<\/p>\n
Sony Music <\/strong>has announced a new licensing deal with Spotify<\/strong>, which is mainly of note because it includes a direct licensing agreement covering the Sony Music Publishing<\/strong> songs catalogue in the US, circumventing the compulsory licence administered by the MLC<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>\n All three majors now have Spotify deals that include their song catalogues in the US, a move prompted by the streaming service exploiting a bundling discount that is available in the MLC-administered licence, which allows it to reduce what it pays to music publishers and songwriters under that licence.\u00a0<\/p>\n An official statement declares that, \u201cSpotify\u2019s agreement with Sony Music Publishing includes a new direct licensing arrangement in the US, ensuring songwriters share more directly in the growth of streaming\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Obviously no information is provided about what that actually means in practical or financial terms, with Spotify boss Daniel Ek<\/strong> and Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer<\/strong> instead digging deep into their respective bags of corporate bullshit when constructing their official statements.\u00a0<\/p>\n Stringer hails the \u201cfuturistic approaches\u201d that the two companies are developing together, while Ek reckons this deal is \u201ca catalyst for building a more dynamic and prosperous music ecosystem for everyone\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Yeah, maybe. I mean, at least when he\u2019s busy focusing on \u201cfuturistic approaches\u201d and \u201cdynamic ecosystems\u201d in music, Ek is momentarily distracted from pumping more cash into AI-powered weapons<\/a>. Take the pluses where you can, I say.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cOur partnership with Sony is built on a shared drive to shape the future of music\u201d, Ek waffles on. \u201cTogether, we\u2019re accelerating the pace of innovation to create powerful new opportunities and increasing revenue for artists and songwriters\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sony and Spotify \u201chave long been mutually committed to advancing music streaming and growing the marketplace for all\u201d, adds Stringer.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is further reflected in our new agreements”, he reckons, insisting that those \u201cfuturistic approaches\u201d Sony and Spotify are now developing will \u201censure our artists and songwriters remain appropriately compensated for their work, and audiences are getting a high-quality experience that\u2019s ever evolving\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sony Music, and the other majors, already have direct licensing agreements with Spotify covering their Anglo-American song catalogues in many other markets. However, in the US, in recent years, Spotify has relied on the MLC-administered compulsory licence to cover the mechanical rights in songs, and separate licences from collecting societies like BMI<\/strong> and ASACP<\/strong> to cover the performing rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n That was all fine until Spotify reclassified its premium subscription service as a music and audiobooks bundle in order to qualify for the bundling discount in the compulsory licence, allowing it to reduce its payments to writers and publishers.\u00a0<\/p>\n That move was hugely controversial within the music industry, with the MLC suing Spotify, and the National Music Publishers Association<\/strong> proposing that copyright law should be changed so the publishers could opt out of the compulsory licence.\u00a0<\/p>\n That opt-out is not currently available, meaning the publishers can\u2019t stop Spotify from relying on the compulsory licence within the US. However, the majors began work trying to persuade Spotify to voluntarily enter into better direct deals covering song rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s thought the majors were able to exploit the fact Spotify is looking to evolve its service in ways that go beyond the compulsory licence, making a direct licensing scenario more attractive.\u00a0<\/p>\n