: “Absolutely not,” she said flatly. Later, she compared unauthorized use of an artist’s voice to identity theft. “There needs to be laws that are in place to keep that from happening,” she said, “which means consent and compensation and attribution and provenance.”
But the hearing mostly focused on the economics of the radio business and the two sides’ inability to come to agreement. Huppe said the NAB’s strategy “is to run out the clock” and wait for another bill to be introduced in the next Congressional term. LeGeyt took “significant issue” with Huppe’s characterization and blamed the recording industry’s representatives for not supporting the conversations. “NAB stands willing to be in a conference room,” he said.
Rep. Issa, however, doubted LeGeyt’s willingness to make a deal with record labels. Noting that the NAB has been negotiating on Radio One’s behalf, Rep. Issa asked Harrell if his stations “would be willing to pay something to get this problem to go away?” “Mr. Chairman, I would not say that,” Harrell replied.
Minutes later, Issa took an admonishing tone with LeGeyt. The NAB did not offer “one penny” in higher royalties in their negotiations, Issa claimed, and if artists started to encourage people to listen only to radio station’s streaming offering, the cost to stations would be “far more than a modest concession,” said Issa.
The National Music Publishers’ Association’s (NMPA) war with Spotify continued at its annual meeting held Wednesday (June 12) at Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall.
In an address to the publishing executives in attendance, NMPA CEO/president David Israelite announced that the organization has filed an official complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and sent letters to the attorneys general for nine states as well as consumer trade groups to try to stop Spotify from reclassifying its premium tiers as “bundles” — a classification that allows the streamer to pay a lower mechanical royalty rate in the United States.
The NMPA alleges that Spotify has violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), section 5 of the FTC Act and various consumer protection laws. Spotify has not returned Billboard’s request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
As Billboard previously reported, publishers anticipate a $150 million loss in U.S. mechanicals in the first year of the bundling reclassification compared to what publishers would have been paid had it never happened. The decreased payments began in March with no prior warning, according to the NMPA and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the MLC). Spotify, however, believes it is playing by the book in making the change to how it pays out U.S. mechanical royalties given that it has “bundled” audiobooks in with the other offerings included in the streamer’s premium plans.
“Spotify has declared war on songwriters,” said Israelite at Wednesday’s meeting. “Our response shall be all-encompassing.” Israelite noted that the NMPA (as well as the MLC) has taken multiple actions to stop Spotify’s bundling reclassification already. The organization’s all-out retaliation began with statements made against the company in March, followed in May by a cease and desist letter in which the NMPA threatened to file a lawsuit against Spotify for allegedly using music and lyrics in some of its podcasts and videos without permission. (Spotify called the move a “press stunt” by the NMPA).
“Our letter was not just a warning shot, and the NMPA has never lost a lawsuit. So you’ll want to stay tuned,” Israelite added on Wednesday.
Only days after the NMPA threatened legal action, the MLC filed a lawsuit against Spotify for “improperly” reclassifying its premium tiers as bundles.
The following week, the NMPA sent a letter to the Judiciary Committees in both the U.S. House and Senate asking for an overhaul of the statutory license in section 115 of the Copyright Act, which binds publishers to strict regulations and rules over what they can charge streaming services for U.S. mechanicals.
In the NMPA’s letter to the FTC, obtained by Billboard, general counsel Danielle Aguirre wrote: “The [NMPA] writes to urge the FTC to address unlawful conduct by Spotify that is harming millions of consumers and the music marketplace… Spotify has deceived consumers by converting millions of its subscribers without their consent from music-only subscriptions into ‘bundled’ audiobook-and-music subscriptions, publicly announcing increased prices for those subscriptions, failing to offer an option for subscribers to revert to a music-only subscription, and thwarting attempts to cancel through dark patterns and confusing website interfaces. This bait-and-switch subscription scheme is “saddling shoppers with recurring payments for products and services they did not intend to purchase or did not want to continue to purchase.”
Aguirre continued, “Indeed, it has all the red flags of problematic negative-option practices that the FTC has consistently warned companies about: (1) Spotify has failed to give consumers all material information about its subscription plans up front; (2) Spotify has billed consumers without their informed consent; and (3) Spotify has made it hard for consumers to cancel.”
