soundexchange
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.
Music investing platform JKBX said on Wednesday it is partnering with SoundExchange to process payments to artists and songwriters who are a part of its creator program.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Founded in 2022, JKBX (pronounced “jukebox”) allows everyday investors to buy royalty shares that give investors the right to a slice of the income generated by songs like OneRepublic frontman Ryan Tedder‘s “Counting Stars” through public offerings regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC). The company, which launched its first public offering last month, aims to open up an asset class to fans and other investors that previously was only available to the wealthiest investors.
JKBX currently does not work directly with musicians like Tedder. Instead, the company’s deals are with record labels, music publishers and catalog funds that own the copyrights behind the royalties offered on the platform. But JKBX chief executive and Orchard co-founder Scott Cohen says the creator program was designed to “spread the wealth,” giving artists and songwriters a cut of the revenue generated by this new way to monetize music rights.
Trending on Billboard
“The JKBX Creator Program was designed to continually reward the creators and artists for their contributions to society,” Cohen said in a statement. “We firmly believe that the talent who creates this indispensable artform that fuels us deserves that right.”
Artists who sign up for the creator program can create an artist page on the site and earn money for the fan attention and interaction they bring to JKBX’s platform. JKBX says it tracks page views and distributes payments based on an artist’s share of traffic to the site.
The partnership with SoundExchange means JKBX will use its technology and systems to pay artists, many of whom are already registered to work with SoundExchange.
“The mission of SoundExchange is to help creators maximize the value of their work, and JKBX provides a new alternative to monetize music assets,” said Michael Huppe, president and CEO of SoundExchange, adding the platform has the potential to bring millions of fans to “invest in the craft.”
JKBX launched its first SEC-approved offering last month, a grouping of 85 projects — 69 of which involve Ryan Tedder, the songwriter and producer best known as a member of the group OneRepublic. Tedder is a songwriter or producer on tracks by Adele, Jonas Brothers and Diplo that are offered on the platform.
Share prices on JKBX are currently fixed, meaning a song’s return will fluctuate based on the amount of royalties paid out, not an increase or decrease in the price. JKBX intends to launch a secondary marketplace in 2024, according to the site’s FAQ section, that will allow investors to re-sell their shares.
For as long as there’s been a “music business,” creators have been fighting for their fair share, and modern history is replete with examples of corporations trying to shortchange music makers.
Case-in-point: AM/FM radio, where U.S. broadcasters have been getting away with paying artists $0 from their $15 billion-a-year revenue – despite the fact that music is their main input. Their argument? Because radio is supplying “free promotion” for the musicians, they don’t deserve a cut of the profits. Big broadcasters have been pushing this excuse since the 1930s.
Fast forward almost a century, and we’re now seeing this play out with new technology – most recently with the dispute betweenTikTok and Universal Music Group (UMG). Using the same argument as radio broadcasters, TikTok claims its platform provides “free promotion” to artists, and it’s therefore trying to undercut what they pay for the use of their music. But UMG refused to fall for this ploy and has now pulled all of its content from the platform until TikTok agrees to an appropriate licensing fee. As a result, about one-third of the most popular recordings on TikTok, including music from Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber and Billie Eilish, are now unavailable on the platform. (And this trend may grow if the dispute expands to the publishing side of the business, with indie publishers’ TikTok license due to expire in April.)
Trending on Billboard
UMG is doing the right thing by standing up for its artists. The label is making the case that creators should be paid fairly for the use of their tracks, in line with other platforms. (It also seeks to protect artists from the harmful effects of unregulated AI and encourages online safety protocols for users, two things all of us should support.) UMG recognizes that the lure of potentially viral promotion is in no way a substitute for fair compensation to hard-working creators.
Long before social media, companies using others’ musical property have sought to avoid paying fairly for that privilege because of this outdated argument around “promotion.” They tried it in the case of piano rolls, silent movie theaters, retail stores, music venues and even peer-to-peer file sharing platforms like Napster and Grokster. In each of those instances, companies tried to underpay (or not pay at all) for the music on the bogus theory that creators should “just accept the promotion, be thankful for whatever they get, and be on their merry way” – regardless of the immense profits they were making from the use of that music.
Thankfully, in the above cases, players in the music industry stood firm and refused to be blinded by the siren song of promotion. But that clearly hasn’t stopped others from trying the same trick.
