Who Will Get to the Bottom of The Hundreds of Millions of Black Box Money at MLC?

By Chris Castle

One of the most common questions we get from songwriters about the MLC concerns the gigantic level of “unmatched funds” that have been sitting in the MLC’s accounts since February 2021.  Are they really just waiting until The MLC, Inc. gets redesignated and then distributes hundreds of millions on a market share basis like the lobbyists drafted into the MMA?  

Not My Monkey

Nobody can believe that the MLC can’t manage to pay out several hundred million dollars of streaming mechanical royalties for over three years so far.  (Resulting in the MLC holding $804,555,579 in stocks as of the end of 2022 on its tax return, Part X, line 11.) The proverbial monkey with a dart board could have paid more songwriters in three years.  Face it—doesn’t it just sound illegal?  In my experience, when something sounds or feels illegal, it probably is.

What’s lacking here is a champion to extract the songwriters’ money.  Clearly the largely unelected smart people in charge could have done something about it by now if they wanted to, but they haven’t.  It’s looking more and more like nobody cares or at least nobody wants to do anything about it.  There is profit in delay.

Or maybe nobody is taking responsibility because there’s nobody to complain to.  Or is there? What if such a champion exists?  What if there were no more waiting?  What if there were someone who could bring the real heat to the situation?

Let’s explore one potentially overlooked angle—a federal agency called the Office of the Inspector General.  Who can bring in the OIG?  Who has jurisdiction?  I think someone does and this is the primary reason why the MLC is different from HFA.

Does The Inspector General Have MLC Jurisdiction?

Who has jurisdiction over the MLC (aside from its severely conflicted board of directors which is not setting the world on fire to pump the hundreds of millions of black box money back into the songwriter economy).  The Music Modernization Act says that the mechanical licensing collective operates at the pleasure of the Congress under the oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office and the OIG has oversight of the Copyright Office through its oversight of the Library of Congress.

But, hold on, you say.  The MLC, Inc. is a private company and the government typically does not have direct oversight over the operations of a private company.

The key concept there is “operates” and that’s the difference between the statutory concept of a mechanical licensing collective and the actual operational collective which is a real company with real employees and real board members.  Kind of like shadows on the wall of a cave for you Plato fans.  Or the magic 8 ball.

The MLC, Inc. is all caught up with the government.  It exists because the government allows it to, it collects money under the government’s blanket mechanical license, its operating costs are set by the government, and its board members are “inferior officers” of the United States.   Even though The MLC, Inc. is technically a private organization, it is at best a quasi-governmental organization, almost like the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  So it seems to me that The MLC, Inc. is a stand-in for the federal government.

But The MLC, Inc. is not the federal government.  When Congress passed the MMA and it charged the Copyright Office with oversight of the MLC.  Unfortunately, Congress does not appear to have appropriated funds for the additional oversight work it imposed on the Office.  

Neither did Congress empower the Office to charge the customary reasonable fees to cover the oversight work Congress mandated.  The Copyright Office has an entire fee schedule for its many services, but not MLC oversight.  

Even though the MLC’s operating costs are controlled by the Copyright Royalty Board and paid by the users of the blanket license through an assessment, this assessment money does not cover the transaction cost of having the Copyright Office fulfill an oversight role.

An oversight role may be ill suited to the historical role of the Copyright Office, a pre-New Deal agency with no direct enforcement powers—and no culture of cracking heads about wasteful spending like sending a contingent to Grammy Week.

In fact, there’s an argument that The MLC, Inc. should write a check to the taxpayer to offset the additional costs of MLC oversight.  If that hasn’t happened in five years, it’s probably not going to happen.  

Where Does the Inspector General Fit In?

Fortunately, the Copyright Office has a deep bench to draw on at the Office of the Inspector General for the Library of Congress, currently Dr. Glenda B. Arrington.  That kind of necessary detailed oversight is provided through the OIG’s subpoena power, mutual aid relationships with law enforcement partners as well as its own law enforcement powers as an independent agency of the Department of Homeland Security.  Obviously, all of these functions are desirable but none of them are a cultural fit in the Copyright Office or are a realistic resource allocation.

The OIG is better suited to overseeing waste, fraud and abuse at the MLC given that the traditional role of the Copyright Office does not involve confronting the executives of quasi-governmental organizations like the MLC about their operations, nor does it involve parsing through voluminous accounting statements, tracing financial transactions, demanding answers that the MLC does not want to give, and perhaps even making referrals to the Department of Justice to open investigations into potential malfeasance.  

Or demanding that the MLC set a payment schedule to pry loose the damn black box money.

One of the key roles of the OIG is to conduct audits.  A baseline audit of the MLC, its closely held investment policy and open market trading in hundreds of millions in black box funds might be a good place to start.  