Other letters of complaint were also sent to the attorneys general for nine states, including California, New York, Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington, D.C. In the NMPA’s letter to both the New York bureau chief of the consumer frauds and protection bureau as well as the state’s assistant attorney general, obtained by Billboard, Aguirre wrote: “We urge your office to investigate and address Spotify’s conduct as well.”
Letters were also sent to consumer groups including the National Consumers’ League, the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen Consumer Action and the National Consumer Wealth Center in hopes of sparking a class action lawsuit.
The NMPA’s recent moves are being supported by representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA), Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) via a letter sent Wednesday to Shira Perlmutter, register of copyrights and director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
In the letter, the three representatives wrote: “As members of the Judiciary Committee, which originated the Music Modernization Act, we want to see the law faithfully implemented and copyright owners protected from harm arising from bad faith exploitation of the compulsory system. Digital service providers should not be permitted to manipulate statutory rates to slash royalties, deeply undercutting copyright protections for songwriters and publishers. A fair system should prevent any big tech company from setting their own price for someone else’s intellectual property, whether the owner wants to sell or not.”
Each year, the NMPA is known for announcing major breaking news at its annual meeting — typically against tech companies that, in its view, are not properly paying for songs. Last year, Israelite announced a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, which is still in progress. In previous years, the NMPA has gone after Twitch, Peloton, Roblox and more.
“We will see what the Federal Court in the Southern District of NY, the United States Congress, the Copyright Office, the Copyright Royalty Board, the FTC, multiple State Attorneys General and consumer advocacy groups have to say,” Israelite told the crowd on Wednesday. “Most importantly, we will see what the songwriters and music publishers who make the product that allows Spotify to exist have to say.”
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).
On Tuesday (June 11), the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) held its annual global music publishing summit at 3 West in New York. Boasting panels on a wide-ranging list of publishing hot topics, from fraud to film/TV synchronization, the one-day event featured executives from ABKCO, Rimas Publishing, Spirit Music Group, Warner Chappell, CD Baby, Pex and more.
One highlight of the day included the panel Opportunities Abroad: Maximizing Overseas Collection featuring Michael Simon (Harry Fox Agency), Alexander Wolf (SESAC International), David Alexander (MusicIndustry.Africa), Mark Chung (Freibank Music Publishing, IMPF) and Tomas Ericsson (AMRA).
During the panel, the experts, who hail from around the world, discussed the increasingly globalized music market, which regions hold the most value and how to maximize that value. “It can’t be like it was in the 90s,” said Simon. “Back then the answer was to sit back and wait for checks to arrive in your mailbox — that world seems to be disappearing.”
Trending on Billboard
Some experts stressed the importance of leaning on sub-publishers with local knowledge to ensure proper collections. Ericsson, whose company AMRA collects digital royalties on a worldwide basis, explained that using AMRA can also be a solution to pain points in collection worldwide because “the majority of societies do not have the capital incentives to invest in better technology and therefore use whatever means they have to process this money to others.”
“My bet is on Asia,” said Wolf of the region with the most untapped potential for publishers. “They’re knowledgeable, and they’re making money… Africa as a continent is more troubled. Countries like Nigeria are especially great countries, great musicians but in the last thirty years, Nigeria had seven different collection societies. There is value there, but we need patience.”
The AIMP event coincided with what’s known as New York Music Month (NYMM) — a collection of events across the five boroughs to support the city’s local music scene. Though the festivities continue throughout the entire month, the bulk of NYMM events happen the week of June 10-15. In the publishing business, the annual gathering is fondly known as “Publishers’ Week” or “Songwriters’ Week” in reference to events like AIMP, the National Music Publishers’ Association’s annual meeting and the Songwriters Hall of Fame — all of which take place in the same five-day period. Others also call it “Indie Week,” a reference to the Association of American Independent Music’s five-day conference of the same name.
At European collective management organizations (CMOs), the hits just keep on coming. On Wednesday (June 5), SACEM announced record results for 2023, with collections up 5% to €1.49 billion ($1.6 billion based on the 2023 average euro-to-dollar conversion rate) compared to the previous year and distributions rising 17% to €1.23 billion ($1.33 billion). The French CMO also announced that its board has voted unanimously to extend Cécile Rap-Veber’s term as CEO.