TikTok is abusing its reputation as the place where new music is discovered. It’s true that many of today’s popular artists (like Lil Nas X, Doja Cat and Lizzo) first found fame on the platform. It’s also where catalog music is finding new life. There is no disputing the important role TikTok plays in the current music ecosystem. But that is an altogether different question than whether or not TikTok should compensate artists fairly.
Instead of using its power to pay artists less, TikTok should take the opposite approach. It should seek to be the digital home for musicians, the place not just where they can be heard, but where they want to be heard and where their value is recognized. This holds true for superstars, middle-class musicians and up-and-comers praying for their first breakout hit. And it starts with paying all of them fairly in recognition of the critical role they provide to the business, whether they’re receiving “promotion” or not.
Going forward, it’s important that key players, like UMG, take a stand against inequity on every platform that seeks to take advantage of creators.*
*SoundExchange is not involved in collecting sound recording royalties from TikTok.
Michael Huppe is president and CEO of SoundExchange.
In its first legal response to a SoundExchange lawsuit alleging underpayment of $150 million in artist royalties, SiriusXM claimed in a court filing Friday (Sept. 22) that SoundExchange’s numbers rely on a “so-called audit” that was a “flawed and biased examination” and insists the satellite-radio giant “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange in all material respects.”
The filing, which demands a change of U.S. court venue from Virginia to New York or Washington, D.C., also bashes the royalty collection and distribution service for trying to “justify its existence, lofty executive salaries and luxurious operating style through repeated litigation against its biggest contributor.”
In a phone interview before the filing, George White, SiriusXM’s senior vp of music licensing and royalties, says the SoundExchange lawsuit, filed in August, caught his company by surprise. “We were discussing settlement with them,” adds White, a former longtime major-label executive. “We really took some time to review it.”
White says the lawsuit comes down to a difference of opinion over SoundExchange’s “method of calculating their deduction.” He argues that SiriusXM has paid SoundExchange $5 billion in performance royalties for sound recordings over the last 10 years, and contributed “the vast majority” of the $805 million the service collected last year. “The rhetoric in the suit itself and the press release around the suit seems really unfair and wholly inappropriate,” White says. “In fact, we want to make every effort to ensure everyone is compensated fairly.”
SoundExchange, which collects royalties from webcasters and non-terrestrial radio services on behalf of artists and labels, argued in its Aug. 16 lawsuit that Sirius XM was bundling its satellite radio and streaming service, mixing the revenue in order to improperly reduce its royalty bill. The U.S. government mandates different royalty rates for satellite-transmitted services (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) and webcasting under so-called statutory licenses, but SoundExchange’s lawsuit declared that “Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
In its response, SiriusXM accused SoundExchange of “misguided allegations” and argued a “proper audit” would conclude the company “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange.” The company also criticized SoundExchange for taking advantage of what it called the Virginia court’s “rocket docket,” which, regional lawyers have said, results in fast-moving cases, little time for discovery and quick resolution.
“We’re very hopeful that we can proceed down the lines of having a productive settlement discussion,” White says. “I would far rather that we had a close relationship with SoundExchange that was about working to grow SiriusXM’s contributions to SoundExchange.”
SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
In his Washington, D.C. office, Michael Huppe rolls his chair past gold records, an Elvis Costello poster and an electric guitar to a back shelf to locate a key and unlock a drawer. “Let me see if I still have it here,” the SoundExchange president/CEO says before pulling out a black vest with capital yellow letters that read “RIAA Anti-Piracy Unit” and draping it over his coat.
Prior to collecting performance royalties from digital radio stations, as well as broadcast companies such as SiriusXM and distributing them to creators for non-interactive digital streaming through SoundExchange, Huppe helped hunt down piracy rings around the country for the RIAA to ensure artists weren’t losing out on revenue. “I have gone on raids — flea markets, cassette operations, some CD operations,” he says.
Since Huppe joined SoundExchange in 2007, his tactics have changed — but his primary goal of getting performers and rights owners paid has not. Over the past two decades, he has helped raise their royalty rates and helped track them down at locations from music festivals to Mississippi Delta homes to distribute earned royalty payments. Now SoundExchange is marking its 20th anniversary and, in May, announced it had distributed $10 billion overall in payments. According to the organization’s most recent annual report released in July, SoundExchange collected $1 billion in digital royalties from more than 3,600 digital streaming platforms and distributed them to over 600,000 creators and rights holders in 2022 alone.
“You recognize you’re really making a difference in people’s lives,” Huppe says.
