PeachTree Music Group

Friday, June 18, 2021

Digital Alliance Platform
Audio Video Supply Chain From one convenient platform, efficiently package and deliver both your audio and visual content to meet partner specifications. No additional distributors needed. Advanced Rights Management Manage complex ownership splits between stakeholders and set ownership by territory and/or asset type. Set your policies and see your UGC claims via mobile or desktop. Royalty Payments Let Digital Alliance Platform be your royalty payment solution. Our Royalty Center will allow you to keep an eye on your bottom line by designating royalty splits for every contributor and paying stakeholders directly from the platform. Data Analytics Be in the know and on the go. Monitor your top audio and video content on social media and digital service providers. Direct access to performance and revenue analytics anytime anywhere. Jeremy Randall Cosby Pro VP Distribution Support at Digital Alliance Platform Washington, DC TopcaT@PeachTreeMusicGroup.Com

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Evergreen confirms Ever Given arrested pending $916m claim including $300m for loss of reputation

Sam Chambers April 15, 2021Sam ChambersApril 15, 2021


Taiwanese liner Evergreen confirmed on Wednesday that the 20,388 teu Ever Given has been arrested by a court in Egypt this week. The giant, near full ship is in the Great Bitter Lake with a crew of 25 onboard, weeks after it ran aground, blocking the Suez Canal. The ship is operated by Evergreen and owned by Japan’s Shoei Kisen Kaisha. 

According to the vessel’s insurer, the UK P&I Club, Shoei Kisen has been hit with a $916m claim from the Suez Canal Authority (SCA). 

Evergreen stated in a release that the claim includes $300m claim for a salvage bonus and $300m for “loss of reputation”.

“During the meeting between the shipowners and SCA on April 12, 2021, no consensus was reached as SCA’s claims are largely unsupported and lack any detailed justification. The following day (13th April), SCA immediately filed an application to arrest the Vessel and this has been granted by the Court,” Evergreen stated in its release issued on Wednesday.

General Average has been declared with shippers very unclear when they might get their cargoes onboard the ship.

For its part, the UK P&I Club said it was disappointed with the SCA’s decision to arrest the vessel. 

“The SCA has not provided a detailed justification for this extraordinarily large claim,” the insurer stated this week. 

The vessel’s classification society, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), completed surveys on on the ship 10 days ago and issued a certificate of fitness to allow the vessel to move from Great Bitter Lake.

The SCA is expected to issue its report into why the vessel came to be lodged on the eastern bank of the canal on Thursday, while the ship’s registry, Panama, will take many more months to issue its full accident investigation report. 

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Spotify new numbers, my new single

Did you see what Spotify just released? It's a hopeful step in the direction of being a bit more transparent by the streaming behemoth. The new 'Loud and Clear' site outlines the (macro) economics around how streaming works on the platform. One of the biggest takeaways for me is the number of artists actually earning from streaming. And how much!

+If Spotify Won't Pay More, They Should Give Us More Data

In 2020:

- 184,500 artists made over $1,000
- 67,200 artists made over $5,000
- 42,100 artists made over $10,000
- 13,400 artists made over $50,000
- 7,800 artists made over $100,000
- 1,820 artists made over $500,000
- 870 artists made over $1,000,000

Let's put this in perspective. In Indonesia, the average annual salary is around $10,000. In India and Brazil it's $5,000. And in the US, the median annual salary is just under $50,000. So, depending on where you live, it seems a significant number of musicians are earning a living just from Spotify royalties (not to mention Apple Music, or any other avenue). 

Now, let's not forget that 100% of this money does not go direclty to the artists in many cases. Many of these artists are signed to labels or distributors who keep a percentage of these royalties.

+DistroKid vs. Tunecore vs. CD Baby vs. United Masters vs. Amuse vs. AWAL vs. Stem vs...

And if you don't have someone collecting your publishing royalties (performance AND mechanical) then you're missing out on about 1/5 of all of your money. Check out this article on how to get that money.

+Songtrust vs. Sentric vs. CD Baby Publishing vs. Tunecore Publishing

And, isn't it nuts that nearly 8,000 artists are making more than $100,000 just from Spotify? So next time someone says that Spotify doesn't pay, you can politely correct them. It's a weird and crazy time we're in right now. 

+Spotify Removed Your Music, Now What

Another big takeaway, is that over 550,000 tracks have surpassed 1 million streams (207,000 in just 2020). Now, I know this stat might make you feel quite shitty if you're not the artist behind one of these songs, but don't let this discourage you. Let it encourage you! Tens of thousands of artists are making a living just from Spotify revenue. Make it your goal this year to be one of them! 

At Ari's Take, we're working with some experts in the space to help you achieve streaming success and be one of these artists. We're about to reveal the goods. Stay tuned... 