The results come amid a thriving period for European CMOs. In April, GEMA, the German collecting society, announced that revenue rose 8.4% in 2023 to €1.28 billion ($1.4 billion). PRS for Music in the United Kingdom followed at the end of May, disclosing 14.2% revenue growth to £1.08 billion ($1.34 billion). However, in both of those cases, as well as SACEM’s, the results followed years of more substantial growth fueled by music fans eager to get back to seeing live shows in the wake of the pandemic. A year ago, for example, SACEM announced that it had taken in €1.41 billion ($1.54 billion) in 2022 — 34% more than it did the prior year.
Slower growth seems to be bringing with it a focus on controlling costs, and SACEM’s ratio of expenses to revenue collected is 10.76%, the lowest in its history. “What matters to me is the best value for our members,” SACEM CEO Cécile Rap-Veber tells Billboard. She adds that a more efficient disbursement of royalties boosted growth in distributions beyond that of revenue, saying: “We are distributing faster and faster.”
Trending on Billboard
The biggest source of revenue for SACEM was online, which rose 13% to €557 million ($602.67 million). The second biggest source was general royalties — a category that includes places where music is central, such as concerts, as well as places where it’s not — which was up 18.5% to €388 million ($420 million). Finally, broadcast rights, including TV and radio, brought in €318 million ($344 million).
Over the past few years, Rap-Veber has helped modernize the French CMO with an initiative known as “SACEM 3.0,” with a focus on delivering results at a reasonable cost.
“2023 was a year of confirmation in the implementation of our major strategic priorities,” Rap-Veber said in a statement. “We continued our transformation into Sacem 3.0 and worked to improve efficiency, ensuring the sustainability of our management account and optimising both our collections and the amount distributed to our members.”
More than ever, CMOs are competing for online rights — but also, on some level, for bragging rights. ‘Competition,” says Rap-Veber, “has forced a lot of us to improve.”
You’ve most likely heard by now the news that Spotify, through a surprising bundling maneuver, has unilaterally decided to give songwriters a substantial pay cut. As part of our ongoing efforts to provide the songwriting community with data and details related to this incredibly important income stream — which at this point must feel like a continual moving target — we have reviewed and analyzed Spotify’s reporting for the first month where they instituted this change (March), and compared it with the month prior (February).
What Is Happening?: Spotify has decided to bundle audiobooks in its premium tier offerings (affecting 85% of total Spotify subscribers). By doing so, they are now claiming that nearly half of total subscriber revenue is attributed to audiobooks, reducing reported service revenue to music to 52%. This results in a substantial decrease in payments to songwriters, which we explain below.
Trending on Billboard
In March, total mechanical revenue paid by Spotify was reduced by 33.9% (from $36.7 million in February to $24.3 million). This is where the reported yearly $150 million reduction comes from — an estimate built on Spotify’s prior-year performance and payment reports to the Mechanical Licensing Collective. The twist here is that Spotify reported that performance royalties increased 18.75% from February to March (from $31.2 million to $37 million).
Spotify’s performance royalties always fluctuate from month to month (by as much as +/- 10%) but the magnitude of this change is unusual (and unexplained). Was March’s unexpected growth in Spotify’s performance royalties an anomaly, or a precursor to a new level of payments for that royalty? Due to the structure of the mechanical royalty payment formula, an increase in performance payments results in a decrease in mechanical payments.
For many songwriters who have agreements with music publishers, performance royalties are beneficial because half are paid directly to the songwriter and not through their publishing agreement, whereas mechanical royalties run through the publisher.
So, while mechanical payments in March were reduced by 33.9%, the total reduction in payments to songwriters was 9.75% ($67.9 million to $61.3 million), which on an annual basis comes out to $80 million.
Historical Performance vs. Mechanical Payments for CRB III: This harkens back to prior reporting (and confusion) a couple of months ago when the streaming services reported an increase in performance revenue over the prior five-year period (2018-2022). While we cannot explain exactly why performance revenue changed in this historic accounting period, we can presume that it had something to do with deals that were being negotiated during that time and were finalized and took retroactive effect by the time the final remanded reporting was provided and required by the final determination of the appeal.
