December 6, 2019

Via email at regans@copyright.gov and achau@copyright.gov

101 Independence Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20559-6000

RE: Summary of the December 4, 2019 Ex Parte Meeting regarding the Music Modernization Act

Implementing Regulations for the Blanket License for Digital Uses and Mechanical Licensing

Collective, Docket No. 2019-5___________________________________________________

Dear Ms. Smith and Ms. Chauvet,

On December 4, 2019, the following individuals from Universal Music Group (“UMG”) and the Recording

1. History of the Digital Supply Chain. Ms. Beauchamp described her background and experience in the

industry, her current position and responsibilities, the shift from paper-based to digital records and

the effort that went into developing the digital supply chain. She described how DMPs take a siloed

approach to record company catalogs, which avoids the need to dedupe their data. As a result,

when catalogs change hands record companies must manually remove the catalog from the old

company’s “account” and add it to the new company’s “account.”

2. Purpose of the Database. We reminded the Office that the MLC database is not meant to be an

authoritative sound recording database. The sound recording data is there solely to help identify

the musical work embedded in the sound recordings streamed by DMPs, so that the MLC can pay

sound recording data discussed at the meeting, we highlighted the need for a strong disclaimer.

3. Data Quality. We discussed a number of marketplace realities that affect the quality of the sound

recording data that is available to the MLC.

the new RIN (i.e., Recording Information Notification) message from DDEX, which captures

data in the studio and is the ultimate tool for capturing data at the source. We discussed the

fact that the quality of data can vary among different genres of music, and that artists or

performers sometimes do not want their names to appear in credits or to be listed in a

independent distributors (e.g., CdBaby). If the MLC does not get its data from a single

authoritative source, such as SoundExchange, it will be faced with the burden of reconciling

data conflicts that have been ignored for years because of the way the DMPs silo their label

data. SoundExchange has already reconciled most of those conflicts.

from the labels and noted that any data provided by the DMPs to the MLC must be

submitted in unaltered form.

e. We stressed that the database should not be populated from usage reports because those

are subject to typographical and other human errors; instead, it should be populated from a

single authoritative source. Once the database is populated, DMPs should ping the database

supply chain, where actual copyright ownership is irrelevant, and the record companies’ copyright

registration and royalty databases, which the record companies use for litigation purposes and to

know who to pay for various recordings. DMPs only need to know who to pay and, maybe, who to

call if issues arise. We discussed how data labelling the supply chain data as “sound recording

copyright owner” could mislead the public and could be upsetting to the actual copyright owners,

who are sometimes artists or their heirs, who may mistakenly think the distributing label is trying to

claim ownership of their recordings. Conversely, artists who are the actual copyright owners likely

do not want their names listed in a publicly accessible database. We noted that the

SoundExchange’s ISRC look up database does not include owner information and it is not currently

available for bulk download by the public. We also highlighted that making ISRCs publicly available in

including “P&D” deals, where the record company is merely a conduit to the digital supply chain,

and exclusive licensing deals, where the record company stands in the shoes of the owner. We

We mentioned other potentially relevant fields in the ERN message such as imprint label and party

ID. The Copyright Office team asked us to send them a copy of the ERN specification, which we

intend to do. They also asked whether there are any other fields in the specification that are

typically populated in a way that would not be obvious to the uninformed. We talked about possibly

of renaming the field or naming the field in the alternative (e.g., “sound recording copyright owner

or its designee” or “sound recording administrator”). The Office asked whether it might be better to

populate the sound recording copyright owner field with the p-line data in an ERN message and we

pointed out that there is no p-line for pre-72 recordings.

5. Unique Identifier. We discussed the importance of all reports of use including a unique numerical

able to access the MLC database in bulk for a minimal fee, that would decimate the commercial

value of UMG’s metadata.

7. Public Education. We discussed the Office’s role under the statute in educating the public about the

new law and stressed the importance of educating young, up and coming musicians about the

Susan Chertkof

Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs

Recording Industry Association of America