Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her

Music Industry

from the the-plight-of-the-indie-musician dept

Wed, Oct 19th 2011 10:45am — Mike Masnick

Zoe Keating is a wonderful musician, who you hopefully already know about. A truly independent (but quite successful) musician, she's been showing how to connect with fans in a variety of interesting ways, building up a massive fan base (and she recently explained how she approaches her career over at our Step2 service). A few months back, she had mentioned to me that she was surprised when she received a statement from SoundExchange (who collects money for artists for online streaming), in which the royalties for some of her original music was being claimed by Universal Music Group. I was curious to see how such a thing could happen. Keating filed a complaint with SoundExchange, who checked with Universal, who admitted the music was Keating's alone... and the whole thing was worked out. Mistakes happen, and while it was a bit of a pain, it all got corrected, and we decided not to write a story about it.

However, earlier this week, Keating noted that Universal Music was once again claiming her own music as its own, and trying to claim the royalties owed to her. I asked her for some details, and she passed along all of the various emails, including the ones from earlier this year, in which SoundExchange insisted that everything was sorted out. Of course, in one of those emails, SoundExchange also admits that such situations are "not uncommon." That seems pretty ridiculous, but as long as they sorted everything out.

The latest, however, is that even though SoundExchange had previously reached out to Universal Music, on behalf of Keating, it now sent her an email saying that there were, once again "overlapping claims." Even worse, the note said that if she didn't respond within 90 days, the royalties would go to Universal, because they give preference when songs are claimed directly by a label.

Keating was forced, yet again, to complain to SoundExchange over Universal Music trying to take her royalties. In response, someone from SE suggested that it may have been Keating's own confusion -- even suggesting that she may have been confused about the difference between master sound recordings and compositions (Keating was not confused, and holds the rights to both, since they're entirely original compositions and recordings by her).

Those with a conspiratorial bent might think that this is a neat way for the major labels, like Universal Music to simply claim the rights to any indie artist's music. Just keep making the claim, and leave it to the artist to sort it out by working through SoundExchange's bureaucracy. I certainly doubt that's truly the case. It probably is just someone, somewhere making an administrative mistake in how things are recorded -- but just the fact that Keating has to continually explain this situation just to keep Universal Music from getting the royalties owed to her is pretty crazy. On top of that, each time this happens, such funds are held until the conflict is resolved. For an indie musician, having such funds held can be a pretty big deal.

The whole situation seems pretty ridiculous all around.

Update: The situation has now been resolved, with Universal admitting -- yet again -- that it does not have any claim or rights to Keating's music. Separately, SoundExchange wanted to make clear that the "conflict" in data came from a (nameless) webcaster, who incorrectly listed Keating's music on their playlist as belonging to Universal Music. They insist that Universal had nothing to do with the actual claim. What's unclear is why SoundExchange relies on webcasters for the copyright holder info. I can understand getting a listing of songs and artists, but asking them to figure out who the label/copyright holder is seems like a situation that is going to turn up all sorts of bogus data, something that SoundExchange admits outright is "a challenge across the industry."

Separately, SoundExchange claims that they do not give preference to labels as I stated in my post. But in the letter sent to Keating on Monday, it states: "our policy is to give preference to repertoire that is claimed directly by a label. Therefore, if we haven't heard from you within 90 days, we will adjust the claim in favor of the new claimant." That certainly sounds like they would have given preference to Universal Music. If that's not the case, it seems like they should clarify the language in such emails.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: music, royalties, zoe keating
Companies: soundexchange, universal music

113 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

btr1701 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 10:52am

Omelettes
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right? A few indie casualties along the way is a small price to pay to make sure the money-flow continues unabated into the coffers of Big Copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy Lyman (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: Omelettes
  I agree, it would be a lot easier and less confusing if everything just belonged to one company. Can we get a lobbyist to make a push for the "Universal gets to own everything" plan?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Omelettes
    Hear hear! We don't need to wait for a government intervention. We can voluntarily dispossess ourselves from our belongings.
    
    And where can I get Universal's routing and account number so I can change my direct deposit? I've been withholding things from them for far too long and they don't own me yet. The government gets the taxes and Universal gets the rest.
    
    After all, by virtue of their name alone, Universal should own everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - New Mexico Mark, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Omelettes
      "After all, by virtue of their name alone, Universal should own everything."
      
      PLEASE don't give their lawyers (more) ideas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Omelettes
      "We don't need to wait for a government intervention."
      
      They're too busy going after Google for alleged anti-trust violations, but what Universal and SE are doing here is perfectly OK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bergman (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Omelettes
      So if I make a corporation called Multiversal Music, I'd own Universal? Sweet!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Omelettes
    Let Universal be the universal money recipient.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 10:54am

Sounds like SE uses it as a way to hold the money
On top of that, each time this happens, such funds are held until the conflict is resolved. For an indie musician, having such funds held can be a pretty big deal.

It would make sense that this way Sound exchange holds onto the money while it is resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 5:57pm
  
  Re: Sounds like SE uses it as a way to hold the money
  "It would make sense that this way Sound exchange holds onto the money while it is resolved."
  