Explain what it means for SoundExchange to cross what it calls the “$10 billion distribution milestone.”
The growth rate of our payments surprised everyone, including me. When I came over to SoundExchange, I saw streaming was going to grow. We pay significant amounts of money to the big superstars, but also good amounts to working-class musicians that you may or may not have heard of. It makes a difference as to whether they stay in the industry. During the pandemic, for a lot of those musicians, we were the only revenue stream. The emails we received … it’s really gratifying.
What are some examples of those messages?
One band with regional popularity had been driving around trying to make it in a van, crashing on friends’ couches, barely getting by. We were trying to find them because we had money for them. They were literally about to hang it up — they were at the end of their run, running out of steam. That initial SoundExchange payment made all the difference and incentivized them to keep going.
There was a widow of a Delta blues singer we had been trying to find forever. We finally found her, and she was in tears because they were about to foreclose on her house and because of that [payment], they saved her house.
Country artist Randy Travis (seated), his wife, Mary Travis, and Michael Huppe.
Courtesy of SoundExchange
After working at the RIAA, you joined SoundExchange in 2007, which had been operating for four years. What were those early days on the job like?
We were still sending out paper checks. Back then, they were quarterly or semi-annually, and half the staff would gather into a room and run the distribution. That makes me think how far we’ve come, from paper checks to a system that processes 35 billion [digital] performances a month from 600,000 accounts. We were like, “Oh, my God — the next $100,000 [comes in] this quarter!” Now we’re regularly doing $1 billion [in payouts] per year.
It’s SoundExchange’s 20th anniversary. What have been the company’s biggest achievements during your tenure?
When I first started working — I guess I was still at the RIAA — SiriusXM was paying 2% of revenue, and now it’s 15.5%. And streaming rates we get from webcasting have more than quadrupled. We’ve done a really good job of demonstrating and achieving the value for music. [Editor’s note: In August, SoundExchange filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM claiming the platform is “gaming the system” to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes” to the amount of $150 million by manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services. A representative for SiriusXM has denied the allegations.]
How has SoundExchange helped those rate increases?
For the first few years, we would go before this three-judge panel at the Copyright Royalty Board. We’ve had a good track record of convincing them why we should be paid higher rates for music, which is so important to these services. The last satellite radio proceeding we had went from 11% to 15.5% overnight. So Dec. 31 of one year [2017], it was 11%, and the next day, they were paying us 15.5%. For the most part, it has been a gradual uptick.
What is SoundExchange’s general strategy for helping to persuade the CRB to raise the rates?
You put on artist witnesses and people from the union and record-label folks who explain what goes into the making of sound recordings. You bring in experts who can talk about the profitand-loss situation or what the future five years of the industry is projecting. You do all that the right way and make a convincing case, and the court increasingly recognizes the value music plays in the services. They are big, long, expensive cases, but it’s worth it because we have to look out for the value of music.
How quickly does SoundExchange make those payments?
Ninety percent of our royalties are out the door in 45 days, whereas around the world, on average, folks pay out annually, semi-annually or quarterly. We’re working for the creators. Our job is to take their money from the digital service providers and get it to them as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Are you a musician?
I’ve played piano since I was 4 years old. My chops are not what they used to be! So don’t ask me that. I played in different bands through high school. I’ve always loved music.
I’ll be honest with you: I never thought I’d end up in the music industry. I’m a recovering lawyer. When I was in law school, I got really interested in intellectual property [IP]. It’s this thing you can’t touch, you can’t hold, it’s not tangible — but the government vests a property right in it because they want to incentivize investment in creation. It just was a really interesting concept. [Without it], you wouldn’t have research in the next cancer treatment. You wouldn’t have people investing in music or movies or software.
Rapper Armani White (left) and Michael Huppe.
Courtesy of SoundExchange
After Harvard Law School, you started at the RIAA in 2000. How did you get to that job?
I clerked in court in the Eastern District of Virginia. We saw a lot of IP — when someone’s infringing your patent, you could be losing millions of dollars a day or tens of millions, and it makes a difference going to a quick court. When I started out as a lawyer in a law firm here, I tried to do IP if I could, but I was just doing general litigation. I got this headhunter to [help me] come over to work at this place called the RIAA, which happened to be across the street from where I was working. I came in to do litigation and piracy work and a lot of other things at the RIAA.
Like what?
