Earlier this week, Digital Music News broke the news of a voluntary settlement proposal tied to upcoming US-based mechanical licensing rates as part of the broader Phonorecords V CRB proceedings. That settlement, which focused on a number of non-streaming formats, involved a who’s who of organizations across the label, publishing, and, surprisingly, indie realms — though Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights was noticeably edged out of the process.
So what happened? The answer to that question, it turns out, depends on who you’re talking to.
As first reported by Digital Music News, the major record labels, alongside the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), the Music Artists Coalition, and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), have officially informed the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) of a proposed Phonorecords V settlement for a range of non-streaming formats
The agreement, which specifically covers US-based mechanical rates for physical formats, ringtones, and permanent downloads from 2028 through 2032, proposes leaving the existing Phonorecords IV structure completely unchanged, except for continuing annual inflation adjustments calculated by the Consumer Price Index.
The proposal, which can be viewed in its entirety here, has sparked immediate vocal opposition from independent advocates and creators, including the Songwriters Guild of America, Word Collections, Eminem’s publisher Eight Mile Style, and copyright activist George Johnson. These parties declined to join the settlement—with Johnson noting they were never even sent the proposal to review—and are actively preparing to file formal objections in July 2026 to demand a higher, material composition rate of 15.65 cents per track rather than a modest inflation-adjusted growth rate.
But curiously, another famed pugilist of the music industry — the legendarily hard-negotiating Irving Azoff and his Global Music Rights, LLC — were edged out of this latest proposal.
Indeed, according to the participant lists reviewed by DMN, GMR was singled out and ‘withdrawn’ from the process (as the Copyright Royalty Board phrases it). That is, despite a fairly large tent of participants, including the aforementioned heavyweights as well as DSPs such as Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Google, and Amazon.
(Those mega-DSPS, which account for 98%+ of the US-based streaming music subscriber market share according to DMN Pro’s multiyear research, are undoubtedly prepped for a full-blown streaming-rate discussion. But much, much, more on that later.)
Back to the GMR situation, one negotiator offered a very simple explanation for the exclusion: GMR is a powerful performance royalty upstart, but they aren’t involved in the recent mechanical licenses. That certainly makes sense, though let’s see what happens once deliberations move into the streaming realm, where mechanicals are intricately tied to performance licenses in a delicate ‘sushi roll’ formula.
Others, however, pointed to something more sinister.
According to another more loquacious informant, GMR attempted to participate in the process, but the NMPA and DSPs filed a motion to ‘knock them out, and they were knocked out.’
That same source also relayed that GMR is feared for being ‘very powerful and very good at negotiating increases in royalty rates,’ while hat-tipping the oft-feared Azoff. Incidentally, Irving Azoff is currently a minority owner of GMR, but understood to be a primary figure in the operations of the company. Hence, the motivation for ‘knocking them out.’
That was echoed by another source involved in the negotiations, who also pointed to a removal motion specifically targeting GMR.
On the issue of performance royalties, a separate source pointed to backroom promises made to GMR that performance royalties wouldn’t be impacted during the upcoming proceedings. That appeared to be a first overture, which was followed by the ‘filing of a motion to deny their petition’ before GMR voluntarily opted to withdraw.
Separately, we reached out to GMR’s negotiating attorney and head of Business & Legal Affairs, Amanda Cooke, but have yet to receive a response.
As for the just-dropped Phonorecords V proposal: there’s certainly a broad group of companies and associations backing the plan to keep rates steady on downloads, physical formats, and ringtones.
But the sudden settlement proposal also carries historical baggage, as the CRB previously rejected a similar physical-rate freeze proposal in 2022, citing inherent conflicts of interest arising from the “vertical integration” between major record labels and major publishers.
Beyond that, the quick nature of the recently reported deal is being met with industry skepticism, as critics note that the previously rushed Phonorecords IV agreements ultimately enabled the current streaming ‘bundling’ loopholes that severely slashed overall mechanical royalty payouts for songwriters.
Bundling excesses also generated some unexpected ripples for the fast-surging IP investment community, a group that may prefer to slow-roll on their slow-cooking copyright tranches.
More as this develops.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.digitalmusicnews.com ’