If Spotify Cut Revenue in Half, Why Aren’t We Seeing a 50% Reduction? The payment structure has various protections so that Spotify and other similar digital service providers cannot unilaterally adjust their prices to the detriment of songwriters, as Spotify has done here. One of those protections is an obligation to pay songwriters a portion of what they pay record labels, to the extent that that amount is greater than the service revenue percentage. This is called the “TCC Prong,” or “Total Content Cost Prong.” Because Spotify’s deals with the record labels apparently do not give them the flexibility to choose what they can bundle into offerings and make price reductions, what they pay the labels has not changed. In fact, in March, that percentage increased by 5.86%, or $13.1 million.
So is the Total Yearly Reduction 150M or 80M? This will most likely land somewhere in the middle, as it depends on what Spotify reports paying on performance (i.e., if March’s performance royalty growth was an anomaly) and what it pays to the labels. Over the course of the next several months, if Spotify does not change its position, we will be monitoring and reporting trends in percentage and actual results as part of our ongoing effort to provide the songwriting community with actual and up-to-date information related to their royalties. You can also check the current going rate of publishing revenue yourself at any time with our royalty calculator, updated monthly.
Spotify spent five years litigating against publishers and songwriters to establish rates for 2018-2022. The result was a positive increase but a major delay in payment. In total, the mechanical increase from all digital service providers came out to about $250 million over that period. Of that, Spotify contributed $98.6 million more, and that’s just from its restated 2021-2022 period. Songwriters did not receive the eventual rate increase until earlier this year.
When Spotify, the NMPA and NSAI reached an agreement for 2023-2027, we thought the fight was over. We were wrong.
At the end of March, Spotify reported yearly revenue of $15 billion. This audiobook bundling maneuver, which affects 100% of all musical content on its service, reflects less than a 1% cost savings for the tech behemoth. And for a limited time, at that, since the settlement referenced above ends in 2027. This begs the question to Spotify analysts and shareholders alike as to whether it is worth it — and leads to the obvious answer: “It is not.” Spotify should reverse course immediately and find 1% savings somewhere else that doesn’t work to decimate the revenue of millions of American songwriters, the lifeblood of our treasured American music industry.
Jordan Bromley leads Manatt Entertainment, a legal and consulting firm providing services to the entertainment industry for over 45 years. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Music Artists Coalition, an artist first advocacy coalition established in 2019.
Trent Smith is a financial analyst at Manatt Entertainment with extensive experience in the streaming economy.
Recently, Spotify has reclassified its premium individual, duo and family subscription services as “bundled subscription services” in an ill-informed attempt to deprive songwriters and music publishers of their rightfully earned U.S. mechanical royalties. As a result, the agreed-upon revenue share rate for Spotify premium, currently 15.2%, may effectively be reduced to less than 12%, depending upon a number of factors. Losses to songwriters and publishers, estimated by Billboard to be $150 million on an annualized basis, will undoubtedly increase over time as subscription revenue and users grow.
Let me say straight away that this column is not intended to embarrass or disparage Spotify in any way. Quite the opposite: This is a respectful appeal to the company, specifically its senior leadership team, to do the right thing by songwriters, regardless of what strategies they appear to believe are legally permissible.
Trending on Billboard
Spotify has an unfortunate and documented history of punching down at songwriters and music publishers. In just the last few years, this includes appealing the Phonorecords III decision, which reasonably raised the mechanical royalty rate from 10.5% to 15.1% of revenue over a five-year period (while also providing discounted terms for family and student accounts that are beneficial to Spotify and other music services). Almost immediately after serving notice of its intention to appeal Phonorecords III, Spotify moved to retroactively implement the Copyright Royalty Board’s final pre-appeal decision and clawed back a multi-million-dollar credit from songwriters and music publishers throughout 2019. The appeal and remand process lasted for many years, ultimately delaying the payment of a large amount of mechanical royalties, including those earned during the hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic, until February 2024. And finally, in late 2021, Spotify proposed statutory rates for 2023-2027 that the NMPA referred to as the “lowest royalty rates in history.”
While the settlement of Phonorecords IV in 2022 was celebrated by both streaming services and music publishers, Spotify and other DSPs had especially good reason to rejoice. The settlement provides that revenue share rates minimally increase from the prior rate of 15.1% to 15.35% over a five-year period while also providing for discounts related to not only family and student accounts but also Spotify duo —subscription tiers that are meaningful to Spotify given the strong growth of family and duo plans, as the company has noted in earnings reports. The settlement also provides specific terms for DSPs that choose to bundle a qualifying music subscription service with other products and services.