And last, but (hopefully) not least. I released a new single today. "Birthday" is a piano ballad about reflecting but not dwelling. Being grateful without celebration. 


Take a listen here.

If you do the Spotify thing, please add it to your playlists and smash that heart button. It all helps. We're all in this crazy music community together. 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the song (just hit reply). 


PS - Have you checked out our report on how much each distributor pays per stream for Spotify and Apple (by country)? We're adding new reports/distros everyday. Check it out here. 


Follow Ari's Take on Instagram @aristake_ and TikTok @aris.take for daily doses of inspiration.

Keep up on Twitter: @aristake

Subscribe to the New Music Business podcast


+Who is Ari? 


My music:

Sign up for the email list:

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

How much each distributor pays for Spotify and Apple Music

I'm holding a live training on The 3 Myths and 3 Truths of Livestreaming for Musicians on Friday, March 5th at 12pm (noon) PST. It's not over Zoom (whew!) - no need to dress up - and it will be LIVE. I'm going to be discussion how you can use Facebook, Twitch, Instagram, and YouTube to build a dedicated following, how you don't need a large following to be successful in livestreaming; how you can make a living livestreaming from home, along with going through case studies of the musicians who've been killing it in the livestreaming space this past year. This is a free training, and as long as you register before the webinar begins you'll receive a link to watch the replay. Register here.

+Read this full report (and see the charts) on

All streams are not treated equally.

How much Spotify and Apple Music pay for a stream varies on many factors.

There are around 800 different pay rates for each stream on Spotify. Some of the variables include:

  • Country/Territory of the listener
  • Subscription plan level (free, family, student, discount, premium)
  • Promotional stream
  • Distributor / label negotiated rate

We're focusing on the last point here. But I'll get to that in a minute. First let me break down the most obvious points:

Country/Territory of the Listener

Spotify and Apple Music pay more for a stream from a listener in the US than a stream from a listener in India. Why? Simply because the cost of a standard premium subscription in the US is about $10. In India it's under $2.00. Not to mention the free, family and discount plans.

For the ad-supported free plan on Spotify (Apple Music only has a 3-month trial - without ads) advertisers pay more for US Spotify placement than they do for India Spotify placement, so the pay split (which has never been revealed) for ad-supported streams will also be much less.

Subscription Plan Level

Spotify and Apple also pay differently based on the listener's plan. So Spotify (and Apple) will pay-out more for a stream from a listener on a $9.99/mo premium plan versus a listener on the free, ad-supported or family plans.

Worth noting that Apple Music pays a lot more than Spotify across the board because Apple Music does not offer a free, ad-supported streaming experience to users. Ad supported streams pay much less than subscription supported streams.

As of December 31st, 2020, of Spotify's 345 million monthly active users, only 155 million of them are subscribers.

Promotional Stream

This is a very new thing that Spotify is experimenting with. Spotify is offering labels and artists the ability to essentially advertise their songs on the platform as suggested songs to listeners (once they finish listening to their chosen song/album/playlist). Instead of paying a fee up front for advertising, you instead take a lower payout rate for the promoted streams. We don't have any data on how this is working yet.

Distributor / Label Negotiated Rate

This is what we're focusing on with this report. One of the biggest reasons that there isn't a "Spotify pay rate" or an "Apple Music pay rate" is because each distributor negotiates a different pay rate with each DSP (Digital Service Provider - catchall for streaming services). Some indie distributors are part of the Merlin network - which essentially collectively bargains for a rate which will then be utilized for all distributors in that network.

Merlin publicly lists on their Press page that they represent “15% of the global market share” and Merlin’s members include: Amuse, CD Baby, AWAL, DistroKid, Symphonic, Vydia, Sub Pop, Ultra Records, Mad Decent, Secretly, along with "hundreds more" indie labels and distributors.

Supposedly every Merlin deal will result in the same pay-rate for each label and distributor.

But just being part of the Merlin network does not mean that the distributor has to opt-in for every deal. Which is why some distributors have higher pay rates than others who are also part of Merlin.

Worth noting, no distributor paid out more than $.004/per stream for spotify us in 2020

Note that's Spotify US - not Spotify across the board.

We didn't calculate Spotify's average per-stream rate across all territories (as many other reports do) because it would be heavily weighted on the location of the artists' lister base. If an artist got included in a country-specific playlist, like "Top Brazil" and 90% of their streams came from Brazil, their numbers would look awfully different than someone whose streams come primarily from the US or India. Because streams are not evenly distributed amongst every territory, you have to split up calculations by country.

So, we did.

Read the full report (and see the charts) here.


Follow Ari's Take on Instagram @aristake_ and TikTok @aris.take for daily doses of inspiration.

Keep up on Twitter: @aristake

Subscribe to the New Music Business podcast


+Who is Ari? 