  I don't think anybody is complaining about Sound Exchange holding onto the money while it is straightened out, just pointing out that an indie musician is probably not wealthy and that having (or not having) funds can make a pretty big difference (like being able to pay rent and put food on the table).
  
  It is also worth noting that this is not the first time this as happened; it seems to me that Sound Exchange could just look at their records from the last incident, and say "Whoops, how did that happen, here you go." and then this whole thing would be a non issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:11am
    
    Re: Re: Sounds like SE uses it as a way to hold the money
    They might be able to do this, if the claims were being applied to the same pieces of music. But if the actual songs were different, doing that would open the door to false copyright claims.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re: Sounds like SE uses it as a way to hold the money
  Correct. The answer is to seek an injunction against both of them. Use phrases like "repeated illegal behavior" in the application. Assuming the injunction is granted, then the next time they pull this stunt then they are up for breach of injunction. Once that happens a few times, then things will get pretty serious for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 1:55am
    
    Re: Re: Sounds like SE uses it as a way to hold the money
    Forgot "irreparable damage"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:00am

Copyright abusers are gonna pour in and say that hits Keatings fault for it. UM is just being a nice guy by helping her understand that it really isn't her money and owning your own work is just a socialist communist nazi evil whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly, Keating is a front for the twisted Yippie Gay Muslims of Christ and UM is simply trying to keep the funds out of these sickos hands by falsely claiming it and then spending the money in a wholesome all-American way: hookers and blow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:00am

This is why all copyrights, and transfers of copyright, should have to be registered with the copyright office. It would prevent this sort of fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- qhartman, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  How exactly would that help in this case? I really don't see it. The owner of the copyright doesn't seem to be in question by anyone except some (presumably) low-level phone goon who is probably used to dealing with folks who are beholden to labels and really don't get how the whole royalties thing works for them, hence the assumption that Zoe is confused.
  
  While requiring copyright registration _might_ resolve some copyright issues, it will almost certainly create more problems than it would fix due to the tremendous administrative overhead it would introduce.
  
  When it comes to copyright law, how the rights are granted are just about the only area I think we've gotten right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "While requiring copyright registration _might_ resolve some copyright issues,it will almost certainly create more problems than it would fix due to the tremendous administrative overhead it would introduce."
    
    Funny, it worked fine from 1909 until it was dumped in 1976!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep. And having to pay to register is a revenue stream I don't see the government seizing upon...gosh, even at 10 bucks a pop, that would be plenty to cover administrative overhead, I'd wager. Oh double gosh - make it retroactive! Profit!
      
      Who does the government go crying to when their business model gets broken?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah - and you could make it even better by changing it a first to file system.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "How exactly would that help in this case?"
    
    Who owns the copyright to this piece? *checks gov't database*
    Oh, I see.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:11pm
  
  Re: Registering
  Agreed. It is high time that registration of copyright was re-introduced. It was abolished in 1976 because doing the registration paperwork was too much like hard work for the precious darlings at the copyright office. However, it can now be done automatically by a suitably-written website, complete with a payment from the copyright holder, plus submitting a proper archive copy.
  
  It is stark crazy that the government is handing out commercially valuable monopoly privileges for free. That is corporate welfare and it has to stop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re: Registering
    "It was abolished in 1976 because doing the registration paperwork was too much like hard work for the precious darlings at the copyright office."
    
    Actually, it was the corporations (like Disney) who were complaining!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 6:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Registering
      Actually, it was the corporations (like Disney) who were complaining!
      
      Actually, it was so that U.S. copyright law would fall in line with the Universal Copyright Convention (and, later, the Berne Convention). Both of those treaties mandated that copyright be automatic.
      
      I'm not saying that requiring registration is a bad idea, of course. Just that it didn't happen because Disney et. al. wanted it. (They're mainly behind the term extensions.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Fingers, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Registering
        Oh, these "Majors" are tricky lot. Their lobbyists have been pulling the strings on their puppets in Congress, for years. (Don't kid yourself, this has bi-partisan participation. Diane, Orin and Lamar just to name a few).
        
        Yes, copyright is now automatic ... But, in the US registration is required in order to collect statutory damages. Lots of luck to you finding a lawyer to take on your case, when you haven't registered.
        
        You f*cking know damn well, that the Big Music set it up this way for a reason. They know their holdings will always be registered. They're counting on Indie Artists to not do this. Bottom Line: You infringe on them, you get slammed. They infringe on you, they don't even get a slap on the wrist. Another triumph for Mercantilism, and tipping the legal scales.
        
        Having seen Zoe perform at SxSW, and thoroughly enjoying her performance, I can only pray that she has registered all of her publishing and master recording copyrights!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:03am

Sue Universal for fraud...
...and recuperation of legal fees, time equivalent related to her having to go through this process, and force Universal to audit, monitor, and report on its ability to rectify this problem permanently...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Sue Universal for fraud...
  If I tried to claim her royalty checks, what would happen to me?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re: Sue Universal for fraud...
    If I tried to claim her royalty checks, what would happen to me?
    
    Assuming you're an average, ordinary nobody? Maybe with brown skin? And not enough money in your checking account?
    
