MLC asked the court to revise the deviation of the organization’s trial against Spotify.
The initial complaint filed by the Mechanical Licensing team in May last year claimed that Spotify significantly underpaid the fees after his decision to report on his proposal subscriptions to the subscription as BunchesField.
On January 29, the judge of the analysis of Torres from the United States Court in the Southern District of New York satisfied Spotify’s petition for the abandonment of the trial “with prejudices.”
Yesterday (Wednesday, February 12), MLC officially submitted a revision of revision, with a request to revise his decision to reject the initial complaint against the stream service.
MLC said that his request “is provided in accordance with the rules and raises serious issues regarding the interpretation of the law on modernization of music, which deserve a thorough judicial consideration.”
Comments from MLC’s Executive Director
Commenting on the revision movement, the general director of MLC, Chris Lesson, said: “Last year, the MLC brought action, challenging the unprecedented steps of Spotify, which significantly reduced the royalties from the authors of songs and publishers. We did not believe that these steps corresponded to the law.”
“We believe that the search for clarity on these issues is an important part of our legislative duties and meets the interests of our interested parties.”
Chris Lesson
The rent added: “A few weeks ago, the district court issued a decision, rejecting our action. Yesterday, MLC filed a petition for how the district court revised this decision in order to resolve several important issues, which, in our opinion, the court overlooked.
“We believe that the search for clarity on these issues is an important part of our legislative duties and meets the interests of our interested parties.”
The conflict between MLC and Spotify began in March 2024, when Spotify advertised its premium subscription levels as “ligaments”, since now they include 15 hours of access to audiobooks every month.
This step controversially led to the fact that Spotify paid a lower rate of mechanical royalties to publishers and songwriters in the United States.
This is due to the fact that, in accordance with the legal settlement in 2022 called PhonoRecords IV, musical publishers and streaming services of music agreed that the “package” services in the United States are allowed to pay a lower course of mechanical royalties to publishers and songwriters than autonomous subscription services to music.
Spotify was accused of underpayment of royalties to songwriters and publishers as a result of this move.
The Mechanical Licensing team is a non-profit organization indicated by the US Authority to manage the mandatory license for the total number and ensure that the streaming services, such as Spotify, pay the mechanical fees they owe the authors of songs and musical publishers.
In the memorandum about the law filed yesterday in support of his petition, MLC argued that “the injustice that would arise as a result of dismissal of a complaint at this stage, and without giving MLC the opportunity to move on vacation to re-replace, would be a manifesto.
You can read the legal document completely here.
“The injustice that may arise as a result of the dismissal of a complaint at this stage, and without giving MLC the opportunity to move on vacation in order to repeatedly manifest itself.”
MLC
The memorandum continued: “An unprecedented interpretation of the normative language has been put on the card, which would have far and deep financial consequences for the entire creative industry, as well as the federal licensing scheme that underlies the collection and distribution of more than a billion dollars in mechanical fees every year.”
In the decision published by the court last month, which you can read here completely, the court found that “that (section 115) and its implementation rules are unambiguous, and that the only plausible application of the law supports the position of Spotify.”
The “Section 115” rules given by the court belong to a mandatory license in the United States, also known as 115 licenses (Since it is provided for in section 115 of the author’s law), which allows a suitable digital service to use copyrights to music for the established fee without the need to negotiate directly with rightsholders.
The license covers the reproduction and distribution of “non-amal compositions” and not sound recordings. Rightsholders recorded music – known as sound recording labels – can negotiate directly with digital service providers.
The resolution last month added: “According to the facts, it is claimed, the streaming audiobook is a product or service that is different from streaming music and has more than the value of token. Consequently, the bonus is properly classified as a package, and accusations of a complaint cannot be believable.
The resolution continued: “Since Premium has already included 15 hours of streaming audiobooks when Spotify launched access to audiobooks, says MLC, Premium is not a package that combines the advantages of premium and audiobook access plans.
“The problem for MLC is that the rules do not say ‘other previously existing, autonomous products or services,’ and the court does not find grounds for reading words in the law that are not.”
In a statement published after the January resolution, the Spotify representative said: “We are satisfied with this result, which demonstrates that after a thorough consideration of the court, the SPOTIFY service is appropriately classified as a package and offers valuable content along with music.