My music:

Sign up for the email list:

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Sony Music Publishing returns with a 'modern vision' – via a rebrand of Sony/ATV

Sony Music Publishing returns with a 'modern vision' – via a rebrand of Sony/ATV
The world's biggest music publishing company is no longer called Sony/ATV. It's now Sony Music Publishing.

The re-brand of the US-headquartered pubco sees the Sony Music Publishing name return for the first time in over two decades, complete with a new logo.

The move marks 25 years since Sony/ATV was first established in 1995 through a joint venture between Sony and Michael Jackson. That merger brought together the original Sony Music Publishing with Jackson’s ATV Music, which the late artist acquired in an astonishingly smart buy for just $47.5m in 1985.

A process of modern publishing unification at Sony began in 2016, when the company acquired the Michael Jackson estate’s 50% share of Sony/ATV for $750m, making it a wholly owned Sony company.

In 2018, Sony further consolidated its position at the largest music publisher – and simplified its structure – via the purchase of full ownership of EMI Music Publishing via two deals jointly worth more than $2.5bn.

This recent process of unification has been reflected in the new re-brand to Sony Music Publishing, a move driven by the publishing company's Chairman & CEO, Jon Platt... (MBW)

Saturday, July 6, 2019

U.S. Copyright Office

Why The U.S. Copyright Office Chose The Mechanical Licensing Collective

The Copyright Office said it chose the Mechanical Licensing Collective over the American Music Licensing Collective because the former fulfilled all the qualifications required by the Music Modernization Act to receive the designation, while the latter fell short on some of the qualifications. 
The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) is a new entity created by that statute and slated to begin operations on Jan. 1, 2021 to manage a blanket mechanical license and to collect royalty payments from digital services and in turn pay the royalties to the correct copyright owners. In order to insure that occurs, the MLC will build a database matching compositions to recorded masters. 
In a 86-page ruling, the Copyright Office laid out the reasons why it designated the group led by the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters International Association and the Songwriters of North America instead of the American Music Licensing Collective (AMLC) to build and operate the Mechanical Licensing Collective created by the Music Modernization Act.
According to that document, "the Office concludes that while both candidates meet the statutory criteria to be a nonprofit created to carry out its statutory responsibilities, only MLCI satisfies the endorsement criteria, and MLCI also has made a better showing as to its prospective administrative and technological capabilities. The Register is thus designating MLCI, including its individual board members, with the Librarian’s approval."
The Copyright Office Ruling on the designation of the MLC was made by Register of Copyrights Karyn Temple and approved by Librarian of Congress Carla D. Hayden.
One of the key arguments that the AMLC made as to why it should receive the designation concerned its interpretation of the marketplace as worded in the MMA. The AMLC argues that the statute’s wording, "the greatest percentage of the licensor market for uses of such works in covered activities, as measured over the preceding 3 full calendar years," referred to the number of copyright owners. Meanwhile, the NMPA and its supporters argued that wording referred to market share by royalties.
Up until this ruling, the Copyright Office hadn’t ruled specifically which interpretation it favored, but it now says it agrees with the NMPA. But even if it had ruled in the AMLC's favor on that issue, that group still would have lost out on that requirement because the NMPA lined up more copyright owners than the AMLC, according to the Copyright Office. In specific, it noted that the AMLC did not provide market share data for its endorsing copyright owners while the MLC showed that it had the support of 85%-90% of the marketplace.
 Even by the numbers, MLC counted 132 musical copyright owners with well over 7 million musical works, and it was endorsed by over 2,400 songwriters, according to the Copyright Office ruling. Consequently, it said that the MLC is the entity that most nearly fulfills the market share requirement while also noting that "even under the metric for which the AMLC provides evidence—number of copyright owners, AMLC would not be the candidate that satisifies the endorsement provision…AMLC still would have substantially fewer endorsements than MLC", about 1000 endorsements versus about three times that for the MLC.
The Copyright Office noted that in the end the Recording Academy, which initially withheld endorsing either candidate, ultimately endorsed the MLC. "Thus, under both the proper metric of market share, and the alternative metric of number of copyright owners, MLCI is the candidate that satisfies the endorsement requirement," the ruling stated.
Finally, the Copyright Office questioned the AMLC's budgeting process and questioned whether the AMLC considered the full range of the MLC's necessary operational costs. For example, it said that AMLC projected licensing and legal activities to cost $600,000 to $730,000, but the Copyright Office wondered if the AMLC failed to consider that it would have to participate in CRB assessment proceedings and engage in other activities to enforce rights, including possibly commencing actions for damages and injunctive relief in federal court.
The Copyright Office also said it had concerns about the lack of specific information provided by the AMLC on its board membership selection process, saying the AMLC's submission described a somewhat ad hoc decision-making process in this area.