There were still full-blown, big, commercial pirate cassette operations. I was helping to develop processes and cases. Slowly, that work moved from cassettes to commercial CDs to burnable CDs and downloads, and by the time I left, it was all streaming. We had eight offices around the country, probably 60 people in the department, tons of investigators. I helped create a system where we could build our own cases against pirates because we started to move toward the civil side instead of just criminal.
Any stories about busting flea markets?
The more tense times are when you’re going to someone’s house and they’ve got a CD-burning factory in the basement. Then you move on to the internet. It’s a whole different ball of wax. You’ve got people hiding behind 14 different anonymizers who may not even be based in this country. It was an interesting way to get into the business, that’s for sure.
In addition to Michael Huppe, SoundExchange is guided by an executive leadership team consisting of (from top) chief business officer Tommy Korpinen, CFO/COO Anjula Singh, general counsel Tim Dadson and chief technology officer Luis Bonilla.
Elliot O’Donovan
What are the next big goals for SoundExchange?
SoundExchange, 10 years from now, is going to be an even bigger part of the industry than we are today. When we moved into publishing in June 2022, part of that was to bring some of the same philosophy and perspective and transparency into the publishing world that we brought into the sound-recording world. The ultimate thing is to marry up the metadata. Wouldn’t it be great if there was one central nonprofit place where you had all the authoritative data about who wrote the song, who owns the publishing, what are the splits, who played [in the] background, who sang vocals? It’s interesting and a little crazy we don’t have that as an industry. If we can move in that direction, that removes friction.
Obviously, [artificial intelligence] is a big topic. There are a lot of benefits and a lot of threats. We would like to play a part in making sure AI is rolled out responsibly so we can take advantage of all the benefits, but also set up guardrails so it doesn’t hurt creators — and, by the way, society.
I would love to continue our work in making the business side of music flow more smoothly. The sign of success, in 10 years, is that no one’s even talking about transparency or metadata or mistaken lineups or not knowing who wrote a song. I hope in 10 years, we’re not even talking about that because we’ve solved the problems that got us here.
How has SoundExchange changed over 20 years?
In those early years, people didn’t necessarily know who SoundExchange was. We would have money for somebody and contact them: “Just give us your name and number and bank account.” Understandably, people rarely give that up unless they get to know you. I think people know who we are now. At South by Southwest, we get a list of all the bands, we cross-reference bands, we put up fliers: “Do you know this band? Send them here. We have money for them.” If you’re commercially active in the industry and you don’t know who SoundExchange is, that’s kind of more on you than it is on us.
SoundExchange’s Fight for Fairness
Visitors are cast in silhouette at the top of stairs near the Capitol Visitors Center at the United States Capitol on Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2022 in Washington, DC.
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
Under its president/CEO, Michael Huppe, SoundExchange has consistently supported the American Music Fairness Act — which would, for the first time ever, impel terrestrial radio companies to pay performers and copyright holders when airing their songs.
Since U.S. Reps. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., introduced the bill in June 2021, it has slowly progressed through Congress. In December 2022, the House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation. “For decades, broadcast corporations have made hundreds of billions of dollars while denying creators royalties for music played on AM/FM radio stations,” Huppe said in a statement at the time. “That’s fundamentally wrong.” In February, Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Alex Padilla, D-Calif.; Thom Tillis R-N.C.; and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., reintroduced the bill into the U.S. Senate.
On its website, SoundExchange summarized a key exception for small, local broadcasters: Those making less than $1.5 million in annual revenue and whose parent companies make less than $10 million annually would pay just $2 per day to rights holders so they could play any song they want over the air.
The National Association of Broadcasters, which opposes the bill, last December called the legislation an “onerous performance fee” and a “new performance tax” that would “irrevocably damage local radio.” Since the Copyright Act of 1909, broadcasters have consistently won this argument. In the 1930s, top bandleaders Fred Waring and Paul Whiteman formed an advocacy group called the National Association of Performing Arts; in the late 1980s, Frank Sinatra wrote letters to fellow pop stars to build a unified artist coalition; and in the 1990s, Congress passed laws forcing digital services to pay royalties and exempted over-the-air broadcasters from doing the same.
In a December 2022 Billboard op-ed, Huppe countered the NAB: “Corporate broadcasters argue that a ‘mutually beneficial relationship’ exists between AM/FM radio and music creators,” he wrote. “Yet their actions belie that claim, as they spend millions to fight this legislation and avoid sharing the billions of dollars they make in advertising from music.”
