Dear Dick Huey …
p2pnet news view P2P:- “What`s developed in the last several days on P2PNet sounds like the seeds of a very useful and productive conversation between an artist and many music fans,” says Dick Huey (front) in an open letter to entertainment lawyer Fred Wilhelms.
He’s talking about the fact musicians and music lovers are for the first time talking to each other openly and directly without poisonous Big Music rhetoric fouling the atmosphere.
In his answer, Wilhelms says he and Huey ultimately both want the same thing: for performing artists, “to achieve and maintain control over how their work is exploited, as they see fit,” and, “for fans of the music to find a way to share their love and enthusiasm without the risk of civil litigation or criminal prosecution, or artificial restrictions on access.”
The unique F2A2F — Fans2Artists2Fans — dialogue came about when Britain’s Billy Bragg began responding to Reader’s Writes in a conversation hinging on a statement on filesharing from Britain’s newly formed Featured Artists Coalition, of which he’s a board member.
The group ended up endorsing, The new proposal from Lord Peter Mandelson for the UK to adopt a policy of broadband account suspension to be applied to the heaviest sharers, the now famous `egregious offenders`, to quote Jeremy Silver who’d chaired the meeting.
Said an official FAC statement issued later »»»
Our meeting overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer`s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
But, “There were over 60 artists in the room last week when we were discussing how to respond to the industry`s demand that the govt pass laws to suspend internet connections, only a dozen from the FAC,” said Bragg in a p2pnet comment post, continung »»»
Despite evidence that technical sanctions will not work from several IT experts that we invited, the majority was clearly in favour of some kind of sanction. In order to try to stop disconnection, we opted for bandwidth squeezing as a compromise between all of our positions. Our task now is to convince our colleagues that there is no technical solution, but this will take time.
Until we can get a critical mass of artists to understand that the record industry doesn`t always act in our best interests and that we need to take the initiative on the issue of copyright and access, we have to keep engaged in discussion and education.”
Disconnection is, of course, a primary tool for Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US). The last thing they want is for fans and musicians to be talking directly to each other, bypassing the warped channels of miscommunication so carefully forged by the Big 4.
Where’s the converation going?
Dick Huey’s Toolshed, “provides new media promotion, digital licensing, online strategy services, and state-of-the-art digital promotion tools to a select list of Media and Entertainment clients,” says the site, also pointing out it’s handled online audio and video promotion for a number of artists.
What makes Huey’s letter especially interesting is the fact he’s also a SoundExchange board member, of which, “Robin Hood In Reverse is alive and well at SoundExchange — steal from the poor and give to the rich,” said Wihelms in March.
Wilhelms, into, is a long-time critic of the organisation, supposedly spun off from Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s RIAA as a separate entity, but which continues to have significantly close ties to the organisation.
However, in his letter to Wilhelms, “I am interested in seeing where the conversation leads,” says Huey, going on »»»
I say that, not in my capacity as a Soundexchange board member, not as someone who has worked with hundreds of different independent labels and artists to promote their music, not as someone representing anything, but rather as another music fan with his own viewpoint on these issues, who actively engages with managers, labels (major and independent), internet radio station staff, independent artists, and music fans on a regular basis, in a variety of different professional and personal capacities.
Billy Bragg`s P2PNet discussion is an important one to be nurtured, and I don`t want the issue of my attack on Fred Wilhelms some two years ago, mentioned above, to be even a sideshow distraction in the room.
Huey is referring to a dispute between him and Wilhelms which was never resolved —- until now.
“My post was not an example of an open mind; besides being misinformed, it was a mistake, it did nothing to start a conversation, and I am sorry for it,” says Huey in his p2pnet comment, adding »»»
I read P2PNet to inform my thinking. Some of the points raised by Fred and others on this site have made me question the status quo in any number of areas, and look deeper for ways that I can participate in the process of change.
Reading the posts and responses … reminds me that a conversation gets a lot further if it does not start with an attack.
I see a lot of people in these threads willing to listen to each other and look for common ground, and that *is* refreshing.
Fred Wilhelms my apologies for that attack. I`ve replied to your comment above under my name so there`s no question who`s apologizing. Jon, I apologize to you as well, for launching my attack on your site. I laud your ongoing efforts to create an interesting discussion here.