And it specifically said it was unsure that all the AMLC board members fulfilled the statutory requirements needed to be a board member. For example, while Clearbox president John Barker demonstrates relevant experience, if his company merely administers licenses on behalf of copyright owners but has not itself been assigned copyrights, he would not constitute a publisher representative within the meaning of the statute. While noting that Barker could have been replaced if needed, the Copyright Office said that issue did not factor into its overall assessment so it didn’t require resolution.
"While many of the proposed AMLC board members demonstrate commendable experience to perform the relevant duties, the Office appreciates MLCI’s more comprehensive approach to identifying and selecting potential members, who themselves each appear highly experienced and able to perform the required duties," the ruling stated. 
While the AMLC didn’t get the Copyright Office designation to run the mechanical licensing collective, its impact on the black box issue reverberates throughout the ruling. But in contrast to what the AMLC claimed, the Copyright Office said that the MMA makes sure that those royalties will be distributed appropriately. 
"With respect to the purported conflicts of interest of individual board members, although these claims raise serious issues, they ultimately have little impact on the Office’s evaluation of the candidates’ proposals," the Copyright Office ruling said. "Regarding MLCI’s board composition, the Office agrees that the unclaimed royalties oversight committee will help mitigate potential conflicts. As discussed below, the Office expects ongoing regulatory and other implementation efforts to further extenuate the risk of self-interest with respect to the distribution of unclaimed accrued royalties."
The Copyright Office said that the statute addresses these issues and protects smaller independent songwriters, including the part that says a songwriter should receive no less than 50% of payment. Secondly, the statute requires the MLC to undertake a number of duties with respect to unclaimed royalties. including maintaining a public online list of unmatched musical works through which ownership can be claimed. The MLC must engage in diligent, good-faith efforts to publicize, throughout the music industry the existence of the MLC and procedures to claim unclaimed royalties.
In general, the statute requires the MLC to ensure that its policies and practices are transparent and accountable, including issuing a detailed annual report describing how royalties are collected and distributed, and its efforts to locate and identify copyright owners of unmatched music.
Moreover, every five years, the MLC must retain an independent auditor to examine the books, records and its operations and prepare a report addressing "the implementation and efficacy of procedures" "for the receipt, handling, and distribution of royalty funds, including any amounts held as unclaimed royalties," and "to guard against fraud, abuse, waste, and the unreasonable use of funds," according to the ruling.
And the Copyright Office adds that the stature requires the MLC, the Copyright Office and the Digital Licensing Coordinator to publicize the unclaimed royalties and in general educate songwriters about the MLC.
Furthermore, it notes that Congress has asked the Copyright Office to study the issue of unclaimed royalties and provide a report by July 2021 that recommends the best practices to identify and locate copyright owners with unclaimed royalties, and the MLC must give substantial weight to these recommendations.
Finally, the MLC must be re-designated every five years, and if the Copyright Office believes that the MLC made unreasonable distributions of unclaimed royalties, that could be grounds for concern and may call into question whether the MLC has the capabilities to perform the required functions. In other words, the re-designation might not be forthcoming.
While the MLC received the designation, the group headed by NMPA, NSAI and SONA didn’t get everything it wanted. In particular, it wanted the Copyright Office to address whether the presidential signing decree was in according with the MMA. When signing the MMA into law, President Trump added a new requirement to the Copyright Office, ensuring it would have a continuing role in maintaining oversight in the subsequent selection of replacement board members. The NMPA had argued that the collective is not a government entity and thus its board of directors and committee members are not officers of the government so that neither the register nor the Librarian has the authority to accept, reject or appoint them. But the Copyright Office’s ruling is completely silent on this issue. 
In another matter, the Copyright Office weighed in completely noting that it took the comments from the Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) seriously. It pointed out that the MLC draft by-laws "contain a diversity provision that calls for a biannual report on the diversity of the board, including diversity as to gender/race/ethnicity, income, musical genre, geography and expertise/experience." It said it would work with the MLC to help it achieve these goals and said it believes the MLC can play a role in helping to advance these goals within the music industry.
Overall, the Copyright Office said the submissions suggest that both MLC and AMLC will have the basic administrative and technological capabilities to perform the required functions under the statute, but the former demonstrated a greater capacity to carry out several of these responsibilities. "MLC’s proposal as a whole reflects a more realistic understanding of the [collective’s] responsibilities under this new system and indicates that it is better positioned to undertake and execute the full range of administrative functions required of the [collective] within these critical first five years."
While the Copyright Office didn’t chose AMLC, it said its "goals and principles are laudable, and its submission includes a number of ideas that should be given further consideration." It added, "the Register expects that the designated MLC will endeavor to equally represent the interests of those who did not endorse it, and that interested sides will continue to come together to make the implementation of this historic new licensing scheme a success, building upon the cooperative spirit that facilitated the MMA's passage."