Before we get to George’s letter, a little context. If you’re coming to this subject for the first time, mechanical royalties are paid to songwriters (and their publishers) for the mechanical reproduction of their songs. The federal government established a compulsory license for this purpose and corresponding royalty rates starting in 1909. The license has evolved over time and now includes physical configurations like vinyl (paid by record companies) and digital transmissions like streaming (paid by DSPs like Spotify).

Until the Music Modernization Act, songs were licensed on a song-by-song basis notice-based system except for catalog licenses. Or at least theoretically–pre-MMA most of the streaming services didn’t take advantage of the statutory license they were entitled to because they couldn’t be bothered. (Until David’s class action called them out. We note that the Copyright Office, in particular a former lawyer at the Office now representing Big Tech against songwriters, allowed the streamers to get away with tens of millions of flawed “address unknown NOIs” that a cynic might say was a catastrophe with a purpose. Chris has an article about this fiasco that went largely unreported except by Hypebot.)

Fast forward to today. Every five years the Copyright Office is required to review the company that the Office has designated to run the Mechanical Licensing Collective. Currently that entity is The MLC, Inc. designated by the Copyright Office on July 8, 2019. Remember that The MLC, Inc. was independently chosen by the Copyright Office as the best in breed of all applicants after a rather odd beauty contest. This is their thing, and the MLC, Inc. is their idea. So do you think that creates an incentive to create a five year review that everything is peachy and they were geniuses for creating this dumpster fire?

Even though the first five year review is set to happen next year, Congress has already held a hearing about the MLC, Inc. which frankly did not go well for the company. Nobody got their ears nailed to the barn door, but the hearing was not the usual love fest. The review is to be conducted by the Copyright Office, so there’s a question as to why Congress decided that the House Judiciary Committee IP Subcommittee should conduct the first of what may be multiple hearings.

Everyone assumed that the Copyright Office would choose the first MLC as the NMPA-backed entry, The MLC, Inc. That company was so confident of winning the contract their confidence made people ask why anyone else bothered to try out. And when the next charade resulted in The MLC, Inc. choosing the former NMPA affiliate the Harry Fox Agency as their data vendor, everyone knew there was definitely gambling at Rick’s. All paid for by Big Tech (or maybe we should say Really Big Tech) because not even the taxpayer is stupid enough to fall for this BS. After all, nothing blew up and nobody died.

So the lobbyists and lawyers and the Copyright Office were busily building up a new bureaucracy to drive mechanical licensing back to the future and essentially preserve the 1909 compulsory license that George refers to. Because what they didn’t do was throw out the compulsory license and come up with an alternative more in keeping with streaming. You know, modernization.

In fact, they never really considered how one might implement mechanical licensing without the compulsory part. And that’s probably because there is a cottage industry of lobbyists, lawyers, and government clerks built up around compulsory licensing that would simply be out of a job if the compulsory were rejected. But they will get out the green eyeshades and the furrowed brow and tell you that mere songwriters cannot appreciate the complexity of getting rid of the compulsory license that governs their lives and has done for over a century.

But then there’s this five year review. What is the review reviewing if it never takes into account the compulsory license itself. Are we to just assume that the compulsory lasts forever? Are they just to review how The MLC, Inc. and HFA are doing administering a law that itself doesn’t work? Where does the failure of one start and the other begin?

The effectiveness of the statute itself really must be part of the five year review as well as a review of the MLC.

Enter George Johnson. George is a songwriter who has effectively represented himself at the Copyright Royalty Board and is fighting hard for increased songwriter royalty rates, holding up a mirror to the emperor in the Imperial City of Washington, DC. Needless to say, George has made no new friends among the grandees and courtiers who all see the advantage in complementing the emperor on his new clothes and complain that George does not shut up and let his betters run things the way they like. Billboard did an extensive profile on George during the frozen mechanicals crisis in which he played a major part.

George has written a timely letter to the Copyright Office anticipating the need for a review of the compulsory license statute itself from which spring all these problems for the obvious reason that you can’t really talk about the MLC with out talking about that statute (17 USC §115). (You may want to take a look at a proposal that David made a few years ago for a US version of extended collective licensing.) Just remember that it’s not really that difficult to transition off of song-by-song licensing to a blanket license administered by the MLC fiasco compared to extended collective licensing with an opt-in for songwriters who want to get away from HFA and the compulsory licesne.

Spoiler alert–the Copyright Office rejected George’s request. Their rejection does not mean George was wrong, it just means that the right person didn’t ask the question,

Following is George’s letter to the Copyright Office and we will later post the Copyright Office response. You can read George’s white paper here.

Monday, June 12, 2023

Via Email 

Attn:  Ms. Shira Perlmutter,

Register of Copyrights and Director

U.S. Copyright Office

101 Independence Ave. S.E.

Washington, D.C., 20559-6000

Re:  Study to Repeal §115 Compulsory License & Ex Parte Meetings to benefit Congress and all U.S. Songwriters and Music Publishers

Dear Register Perlmutter,

For the benefit of all American songwriters and music publishers “bound by” 1 the 114 year old §115 compulsory license, and to benefit Congress in their upcoming 2 decision making processes involving intellectual property law and music copyright policy, I respectfully request that the Copyright Office please initiate a compulsory license study and roundtables regarding it’s full repeal, including ex parte meetings.

The century old compulsory license is no longer an incentive or profitablefor all U.S. songwriters and music publishers, and there are many problems arising from it’s use, and misuse, not intended by Congress, the Constitution, and copyright law.