It must be said that the first task of the OIG might be to determine whether Congress ever authorized MLC to “invest” the black box funds in the first place.  Congress is usually very specific about authorizing an agency to “invest” other people’s money, particularly when the people doing the investing are also tasked with finding the proper owners and returning that money to them, with interest. 

None of that customary specificity is present with the MLC.

For example, MLC CEO Kris Ahrens told Congress that the simple requirement that the MLC pay interest on “unmatched” funds in its possession (commonly called “black box”) was the basis on which the MLC was investing hundreds of millions in the open market.  This because he assumed the MLC would have to earn enough from trading securities or other investment income to cover their payment obligations.  That obligation is mostly to cover the federal short term interest rate that the MLC is required to pay on black box.

The Ghost of Grammy Week

The MLC has taken the requirement that the MLC pay interest on black box and bootstrapped that mandate to justify investment of the black box in the open market.  That is quite a bootstrap.

An equally plausible explanation would be that the requirement to pay interest on black box is that the interest is a reasonable cost of the collective to be covered by the administrative assessment.  The plain meaning of the statute reflects the intent of the drafters—the interest payment is a penalty to be paid by the MLC for failing to find the owners of the money in the first place, not an excuse to create a relatively secret $800 million hedge fund for the MLC.  

I say relatively secret because The MLC, Inc. has been given the opportunity to inform Congress of how much money they made or lost in the black box quasi-hedge fund, who bears the risk of loss and who profits from trading.  They have not answered these questions.  Perhaps they could answer them to the OIG getting to the bottom of the coverup.

We do not really know the extent of the MLC’s black box holdings, but it presumably would include the hundreds of millions invested under its stewardship in the $1.9 billion Payton Limited Maturity Fund SI (PYLSX). Based on public SEC filings brought to my attention, The MLC, Inc.’s investment in this fund is sufficient to require disclosure by PYLSX as a “Control Person” that owns 25% or more of PYLSX’s $1.9 billion net asset value. PYLSX is required to disclose the MLC as a Control Person in its fundraising materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form N-1A Registration Statement filed February 28, 2023).  This might be a good place to start.

Otherwise, the MLC’s investment policy makes no sense.  The interest payment is a penalty, and the black box is not a profit center.

But you don’t even have to rely on The MLC, Inc.’s quasi governmental status in order for OIG to exert jurisdiction over the MLC.  It is also good to remember that the Presidential Signing Statement for the Music Modernization Act specifically addresses the role of the MLC’s board of directors as “inferior officers” of the United States:

Because the directors [likely both voting and nonvoting] are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the Librarian [of Congress] must approve each subsequent selection of a new director. I expect that the Register of Copyrights will work with the collective, once it has been designated, to ensure that the Librarian retains the ultimate authority, as required by the Constitution, to appoint and remove all directors.

The term “inferior officers” refers to those individuals who occupy positions that wield significant authority, but whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore, the OIG could likely review the actions of the MLC’s board (voting and nonvoting members) as they would any other inferior offices of the United States in the normal course of the OIG’s activities.

Next Steps for OIG Investigation

How would the OIG at the Library of Congress actually get involved?  In theory, no additional legislation is necessary and in fact the public might be able to use the OIG whistleblower hotline to persuade the IG to get involved without any other inputs.  The process goes something like this:

  1. Receipt of Allegations: The first step in the OIG investigation process is the receipt of allegations. Allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and other irregularities concerning LOC  programs and operations like the MLC are received from hotline complaints or other communications. 
  2. Preliminary Review: Once an allegation is received, it undergoes a preliminary review to determine if OIG investigative attention is warranted. This involves determining whether the allegation is credible and reasonably detailed (such as providing a copy of the MLC Congressional testimony including Questions for the Record). If the Office is actually bringing the OIG into the matter, this step would likely be collapsed into investigative action.
  3. Investigative Activity: If the preliminary review warrants further investigation, the OIG conducts the investigation through a variety of activities. These include record reviews and document analysis, witness and subject interviews, IG and grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, special techniques such as consensual monitoring and undercover operations, and coordination with other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, as appropriate.  That monitoring might include detailed investigation into the $500,000,000 or more in black box funds, much of which is traded on open market transactions like PYLSX.
  4. Investigative Outputs: Upon completing an investigation, reports and other documents may be written for use by the public, senior decision makers and other stakeholders, including U.S. Attorneys and Copyright Office management. Results of OIG’s administrative investigations, such as employee and program integrity cases, are transmitted to officials for appropriate action. 
  5. Monitoring of Results: The OIG monitors the results of those investigations conducted based on OIG referrals to ensure allegations are sufficiently addressed.