This story originally appeared in the Aug. 26, 2023, issue of Billboard.
SoundExchange is suing SiriusXM over allegations that the satellite radio giant has been “gaming the system” in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Virginia federal court, the royalties group claimed that SiriusXM has been using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
“Through its contrived and improper apportionment, Sirius XM has engineered a windfall for itself and deprived artists of the important compensation to which they are legally entitled and desperately need,” wrote lawyers for SoundExchange in the complaint.
The allegations concern the royalties paid under so-called statutory licenses – government mandates that automatically give certain streaming services the ability to broadcast songs for a set price. Crucially, that system sets different rates for revenue from satellite broadcasts (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) versus that from so-called webcasting services, which are transmitted through the internet.
In Wednesday’s complaint, SoundExchange says SiriusXM has intentionally bundled the two products together as a single offering in recent years, allowing the company to mix the revenue in order to improperly lower its royalty bill.
“Sirius XM is gaming the system: to grossly underpay the royalties it owes, Sirius XM has unreasonably characterized revenue from its bundled product as ‘webcasting revenue’ that in actuality is “[satellite] revenue’,” SoundExchange wrote. “Sirius XM’s revenue apportionment is beyond the pale, and harms music creators.”
According to SoundExchange, that maneuver has allowed SiriusXM to shortchange artists to the tune of $150 million. The company has also allegedly refused to comply with an indepdent audit that found millions in such shortfalls.
“Sirius XM has not paid its bills,” SoundExchange wrote. “By purporting to comply with the statutory license without paying what it owes under the license, Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe said the group had only resorted to litigation as a last resort. “In recent years we have viewed SiriusXM as a willingly lawful and compliant company that shares our desire for a robust streaming marketplace. But SiriusXM has and continues to wrongfully exploit the rules to significantly underpay the satellite royalties that it owes.”
In 2022, SoundExchange reported that collections fell slightly to $1.017 billion from 2021’s $1.06 billion — a decrease of about $43 million, or 4.1%. Likewise, distributions fell 3.4% to $959 million from 2021’s $993 million.
However, those collection decreases mainly appear to be due to either revenue or content payout declines from digital services in direct licensing arrangements with labels as well as from foreign collection societies.
Of the $1.017 billion in total collections, $813 million was derived from statutory royalties, while $204 million was paid to SoundExchange via direct licensing deals between labels and services and from foreign collection societies. That’s a drop from the prior year when statutory royalty payments to SoundExchange were $824 million and direct licensing payments were $236 million. So while the statutory royalties fell slightly by $11 million — a decline of 1.3% — the bulk of the decline, or $32 million, was due to a 13.6% fall in direct licensing payments and from foreign societies.
Overall, SoundExchange president/CEO Michael Huppe declared 2022 a “tremendous year” for SoundExchange, in a note leading the organization’s annual report.
“Living up to our mission to foster an equitable music industry where all creators can thrive, the company collected $1.017 billion digital royalties from more than 3,600 digital streaming platforms and distributed them to more than 600,000 creators and rights holders,” Huppe wrote in the note. “In doing so, the company crossed the $[10] billion threshold for distributing royalty payments since its inception in 2003.”
As a percentage of revenue, SoundExchange claims a 6.6% operating administration rate or a 7.2% consolidated administration rate. Either way, the organization claims it has “maintained one of the music industry’s lowest admin rates.
However, expenses grew a whopping 17.5% to $74 million from the prior year’s total of $63 million. While SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, the cost increase could have been due to costs associated with upgrades to the organization’s technological infrastructure.
According to Huppe’s note in the annual report, SoundExchange also “unveiled a suite of next-generation solutions to make the business of music easier and fairer — including a new look, a new website that serves as a resource for creators, publishers, and digital service providers, and a mobile app to give creators easy on-the-go access to their accounts.”
Its expense structure is also undoubtedly impacted by finding and paying the correct rights holders, particularly on the indie artist side of things. According to a press release, “SoundExchange collects and distributes digital performance royalties on behalf of 650,000 music creators and growing.”
Finally, SoundExchange attributed the $10 billion in distributions to date to its “proprietary music tech solutions that turn data into accurate revenue.”
