Performance Rights Organizations Accused Of 'Retitling' Songs To Collect Royalties Without Paying Artists

from the sad-state-of-affairs dept

Tue, Apr 23rd 2013 5:20am — Mike Masnick

In various discussions about the music industry, we're often told that the so-called Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) are "looking out for artists' interests." In practice, that's not always the case. In the US, for example, we've talked about how PROs have harmed up and coming musicians by jacking up prices so high that many venues that used to be the starting place for new musicians no longer allow any music. Similarly, there are plenty of stories showing how they often collect money that should go to smaller artists, but deliver it to big name artists instead, because it's too difficult to track how much they should be paying smaller artists.

A press release from an organization called Music Licensing Directory -- which may be biased, so take this with a grain of salt -- is highlighting that 40% of the PROs it tracks engage in "retitling" tracks for the purpose of licensing. Basically, the accusation is that the PROs change the title, so that they still collect the royalties, but since the songs can't be easily connected back to the original artist, that artist doesn't get paid.

“We have analyzed over 1500 music licensing companies globally, allowing for an accurate assessment of the market place and providing valued insight for artists and the industry.” said Winston Giles, CEO & Founder of The Music Licensing Directory.

The new report highlights that whilst the Music Licensing Industry continues to grow as a multi-billion dollar segment of the global music industry, there remains some unhealthy practices, most notably the prolific practice of retitling. Retitling is where a music licensing company re-registers a song under a different title with a performing rights organization (PRO), allowing for the royalties to be separately tracked when that song is licensed for a specific third party use. This allows the music licensing company to control and earn a significant share of the royalties collected.

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: licensing, pro

39 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Prashanth (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:23am

Patent evergreening
This essentially sounds like patent evergreening, except it is done to copyrighted works (rather than patented works) and is done more shamelessly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:01am
  
  Re: Patent evergreening
  THIS... sounds like stealing to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re: Patent evergreening
    No, it's not stealing when the companies do it, only when people do it. /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Patent evergreening
      So corporations are persons, but not people?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Patent evergreening
        These days they seem to be more people than actual people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:29am

"...which may be biased, so take this with a grain of salt..."

Noted. Assuming 80%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  Hmmm, funny how you pick that figure!
  
  (from the linked article:
  
  �There are suggestions from within the industry from companies like Tunesat, who claim that up to 80% of songs are not reported properly."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, but they probably reached those conclusions via methods that involved geeky stuff like "Math".
    
    My process - which scientific publications refer to as "Making stuff up" - is much more efficient and nearly* as accurate.
    
    (By the way, is there such a thing as an "Accidentally Insightful" award?)
    
    * For some generous interpretations of "near"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:33am

While the argument could be made for copyright, I haven't seen any good news when it came to organisations like these. But what do you expect from people who consider ringtones as public performances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:38am

funny how ALL politicians manage to ignore these practices by members of the entertainment industries, along with plenty of cases where the labels and studios just DO NOT PAY the artists concerned but jump up to defend those same execs and condemn the people who download stuff or format shift what they legally own! typical of the 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' attitudes between Congress and their many friends in the industries. if they were to look at the amount of money owed to artists by the labels and studios, it would dwarf the so-called losses suffered from file sharing. trouble with that is it takes guts and scruples, which 99.9% of politicians just dont have!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:41am

If true, this only cements what most people who care should already know - these things have nothing to do with protecting artists, only to screw over the people who still pay legally for content. It's pure profiteering from the works of others, the very thing that people in the industry claim to be fighting against.

It is worth noting that the directory is a paid-for service that seems to be providing access to numerous PRO databases, so they could have an ulterior motive for making it seem that people need to be checking that their information is correct. The "full report" linked also seems to be an infographic giving its own site and Wikipedia as 2 of 4 sources, which is suspicious.