So it seems that the Office of the Inspector General is well suited to assisting the Copyright Office by investigating how the MLC is complying with its statutory financial obligations.  In particular, the OIG is ideally positioned to investigate how the MLC is handling the black box and its open market investments that it so far has refused to disclose to Members of Congress at a Congressional hearing as well as in answers to Questions for the Record from Chairman Issa.

This post previously appeared on MusicTech.Solutions

by Trichordist

Minnesota Bans Speculative Ticketing

There will be no pork bellies for StubHub in Prince Country. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz today will visit the iconic First Avenue venue in Prince Country to sign HF 1898, the state’s expansive new protection for fans, venues and artists against speculative ticketing abuse by the StubHubs of this world.

Readers will remember we have a big issue with speculative ticking (which we think is illegal securities trading like trading pork belly futures) so we are naturally quite pleased to see the Governor champion this legislation along with Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan plus State Senator Matt Klein and Representative Kelly Moller who co-authored the legislation. David and Mala Sharma testified against speculative ticketing in Georgia and Chris testified in Pennsylvania supporting that state’s proposed ban on the practice.

The key provisions of the new Minnesota law include prohibitions for:

  • directly or indirectly employing another person to wait in line to purchase tickets for the purpose of reselling the tickets if the practice is prohibited or if the venue has posted a policy prohibiting the practice
  • sell or offer to sell a ticket without first informing the person of the location of the venue and the ticket’s assigned seat, including but not limited to the seat number, row, and section number of the seat
  • advertise, offer for sale, or contract for the sale of a ticket before the ticket has been made available to the public, including via presale, without first obtaining permission from  the venue and having actual or constructive possession of the ticket, unless  the ticket reseller owns the ticket pursuant to a season ticket package purchased by the ticket  reseller. 
  • An operator, online ticket marketplace, or ticket reseller must not sell a ticket unless:
  • the ticket is in the possession or constructive possession of the operator, online ticket marketplace, or ticket reseller; or
  • the operator, online ticket marketplace, or ticket reseller has a written contract with the place of entertainment to obtain the ticket.

Good stuff, another step forward for the good guys.

by Trichordist Editor

On the Internet, “Partners” Don’t Hear You Scream: Spotify CEO Makes a $350M “Bundle” While Sticking Songwriters with an ESG “Bundle” of Crap

Here’s a quote for the ages:

MICHAEL BURRY

One of the hallmarks of mania is the rapid rise and complexity 
of the rates of fraud. And did you know they’re going up?

The Big Short, screenplay by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay,
based on the book by Michael Lewis

We have often said that if screwups were Easter eggs, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek would be the Easter bunny, hop hop hopping from one to the next. That’s is not consistent with his press agent’s pagan iconography, but it sure seems true to many people.

This week was no different. Mr. Ek cashed out hundreds of millions in Spotify stock while screwing songwriters hard with a lawless interpretation of the songwriter compulsory license. That interpretation is so far off the mark that he surely must know exactly what he is doing. It’s yet another manifestation of Spotify’s sudden obsession with finding profits after a decade of “get big fast.”

The Bunny’s Bundle

Let’s look under the hood at the part they don’t tell you much about. Mr. Ek evidently has what’s called a “10b5-1 agreement” in place with Spotify allowing staggered sales of incremental tranches of the common stock. Those sales have to be announced publicly which Spotify complied with (we think). And we’ll say it again for the hundredth time, stock is where the real money is at this stage of Spotify’s evolution, not revenue.

As a founder of Spotify, Mr. Ek holds founders shares plus whatever stock awards he has been granted by the board he controls through his supervoting stock that we’ve discussed with you many times. These 10b5-1 agreements are a common technique for insiders, especially founders, who hold at least 10% of the company’s shares, to cash out and get the real money through selling their stock.

A 10b5-1 agreement establishes predetermined trading instructions for company stock (usually a sale so not trading the shares) consistent with SEC rules under Section 10b5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 covering when the insider can sell. Why does this exist? The rule was established in 2000 to protect Silicon Valley insiders from insider trading lawsuits. Yep, you caught it–it’s yet another safe harbor for the special people. Presumably Mr. Ek’s personal agreement is similar if not identical to the safe harbor terms because that’s why the terms are there.

As MusicBusinessWorldWide reported, Mr. Ek recently sold $118.8 million in shares of Spotify at roughly the same time that he likely knew Spotify was planning to change the way his company paid songwriters on streaming mechanicals, or as it’s also known “material nonpublic information”.