    Then the police would arrest you and the district attorney would file charges. The offense would be outrageously over-charged, you be hit with terrorism, or use of a weapon of mass destruction, something like that. You would probably plea-bargain to avoid trial. But if you went to trial, then you would be convicted. So you might as well plead.
    
    You would be sentenced.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sue Universal for fraud...
      dont forget this involves a computer so he would get hacking charges too
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re: Sue Universal for fraud...
  If I were asked to give the most blatant example of copyfraud I could think of it would be claiming royalties for work that you do not own. I can't imagine Universal coming out ahead if a lawsuit is filed here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:04am

This is why we need PROTECT IP to protect the good people like Universal Music from freetards like Zoe Keating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  You sir or madam are a retard... 'nuff said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Successful troll is successful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  You forgot to mention "and all Mike Masnick syncophants" in your troll. But I still give you 10/10.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grae (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:12am

Those with a conspiratorial bent might think that this is a neat way for the major labels, like Universal Music to simply claim the rights to any indie artist's music. Just keep making the claim, and leave it to the artist to sort it out by working through SoundExchange's bureaucracy. I certainly doubt that's truly the case.

I agree that the problem is more likely Universal Music's monolithic bureaucracy, it's interesting to note that the "count on the average person to either be stymied or too confused by the bureaucracy to deal with claims against them, false or otherwise" tactic is common to many companies and scamming outfits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:25am
  
  Re:
  I find that fairly believable. Somewhere, deep in UM, is a guy who believes Ms. Keatings music belongs to UM. He's in error, but doesn't know it. Every so often, as part of his duties, he checks to make sure royalties are working properly. And each time he checks, he finds a few songs UM isn't being paid for...so he pushes the "claim" button and never thinks about it again, until his next check.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am

Since I am also an Indie Artist I thought to say a few things.And for those who research me go to:
www.bigmeathammer.com
First of all I jumped on the DIY Punk Scene in 1976 after being pissed off at the bland mainstream big label crud which was quite apparent to my generation as being "Commercial" or "Corporate" and not taking chances on the cool art coming out.In other words go back to 1965 - 70 and hear all the cool,weird, and fresh sounds that big labels did.Stuff like IGGY,MC5,Blue Cheer,etc just to name a few "heavy" hitter rock acts that would never see the light of day today in the land of bland manufactured no dynamic range at all they call it music.
Second of all Big Meat Hammer is the longest going and oldest punk band in Maine.
If one of those MAFIAA Labels tried this shit on us we would not even bat an eye.go to a lawyer and sue them and at the same rate they do to us consumers.Let's see what I will sue them for "Pirating" BMH Songs and put it at 27 songs.They will get a lawsuit thrown at them for maybe $2 Million Dollars.
Then if we win that BMH can use the money to benefit all the local bands in Portland by buying a "CLUB" for local Acts or something good.
FUCK YOU MAFIAA !!!
I dare you to try and rip-off the Hammer..............cause the Hammer will fall on your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  There's more than one punk band in Maine?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, and...
    The famous "punk constant" proves statistically there are always at least 3 punk bands in any 500 square mile area--so yes; there's more than one punk band in Maine.
    
    ;-P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am

Shut up and get a lawyer
Dear Zoe:

Shut up and get a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:15am
  
  Re: Shut up and get a lawyer
  Yeah! And maybe she can use the money from all those held-up royalty checks to do it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: Shut up and get a lawyer
  Because lawyers are free, especially when the plaintiff didn't cause the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Shut up and get a lawyer
  Dear Universal:
  
  Stop defrauding artists.
  
  Kindly,
  The Public.
  
  Dear AC:
  
  Shut up and get a lawyer on retainer, and see if you can do it for nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:27am

False claim of copyright should be a crime with some big statutory damages.

Right now it is probably fraud, but the big labels have been pretty successful at getting off the hook on the fraud charges with an "Oops. It was a mistake. I'm sorry." Then they turn around and do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  I think an appropriate punishment would be to have all your currently-held copyrights revoked and enter the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:29am

No i dont know her and no i dont care to know her..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:35am

Sounds like it is time to file a lawsuit against these gangsters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:36am

Are copyrights being used to promote the progress of science and useful arts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  yes the art a fraud and lawyer-ing are at an all time high
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:40am

I wonder if Sound Exchange will fall for me changing Universal Music's address to mine and I cash the checks under Universel Music, just have to be smooth enough to talk the clerk into seeing it was just a typo on Sound Exchange's end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jan Bilek (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  I keep thinking about that Mike's recent article about different treatment for law-breaking depending on whether or not nou have power ( http://goo.gl/rVs7h ).
  
  Now I see that everywhere - draconian punishments for us low-lifes and slap on the wrist for our corporate masters. You share 31 songs and you are financially ruined for the rest of your life. They try to stole your money... and what happens when they are caught? Nothing... they just happily keep trying.
  
  I am starting to thing there is something about that "we are 99%" thing. Something really needs to be changed - now!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:52am

It seems like an easy situation to fix. SoundExchange should stop sending statements to artists. If it were not for those pesky statements the artists would not be forcing SoundExchange and the major labels to do all the paperwork required to temporarily fix the problem. It is no wonder the record labels are not making money; all those artists are just nit-picking the payments and driving up costs.