However, we're really back to the same position. If true, it's a scandal, it's fraud and it should be dealt with to the limits of the law - especially by those showboaters who jump on the "but piracy!" train every time it comes up. If untrue, it shouldn't take the usual defends too long to work out why it's so easily believed (hint: many previous incidents of similar behaviour).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jay, 5 Oct 2013 @ 4:22am
  
  Response to: PaulT on Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:41am
  who do u work 4 spy...and defuser of justice and the pursuit of prosperity...u suck worste then a pornstar with one lip
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 7 Oct 2013 @ 4:42am
    
    Re: Response to: PaulT on Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:41am
    You waited 6 months to act like an illiterate paranoid idiot? I hope you're not the jay who regularly posts here, he usually seems coherent as well as sane.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:41am

Wrong culprit
Hey Mike,
The PRO's are not at fault here (for once!). It's the Music Licensing Companies. They change the song titles to avoid having to pay the songwriter fees, or to collect the publisher fees themselves. So you can't really blame the PRO's for not being able to track usage of songs in this particular case.
Can't believe I'm defending the PRO's here! haha!

Cheers

Andy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: Wrong culprit
  " It's the Music Licensing Companies. They change the song titles to avoid having to pay the songwriter fees, or to collect the publisher fees themselves."
  
  Can you PROVE the title change was done by the Music Licensing Companies, NOT the Performance Rights Organizations, Andy?
  Eagerly awaiting a reply...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dennis deems (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re: Wrong culprit
    Why does Andy have to prove anything? It's right there in the paragraphs that Mike has quoted:
    
    The new report highlights that whilst the Music Licensing Industry continues to grow as a multi-billion dollar segment of the global music industry, there remains some unhealthy practices, most notably the prolific practice of retitling. Retitling is where a music licensing company re-registers a song under a different title with a performing rights organization (PRO), allowing for the royalties to be separately tracked when that song is licensed for a specific third party use. This allows the music licensing company to control and earn a significant share of the royalties collected.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re: Wrong culprit
    Can Mike prove that there was even one single artist who didn't get the money that was due them because of the title change? Or is this article just 100% bullshit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
      It's not Techdirt's job to prove these things. It's Techdirt's job to report what others have found.
      
      If you want proof, why not ask the Music Licensing Directory, the party making the claim, instead of blaming Techdirt?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
      Well, it proves criminal malfeasance under US copyright law, as set in Sections 106 and 107.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
      Why else would they change the title Joe?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
        The source article states that the titles are changed so they can keep track of particular usages. Sounds not-so-evil to me. The source article only states that this might lead to confusion such that the royalties don't make it where they're going, but it doesn't actually state that this has ever happened. Sounds like a bunch of idiotic anti-copyright FUD to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
        It's funny how you regularly come here and criticise Mike of offering his opinion (one his OPINION blog, wow!), but you expect us to take your own moronic interpretations at face value.
        
        Sounds like a bunch of shit to me, but that tends to be the trend for people who regularly attack this site but lack the cojones to even create a fake name to log in with. What are YOU hiding?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wrong culprit
      Can you prove that there was even one single artist who starved due to piracy? Or is the standard of proof not for you and the RIAA?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re: Wrong culprit
    He might not be able to prove it, but it is what the agency reporting it says is happening.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andy, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: Wrong culprit
    I can prove that at least one Music Licensing Company I have worked with uses this method, yes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Wrong culprit
  It is the entire licensing system of laws that is at fault here when it allows this activity in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:55am

And then they'll turn around and claim to be defenders of artists' rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:12am

Legal Ponzi Scheme
Taking money that should be going to smaller artists and giving it to the big name artists kinda sounds like a legal ponzi scheme to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:49am

Well that's not surprising. Too bad they seemingly don't get int trouble for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:01am

So who the hell is "Music Licensing Directory"?
It's so questionable that even Headlong Mike has to mumble and heavily hedge: "from an organization ... -- which may be biased, so take this with a grain of salt".

Meanwhile, you pirates think nothing of ripping music and entire $100M dollar movies onto sites where it's guaranteed that the artists won't get paid.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where arrogance meets ignorance to conspire what they'll do with someone else's 100 million dollar movie.
04:01:17[f- 2-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: So who the hell is "Music Licensing Directory"?
  As said very clearly in this comment thread, some like you will surface like scum from the bottom of the pond to cry foul and accuse the pirates of taking what is not theirs.
  