As Tim Ingham notes in MusicBusinessWorldwide, Mr. Ek has had a few recent sales under his 10b5-1 agreement: “Across these four transactions (today’s included), Ek has cashed out approximately $340.5 million in Spotify shares since last summer.” Rough justice, but I would place a small wager that Ek has cashed out in personal wealth all or close to all of the money that Spotify has paid to songwriters (through their publishers) for the same period. In this sense, he is no different than the usual disproportionately compensated CEOs at say Google or Raytheon. 

Stock buybacks artificially increase share price. Now why might Spotify want to juice its own stock price?

Spotify Shoves a “Bundled” Rate on Songwriters

Spotify’s argument (that may have caused a jump in share price) claims that its recent audiobook offering made Spotify subscriptions into a “bundle” for purposes of the statutory mechanical rate. (While likely paying an undiscounted royalty to the books.) 

That would be the same bundled rate that was heavily negotiated in the 2021-22 “Phonorecords IV” proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board at great expense to all concerned, not to mention torturing the Copyright Royalty Judges. These Phonorecords IV rates are in effect for five years, but the next negotiation for new rates is coming soon (called Phonorecords V or PR V for short). We’ll get to the royalty bundle but let’s talk about the cash bundle first.

You Didn’t Build That

Don’t get it wrong, we don’t begrudge Mr. Ek the opportunity to be a billionaire. We don’t at all. But we do begrudge him the opportunity to do it when the government is his “partner” so they can together put a boot on the necks of songwriters. This is how it is with statutory mechanical royalties; he benefits from various other safe harbors, has had his lobbyists rewrite Section 115 to avoid litigation in a potentially unconstitutional reach back safe harbor, and he hired the lawyer at the Copyright Office who largely wrote the rules that he’s currently bending. Yes, we do begrudge him that stuff.

And here’s the other effrontery. When Daniel Ek pulls down $340.5 million as a routine matter, we really don’t want to hear any poor mouthing about how Spotify cannot make a profit because of the royalty payments it makes to artists and songwriters. (Or these days, doesn’t make to some artists.) This is, again, why revenue share calculations are just the wrong way to look at the value conferred by featured and nonfeatured artists and songwriters on the Spotify juggernaut. That’s also the point Chris made in some detail in the paper he co-wrote with Professor Claudio Feijoo for WIPO that came up in Spain, Hungary, France, Uruguay and other countries.

Spotify pays a percentage of revenue on what is essentially a market share basis. Market share royalties allows the population of recordings to increase faster than the artificially suppressed revenue, while excluding songwriters from participating in the increases in market value reflected in the share price. That guarantees royalties will decline over time. Nothing new here, see the economist Thomas Malthus, workhouses and Charles Dickens‘ Oliver Twist.

The market share method forces songwriters to take a share of revenue from someone who purposely suppressed (and effectively subsidized) their subscription pricing for years and years and years. (See Robert Spencer’s Get Big Fast.). It would be a safe bet that the reason they subsidized the subscription price was to boost the share price by telling a growth story to Wall Street bankers (looking at you, Goldman Sachs) and retail traders because the subsidized subscription price increased subscribers.

Just a guess. 

The Royalty Bundle

Now about this bundled subscription issue. One of the fundamental points that gets missed in the statutory mechanical licensing scheme is the compulsory license itself. The fact that songwriters have a compulsory license forced on them for one of their primary sources of income is a HUGE concession. We think the music services like Spotify have lost perspective on just how good they’ve got it and how big a concession it is.

The government has forced songwriters to make this concession since 1909. That’s right–for over 100 years. A century.

A decision that seemed reasonable 100 years ago really doesn’t seem reasonable at all today in a networked world. So start there as opposed to the trope that streaming platforms are doing us a favor by paying us at all, Daniel Ek saved the music business, and all the other iconographic claptrap.

Has anyone seen them in the same room at the same time?

The problem with the Spotify move to bundled subscriptions is that it can happen in the middle of a rate period and at least on the surface has the look of a colorable argument to reduce royalty payments. If you asked songwriters what they thought the rule was, to the extent they had focused on it at all after being bombarded with self-congratulatory hoorah, they probably thought that the deal wasn’t “change rates without renegotiating or at least coming back and asking.”

And they wouldn’t be wrong about that, because it is reasonable to ask that any changes get run by your, you know, “partner.” Maybe that’s where it all goes wrong. Because it is probably a big mistake to think of these people as your “partner” if by “partner” you mean someone who treats you ethically and politely, reasonably and in good faith like a true fiduciary. 

They are not your partner. Don’t normalize that word.

A Compulsory License is a Rent Seeker’s Presidential Suite

But let’s also point out that what is happening with the bundle pricing is a prime example of the brittleness of the compulsory licensing system which is itself like a motel in the desolate and frozen Cyber Pass with a light blinking “Vacancy: Rent Seekers Wanted” surrounded by the bones of empires lost. Unlike the physical mechanical rate which is a fixed penny rate per transaction, the streaming mechanical is a cross between a Rube Goldberg machine and a self-licking ice cream cone. 