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:54am

Mike, here is a very simple question, and one your story does not answer:

Why does Universal think they have rights to her work?

You provided her side up and down, but why is Universal involved at all here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  Why don't you ask them at the next meeting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  Call me old-fashioned for having read the story thoroughly, but Universal hasn't been party to the discussion (yet)... it's just been Zoe and SoundExchange.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I read the story too, but it seems like a rather large oversight not to get a least a little bit of the reasons why into the discussion.
    
    Was she once under contract with Universal? Did she publish stuff through a company owned by Universal?
    
    What is the scoop?
    
    With only one side, this story starts to smell more and more like a lame ass promotion for Step 0.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JaDe, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe you should try looking for the info yourself. It's really not that hard. Google is actually your friend.
      
      She has never been under contract to Universal as far as I can tell. She used to be part of Rasputina which released some stuff under Columbia which is now owned by Sony, so no link there. She did some work for Amanda Palmer on her album "Who Killed Amanda Palmer" which was under Roadrunner which is owned by Warner Music, so no link there.
      
      Now for her solo career, she has produced 3 albums. I'm assuming that these are the works that she was trying to collect royalties for. All three albums are hers and hers alone. She has no contract with a recording company at the moment. She's been told by record execs that she is too "niche" for them.
      
      So it really looks like Universal is in wrong here. I will however give them the benefit of the doubt and say it is probably due to incompetence rather than malice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Was she once under contract with Universal? Did she publish stuff through a company owned by Universal?
      
      Nope. And nope. This ain't rocket surgery folks!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So who is the music published through? Not which record label, but which publishing company?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems to be self-published. Unable to find a 'publishing company' related to these albums.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JaDe, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        None. She's independent. She self publishes. You can do that nowadays with this nifty little thing called the internet. That is unless you calling things like iTunes and BandCamp publishers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't worry, the ACs are still a decade or so behind but they seem to be catching up very slowly. They still haven't cottoned on to the fact that people listen to non-RIAA music, let alone that it's possible to like music that's never been near a label of any description.
        
        This one's simply assuming that there's no way the glorious corporates he worships could make such a ridiculous mistake without being correct in some way. But, this is also SoundExchange - you know, the organisation that claimed it couldn't "find" Kraftwerk and thousands of other artists and then pocketed the royalties. Even if Universal have no claim here, I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing as far as I could throw their offices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh Paul, you are always fast with the insults.
        
        Perhaps you can tell us all why Universal is claiming royalties. That would make you are least a little bit smarter the Mike in this case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Watch this turn out to be a case where she simply has a song with the same title as a Universal artist.
        
        Whoops! Will the pirate-lovers then eat their words and apologize?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Whoops! Will the pirate-lovers then eat their words and apologize?"
        
        How would that negate them claiming her royalties over and over again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, that's the ticket. The fact that we're criticising an organisation that makes such stupid mistakes and then hands over to royalties to the first corporate to claim them if they're not quick enough to challenge. That an independent artist stands to lose her royalties because the assumption is that if a corporate has been recorded as making a claim first then they take precedent with or without evidence of ownership. That such simple errors are not cleared up and the artist has to go through this again and again.
        
        That makes us "pirate lovers"? I don't think you're even arguing on the same plane of existence as the rest of us, let alone looking at the same problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Perhaps you can tell us all why Universal is claiming royalties. That would make you are least a little bit smarter the Mike in this case."
        
        So since you havnt figured it out, or even tried, how much stupider then mike does that make you? Sorry, Im just trying to learn how to follow your "logic." Its useful for party tricks and fooling dogs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Perhaps you can tell us all why Universal is claiming royalties. "
        
        Perhaps you can tell me where in the following sentence I claimed that:
        
        " Even if Universal have no claim here, I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing"
        
        ("them" being SoundExchange. Sorry if that was unclear)
        
        Unless the fact that I'm staying up late watching random 70s giallo movies means I'm going blind, I can't see anywhere else where I even mentioned Universal?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So who is the music published through? Not which record label, but which publishing company?
        
        She self-publishes. I believe she has her own company that handles the publishing rights.
        
        There is *no* connection to Universal at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 9:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Wise man, why is Universal claiming her royalties?
        
        Please explain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Wise man, why is Universal claiming her royalties?
        
        That's the mystery.
        
        The suggestion is that someone mistyped data into a spreadsheet.
        
        This is explained in the comments above. You seem to still be suggesting that Universal has a legitimate claim here. They do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am not suggesting anything. I am just wondering why there is only one side of the story here. Nobody from Sound Exchange would answer your call or email?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 6:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read the update on the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I read the update. I am waiting for Mike to apologize and admit that the title and the tone of the post are absolutely, utter incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hell would freeze faster.
        
        Masnick is a total slimeball that is too much of a cowardly little man to even admit that he supports pirates, despite everyone knowing he does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Hell would freeze faster."
        
        It would be easier to wait for that rather than for you to provide evidence for your base assertions.
        
        " everyone knowing he does."
        