  It is shown time and time again that with Hollywood accounting those that are stealing are those actually accusing the pirates. Pirates share they do not steal anything and you need to accept this or be ignored in many conversations.
  
  If anything the copyright maximalists are the ones stealing from the artists and those that have invested in their creations by means of the famous Hollywood accounting. They are just using piracy as a means to accuse others of their misdeeds to move the conversation away from their theft and greed.
  
  And if you do not understand what Hollywood accounting is there is enough info on Google for you to investigate, but one very clear example is the fact that some of the biggest grossing movies of all time are still said to not be creating and never have created a penny in profit. Now you explain to me how a movie like the first star wars movie has not made a profit over it's lifetime, and has not paid a penny out in royalties.
  
  Come on i am waiting for your knowledgeable excuses as to why a movie that is one of the all time top grossing movies is still declared as non profitable to those that seek their royalties from any profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: So who the hell is "Music Licensing Directory"?
  I love it, an attack on Mike for potentially using a biased source - follow by an outright lie. Why do you have to lie so much ootb? Is reality that hard to deal with? Did you not get your crappy $100 million movie script approved?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re: So who the hell is "Music Licensing Directory"?
    I suspect he was only paid $$99.99 million, and when he threw a diva tantrum he had his privileges revoked. Now he ekes out a living trolling sites like Techdirt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: So who the hell is "Music Licensing Directory"?
  Am I a thief even though I showed you proof that I paid for things? Why won't you answer me! I just want a yes or no question! Stop running away!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanZee (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:57pm

Royalties
The recording industry has always played fast and loose with royalties collection. In the old days, it simply estimated the number of plays to compute the copyright royalties, which meant indie artists received nothing since they weren't being included in the surveys. Then recently it was revealed that US PROs couldn't be bothered computing anything but the largest concerts, therefore giving big artists royalties that should have gone to small artists. The entire system is against the hard working artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
special-interesting (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:58pm

The comments said most of what I would have. Corruption, theft, scandal, non tin foil hat conspiracy, real loss to artists and most notably loss to culture. There have been some lawsuits against PRO's and other sales sites but mostly from well off bands that can afford the litigation expense.

Have been expounding on the clear observation that RIAA and MPAA have business models almost indistinguishable from organized crime. Can add Performance Rights Organizations (PRO) and Music Licensing Companies (MLC) to that list? Not a surprise since they possibly aspire to be like their big daddy **AA's.

This is great stuff! Where there is money we will find corruption. Follow the trail! (and toss the stupid rational that its just a mistake or that we just misunderstand)

What we need are more victims willing to prosecute. Keep gathering evidence. Donate to the EFF to remedy expected expenses. Its likely that only through subpoenas and warrants will sufficient data for prosecution to occur as these types seem like habitual lairs.

Reactionary,

Andy. Would there be any connection between the MLO and PRO's? Collusion might bring up RICO charges which are much stronger (even if the RICO law itself is weird) in terms of penalties and possible prison terms for the involved.

Anonymouse. In Hollywood accounting one takes money from one pile and allocates it to some expense not necessarily involved with the original production. (its all in the contract fine print) The First Star Wars movie is a good example where the production of the second movie ate up the proceeds from the first (along with some large capital investments in the LucusFilm empire notably computer graphics and special effects.)

Of course this partial explanation does not make it any easier on the actors and others stiffed of proceeds from a very profitable film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 4:02pm

NOOO A cartel spin off hiding money to line their own pockets?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2013 @ 2:12am

Copyright has always been the means whereby businesses lined their own pockets while pretending that they were supporting the creators. Obviously a small amount of money goes to creators, to maintain the fiction that copyright benefits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zachary, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2013 @ 2:12am
  Or in the case of ASCAP, distributing over 85%. Don't mislead just because you don't earn
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]