It’s difficult to imagine why Spotify could have any degree of buyer’s remorse concerning the Phonorecords IV settlement or deliberately attempt to manipulate its terms given how clearly reasonable and fair it is. Spotify presumably entered into the settlement with the full knowledge and acceptance that it was agreeing to pay the revenue share rates of 15.1% to 15.35% upon a properly undiluted revenue base, as it had been doing until March 2024.
But Spotify has again devalued the contributions of songwriters to its platform, a move that has been described by rights and advocacy organizations as “cynical,” “potentially unlawful,” “greedy” and “offensive.”
I’ve been asked a lot in recent weeks why Spotify is doing this. The answer, other than perhaps “because they believe they can,” is simple. I believe that Spotify is unjustly attempting to reduce the amounts it pays to songwriters and music publishers in order to (1) effectively use the displaced royalties to offset the costs of running its audiobook business and (2) improve its margins.
Spotify’s reframing of the vast majority of its subscription services as bundled subscription services is a work of fiction. It has done so, in part, by launching a standalone audiobooks access tier that does not appear commercially attractive to users and was launched, at least to an extent, to support its “bundling” strategy. As noted in the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s (the MLC) legal complaint against Spotify, the audiobooks access tier is largely hidden from view on Spotify’s website on a page where the primary purpose is to steer subscribers to premium, not audiobooks access.
The audiobooks access tier is also only available in the United States, the only country to which the Phonorecords IV settlement and accompanying statutory framework applies, and is notably not available in any other country where audiobooks are available in premium. Spotify’s intent is rather obvious on its face, but to think that the availability of the audiobooks access tier as implemented is something of a silver bullet that qualifies it to reclassify its premium individual, family, and duo tiers as a bundled subscription service is a true mark of acting in bad faith. To do so when Spotify is reportedly on the cusp of rightfully raising prices in the United States is all the more insulting.
In the wake of the ire directed at Spotify from songwriters and the music publishing community in recent weeks, the company has issued statements to Billboard and other media.
First, Spotify has stated that it is simply doing what other services have done with bundled products. In my opinion, this is misleading. The Spotify competitors that have availed themselves of bundle reporting methods have done so for products that are bona fide bundles consisting of individually available services and products that hold a clear commercial value, and to which users actively elect to subscribe. Spotify has even done this itself for bundled products on a more limited basis, in the manner actually intended by the Phonorecords IV settlement and its predecessors. But as the MLC’s legal filing against Spotify notes, anyone who subscribed to Spotify premium prior to November 8, 2023, did not elect to receive audiobooks content or functionality. Many premium users have not utilized audiobooks even once; and, as of this writing, a non-student Spotify subscription without audiobooks does not even exist.
Spotify has also been quick to point out that music publishers “agreed to and celebrated” the Phonorecords IV settlement. I can assure readers there is no world in which the music publishing community truly believed that it was agreeing to bundling provisions in the manner in which they are being abused by Spotify to drastically reduce its payments to songwriters and music publishers. At minimum, Spotify’s actions clearly violate the spirit of the agreement, and to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest. To the extent Spotify may believe it has outsmarted songwriters and music publishers, there should be no pride in ownership.
Finally, Spotify has stated that it “paid a record amount to publishers and societies in 2023 and is on track to pay out an even larger amount in 2024,” which presumably refers to Spotify’s global rather than U.S. domestic spend on music publishing royalties. This may be true given Spotify’s growth trajectory, which as of its most recent reporting was up 20% year-over-year in revenue and up 14% in premium subscribers. However, it is wholly irrelevant and a deflection from the issue. Simply paying more from one year to the next does not atone for the grave offense at hand. The amount of royalties paid is not the only pertinent metric.
Spotify has repeatedly stated its desire to become a more efficient and profitable company. I applaud that. Spotify operating profitably is good for the music business — including songwriters and music publishers. And Spotify is welcome to spread its wings and invest in new areas of business such as podcasts and audiobooks. But let’s be clear: The royalties that Spotify pays to songwriters and music publishers (and other music rightsholders including record labels) are not preventing it from becoming or remaining profitable.