The Spotify debacle is just the kind of IED that was bound to explode eventually when you have this level of complexity camouflaging traps for the unwary written into law. And the “written into law” part is what makes the compulsory license process so insidious. When the roadside bomb goes off, it doesn’t just hit the uparmored people before the Copyright Royalty Board–it creams everyone.

David and friends tried to make this point to the Copyright Royalty Judges in Phonorecords IV. They were not confused by the royalty calculations–they understood them all too well. They were worried about fraud hiding in the calculations the same way Michael Burry was worried about fraud in The Big Short. Except there’s no default swaps for songwriters like Burry used to deal with fraud in subprime mortgage bonds. 

Here’s how the Judges responded to David, you decide if they are condescending or if the songwriters were prescient knowing what we know now:

While some songwriters or copyright owners may be confused by the royalties or statements of account, the price discriminatory structure and the associated levels of rates in settlement do not appear gratuitous, but rather designed, after negotiations, to establish a structure that may expand the revenues and royalties to the benefit of copyright owners and music services alike, while also protecting copyright owners from potential revenue diminution. This approach and the resulting rate setting formula is not unreasonable. Indeed, when the market itself is complex, it is unsurprising that the regulatory provisions would resemble the complex terms in a commercial agreement negotiated in such a setting.

PR IV Final Rule at 80452 https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27410

It must be said that there never has been a “commercial agreement negotiated in such a setting” that wasn’t constrained by the compulsory license. It’s unclear what the Judges even mean. But if what the Judges mean is that the compulsory license approximates what would happen in a free market where the songwriters ran free and good men didn’t die like dogs, the compulsory license is nothing like a free market deal.

If the Judges are going to allow services to change their business model in midstream but essentially keep their music offering the same while offloading the cost of their audiobook royalties onto songwriters through a discount in the statutory rate, then there should be some downside protection. Better yet, they should have to come back and renegotiate or songwriters should get another bite at the apple.

Unfortunately, there are neither, which almost guarantees another acrimonious, scorched earth lawyer fest in PR V coming soon to a charnel house near you.

Eject, Eject!

This is really disappointing because it was so avoidable if for no other reason. It’s a great time for someone…ahem…to step forward and head off the foreseeable collision on the billable time highway. The Judges surely know that the rate calculation is a farce

But the Judges are dealing with people negotiating the statutory license who have made too much money negotiating it to ever give it up willingly although a donnybrook is brewing. This inevitable dust up means other work will suffer at the CRB. It must be said in fairness that the Judges seem to find it hard enough to get to the work they’ve committed to according to a recent SoundExchange filing in a different case (SDARS III remand from 2020).  

That’s not uncharitable–I’m merely noting that when dozens of lawyers in the mechanical royalty proceedings engage in what many of us feel are absurd discovery excesses. When there are stupid lawyer tricks at the CRB, they are–frankly–distracting the Judges from doing their job by making them focus on, well, bollocks. We’ll come back to this issue in future. The dozens and hundreds of lawyers putting children through college at the CRB–need to take a breath and realize that judicial resources at the CRB are a zero sum game. This behavior isn’t fair to the Judges and it’s definitely not fair to the real parties in interest–the songwriters.

Tell the Horse to Open Wider

A compulsory license in stagflationary times is an incredibly valuable gift, and when you not only look the gift horse in the mouth but ask that it open wide so you can check the molars, don’t be surprised if one day it kicks you.

A version of this post first appeared on MusicTech.Solutions

by Trichordist Editor

They Deserve It: TikTok Forced Sale Legislation Advances to Senate

The most remarkable aspect of the pending legislation in Congress that would force a sale of TikTok is how much money and how many high profile lobbyists have taken the CCP’s shilling (or maybe yuan) to push the obviously corrupt company’s water. And yet…the legislation is advancing by leaps and bounds and TikTok is failing.

David was interviewed by Billboard to give a perspective. The headline here is that TikTok appears to be doing the same thing that Spotify was doing when Spotify was sued by Melissa Ferrick and David–using songs without a license.

The music industry’s view of the proceedings in Washington is mixed. The perspective of artists and songwriters is arguably best expressed by David Lowery, the artist rights activist and frontman for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, who also was one of more than 200 creators that, in early April, signed an open letter to tech platforms urging them to stop using AI “to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists.”

“The rates TikTok pays artists are extremely low, and it has a history — at least with me — of using my catalog with no licenses,” Lowery says. “I just checked to make sure and there are plenty of songs that I wrote on TikTok, and I have no idea how they have a license for those songs.” 

