The third and final part of my critique of A2IM’s objection to the new physical rates.
In Part 2, I discuss the importance of the longer table as well as the authority of CRB to change the entire mechanical licensing structure in the US.
I filed a response to A2IM’s objection to the new rate settlement.
The failure to obtain a cost of living adjustment leads songwriters right back into the trap with the illusion of cheese.
Google is getting millions of pages of songwriter royalty statements to “test” whether songwriters have been screwed by Big Tech. Who wants to bet they never read a word of it?
Google lawyers dining out on songwriter misery yet again.
My oh, my. The rumor is that Universal will propose a 12¢ unfrozen rate on vinyl and CDs and 10¢ on downloads.
[A little context: As MTP readers will recall, the Copyright Royalty Board is in the middle of two (count ’em, two) simultaneous rate proceedings for the statutory mechanical royalty rates under the reliably absurd Section 115 of the Copyright Act. These two are styled “Phonorecords III” and “Phonorecords IV” respectively. Technically, Phonorecords III was appealed […]
Our response to the majors comment in Phonorecords IV.
First and foremost, the problem with the CRB adopting the purported settlement as the law of the land is the appearance of the bootstrapping of a private deal among apparently related parties and the controlled opposition into rates and terms that apply to all songwriters in the world.