In his response to Huey, Wilhelms, a well-known US entertainment industry lawyer who regularly contributes to p2pnet, and of whom CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh once said, “If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief”‘, states »»»
I accept your apology with what I can only hope is the same grace with which it is offered. My only regret now about the whole incident is that we`ve lost two years, two critical years, in starting this conversation. It is time we all made up for lost time. I survived the attack, and maybe those questions I asked you back then can get answered along the way, but we have an opportunity here to increase the fund of wider understanding about what is really going on, and that should be the focus.
For far too long, there`s been no dialog at all.
Most people at groups like p2pnet tend to end up preaching to the choir, the establishment side communicates more by press release than dialog, and the few supporters they have in these precincts usually provoke more scorn than thought by being as openly antagonistic as possible; an attitude that is repaid in kind. Without the participation of actual participants on both sides, the discussion has gone nowhere.
You and I are undoubtedly still going to disagree about a lot of things in these discussions, but I think it is safe to say that we both want the same two fundamental things:
- For performing artists to achieve and maintain control over how their work is exploited, as they see fit.
- For fans of the music to find a way to share their love and enthusiasm without the risk of civil litigation or criminal prosecution, or artificial restrictions on access..
Looking at those two goals, it is obvious going into this endeavor that there isn`t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that no one should presume to speak for all artists, or even for large groups of artists. Billy Bragg has discovered that even within such a narrow group as FAC that there is no uniformity.
Mr. Bragg has probably also noticed in the last week that when a group of artists sound like they`re promoting the interest of record labels, there are a lot of people who wonder how really independent those voices are. (If that complaint sounds familiar to you from the vantage point of the SoundExchange board, and the efforts of musicFIRST, it should, because the same doubts apply.)
All along, the fundamental problem has been that when anyone presumes to speak for artists, they presume too much. I`m pretty sure that you, personally, are going to catch a lot more grief in these conversations than I, personally, will. That`s because of who you have chosen to affiliate with (and who chose you to affiliate with them), and their rather shoddy record of serving artists they profess to love.
We can get around that by remembering this is truly p2p; person to person. We have to start thinking and talking as individuals and see if true consensus exists anywhere beyond the broadest of platitudes.
In a similar vein, no one should presume to speak for all music consumers in voicing what is best for them. There are just too many different ideas for any one to be right. Whether we can find some common standard for consumers is probably going to be as tough as it is for the creators.
I can assure you, and everyone, now, that if something practical comes out of this, anyone purports to promise anything to either group, and is put in a position to keep or break that promise, it will be my personal crusade to see that the promises are kept.
Jon Newton is one of those genuinely blessed souls who values true and honest discourse as the highest human endeavor, despite what often appears to be a complete lack of true and honest discourse by those around him.
From what a mutual friend tells me of Billy Bragg, he`s a truth seeker as well.
p2pnet has been a never-ending source of education, entertainment and occasional outrage for me since I found it several years ago. Being able to contribute my share to all three products has meant a great deal to me. Now, Jon and Billy have found what they think is a way to bring that education, entertainment and even the sense of outrage to bear on something that have ramifications on the music and musicians we love, but which could go a lot deeper in helping all of us find common ground where culture, technology, economics and law intersect.
These two men, who didn`t know each other, or even know of each other, a matter of days ago, are setting up a salon at that intersection.
It`s going to be a place where both heat AND light are generated, and where everyone is really going to have to bring their best game. I can`t wait.
Ask honest questions and demand honest answers.
Beyond that, it`s every man and woman for themselves.
See you there.
Also see »»»
- Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
- Yeh, Billy Bragg, but what about the indies?
- Billy Bragg to p2pnet
- We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
- `Just some stuff to think about, Billy`
- Walruses and sock puppets
- Dear music lovers
And stay tuned. 
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
openly and directly – Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem, October 2, 2009
Robin Hood In Reverse – $101 million `stuck to SoundExchange`s fingers`, March 19, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
To Dick Huey:
I accept your apology with what I can only hope is the same grace with which it is offered. My only regret now about the whole incident is that we`ve lost two years, two critical years, in starting this conversation. It is time we all made up for lost time. I survived the attack, and maybe those questions I asked you back then can get answered along the way, but we have an opportunity here to increase the fund of wider understanding about what is really going on, and that should be the focus.