As a result, Lowery says that while “I’m kind of neutral as to whether TikTok needs to be sold to a U.S. owner, the bill pleases me in a general way because I feel that they’ve gotten away with abusing artists for so long that they deserve it. I realize the bill doesn’t punish them for doing that,” he continues, “but that’s why a lot of musicians feel they really deserve it.” 

by theinvisiblestagehand

Dave Rowntree is Suing the UK Performing Rights Society Over Misallocation of Unmatched Royalties (Black Box)

According to press reports, Dave Rowntree of Blur filed the UK equivalent of a class action lawsuit against PRS (the UK version of ASCAP and BMI). The claim is a “collective proceeding” filed with the UK’s antitrust tribunal. The class action established a website to communicate about the claim with interested parties. The website says:

Collective Proceedings Against PRS for Music

If You Were a Writer Member of the Performing Right Society at Any Time Since 9 March 2017,
a Proposed Legal Claim Could Affect Your Rights

On 27 February 2024, the claim was brought against PRS that asks the Competition Appeal Tribunal for permission to go forward as an “opt-out collective action.”  The claim concerns the way in which PRS distributes, or permits to be distributed, certain royalty sums that are called in the PRS Rules and Regulations (“PRS Rules and Regulations”) and the PRS Distribution Policy Guide terms such as  “unmatchable” (including “copyright control”), “non-distributable”, and “unclaimed” and colloquially referred to within the music industry as “Black Box” royalties. The majority of Black Box royalties are royalties belonging to PRS writer members but when the Black Box royalties are distributed, the distribution is heavily skewed in favour of publishers who receive a large portion of the writer share. In other words, Black Box royalties are transferred from PRS writer members and given to PRS publisher members who have no right to those royalties.

David Rowntree seeks to represent the class of PRS writer members who have lost money arising from the proposed claim.

Of course, the Mechanical Licensing Collective is sitting on hundreds of millions of black box money for the US as well, and may end up being the defendant in a separate class action at some point in the future.

by thetrichordist

@SAGAFTRA and Major Labels Reach a New Sound Recording Agreement With AI Protections

Looks like both sides listened and respected each other so no strike necessary. And yet there are groundbreaking first-time AI protections for musicians and vocalists. Amazing what can happen when you actually respect the workers, looking at you YouTube. And guess what? The workers get to vote on the deal. Imagine if songwriters could do the same.

PRESS RELEASE

SAG-AFTRA and leading record labels reached a tentative multiyear agreement on a successor contract to the SAG-AFTRA National Code of Fair Practice for Sound Recordings.

Covering the period starting Jan. 1, 2021, and ending Dec. 31, 2026, the agreement includes Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Disney Music Group.

The SAG-AFTRA Executive Committee unanimously approved the tentative agreement on Wednesday, April 10. It will now be sent to members for ratification.

SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said, “SAG-AFTRA and the music industry’s largest record labels have reached a groundbreaking agreement establishing, for the first time, collective bargaining guardrails assuring singers and recording artists ethical and responsible treatment in the use of artificial intelligence in the music industry. It is a testament to our mutual unwavering commitment to work together to safeguard the rights, dignity and creative freedom of our members.

“This agreement ensures that our members are protected. SAG-AFTRA stands firm in the belief that while technology can enhance the creative process, the essence of music must always be rooted in genuine human expression and experience. We look forward to working alongside our industry partners to foster an environment where innovation serves to elevate, not diminish, the unique value of each artist’s contribution to our rich cultural tapestry.”

The Record Label Negotiating Committee said, “We are pleased to reach this agreement with SAG-AFTRA and continue our strong partnership as we enter this exciting and fast-moving new era for music and artists. Together, we’ll chart a successful course forward, embracing new opportunities and facing our common challenges, strengthened by our shared values and commitment to human artistry.”

The artificial intelligence guardrails take effect immediately upon ratification. The terms “artist,” “singer,” and “royalty artist,” under this agreement only include humans. In this agreement, clear and conspicuous consent, along with minimum compensation requirements and specific details of intended use, are required prior to the release of a sound recording that uses a digital replication of an artist’s voice.

Additional highlights among the contract gains include increased minimums, health and retirement improvements, and an increase in the percentage of streaming revenue to be covered by contributions, among other gains.

by Trichordist Editor

According to Copilot AI, Google’s Eric Schmidt is not just a Good Samaritan, he’s the GOOG Samaritan

Sometimes you just have to laugh. We posed this question to Microsoft’s Copilot AI: Compare and contrast Eric Schmidt and what’s largely called “the Good Samaritan.” This is from the Book of Luke, Verse 10:25, the Parable of the Good Samaritan…well, with few changes:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life and reach the singularity where I become one with machines created by Man?” (OK, it doesn’t really say all that last part but you get the idea.)