        Only you, you moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  > Why does Universal think they have rights
  > to her work?
  
  Even Universal doesn't know that, considering they already admitted once that they were in the wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re:
  Why does Universal think they have rights to her work?
  
  No one knows. At best, it's probably a clerical error due to a broadcaster mistakenly believing that Zoe's music is from Universal.
  
  You provided her side up and down, but why is Universal involved at all here?
  
  That's what everyone's asking. The answer is: they shouldn't be. But they are.
  
  The latest, by the way, is that (once again) Universal has admitted that the music is entirely Zoe's and SE promises things are now fixed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wig, 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can we say "Two strikes and counting" ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scooters (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:55am

Anyone want to buy a bridge?
"It probably is just someone, somewhere making an administrative mistake in how things are recorded..."
Except, there's just one problem with this: Why would Universal Music have her name in their database to begin with?

I don't need a conspiracy. I've got Twain!

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: Anyone want to buy a bridge?
  i Think the implication is that someone at Sound Exchange stuffed up and listed her under Universal Music (that being the administrative mistake)
  
  and if that's all it is, fixing it the first time should have put an end to the matter.
  
  what is it, once is happenstance, twice coincidence, but three times is enemy action?
  
  it would seem that this particular event is up to 'twice' so far, yah?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Anyone want to buy a bridge?
    Unless it's a ploy from the label. How many other artists did they screw that way? How many went public against billionaire labels?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:01pm

I'm confused, is Universal Music claiming right to the songs in question or is someone at SoundExchange making a clerical error? We need clarification, falsly accusing either at this point seems like it might be premature. Oh wait, this is TechDirt, no facts needed, just an excuse to blame a major music label for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  LEAVE UNIVERSAL MUSIC ALONE! LEAVE THEM ALONE! *cries*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  "...is Universal Music claiming right to the songs in question or is someone at SoundExchange making a clerical error?"
  
  Article states..."...she was surprised when she received a statement from SoundExchange (who collects money for artists for online streaming), in which the royalties for some of her original music was being claimed by Universal Music Group."
  
  Universal was claiming the royalties.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    well, sound exchange thinks they were, anyway.
    
    the article actually outright Says that it may well be simple clerical (administrative) error ( at either Universal or Sound Exchange. )
    
    so i'm not sure exactly where 'universal was claiming the royalties' comes from, though it's a reasonable conclusion and, based on past events, the more likely cause.
    
    and Orange Snowflake AC, stop being an idiot. you're attacking the article for something it doesn't even say. more specifically, for something it goes out of it's way not to say, by making a point, that is made in the article. seriously. brain more.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, Lonely man on a bridge to nowhere using the moniker Chargone, I was posting to the article but my comments regarding Universal and the lack of evidence against it where directed at the general tone of the previous comments. Don't attack my integrity, I wasn't attacking the article, I was commenting on the other poster's comments. They want to be judge, jury and executioner in all issues in which they can point a finger at a major label.
      
      Mike says that the labels want to shut down sites without evidence, but, now the commentors on this site want to condemn the accused (Unniversal) without evidence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Admin error or not, conspiracy or not, this is still a major problem with the system. If nothing else, it's an independent artist having her rightfully earned royalties being withheld so that a major label can work out whether or not it can get the first bite of the cherry. Another example of individuals and independents being penalised so that majors can get paid.
        
        "Mike says that the labels want to shut down sites without evidence, but, now the commentors on this site want to condemn the accused (Unniversal) without evidence."
        
        There's evidence of a problem, it's just not clear at this point whether or not it's a genuine mistake. Even if Universal turn out to be totally innocent, SoundExchange are hardly angels on the side of independents themselves. At least Keating's allowed to continue operating during this time, unlike the websites that are taken down without due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:29pm

Keating just needs to say "Screw It" and file a lawsuit against Universal Music Group for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:31pm

Time to sue
It seems to me that it is time that she sued both Universal and the Sound Exchange for theft and fraud...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:40pm

"Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her"

Mike, you owe me half of your paycheck. Now pay up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 12:51pm

Just goes to show..
that the music companies such as Universal Music are totally corrupt and dedicated to stealing from musicians. Anyone who thinks that the music companies care about artists is sorely deluded.

Lots of luck to zoe trying to collect. She might try at attorney, but most of the attorneys will already be in pay of the music labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:09pm

She's making money WITHOUT the labels. Of course she's evil. She has to pay her dues to the legacy prehistoric monsters that claim it's the only way to get a business to work. Otherwise, what's all their propaganda for?! Oh wait..... never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:17pm

Um.
Even worse, the note said that if she didn't respond within 90 days, the royalties would go to Universal, because they give preference when songs are claimed directly by a label.

Is it just me or is there something deeply wrong with that statement? The default position is that royalties go to a label that claims them? That's because an artist is very unlikely to own their own material, right? So copyright is for the benefit of creators... how, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: Um.
  Nope, it's very wrong and extremely biased. Just what you'd expect from an industry that assumes that the business models of 30 years ago are still viable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose Custard, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:42pm

That's silly.
Sounds to me like SoundExchange needs to be more strictly regulated: Force them to keep more detailed records of what music royalties were paid for and to whom those royalties are due. And, when it comes out that there is a conflicting claim, the company making the inappropriate claim should pay a fine, to the proper claimant, equal to the value of the royalties due; and when royalties are inappropriately paid to the wrong claimant, *both* SoundExchange and the false claimant should each pay a fine to the proper claimant, equal to 1.5x the value of the royalties due.