Spotify has said on multiple occasions, including during its 2022 investor day presentation, that it has chosen to prioritize growth over profitability and has done so deliberately and willingly. Its music gross margin has operated at strong numbers and improved over time, in part thanks to its marketplace initiatives, but overall gross margin has been dragged down by investments the company has made in the podcast space. Not all of those investments, including content deals and acquisitions of other companies, have produced positive results, as is well documented in various media, and Spotify has since pivoted to operate more efficiently and better ensure that its costs do not grow quicker than its revenue.
The royalties Spotify pays to songwriters and music publishers are not the problem, nor are the royalties it pays to others. Spotify receives tremendous value in exchange for the mechanical and other royalties that it pays for musical works, and songwriters should not be treated by Spotify as a drag on its margins. To pay slightly north of 15% of revenue for songwriters’ creative output is a gift, and there is absolutely no reason for Spotify to sneak around corners to dilute songwriters’ income. It is beyond the pale, even relative to actions that Spotify has taken against songwriters and publishers in recent years.
I love Spotify and have been a user since the very beginning. But I value the songs upon which it has built its entire business even more. Spotify is a house built by songwriters. In the modern listening environment, which heavily depends upon personalization, recommendations and playlists, songs and songwriters are an even more crucial part of the infrastructure and the value conveyed to consumers who pay Spotify subscription fees.
I’ve often said that compensating songwriters in accordance with the value that they bring to music streaming platforms is not only good business but also good for business. Spotify’s relationship with songwriters and publishers, whether it realizes it or not, is mission-critical and not just about maintaining positive sentiment. Given the global stature of Spotify and the company’s interest in various content types including podcasts, music videos and lyrics, returning its relationship with songwriters and publishers to a respectful position is important to its future. Unfortunately, Spotify’s relationship with the songwriter and music publishing communities that it has built its business upon is now more fraught and damaged than ever. Trust has been almost entirely eroded. That cannot merely be chalked up to, as Spotify stated during its most recent earnings call, “natural tensions between suppliers and distributors.” But it may not be too late to fix things.
Here is my genuine and respectful appeal to Spotify, and it’s not a big ask: Please voluntarily honor the Phonorecords IV settlement on the intended terms that you know fully well were agreed to and promptly reverse course on your misguided attempts to reduce U.S. mechanical royalties in this manner. Songwriters and the broader music publishing community will thank you. If this is too much to ask, I believe the songwriting community will never want to hear another word from Spotify about, to use the company’s own words, “giving a million creative artists the opportunity to live off their art.”
Adam Parness was the global head of music publishing at Spotify from 2017 to 2019. He currently operates Adam Parness Music Consulting and serves as a highly trusted and sought after strategic advisor to numerous music rightsholders, notably in the music publishing space, as well as popular global brands, technology-based creative services companies and firms investing in music and technology.
Spotify is changing the way it pays songwriters and publishers in the United States — leading to an estimated $150 million cut to U.S. mechanical royalty payments — and the music business is speaking out.
By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium, duo and family tiers, Spotify now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams given that it now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same subscription price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only offering.
Spotify argues that adding audiobooks reclassifies the service from a “standalone portable subscription” to a “bundled subscription offering,” according to the royalty rate formula provided in Phonorecords IV. The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), both of which represented the music business in Phono IV proceedings, disagree with Spotify’s reading of the settlement, with the NMPA calling it “a cynical and potentially unlawful move” that is a “perversion of the settlement we agreed upon in 2022.”
Trending on Billboard
Last week, Billboard calculated that this change will lead to an estimated $150 million cut in U.S. mechanical royalties from premium, duo and family plans for the first 12 months the bundle rate is in effect, compared to what songwriters would have earned if the three subscription tiers were never bundled. The change affects payments starting in March 2024, so it will not impact Spotify’s premium, duo or family payouts for the first two months of 2024. Specifically, the estimate refers to losses for the first 12 months after the premium, family and duo tiers are qualified as a bundle, not calendar year 2024.
As Spotify grows, the music business fears that the difference between what payments to songwriters and publishers would have been if premium continued to be counted as a regular standalone service versus what will be paid now that music and audiobooks have been bundled will continue to increase.
Spotify says it will soon offer a music-only subscription tier that will pay out in the same way Spotify premium used to, but there’s not yet a timeline for when this option will launch.