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” [Does “neighbor” really include people outside of Atherton, Woodside or Los Gatos?]

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robots. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him and his EV half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road on his Lime Scooter, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side, as did a Dream Alchemist and a Weekend Happiness Concierge. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robots?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

So we thought that it would be interesting to see what Copilot came up with on this question: Compare and contrast Eric Schmidt (the Google demi-God) and the Good Samaritan. Samaria (as in Judea and Samaria) are still there today. So here’s what Copilot said:

Copilot

Eric Schmidt and the Good Samaritan are two figures from vastly different realms, one from the modern world of technology and business, and the other from a biblical parable. However, they share some commonalities in their actions and philosophies that make for an interesting comparison.

Eric Schmidt, born in 1955, is an American businessman and former software engineer6. He served as the CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011 and the company’s executive chairman from 2011 to 20156. He also served as the executive chairman of parent company Alphabet Inc. from 2015 to 2017, and Technical Advisor at Alphabet from 2017 to 20206. Beyond his professional achievements, Schmidt is known for his philanthropic efforts. He co-founded the Schmidt Family Foundation and the Schmidt Ocean Institute7, and his venture, Schmidt Futures, provided compensation for two science-office employees in the Office of Science and Technology Policy6. [Really? You mean the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House?]

The Good Samaritan, on the other hand, is a figure from a parable told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke1. The story tells of a man who was attacked by robbers and left half-dead on the road. A priest and a Levite passed by the man without helping him. But a Samaritan, upon seeing the man, took pity on him. He bandaged the man’s wounds, took him to the Nobu Hotel Palo Alto and paid for his care1.

In comparing these two figures, we can start with their compassion and willingness to help others. The Good Samaritan, despite having no obligation or personal gain, chose to help a stranger in need1. Similarly, Eric Schmidt, despite his wealth and success, has chosen to give back to society through various philanthropic efforts67.

Another point of comparison is their impact on their respective communities. The Good Samaritan’s actions had a profound impact on the injured man’s life1. Similarly, Schmidt’s contributions to Google and Alphabet have had a significant impact on the tech industry and the world at large6. His philanthropic efforts have also likely had a positive impact on the lives of many individuals67.

However, there are also differences between these two figures. The Good Samaritan’s actions were immediate and direct, helping a person in immediate physical need1. In contrast, Schmidt’s contributions, both in business and philanthropy, are more indirect and long-term, impacting larger systems and structures67. [The Samaritan was, after all, a middle class bourgeoisie, a lowly Third Estater lacking Schmidt’s influence and philanthropic urges.]

In conclusion, while Eric Schmidt and the Good Samaritan come from different times and contexts, they both exemplify the values of compassion, generosity, and making a positive impact on their communities. Their stories remind us that, regardless of our circumstances, we all have the capacity to help others and make a difference in the world.

Source(s)

1. Eric Schmidt – Wikipedia

2. About Eric – Eric Schmidt

3. Luke 10:25-37 NIV – The Parable of the Good Samaritan – On – Bible Gateway

4. The Good Samaritan – Bible Story and Meaning – Bible Study Tools

5. Parable of the Good Samaritan – Wikipedia

6. Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable – Biblical Archaeology Society

7. Luke 10:25-37 ESV – The Parable of the Good Samaritan – Bible Gateway

8. Bloomberg Billionaires Index – Eric Schmidt

9. Eric Schmidt | Biography & Facts | Britannica

10. Dr. Eric Schmidt – Congress.gov

Oh, yeah. Do you think Copilot would have been as generous if we had substituted Sir Lucian Grainge for Eric Schmidt? Was Copilot having a purposeful hallucination?

by Trichordist

@CadeMetz @ceciliakang @sheeraf @stuartathompson @nicogrant: How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.


[This is a must-read, deeply researched, long form article about how Big Tech–mostly OpenAI, Google and Microsoft–are abrogating consumers trust and their promises to creators in a mad, greedy, frothing rush to some unknown payoff with AI. The Dot Bomb boom is dwarfed by the AI gold rush, but this article is a road map to just how bad it really is and how debased these people really are. Thanks to the destruction of the newsroom, only a handful of news outlets can deliver work of this quality, but thankfully the New York Times is still standing. How long is another story.]

OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems….

OpenAI researchers created a speech recognition tool called Whisper. It could transcribe the audio from YouTube videos, yielding new conversational text that would make an A.I. system smarter.

Some OpenAI employees discussed how such a move might go against YouTube’s rules, three people with knowledge of the conversations said. YouTube, which is owned by Google, prohibits use of its videos for applications that are “independent” of the video platform.

Ultimately, an OpenAI team transcribed more than one million hours of YouTube videos, the people said….