Ryan Beuschel joined The Neal Agency as head of business development, where he’ll assist in artist development across a TNA roster that includes Morgan Wallen, HARDY and Anne Wilson. The Michigan native is fresh off a nine-year tour of Warner Chappell Music, where he rose to vp of A&R and is credited with signing recently crowned Billboard Country Power Players rookie of the year Bailey Zimmerman (a TNA client). Beuschel got his start interning at Universal Music Publishing Group and later held roles at UMG and ASCAP. “Ryan has been a close friend of mine for many years,” said agency founder and co-head Austin Neal. “He carries the same entrepreneurial spirit and artist first mentality that aligns with the core values of our company.” Reach Beuschel at Ryan@TheNealAgency. net.
Sony Music’s distribution and indie artist services company AWAL hired Vijay Basrur to captain its expansion into the opportunity-rich India and South Asia markets. This new chapter for AWAL follows the acquisition of Basrur’s homegrown digital distribution service, OKListen, which works with 4,000-plus artists across India. Based in Mumbai and supported by Sony Music India, the Basrur-led AWAL division will help indie-centric artists with their marketing, creative, synchs, radio promotion and, of course, distribution needs. He’ll report to AWAL CEO Lonny Olinick and Sony Music India managing director Vinit Thakkar. “The independent music community across the region is full of potential,” said Olinick.
Linda Bloss-Baum will depart SoundExchange, where she is senior vp of government relations and public policy, to join the Kogod School of Business at American University as a full-time faculty member. The Washington D.C.-based Bloss-Baum started at SoundExchange in 2021 after holding roles at Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and Time Warner Inc. At the Kogod School of Business, where she has been an adjunct professor for a decade, she’ll serve as assistant program director in the business and entertainment program and teach two undergraduate courses. Bloss-Baum officially starts her new job on Aug. 15.
Ticketing and events marketplace Tixr continues a hiring spree with the appointment of Irene Hedges to chief strategy officer. Hedges, most recently Warner Bros.’ svp of corporate business development and strategy, will spend her time at Tixr launching new business verticals and expanding the company internationally, among other duties. Other recent appointments at Tixr include Matt Baca to vp of finance, Acacia Diaz to vp of marketing and Nate Liberman to vp of sports. But wait there’s more: industry veteran Sara Mertz was promoted to vp of music partnerships – venues.
ICYMI: Rihanna stepped down as Savage X Fenty boss … Patrick Moore was appointed CEO at Opry Entertainment Group … Jarred Arfa was named evp/head of global music at the newly launched Independent Artist Group … SoundCloud promoted Tracy Chan to chief content officer … Runner Music hired Amanda Hill as co-chief creative officer … German music rights body GEMA announced Dr. Tobias Holzmüller will take over as CEO starting in October … and UMG Nashville named Charlene Bryant as svp of business development and strategy.
Lauren Lieu was promoted to senior director of creative at Play It Again Music Group, the full-service music company founded by singer-songwriter Dallas Davidson. In her new role, Lieu will serve as head of PIA’s publishing arm, which has a roster including Davidson, Lee Brice, Lewis Brice, Tyler Farr and Dylan Marlowe, among others. “Lauren Lieu is a warrior,” remarked Davidson. Prior to joining PIA in 2021 as director of creative, she served as creative manager at ole Music Publishing. Reach Lieu at Lauren@piamusic.com.
PR firm Shore Fire Media promoted Alena Joyiens to senior account executive. The Brooklyn-based publicist joined Shore Fire in 2019 as a junior account executive and since then was upped to account executive, leading campaigns for Kesha, Bonnie Raitt, ODESZA, Debbie Gibson and other clients. Her remit has also included several book campaigns, including for Decoding ‘Despacito’: An Oral History of Latin Music by Leila Cobo, the chief content officer for Latin music at Billboard. Joyiens can be reached at ajoyiens@shorefire.com.
Speaking of, Erica Goldish has left Shore Fire for a new opportunity at brand strategy & communications firm FYI Brand Group, where her client roster includes 21 Savage, Cardi B, DJ Khaled, Doja Cat, Metro Boomin’, Travis Scott, Wizkid and many more. Goldish joined Shore Fire in 2021 as a junior account executive and dropped the junior a year later.
Nashville Bites: Charly Salvatore’s marketing/management firm underscore works added two new employees: artist manager/director of marketing Jamie Ernst and associate manager Jordin Wentworth. Ernst is a former Average Joes day-to-day manager who brings Sister Hazel to the underscore client list. Wentworth was recently a ClearBox Rights project manager … Shore Fire Media promoted Nashville-based Olivia Del Valle to senior account executive from account executive … Mason Stanfield joined KATC Colorado Springs, Colo., as PD/morning host. He arrives after working the morning shift at KRMD Shreveport, La. … KUZZ Bakersfield, Calif., morning team Cliff Dumas and Tanya Brakebill announced their retirement from radio following their June 23 shift. –Tom Roland
A federal judge says he won’t undo his ruling that Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid music royalties to SoundExchange, seemingly unmoved by the streamer’s warning that the ruling will have a “devastating” impact on the company’s finances.