For far too long, there`s been no dialog at all. Most people at groups like p2pnet tend to end up preaching to the choir, the establishment side communicates more by press release than dialog, and the few supporters they have in these precincts usually provoke more scorn than thought by being as openly antagonistic as possible; an attitude that is repaid in kind. Without the participation of actual participants on both sides, the discussion has gone nowhere.
You and I are undoubtedly still going to disagree about a lot of things in these discussions, but I think it is safe to say that we both want the same two fundamental things:
- For performing artists to achieve and maintain control over how their work is exploited, as they see fit.
- For fans of the music to find a way to share their love and enthusiasm without the risk of civil litigation or criminal prosecution.
Looking at those two goals, it is obvious going into this endeavor that there isn`t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that no one should presume to speak for all artists, or even for large groups of artists. Billy Bragg has discovered that even within such a narrow group as FAC that there is no uniformity. Mr. Bragg has probably also noticed in the last week that when a group of artists sound like they`re promoting the interest of record labels, there are a lot of people who wonder how really independent those voices are. (If that complaint sounds familiar to you from the vantage point of the SoundExchange board, and the efforts of musicFIRST, it should, because the same doubts apply.) All along, the fundamental problem has been that when anyone presumes to speak for artists, they presume too much. I`m pretty sure that you, personally, are going to catch a lot more grief in these conversations than I, personally, will. That`s because of who you have chosen to affiliate with (and who chose you to affiliate with them), and their rather shoddy record of serving artists they profess to love. We can get around that by remembering that this is truly p2p; person to person. We have to start thinking and talking as individuals and see if true consensus exists anywhere beyond the broadest of platitudes.
In a similar vein, no one should presume to speak for all music consumers in voicing what is best for them. There are just too many different ideas for any one to be right. Whether we can find some common standard for consumers is probably going to be as tough as it is for the creators.
I can assure you, and everyone.now, that if something practical comes out of this, anyone purports to promise anything to either group, and is put in a position to keep or break that promise, it will be my personal crusade to see that the promises are kept. That’s just who I am.
Jon Newton is one of those genuinely blessed souls who values true and honest discourse as the highest human endeavor, despite what often appears to be a complete lack of true and honest discourse by those around him. From what a mutual friend tells me of Billy Bragg, he`s a truth seeker as well. p2pnet has been a never-ending source of education, entertainment and occasional outrage for me since I found it several years ago. Being able to contribute my share to all three products has meant a great deal to me. Now, Jon and Billy have found what they think is a way to bring that education, entertainment and even the sense of outrage to bear on something that have ramifications on the music and musicians we love, but which could go a lot deeper in helping all of us find common ground where culture, technology, economics and law intersect. These two men, who didn`t know each other, or even know of each other, a matter of days ago, are setting up a salon at that intersection. It`s going to be a place where both heat AND light are generated, and where everyone is really going to have to bring their best game. I can`t wait.
Ask honest questions and demand honest answers. Beyond that, it`s every man and woman for themselves.
See you theree.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
One of the services that becomes important today is radio, whether ad-supported or paid.
If a good quality radio becomes available, then some of these downloaders can switch to it and discover new music.
Label keep assaulting internet radio stations, which is another big mistake they make, in addition to suing fans. Radio is now more important to their survival than ever.
Who knows, if back in the nineties labels did offer a QUALITY music discovery service ad-supported or paid, we would not have as much file sharing today. Because, ask yourself, how many music you download you want to listen more than once?
From Dmitry’s “Big Music Beat-to-Bit”
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27258
You donât need to think too long to realize that I consumed most of this music in radio mode, and not in home media center mode. Such music never reached my iPod. I kept downloading, deleting, downloading, deleting until I understood the futility of the process.
At this point all music in the world was divided for me into two classes â music that is so good for me that I will listen to it for my whole life, and music, which is so ânothingâ, that is was only worthy of brief one-time sampling.
Since then, I stopped downloading anything from the net.
All of my favourite albums have been bought long time ago on CD and on vinyl, and of course they were regulars on my iPod.