I guarantee that such a system would make things change for the better in a big goddamn hurry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:10pm

RE
Great, Now Universal will call ICE an have her website taken down for copyright infringement because they didn't get paid for songs they had no connection with.

Anyone wanna take this bet??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
djjd (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:11pm

I've seen the Sound Exchange process in the past (not for Universal). Here's how it worked:

You give them a list of label names and artist names that you think you have rights to.

Now, Sound Exchange gets money from all sorts of places... internet radio sites, etc... sometimes the data is good, sometimes the song and artist names are mixed up, stuff's misspelled, numbers are spelled out when they shouldn't be or the other way round... you get the picture. Good luck getting something really useful like an ISRC. And yes, if the people sending the money to Sound Exchange put "Universal" under the label field, that's what they'll use later on.

Sound Exchange does some regular expression matching to try to match up your stuff with their stuff. Then they send you a list of thousands of songs (I bet Universal gets tens of thousands on their lists) that they think might be yours, and ask you to let them know if they really are yours or not.

I don't think anyone is going to go through all those thousands of songs and check them all one at a time, so you get someone to do regular expression matching on your side, or maybe you just eyeball the thing.

It's a difficult process; matching that volume of songs which don't have standardized data just isn't an easy thing to do. Mistakes will be made all along the line. Doesn't make things any easier for the artist who's affected though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B Pickel (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:31pm

an idea
if only there was some sort of royalty collection agency that would just collect all money on behalf the artists � actually, Never mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoe Keating, 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:37pm

In the interest of accuracy, here's what happened:

- In April 2011 I noticed on my SoundExchange (which I'll refer to as 'SE') statement that the tracks from one of my albums were listed as Label = Mercury and Rights Owner = Universal Music Group.

- The SE online PLAYS site has a formal claim system where you can 'claim' songs that have incorrect rights holder info. I filed a claim for my mis-labeled songs.

- A rep from SE wrote a few days later to tell me that SE communicated w/ Universal who confirmed that I was the rights owner

- my September 2011 statement reflected back royalties from the tracks that had been erroneously attributed to Universal

- this week I got an email from the SE claims department that Universal had claimed my tracks and that I had 90 days to dispute or they will revert to the claimant (ie. Universal)

- I followed the procedure SE specified in the email and sent my re-claim back to SE. I got an email from SE asking if I owned the *master* and explaining the difference between song copyrights and master (duh!). I wrote back to confirm that I understood that and yes, I owned everything.

- Just in case, I looked in the online PLAYS database again. 4 tracks are again mis-labeled as Mercury/Universal. I filed another claim through the SE system on Monday.

- Today, following this little tizzy ;-) SE very quickly let me know that they had followed up with Universal, and Universal agrees that it has no claims to my tracks. SE states it was a 'metadata error'.

I know that SE has no control over metadata submitted by webcasters, so some webcaster was, or is, submitting my tracks as Mercury/Universal (fun to imagine it as a major label conspiracy but it's probably an intern mis-populating cells in a spreadsheet). What happened at SE is a bit of a mystery. Seems like they resolved the original claim, but then their system didn't see it? or Universal filed another claim? or�.hard to know where the error was.

That's it. It might seem like making mountains out of molehills, but I hope, for all artists' sake that I'm the only one who suffers metadata errors. As streaming becomes the primary mode of listening, if metadata isn't correct, you don't get paid. (Artists! Go to the SE PLAYS database and look for your stuff!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re:
  ...it might seem like making mountains out of molehills....
  
  No. It doesn't seem like that to me.
  
  Thanks for letting us know what happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:12pm
  
  Re:
  /Tips Hat
  Thank you Ma'am
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:52pm
  
  Re:
  . . . their service should only be using metadata for songs/artists that they do not already have data on.
  
  And they should've hard-marked all your songs as being strictly yours after the first complaint, and DEFINITELY after the second.
  
  As it is, I imagine that record companies can easily, and therefore probably are, fraudulently claim royalties that don't belong to them; either by explicitly filing a claim, or in this case, just by changing metadata somewhere here.
  
  If you want to attribute this to ignorance as opposed to malice, you should realize the very high level of incompetence this would be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 5:26am

Told ya it was hard
Interesting that Sound Exchange should be having trouble easily identifying who owns what, while simultaneously insisting that Google/YouTube/everybody else should be able to do that quite easily and are just pirate enablers who lazily refuse to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 6:20am

Sue Universal for $150,000 per infringement statutory damages
After all, it is copyright infringement.

Or slander of title. (too long to explain, but see SCO vs The World for an education about Slander of Title.)

Be sure to also name Sound Exchange so that they must defend themselves. Once you get to the bottom of it, you drop the defendant that is not responsible. After all, everyone is guilty until proven innocent -- when it comes to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoe Keating, 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:06am

Errors and Apolgies
I'm left with a lot of questions. When an artist registers for SE they register their recorded catalog. It then takes 4 to 6 months or more for the SE registration process to complete, during which time I'd assume SE is verifying the artist's catalog.