SoundExchange claims Slacker’s parent LiveOne has failed to pay royalties for years, and last month won a ruling requiring the streamer to hand over $9,765,396. Slacker said last month that the huge judgment could trigger financial ruin for the company – a warning SoundExchange urged the court to disregard.
In a decision issued Wednesday, Judge André Birotte Jr. did exactly that. He ruled that the seven-figure judgment was simply the result of an agreement that Slacker itself had signed – and noted that the streamer was not actually legally disputing the terms of that deal.
“Defendants cannot argue that the judgment is a result of ‘excusable neglect’ or that it is ‘without fault,’ when the judgment was entered pursuant to stipulation that defendants negotiated for and assented to,” Judge Birotte wrote. “Because Defendants signed the stipulation, and in fact do not dispute the amount of money Plaintiff is entitled to, the court finds the judgment is fair, adequate, and reasonable.”
SoundExchange, which collects performance royalties for sound recording copyrights, sued LiveOne in June, claiming the company had stopped paying artists and labels way back in 2017. And it claimed that a subsequent audit revealed it had been underpaying for years before that.
Court records show the two sides entered into the repayment plan in 2020, which gave Slacker two years to pay off its debts. But in the June lawsuit, SoundExchange claimed that Slacker had quickly failed to live up to the terms of the agreement.
“By refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected sound recordings, Slacker and LiveOne have directly harmed creators over the years,” SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe said at the time. “Today, SoundExchange is taking a stand through necessary legal action to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work.”
Just a few months into the litigation, SoundExchange played an unusual legal trump card. On Oct. 12, the group invoked a so-called consent judgment, which had been inked and pre-signed by execs at Slacker back in 2020 as part of the repayment plan. Under the terms of that earlier deal, if Slacker ever defaulted again, its executives agreed that a judge should enter a so-called judgment against the company for the full sum owed.
On Oct. 13, Judge Birotte did so, ordering the Slacker to pay $9,765,396, which covered both unpaid royalties and late fees. He also permanently barred the company from using the so-called statutory license, an important federal provision that makes copyright licenses for recorded music automatically available to internet radio companies like Slacker and Pandora at a fixed price.
A week later, Slacker asked the judge to overturn his own ruling, saying it had been procedurally improper. To support the request, Slacker warned the judge had quickly caused other creditors to call in other debts owed, threatening “economic damage” to the company that would be “unsustainable.”
“Plaintiff’s surreptitious request for entry of judgment has triggered LiveOne’s default on two substantial senior secured notes which are secured by all of LiveOne’s and their subsidiaries assets,” the streamer wrote.
SoundExchange urged the judge to deny the request, saying it had spent years “indulging” the company’s “many excuses for non-payment,” and that it had simply become time for the streamer to be legally forced to pay up: “Five years is long enough.”
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte sided with SoundExchange, ruling there was no legal wiggle room for Slacker to challenge an agreement signed by its own executives. The judge said that unless there is proof of “fraud or misconduct” – and there is none – there was no reason to undo the ruling. And he was unmoved by the company’s warnings of economic ruin.
“Defendants argue that the ‘repercussions will be devastating to LiveOne, its employees, and to its creditors,” the judge wrote. Defendants, however, have failed to explain what balance is actually due, whether defendants’ creditors have elected to require immediate payment, or how the repercussions will actually impact its business or livelihood.”
A representative for Slacker parent LiveOne did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
Slacker is pleading with a judge to overturn his recent ruling requiring the streamer to pony up $10 million in unpaid royalties, arguing it will cause the company economic ruin. But SoundExchange says it is merely the company’s “latest attempt to shirk their obligations.”
The two have been battling in court since June over allegations that Slacker’s parent LiveOne — formerly LiveXLive — owes millions to artists and labels. Earlier this month, SoundExchange demanded — and quickly won — a ruling from Judge André Birotte Jr. that LiveOne must pay up the full $9,765,396 in unpaid royalties.