I switched to using the radio almost exclusively.
By radio, I certainly do not mean that mediocrity that is present on the FM dial in Russia (and not only there). I am talking about real radio, the one that Internet is giving me in the form of thousands of stations from all over the world, in quality that is acceptable for one-time music.
I am talking about the radio that lets me listen to the music that is in my soul at the moment, even if it is something very rare.
Without the fear that at some moment it will spit in my face something like kirkorov or lepse. [insert here spears or any other "commercial" crap, if you want â Translator]
Soon I discovered practical benefits of this kind of music listening.
Unlike their prehistoric âcolleaguesâ on the FM dial, real radio stations always tell me what they are playing at the moment. This leads to a huge number of musical discoveries, which I could only dream of before. Often, I get to real masterpieces, which I would never get to know through visits to countless music websites, with millions of bands whose names donât tell me much.
And when I get to know them, I get an opportunity to explore bandâs creativity and perhaps to buy their CD. Or downloadâ¦
But it depends on the degree of the genius of the album and its ability to stand on a shelf next to âQueen: The Night at the Operaâ or âAir: Moon Safariâ.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
In this new spirit of openness, I do hope that Dick Huey will *finally* get around to answering several of Fred’s questions (mostly related to artist compensation and money that SE can’t seem to distribute) that were left by the wayside in the earlier flameout.
Dick? How about it?
October 12th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Hi B,
Fair question. I did tell Fred I would take a shot at this, and subsequently told Fred I would try to work within Soundexchange to investigate and address some of his points in lieu of answering them. Probably not fair in light of my original offer; which I shouldn’t have made if I wasn’t able to follow up on it.
I’ll work on a new post, hopefully by the end of this week, summarizing some of the things that I *have* been doing behind the scenes, so to speak, which I think have resulted in improvements in several areas. I’m traveling and have CMJ coming up next week, which is a big week for us (we are a very small company, it’s mostly me), so be patient. I do better with notes with a couple questions, rather than long ones. I’ll try to address some artist payout points – as well as money distribution points.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
So – to start the discussion, here’s my promised post. It’s good to start this conversation in a different place than we were last time, thank you Fred for accepting my apology. Fred Wilhelms is right – we may not always agree, but at least we’re working toward something. I’ll be as candid as I can be regarding questions, bearing in mind that I have a duty as a board member (as does any board member of an organization) to work in the interest of the organization (of course, that can also include accepting criticism and thinking about how I might change the course of the ship), and not to share information I shouldn’t.
First – philosophy. Everyone here likely knows something of the history of Soundexchange, knows that it was started as a collection mechanism by the Majors, and knows that it was spun off into a self-running entity with a board composed of nine artist reps and nine label reps. Of the label reps, three are independent (Rich Bengloff, myself, Tom Silverman) and the rest are major label.
Like any organization, there are battles to be fought, and battles to be left for another day – for any number of reasons, including structural issues of the organization – and it’s difficult to focus equally on everything. I focus where I feel I have the most expertise, and can contribute the most. My primary focuses in the last year or two have been in the following areas:
- small webcasters – I was determined to push through a pureplay definition that would result in a payment structure to keep the small commercial guys afloat, and was able to do it. That took a tremendous amount of time and energy. Don’t take my word for it though – I think if you ask around with some of the small guys, you’ll find I was deeply involved (as were others, both on the label side and the artist side, and crossing all bounds). Here’s one such link: http://textpattern.kurthanson.com/kurtsblog/720/behind-the-new-pureplay-webcaster-license
- communications – Many at SX agree that the SX corporate website has needed a massive overhaul. That’s in process – there’s now a blog, social elements are being integrated (facebook, twitter, etc.), online registration has appeared, and – importantly – the process of updating the unregistered artist list is being re-done so that the website differentiates between “not contacted” and “contacted, won’t respond”, or “contacted, haven’t responded for some other reason”, which right now skews the list unfairly to appear as though a lot of obvious, big bands haven’t been contacted. The website should differentiate between the two, it’s needed to forever, and that’s the only way that list will really be useful to people who really do want to help tick artists off the list.