Why then, does an erroneous metadata submission from a webcaster trump the artist info that is supposedly on file?

SE are the good guys, but it seems like they're opening the door to potential abuse here.

Also, why is it up to the artist registered with SE to initiate a claim process? If an artist doesn't scrutinize their quarterly SE statements for metadata errors, and then file a claim, any labels erroneously listed as rights holder will get the royalties for the artists songs.

As for my weird case� seven months after my claim was resolved in my favor, I get this notice from SE that there is a claim on my music and the ball is in my court to take action within 90 days, or I would lose my royalties. In fairness to SE and Universal, reading the notification, it does not say WHO initiated the claim. I saw in the claim that it was Universal again, and made the incorrect assumption that it was they�.I tweeted about it, and here we are. As none of the involved parties have yet to apologize, I'll be the first. Dear Universal, I'm sorry I assumed you were claiming my music and that I tweeted about it. (I was going to say "I'm sorry a clerical error at SE caused me to assume you were claiming my music" but even though true, it's a really lousy and ineffective apology)

Here's text from the SE Claims Issue, interpret as you will�..

(note the term "new claimant" which I interpreted to mean that the new claimant...ie. Universal... initiated the claim. When really it was a webcaster's erroneous data the initiated the claim....)

----

TIME SENSITIVE CLAIMS ISSUE FROM SOUNDEXCHANGE: RESPONSE REQUIRED

Tracks in Conflict", a.k.a. Overlapping Claims
Please copy the code below and click the link provided in order to retrieve the report. You will find a "Tracks in Conflict" file for your label, as prepared by the SoundExchange Claims department.�� These are generally tracks that were reported to SoundExchange (by digital service providers) as belonging to your label, and for which SoundExchange subsequently received a claim from another rights owner. �� I.e., we have two labels claiming rights to the same track, which we need to ask you about.

We ask that you review this list, and indicate in the first column as follows:
a)�� Enter "YES", if your label affirms the right to the digital performance royalty for the track listed, or
b)�� Enter "No" (or leave blank) if the track was mistakenly reported as attributable to your label.� In whichevent the rights to the track will be adjusted to the new claimant.

Conflict Resolution Policy
Because the information SoundExchange receives from digital services can be inaccurate as to ownership, our policy is to ask the originally identified label to positively affirm or release their rights to the repertoire listed.� In order to resolve these issues expeditiously, we must receive your response within 90 days of this report being sent.�� Because a label is more likely to have accurate information about ownership than a digital service provider, our policy is to give preference to repertoire that is claimed directly by a label.� Therefore, if we haven't heard from you within 90 days, we will adjust the claim in favor of the new claimant.� ��Please note, the new claimant may receive adjustments from prior periods that were paid incorrectly, with these amounts debited against the account of the incorrectly paid label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Errors and Apolgies
  "Why then, does an erroneous metadata submission from a webcaster trump the artist info that is supposedly on file?
  
  SE are the good guys, but it seems like they're opening the door to potential abuse here."
  
  I really feel like whatever entity is the cause for this policy must be malicious. It could be an unintended consequence of some contract/agreement/law somewhere, but it seems like it would have to have been very oddly specific to have this as an unintended consequence.
  
  If only I knew how to start looking into this kind of thing . . .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: Errors and Apolgies
  I read the notification, and I don't see anything malicious here. What I see is a system that (a) appears efficient enough to spot a potential overlap, and (b) contacts you to resolve it in a reasonable time frame (90 days a very, very long time to give you to just register an objection).
  
  Further, while the tilt is towards the label, it appears to be the right way to do it. Clearly they favor the information provided by label sources over random information provided by the digital service providers, and I am guessing that in the vast majority of cases, they are right.
  
  I would say that, yes, you probably should say some nice words to Universal (they did nothing wrong), and further ask Mike Masnick here at Techdirt to do the same. He is very quick to slam labels any chance he gets, and it appears that Universal has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Edward Teach, 20 Oct 2011 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Errors and Apolgies
    How is your rationale (biased towards the Big Labels) any different than Youtube saying "in the vast majority of cases, no infringement has occurred"?
    
    Arrr, matey. Your employer is showing! Join us pirates on account! Four-and-twenty blackbirds! Satellite Zeta is in orbit!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Errors and Apolgies
    "I read the notification, and I don't see anything malicious here."
    
    To be fair, I'm not seeing anything deliberately malicious either. I am, however, seeing a system that's fundamentally biased toward corporate actors rather than independents. Isn't that still a problem?
    
    "He is very quick to slam labels any chance he gets, and it appears that Universal has absolutely nothing to do with this at all."
    
    If you read the update he posted, he does state that Universal appear to have had nothing to do with the claim. It appears to have been a valid assumption based on the evidence he had at the time, but at least he's honest enough to admit that he was mistaken.
    
