The Music Licensing Swamp: Spotify Settles Over Failure To Obtain Mechanical Licenses
from the how-could-they-not-have-done-this? dept
A year and a half ago we wrote about a lawsuit, filed by musician/songwriter/Techdirt-hater (with a few perhaps surprising exceptions) David Lowery against Spotify, for failing to pay mechanical licenses. As we noted at the time, the more interesting thing to us beyond the lawsuit itself was how it demonstrated what an amazing clusterfuck music licensing is. That's because copyright law has not done a very good job keeping up with the times as technology changes (understatement alert).
Basically, each time a new technology undermines the way licensing worked in the past, Congress ends up duct-taping on some new kind of licensing regime. There are a bunch currently, nearly all of which can be traced back to different technological innovations from the past century and a half. And, then, the internet came along. And it wasn't entirely clear how the licensing regimes of things like radio, television, player pianos, and satellite radio fit into the internet. And, some seem to think the answer is: they ALL apply. At the very least, I don't envy the "licensing" team at the various music tech companies.
In our initial post, we noted that the issue seemed so complex that after talking to half-a-dozen copyright lawyers, no two could agree on what was actually happening with the lawsuit, or even if it was a legitimate case. The underlying issue had to do with mechanical licensing (a type of licensing which, as it's name suggests, goes all the way back to the early days of "mechanical" reproduction of compositions), and we were wondering how it could possibly be that a company as big as Spotify, whose entire story rested on the idea that it had properly negotiated licenses, had somehow failed to properly secure mechanical licenses. And, yet, a few months later, we noted that the Harry Fox Agency, an organization that many companies, including Spotify, Apple and others, use to handle these kinds of licenses, appeared to be scrambling to send out notices of intent (NOIs), which was something that should have happened way earlier.
After Lowery's lawsuit got combined with another similar lawsuit, it's now been announced that Spotify has settled the combined lawsuit and created a $43.4 million fund to pay for the mechanical licenses it failed to obtain properly in the first place. Now, there are still some who argue that mechanical licenses shouldn't even be necessary for a streaming service, but it doesn't appear that anyone has the desire to fight that one out in court, and it's understandable why. Doing so would almost certainly lead to any service making that argument getting slammed by musicians for trying to avoid paying songwriters.
Either way, Spotify has paid its way out of this and I remain baffled by the fact that it hadn't just done the right thing in the first place -- though I'm still curious if the real culprit here is the Harry Fox Agency, and if Spotify and HFA have had a long conversation or two about how this all came down. The real lesson in all of this, though, is that music licensing continues to be a complete murky, swampy mess, almost designed to make it that much harder for licensed music services to exist. While Congress dithers with silly ideas about "moving" the Copyright Office, if it wasn't to actually reform copyright laws, it should start by fixing and modernizing the crazy and overly complex licensing regimes.
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: copyright, david lowery, licenses, mechanical licenses, music
Companies: harry fox agency, hfa, spotify
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
that 43M
Or does mechanical not mean that any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Licensing FUD: It's a feature, not a bug."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Complex in this case
At the end of the day, Spotify (and other online music services) would be hard pressed to come up with any argument that would make them exempt. As such, they need to get to negotiating and paying as everyone else who makes money from an artist's music does.
"on the internet" doesn't mean "shirking responsibility" or somehow being deserving of an unfairly sloped playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Complex in this case
Well, those are 2 completely different things in numerous ways, are you trying to say they're directly equivalent? Anyway, generally speaking - yes, they are that different.
A radio station plays a song not usually chosen directly by the listener, and then broadcasts it to hundreds or thousands of listeners. Spotify takes a song directly chosen by the listeners and plays it once to one person. There are some times where that's not true (a radio request show or a person playing Spotify at a party), but they are completely different functions under normal operation.
A jukebox is usually located on commercial premises and played to a group/crowd of people as part of said business. Most Spotify plays are not (although, of course, this can happen).
So, while there are cases where they're similar, the normal mode of operation is completely different.
"As such, they need to get to negotiating and paying as everyone else who makes money from an artist's music does."
They did, and everyone thought they were compliant. Until someone thought of something else to make them pay for. Nobody seems to be able to agree as to whether this licence is even applicable, if you read the background here, Spotify simply didn't want the court battle to prove that it wasn't. So, it's still unclear as to whether any other company actually needs to pay it, the company with the deepest pockets simply decided it would rather settle.
You don't see a problem with that?
""on the internet" doesn't mean "shirking responsibility" or somehow being deserving of an unfairly sloped playing field."
It also doesn't mean that the industry who failed to take advantage of the internet when they had the chance gets to make shit up for companies to pay when they don't feel the internet is giving them enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Complex in this case
You can go through a lot of hoops trying to point out how they are different, yet they are clearly the same basic concept, playing music for users that the users do not have to own the rights to. The mode of operation isn't very relevant, unless of course you are trying really hard to bury a discussion into meaningless sidelines.
"They did, and everyone thought they were compliant. Until someone thought of something else to make them pay for. "
Actually, radio and jukebox companies (as examples) have been paying this for ages. Why should "on the intenet" be different?
The true nature of the disagreement for all royalties in relation on internet music providers is methods to calculate actual listeners and the value of each "play". Spotify's lawyers probably figured out that fighting a losing battle on the issue was pointless, and it was better to come to a settlement and an agreement on licensing fees that makes sense and allows the company to move forward with a product that consumers seem to like.