“Package proposals play a decisive role in expanding interest in paying for music and growing a pie for the musical industry. We know that the rules can be difficult, but there are many opportunities for cooperation – and our recent deal with UMPG shows how direct licenses can create flexibility and additional advantages.”
Spotify’s press secretary had in mind the transaction concluded last month with Universal Music Group, which included a new direct agreement with Universal Music Publishing Group. The field of this Agreement is believed to include a new agreement on royalties, which blocked the previous situation with mechanical fees in the States.
Previously, this month (February), Warner Music Group and Spotify also signed a new long-term license transaction, which confirmed that it puts it payment structure “Association”. Last year, Spotify sharply reduced the speed of mechanical royalties paid to publishers and songwriters in the United States.
The last MLC movement is focused on three key arguments:
1. “The complaint was rejected without considering all the claims that Spotify could not pay the fees from the MLC.”
MLC claimed that federal rules 59 (e) and 60 (b) “authorize the side to submit a request for a revision in the form of a request for a change or change in a decision” or “a petition for help from a decision.”
Referring to the previous case law, MLC argued that “the revision was guaranteed, in fact, to correct a clear error or prevent obvious injustice.”
MLC explained that “when considering Spotify’s petition for dismissal, the court properly accepted the complaints in accordance with the actual claims that Spotify provides Audiobooks to the same unlimited, on the requirements and indifferent music services, which is included in the premium plan, and that ‘access is access The plans of the premium class are also for audiobooks, therefore, almost identical.”
However, it was argued that the court “, by the same, overlooked the accompanying requirement for help.”
“The holding court, which is qualified as a package, is not decided, but rather confirms that the sufficiency of the MLC claim for access to access, which causes the dismissal of complaints with the prejudices is clearly erroneous.”
The movement continued: “As indicated in paragraph 58 of the complaints, MLC argued that, to the extent that Audiobooks Access provides subscribers with the same access to unlimited music on request as Premium, Spotify should have reported the access to Audiobooks to MLC as well as Premium. As a result, Spotify ‘failed to properly take into account and pay fees due to MLC for access to audiobooks in accordance with section 115.’
“The holding court, which is qualified as a package, is not decided, but rather confirms that the sufficiency of the MLC claim for access to access, which causes the dismissal of complaints with the prejudices is clearly erroneous.”
2. “The court decision that the prize is a kit to incorrectly apply the standard necessary for the application for dismissal and was unable to consider the issue of control of the law.”
MLC claimed that the court correctly noted that to withstand the application for dismissal under Rule 12 (b) (6), “The complaint must contain a sufficient actual question accepted as the true one, in order to ‘approve the requirement for help that is believable on his face,’ and that the court ‘must draw all reasonable conclusions in favor of the non-monitor.’”
He added, however, that “in conclusion, in accordance with the law, the award corresponds to the determination of the package in accordance with section 115, the court did not accept all the alleged facts as true and attract all reasonable conclusions in favor of the MLC.”
MLC claimed that the court also did not consider the control of Section 115, requiring Spotify to accurately report and pay royalties on the award, which contradicts the court decision that Spotify “could pay more royalties than otherwise.”
3. MLC claims that “in the alternative, the decision must be released in order to provide the MLC with the opportunity to obtain permission to amend.”
According to MLC, “if the court does not provide a revision, it must nevertheless release the decision in accordance with the rules 59 (e) and 60 (b) so that MLC has the opportunity to look for permission in order to amend his complaint in accordance with Rule 15.
MLC added to the proposal that “in the second district it is well established that the party striving to submit a changed complaint after making a decision must first make a decision in accordance with the rules 59 (e) and 60 (b).
MLC argued that if given a chance, it “also claims that additional facts that confirm the requirement of the improper calculation and underpayment of the royalties for the bonus, even within the framework of the package formula.”
The organization added to its proposal: “These accusations make it clear that when using the price of a subscription for audiobooks of the revenue income of the SPOTIFY Service Provider, it certainly could not satisfy the reporting rules in packages and underpaying the royalties for the award.”
Lucas focuses on the interaction between music and society. He specializes in how music influences and reflects cultures, analyzing the role of sound in social, political, and cultural events around the world.