The 1909 compulsory license was designed for a different time, for the local sale of piano rolls and not contemplated to be used by the largest trillion-dollar corporations in the history of the world, with teams of attorneys, with no sale, by “access”, on “computers” or telephones, distributed digitally, through the air, and all for free from songwriters and publishers?  Now, with no COLA for streaming. 

Former Register Ms. Marybeth Peters initiated several studies 3 that questioned the continued necessity of the compulsory license, and for it’s full repeal or full reform 4. Unfortunately, those studies are now outdated and considering the vast changes in the delivery of musical works and sound recordings, experts 5 6 now think a new study would be very helpful in updating Congress on how the license is functioning post Music Modernization Act (MMA), to benefit their 2024 MLC review, but primarily so Congress can make an informed decision on full repeal or full reform?

While my comments here are my own and separate from my participation in the current Phonorecords III & IV proceedings at the Copyright Royalty Board, please feel free to notify me if there is any conflict or other legal protocol to be followed.

Other than the obvious economic arguments to finally pay songwriters the true value of their copyrights, the primary reason I believe compulsory license roundtables are necessary and so dire is the 3 major record labels’ current anticompetitive misuse of the compulsory license 7 at the CRB (See #1, 2, 3 in the attached white paper) that I’ve experienced as a 4 time CRB participant and appellant in Sound Exchange v. CRB 8 and Johnson v. CRB 9.   The 3 major labels’ misuse of the license is the #1 issue including several dozen other serious issues.

The license, the rate-structure, and the CRB process are all truly broken in almost every way and must be fixed immediately or completely abandoned.  All rational market actors who currently use private collective blanket licensing providers would certainly switch, proving no need for federal licensing to operate efficiently.

We all could really benefit from the Copyright Office’s input, ideas, and legal opinions on these extremely important issues since each and every songwriter cannot compete with RIAA and NMPA counsel, nor 25 years of their regulatory capture. 

We songwriters truly need Congress and the Copyright Office’s help and guidance.

We pray the Copyright Office 11 will initiate a study with roundtables, in addition to ex parte communications and meetings to benefit Congress, and all American songwriters and music publishers “subject to”11 the license — for these good reasons, good cause, and those contained in the following white paper attached below.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. 

Respectfully,

George D. Johnson

Singer/Songwriter

PO Box 22091

Nashville, TN, 37202

@georgejohnson

cc: Librarian of Congress                                                 

     General Counsel of the Copyright Office   

     U.S. House Judiciary Committee

     U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

     Office of the TN Attorney General

1.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/30/2022-06691/determination-of-royalty-rates-and-terms-for-making-and-distributing-phonorecords-phonorecords-iv  March 30, 2022 Withdrawal of Subpart B Final Rule by the Copyright Royalty Board.  Referencing §801(b)(7)(A) “That provision directs the Judges to provide those who would be bound by the negotiated rates and terms an opportunity to comment on the agreement.” Page 3 (emphasis added)

2.  Upcoming 5 year work product review of the Music License Collective (“MLC”) by Congress in 2024.

3.  https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2022/981.html  September 30, 2022 — In Memory of Marybeth Peters.  “Her leadership of the Office also included the generation of several landmark studies, such as those on statutory licenses…”

4.    To me, a full overhaul in dollars of the “nano-penny” rate-structure in §385 Subpart C streaming.

5. https://musictechpolicy.com/2023/04/05/should-the-copyrightoffice-begin-at-the-beginning-with-the-mlcs-first-five-year-review/  April 5, 2023 — by attorney and Phonorecords IV Commenter Mr. Chris Castle.  Should the Copyright Office Begin at the Beginning With The MLC’s First Five year Review “The continued need for a song compulsory license is just the kind of information that Reps. Jordan and Issa could use in case they were inclined to just get rid of it. It would be a great topic for the Copyright Office to study and hold round tables on, this time preferably lead by a Copyright Office lawyer who was not being recruited by Spotify.”

6.  https://musictechpolicy.com/2023/05/28/should-the-compulsory-license-be-re-upped/ May 28, 2023, Should the Compulsory License Be Re-Upped? by music attorney and official CRB Commenter Mr. Chris Castle.

7. …through NMPA’s, et al. re-writing all laws and definitions, and MMA, to fit label business models, not U.S. songwriters.  This is also in no way the Judges fault, they have to deal with it too, so reform would help them.   The Judges are great and not to blame when I say the process is broken.

8.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8AE80A6C0FBDFB7B8525830C004D863A/$file/16-1159-1751123.pdf  SoundExchange, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress, Case No. 16-1159, consolidated with 16-1162 (DC Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (Srinivasan, J)

9.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/720464D843B0D6C7852585C10074B11B/$file/19-1028-1856124.pdf  George Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress, Case No. 19-1028, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 7, 2020) (Henderson, Garland, and Millett)

10.  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-17/pdf/2023-03392.pdf Ex parte.

11.  https://app.crb.gov/document/download/3715  September 29, 2016, SDARS III Order Denying Services’ Motion To Dismiss George D. Johnson d/b/a Geo Music Group.  “The Services’ reliance on the Librarian’s decision in PSS II—a decision that involved neither a copyright owner nor a copyright user—is misplaced because it is based on an erroneous premise. Unlike the party in PSS II, GEO is subject to the license at issue…and GEO would have no say in the matter—that is the essence of a statutory license.  For the forgoing reasons, the Judges DENY the Services’ Motion.”