    However, that doesn't excuse the pro-RIAA setup of the system, nor does it excuse the fact that an artist had to wait until a corporation passed on a claim to her own music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Errors and Apolgies
  Hi Zoe,
  
  The way the bureaucracy treats artists is always a major issue of mine, and I try to support independents whenever I can. Given their history, I'm not entirely sure that SE are the "good guys", to be honest, but I respect you opinion as someone closer to the facts than I am.
  
  I've queued up a couple of your albums to listen to in Spotify, and I'll say what I say to every artist - if I like your music, I'll pay what I can. Sadly, I seem to have almost opposing schedules to you, meaning I'll be visiting New York and San Francisco at different times in the next few weeks but I wish you luck in any case. If it's any consolation, you do seem to have gotten some publicity out of this fiasco, so good luck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoe Keating, 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:19am

Errors and Apolgies
I'm left with a lot of questions. When an artist registers for SE they register their recorded catalog. It then takes 4 to 6 months or more for the SE registration process to complete, during which time I'd assume SE is verifying the artist's catalog.

Why then, does an erroneous metadata submission from a webcaster trump the artist info that is supposedly on file?

SE are the good guys, but it seems like they're opening the door to potential abuse here.

Also, why is it up to the artist registered with SE to initiate a claim process? If an artist doesn't scrutinize their quarterly SE statements for metadata errors, and then file a claim, any labels erroneously listed as rights holder will get the royalties for the artists songs.

As for my weird case� seven months after my claim was resolved in my favor, I get this notice from SE that there is a claim on my music and the ball is in my court to take action within 90 days, or I would lose my royalties. In fairness to SE and Universal, reading the notification, it does not say WHO initiated the claim. I saw in the claim that it was Universal again, and made the incorrect assumption that it was they�.I tweeted about it, and here we are. As none of the involved parties have yet to apologize, I'll be the first. Dear Universal, I'm sorry I assumed you were claiming my music and that I tweeted about it. (I was going to say "I'm sorry a clerical error at SE caused me to assume you were claiming my music" but even though true, it's a really lousy and ineffective apology)

Here's text from the SE Claims Issue, interpret as you will�..

(note the term "new claimant" which I interpreted to mean that the new claimant...ie. Universal... initiated the claim. When really it was a webcaster's erroneous data the initiated the claim....)

----

TIME SENSITIVE CLAIMS ISSUE FROM SOUNDEXCHANGE: RESPONSE REQUIRED

Tracks in Conflict", a.k.a. Overlapping Claims
Please copy the code below and click the link provided in order to retrieve the report. You will find a "Tracks in Conflict" file for your label, as prepared by the SoundExchange Claims department.�� These are generally tracks that were reported to SoundExchange (by digital service providers) as belonging to your label, and for which SoundExchange subsequently received a claim from another rights owner. �� I.e., we have two labels claiming rights to the same track, which we need to ask you about.

We ask that you review this list, and indicate in the first column as follows:
a)�� Enter "YES", if your label affirms the right to the digital performance royalty for the track listed, or
b)�� Enter "No" (or leave blank) if the track was mistakenly reported as attributable to your label.� In whichevent the rights to the track will be adjusted to the new claimant.

Conflict Resolution Policy
Because the information SoundExchange receives from digital services can be inaccurate as to ownership, our policy is to ask the originally identified label to positively affirm or release their rights to the repertoire listed.� In order to resolve these issues expeditiously, we must receive your response within 90 days of this report being sent.�� Because a label is more likely to have accurate information about ownership than a digital service provider, our policy is to give preference to repertoire that is claimed directly by a label.� Therefore, if we haven't heard from you within 90 days, we will adjust the claim in favor of the new claimant.� ��Please note, the new claimant may receive adjustments from prior periods that were paid incorrectly, with these amounts debited against the account of the incorrectly paid label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wayne Borean (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:20pm

Universal Rip Off Artists
Update: The situation has now been resolved, with Universal admitting -- yet again -- that it does not have any claim or rights to Keating's music. Separately, SoundExchange wanted to make clear that the "conflict" in data came from a (nameless) webcaster, who incorrectly listed Keating's music on their playlist as belonging to Universal Music. They insist that Universal had nothing to do with the actual claim. What's unclear is why SoundExchange relies on webcasters for the copyright holder info. I can understand getting a listing of songs and artists, but asking them to figure out who the label/copyright holder is seems like a situation that is going to turn up all sorts of bogus data, something that SoundExchange admits outright is "a challenge across the industry."

Separately, SoundExchange claims that they do not give preference to labels as I stated in my post. But in the letter sent to Keating on Monday, it states: "our policy is to give preference to repertoire that is claimed directly by a label. Therefore, if we haven't heard from you within 90 days, we will adjust the claim in favor of the new claimant." That certainly sounds like they would have given preference to Universal Music. If that's not the case, it seems like they should clarify the language in such emails.

Which make me wonder, how many other artists are getting hit the same way, and don't know it?

That may seem like a strange thing to say, but a lot of artists are terrible at the business side. They might read the statement, and not even realize that the payment should have come to them.

Scary, isn't it?

Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the orangebox, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:43am

universal music
Universal music are fucking sponges stealing the lifeblood from musicians...that is the problem with the outdated business model with moguls living in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]