"It also doesn't mean that the industry who failed to take advantage of the internet when they had the chance gets to make shit up for companies to pay when they don't feel the internet is giving them enough."
This is where you basic logic flaw lies. There is nothing that says any industry has to take advantage of the internet in a way the is convenient for you personally, or meets your personal standards. One of the joys of licensing is that rights holders and creators can let others get their hands dirty with the nitty griity of a give delivery method. The creators can spend their time creating rather than spending their time trying to figure out the best upstream providers for their streaming music venture.
The idea that deciding not to be part of online music companies (most of which have failed) somehow negates the rights of the creator is pretty arrogant, even by your standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Complex in this case
They do pay songwriter royalties, although only a small fraction of those payments end up going to the actual songwriters.
There is no underlying principle of fairness to the artists. Royalties are only about who has the power to extract them at the time they are negotiated. If bringing up the image of a "starving artist" helps, it will be used as a pretense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Complex in this case
Mike states that you are utterly wrong about this. Do you have a citation for your claim, because I'm obviously more willing to go with the guy who's known to back his claims up rather than the anonymous guy who never does?
Ball is in your court. With your track record, I will assume you've been caught lying again, unless proven otherwise.
"There is nothing that says any industry has to take advantage of the internet in a way the is convenient for you personally, or meets your personal standards"
There is also nothing that says that if an industry fails and loses a lot of money because they can't take advantage, that the people who do succeed owe them a penny.
You also, of course, ignore the central problem here. You don't deny that Spotify have been doing what they can to comply with licencing, they just happened to miss one that not everybody agrees should apply to them. Does this not indicate a massive problem, if the US licencing system is so complex that an honest actor that's compliant with licencing in all other markets can completely miss out an entire licencing method from its portfolio?
"The idea that deciding not to be part of online music companies (most of which have failed) somehow negates the rights of the creator is pretty arrogant, even by your standards."
Good thing I didn't say that, then. Seriously, stop making shit up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Complex in this case
There's an unfairly sloped playing field, but most rational people are honest enough to see who it's tilting towards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Complex in this case
A radio station and jukebox both have the same general goal, to play a set of songs for a group of people. A average person has little/no control over a radio station (especially given the regulations for it and the physical distance between the listening group.) and would not even own a jukebox.
In contrast, when the average person is playing music on Spotify, They usually play it for only them. The song set is easily changeable and arguably under user control.
And then there is that fast that Spotify would logically be exempt on quite a bit of the regulations for radio transmission, due to not actually transmitting over radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Complex in this case
The question is actually pretty simple: Is a music streaming service really that different from a radio station or for that matter a juke box?
If that were actually the question, then the above case would have ended differently, becuase neither radio nor jukebox operators pay mechanical licenses...
So... not sure your point?
At the end of the day, Spotify (and other online music services) would be hard pressed to come up with any argument that would make them exempt.
Well, since you've already falsely claimed that radio and jukeboxes pay mechanicals, I find it kind of hilarious that you now claim Spotify couldn't exempt itself from the same requirements. If Spotify had the same requirements as radio it would pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.
"on the internet" doesn't mean "shirking responsibility" or somehow being deserving of an unfairly sloped playing field.
On the internet means paying many more licenses than the examples you gave.
Now... let's see if you'll admit to being wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're certainly consistent with major court cases: every one, you don't see any merit to copyright, and get wrong.
Evidently lawyers were able to see their way through the "swamp", and so clearly that Spotify paid up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't worry though. We've been keeping tabs on the major court cases involving Prenda Law, Malibu Media and Perfect 10. And guess what, Techdirt was right, every time.
How's that campaign of yours to get fair use banned coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're certainly consistent with major court cases: every one, you don't see any merit to copyright, and get wrong.
The need for lawyers to decide what the law says is the problem that keeps the swamp all squelchy and sticky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read elsewhere, now understand why Ma snick can't bear to even mention "Cassandra Fairbanks, a journalist and outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump".
"But I'm not naming her in this story." Sheesh. Just irrational and childish from "Rumpelstiltskin" Masni ck.
His lousy nameless "journalism" conveys no more than bias: he so scrambled the story that I didn't figure out the point.
Read this take and compare:
Fake News Gets Bad News... Victim Sues Over "White Supremacy" Hit Piece
http://conservativetribune.com/fake-news-bad-news-victim/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having read elsewhere, now understand why Ma snick can't bear to even mention "Cassandra Fairbanks, a journalist and outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder so many services and customers don't bother even trying to comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They still seem set on the delusion that people will still buy full albums when all they want is to listen to a single song a few times. That time is long gone, and it's gone because people actually have a choice now, not because there's something fundamentally different about today's consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What will be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but think of the (lawyers' ) children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Props where due
I've disagreed with most everything David Lowery has ever argued, but I will give him the respect he deserves for standing with Techdirt in their fight for journalism and the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Props where due
Now we just need to get him on board with alternatives to licencing music so he can make a decent living from his art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Props where due
I wonder if his fan club can be so fair and open minded in this arena?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is really past the time when copyright needs an overhaul & not just some more crap bolted on to protect a cartoon mouse and the income for a 1 hit wonder for the next century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]