Like OpenAI, Google transcribed YouTube videos to harvest text for its A.I. models, five people with knowledge of the company’s practices said. That potentially violated the copyrights to the videos, which belong to their creators.

Last year, Google also broadened its terms of service. One motivation for the change, according to members of the company’s privacy team and an internal message viewed by The Times, was to allow Google to be able to tap publicly available Google Docs, restaurant reviews on Google Maps and other online material for more of its A.I. products.

The companies’ actions illustrate how online information — news stories, fictional works, message board posts, Wikipedia articles, computer programs, photos, podcasts and movie clips — has increasingly become the lifeblood of the booming A.I. industry. 

Read the post on New York Times.

by Trichordist Editor

Search is Ripping Us Off Again, this time for AI

By Chris Castle

In case you think that infringement of copyrights in AI training happens only to rock stars, photographers, record companies or movie studios, let me give you a personal anecdote that might cause you to reconsider. I asked Bing’s Copilot AI tool to list the deal points in a record producer agreement, and this is what I got back:

Copilot

Certainly! When negotiating a producer agreement, several key points should be considered. Here are some common negotiation points from the artist’s perspective:

  1. Scope of Engagement:
    1. The producer is generally engaged for one album project at a time.
    2. Clarify the scope of work, including the number of songs or recordings to be produced.
  2. Budget and Compensation:
    1. Determine the budget for the project (e.g., $10,000 in your case).
    2. Agree on the producer’s compensation, which may include an upfront fee, points on sales, or a combination.
  3. Ownership and Rights:
    1. Address ownership of the master recordings:
      1. Will the artist own and control the masters?
      2. Does the producer retain any rights?
  4. Credits and Royalties:
    1. Specify how the producer will be credited on releases.
    2. Discuss any royalties or backend points for the producer.
  5. Recording Schedule:
    1. Set a timeline for recording sessions.
    2. Define the two-week period for your project.
  6. Logistics:
    1. Determine where the recordings will take place.
    2. Outline the artist’s approval process.
    3. Define the producer’s deliverables.
  7. Termination Clause:
    1. Include provisions for termination if either party breaches the agreement.
    2. Address payment for work completed up to that point.

Remember that each negotiation is unique, and it’s essential to tailor the agreement to your specific needs and circumstances. Legal advice is recommended to ensure compliance with local laws and industry standards1 3 4.

Source(s)

1. An Artist’s Guide to Negotiating Record Producer Agreements – Medium

2. Negotiating a Music Producer Agreement: 7 Key Issues

3. 5 Things to Look for in a Music Producer Agreement – Lawyer Drummer

4. How to Negotiate: Steps, Phrases & Tips to Win the Deal – Selling Signals

Notice that Copilot lists “Source(s)” and that source #1 is an article from the Medium website.

My article.

I’ve written a number of articles about negotiating producer agreements and I can categorically say I haven’t given permission or been asked to give permission for any of those articles to be scraped and used to train AI. So how did it come to be in Copilot’s training materials? 

My guess is that Medium (and probably a lot of other sites) were crawled by Bing’s spider and that copies of Medium pages were stored in Bing’s (or Microsoft’s) data centers. When Microsoft launched its Copilot AI tool, one could imagine that the temptation would have been strong to use those copies as part of the training tools for Copilot. In fact, the Verge reports that “companies around the web are using your site and its data to build massive sets of training data, in order to build models and products that may not acknowledge your existence at all.” Can you say Section 230 or DMCA? Maybe there will be a question at the April 11 House Energy & Commerce hearing on Section 230.

So Google-style “innovation” has a self-destructive flavor consistent with their oikophobic capitalism. Greater Silicon Valley’s view of culture in general and copyright in particular is as sources of wealth extracted by destruction–you know, creative destruction, permissionless innovation, etc. (It’s no wonder Google was inexorably attracted to defense contracting despite all the “don’t be evil” hoorah. After all, what creates massive wealth faster than convincing governments to pay big money to blow things up that must be replaced by ever more big money to blow even more things up.)

Are you surprised then that two of the biggest operators in the AI space are the search engine operators Google and Microsoft? This is another example of how Big Tech helps itself to your data and work product without you even knowing it’s happening. So now what? I now know I’m being ripped off, and I’m wondering if Medium is in on it.

The Verge tells us:

The ability to download, store, organize, and query the modern internet gives any company or developer something like the world’s accumulated knowledge to work with. In the last year or so, the rise of AI products like ChatGPT, and the large language models underlying them, have made high-quality training data one of the internet’s most valuable commodities. That has caused internet providers of all sorts to reconsider the value of the data on their servers, and rethink who gets access to what. 

Ya think?

by Trichordist Editor