Faced with that massive judgment, Slacker now says that SoundExchange’s demand for full payment was an unfair tactic and must be overturned — or risk permanently harming its financials: “This economic damage this will cause LiveOne will be unsustainable for this small company.”
But SoundExchange is unimpressed. In a response, the company says that LiveOne has “steadfastly” avoided paying for music for years, and that harsh measures are “necessary to protect performing artists.”
“The court should deny defendants’ latest attempt to shirk their obligations with the promise that next time will be different,” SoundExchange’s lawyers wrote.
“Refusing To Pay”
SoundExchange, which collects performance royalties for sound recording copyrights, sued LiveOne in June, claiming the company had stopped paying artists and labels way back in 2017. And it claimed that a subsequent audit revealed it had been underpaying for years before that.
Court records show the two sides entered into the repayment plan in 2020, which gave Slacker two years to pay its debts. But in the June lawsuit, the SoundExchange claimed that Slacker had quickly failed to live up to the terms of the agreement.
“By refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected sound recordings, Slacker and LiveOne have directly harmed creators over the years,” SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe said at the time. “Today, SoundExchange is taking a stand through necessary legal action to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work.”
Just a few months into the litigation, SoundExchange played an unusual legal trump card. On Oct. 12, the group invoked a pre-signed judgment, which had been inked by execs at Slacker back in 2020 as part of the repayment plan. Under the terms of that earlier deal, if Slacker ever defaulted again, its executives agreed that a judge should enter a so-called judgment against the company for the full sum owed.
On Oct. 13, Judge Birotte Jr. did exactly that, ordering the Slacker to pay $9,765,396, which covered both unpaid royalties and late fees. He also permanently barred the company from using the so-called statutory license, an important federal provision that makes copyright licenses for recorded music automatically available to internet radio companies like Slacker and Pandora at a fixed price.
“Economic Damage”
Faced with that huge debt, LiveOne responded last week with a motion seeking to “set aside the judgment” and asking the judge order the two companies into settlement talks – a move they say will allow them to reach “a fair payment schedule.”
LiveOne’s lawyers said they had been engaged in “ongoing and fruitful negotiations” for a new repayment plan when SoundExchange had suddenly invoked the pre-signed consent judgment. They argued the move came only because LiveOne did not agree to “a complete acceptance” of SoundExchange’s “last and final” settlement offer.
More startlingly, LiveOne’s lawyers said SoundExchange’s big judgment had quickly caused other creditors to call in other debts owed, threatening “economic damage” to the company that would be “unsustainable.”
“Plaintiff’s surreptitious request for entry of judgment has triggered LiveOne’s default on two substantial senior secured notes which are secured by all of LiveOne’s and their subsidiaries assets,” LiveOne’s lawyers wrote. “If LiveOne does not promptly discharge SoundExchange’s default judgment, the secured creditors will accelerate the loans and call for immediate repayment of principal and unpaid interest.”
A rep for LiveOne did not immediately return a request for comment on the filing or for elaboration on its claims about the company’s finances.
“Long Enough”
In a new filing this week, SoundExchange offered no apologies for playing hardball with LiveOne. It said it had spent years “indulging” the company’s “many excuses for non-payment,” and that it had simply become time for the streamer to be legally forced to pay up.
“Five years is long enough,” the group wrote. “SoundExchange has no obligation to negotiate ad infinitum with defendants, who have demonstrated at every opportunity that they will leverage the creativity of others without compensation.”
SoundExchange’s lawyers said the group had been “initially amenable” to working out another deal, but that their patience quickly ran out: “Facing stalled settlement negotiations and an apparent unwillingness to abide by their contractual, statutory, or judicial obligations, that willingness had limits.”
As for LiveOne’s warnings that such a ruling might destroy the company, SoundExchange was skeptical. The group’s lawyers pointed out that LiveOne had missed key deadlines in the case, and had waited months to hire litigation attorneys to deal with the lawsuit.
“Defendants’ contention that the judgment poses an existential threat to their business is difficult to square with their lackadaisical approach to finding counsel and subsequent non-adherence to the court’s deadlines,” they wrote.
And if things really are as bad LiveOne’s attorneys claim, SoundExchange said it’s all the more reason for a final judgment to be entered against the company.
“Every hour defendants divert consumers who might otherwise use a different, royalty-paying digital music streaming service, thereby depriving rightsholders of royalties to which they are entitled,” the group wrote. “If Defendants’ dire financial situation is to be believed, artists may never see those royalties.”