- metadata – this is where I’m currently focused. Historically, album metadata gets into the SX web database via reported performances. If someone at a local radio station grabs a compilation CD from a movie, throws it on, and logs it as being put out by whichever artist or label put out the compilation, that’s not necessarily the same entity as the owner of the performance rights (since music for compilation CDs is often licensed, rather than owned, with the original music coming out on an album collection of songs, and only one or two tracks subsequently put on a compilation). While the SX database is set up to catch these situations as often as possible, I want to make sure that the current system is the best and most accurate one.
The above scenario at a local radio station also presumes that the radio station logs the plays at all, or submits the plays in the correct format. Some stations do…many do not. This has to change and improve now that a rate structure is set for the majority of the market. And personally, I’d like to see Soundexchange consider offering software to assist in the reporting of plays, something that’s linked in to the database in some fashion. To that end, I’m setting up an intra-SX working group to look into this issue, and I’d value anyone’s feedback here that cares to give it. I doubt the right answer will be black and white, there will be pros and cons to this solution.
As far as reducing the unregistered and unpaid artists list, I have a long history at SX of being actively involved on this issue. I was instrumentally involved, as a new board member many years ago, in pushing for SX to pay artists their share directly and not have it be paid to a label where it might become part of a recoupable balance, a fact that any number of board members at the time would confirm. I started in the music biz as a manager (after performing in bars), which should explain why this is an important issue for me.
I’ll also confirm that I was initially one of the skeptics about putting out the unpaid artist list for anyone to review and use to contact “uncontacted” bands directly. While this may seem counterintuitive given my support as outlined below, my concern initially was that individuals or companies would try to earn money off signing up bands to SX, and that those individuals or companies might represent themselves as being the only route through which an artist could sign up, without the artist knowing any better. Several years down the road, and many press releases and magazine articles, data matchings with major organizations, and phone calls and e-mails later, I’ve voted consistently to provide additional SX funding to bring on the necessary resources to reduce the unpaid artist pool (as well as for funding to report, via the website, more effectively on outreach efforts – see my above “communication” bullet), and I’ve voted consistently to hold the distribution of unpaid artist money until more artists were able to be registered. And I’ve revised my thinking on publishing the unpaid artist list, which of course happened a number of years ago.
Let’s start there? I’m curious for your input, and will do my best to answer questions, just bear in mind that massive lists of questions that require a lot of study/followup on my part often wind up by necessity at the bottom of my priority list, after everything that has to be done that particular day. Please remember that CMJ is up this week, so my responses may be slow.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Dick,
Thank you for your comments.
Youâve raised some interesting issues, and I hope you continue to speak frankly in dealing with my take on what youâve said. Youâll forgive me by starting out pessimistic when you begin by explaining there is information that you âshouldnâtâ share. Iâve already been a couple rounds with SoundExchange people on trying to find out how much artist money was spent on musicFIRST and being told that was âproprietary,â as if it was SoundExchangeâs own money they were spending, and not my clients. It makes sense when you are dealing with trade secrets, or ongoing litigation, or other matters normally covered by confidentiality agreements. It doesnât make sense when the one withholding information is a non-profit organization that claims to represent all artists, but wonât tell them how it is spending their money. You are going to have to work hard to overcome this, and, to be completely honest, youâre not off to a good start. Iâll break down my response by the same headings you did.
Philosophy â Letâs do away with the fiction you repeat that there are nine âartist repsâ on the SoundExchange Board. Those nine were not appointed by artists, they are not answerable to artists and they cannot be replaced by artists. They hold their seats by invitation of the RIAA, andThe ones I know are are nice people, but none of them have any honest claim to represent the interests of artists as a whole. As far as I can tell, not one of them has contributed anything of value to artists via the website, and there isnât even any contact information for them. Youâll have to convince me this is an accident.
Small webcasters – You are to be commended for being part of the negotiation and settlement process. Whether or not youâve accomplished anything remains to be seen. The first signs arenât promising, given that Pandora is going to require payment from anyone using it more than 40 hours a month.
Communications â The overhaul of the website is good news and long overdue.