Back in March, Spotify released a statement about the change to the bundle rate, stating that the company is “on track to pay publishers and societies more in 2024 than in 2023. As our industry partners are aware, changes in our product portfolio mean that we are paying out in different ways based on terms agreed to by both streaming services and publishers. Multiple DSPs have long paid a lower rate for bundles versus a stand-alone music subscription, and our approach is consistent.”
Below is an updating list of music industry reactions to the news:
National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA)
“It appears Spotify has returned to attacking the very songwriters who make its business possible. Spotify’s attempt to radically reduce songwriter payments by reclassifying their music service as an audiobook bundle is a cynical, and potentially unlawful, move that ends our period of relative peace. We will not stand for their perversion of the settlement we agreed upon in 2022 and are looking at all options.”
Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP)
“Two weeks ago, we spoke out about the potential consequences for independent music publishers should Spotify go forward with its plan to bundle a previously free service, audiobooks, with music subscriptions. Now that an actual number has been put to the potential lost revenue for music publishers, a staggering estimate of $150 million per year, we feel the need to speak out again.
“It is a deeply cynical move for Spotify to attempt to circumvent the CRB settlement agreed to by the NMPA & NSAI and DiMA in 2022 via this bundling ‘loophole,’ and further insulting that the price of a Spotify subscription will actually increase for users while cutting revenue for the songwriters who keep their business alive. This is especially problematic for independent music publishers, as they and all publishers are legally prevented from negotiating protections against bad-faith tactics such as this, while labels are allowed to do so in a free market.
“At this point, we still do not know how Spotify plans to notify its subscribers of this change. The right thing to do is to default existing subscribers to music-only accounts, and then give them the option to add-on the audiobook service for an additional $9.99 per month — Spotify’s proposed standalone rate for audiobooks. This ensures a proper, non-devalued royalty rate for both music and audiobook publishers and rightsholders, who will otherwise both be negatively affected by bundling.
“The AIMP offers its unequivocal support to the NMPA as they fight this critical battle to prevent Spotify’s scheme from taking effect. We encourage all independent music publishers to join us in this stance and make their songwriters aware of this attack on their livelihood. We cannot allow bundling to become a precedent that can be used to deprive songwriters of their well-earned royalties.
“The AIMP has also been speaking with the Coalition of Concerned Creators and are happy to report that we are aligned on this issue. Please find their statement on this issue below.
“From the Coalition of Concerned Creators:
“All musicians, creator advocacy groups, unions and organizations, and other creator stakeholders — including authors and podcasters — must stand firm against Spotify’s recent policy shift. It is essential to advocate for equitable compensation for music creators, who are pivotal to the industry’s sustainability. Additionally, this is a clear pattern of behavior and we continue to be concerned about Spotify’s bridge into new audio formats, like audiobooks, and how this pattern of behavior will affect other creators, like authors, as well.”
Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI)
“Spotify, we are writing regarding Spotify’s decision to ‘bundle’ music with audiobooks, resulting in an estimated annual loss of as much as $150 million in mechanical royalty payments to American songwriters, composers and music publishers. This attempt at lowering royalty payments to an already beleaguered songwriter community is in the worst bad faith and a perversion of the Copyright Royalty Board settlement that the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), the National Music Publishers Assn. (NMPA) and the Digital Media Assn. (DiMA) agreed to in 2022. It counters every statement Spotify has ever made of claiming the company is friendly to creators.
“‘Bundling’ music with other offerings without a music-only option does not comport with our view of the intent of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) in recent Phonorecord procedures in which the NSAI participated. Further, this move negates gains awarded to songwriters by the CRB. NSAI will not accept what we view as an attempt to manipulate the intent of the court through a ‘bundling’ gimmick. NSAI calls for Spotify to immediately reverse its course and offer separate music subscription choices at price points that will fairly remunerate songwriters.
“The American songwriter community is appalled that this is happening while Spotify is reporting record profits, and while founder Daniel Ek has recently cashed in a reported $180 million in stock options, including $118 million that practically coincided with the ‘bundling’ announcement which reduced Spotify’s yearly royalty obligation. The amount Ek cashed in conveniently mirrors the estimated amount that Spotify wants to leech off the back of songwriters who create the product on which streaming services are making billions.
“Reporting record profits while reducing songwriter royalties as the company founder cashed in millions in stocks proves a greedy, offensive and callous disregard for the songwriters on whose backs these revenues are generated.
“Signed unanimously by Nashville Songwriters Association International”