Iâll believe the overhaul of the unregistered artist list when I see it. Dick, youâre going to have to admit that, in the past, SoundExchange has often confused the act of announcing it was going to do something with the act of actually doing it, so I am going to hold off on celebrating a new list until it is posted. There have been no names added to the existing list since early 2007, despite it being impossible that no artists have qualified for inclusion. Even worse than that, fewer than a dozen names removed in the last 14 months since the last âUnfound Artist Projectâ ended. That record doesnât really indicated much positive has been done.
Furthermore, SoundExchange has got to be honest about those âartists who have been contacted but havenât responded.â You and I know that this has been a standard excuse from John Simson and others to cover the reason why so few artists on the list ever get removed. Over the past three years I have been in touch with hundreds of artists on the list, and I have NEVER had one tell me they had already been contacted by SoundExchange. Those artists always seem to register after being contacted by outsiders, too, so that excuse just wonât wash.
Frankly, SoundExchange is a dismal failure at communication with the public, and I think it is for a very good reason. The public means nothing to SoundExchange. This is where the RIAA genes really come into play; it is the same âpublic be damnedâ attitude that has marked that associationâs dealings with the public for decades. Youâre going to have to work very hard to convince people that this isnât so, and I wish you luck, but you had better appreciate youâve taken on an uphill battle. SoundExchange has had seven years to convince people they are sincere, and they have failed dismally with everyone who has taken a close look at the outfit.
Metadata – This is important work, but I am going to voice a very loud and long objection to SX providing software to webcasters. The playlist information being provided to SoundExchange is, as I am sure you realize, incredibly valuable marketing data for the record labels. Especially those labels that comprise the majority of the label reps on the Board, and who named everyone else. At this time, if they want that information, they pay for it. If it is sitting at SoundExchange, it is going to be very easy for them to pick up the phone and ask for it, for free. SoundExchange, in essence, will be working as the marketing research arm of the record industry, and will have used money that could have been distributed to artists to defray the costs of writing that software. Unless SoundExchange is willing to commit to keeping that information behind a Chinese wall and away from the labels, and unless the Board has the guts to defend that wall, SoundExchange has no business standardizing data at artistsâs expense. As it is, SoundExchange allows âmembersâ to review playlist data (and we know that artists arenât âmembers,â so that limits availability to labels), giving it up on a silver platter (half) paid for by artists who canât see it is a violation of the Boardâs obligation to the artists it claims to serve. You may see my skepticism as cynical, but I think we both know it isnât entirely misplaced here.
The unpaid artist list â SoundExchangeâs conduct here remains completely unjustifiable. Despite what you portray as all that positive effort being expended, none of it has worked. Forgive my lawyerâs take on things, but when you say that you have âvoted consistently to provide additional SX funding to bring on the necessary resources to reduce the unpaid artist pool,â I have to suspect this phraseology means youâre voting in the minority, because if SoundExchange is actually spending more money on this function, it appears to have been entirely wasted. You know as well as I do that the great majority of names that have come off the published list since it went up three years ago have been removed through the efforts of people outside SoundExchange. You also know as well as I do that these efforts have not cost SoundExchange a dime, and you know as well as I do that SoundExchangeâs only response to these private, and completely voluntary and uncompensated, efforts has been to tell people that they really werenât necessary. (In 2006-2007, Neeta Ragoowansi appeared to spend an inordinate amount of time going to music message boards where I had asked for help in finding people and explaining that SoundExchange was really doing a good job all by itself, despite the existence of the 9,000 names already on the list at that time.) If your votes meant SoundExchange were actually accomplishing something here, the list would have gotten measurably shorter in the last year, and it hasnât.
And how do I know your personal efforts to correct this havenât paid off?
SoundExchangeâs 2007 IRS-990 form showed it had accumulated over $101 MILLION dollars in undistributed royalty money. I understand that number has, at the least, almost doubled in the 22 months since then, but Iâll wait for the return to be posted online to start quoting that as a fact. To be blunt, if SoundExchange had anything to be proud of in regard to finding artists, that number would be going DOWN, not up, and it definitely wouldnât be counted in the nine digits. You cannot say SoundExchange is serving artists when you have not yet paid them over $100,000,000 that SoundExchange has collected for them and promised to pay.
If you want me to believe one word of what you say about the good things happening at SoundExchange, you are going to have face this fact, and explain it, and justify it.