Specifically, this is what you said:

“SX reporting on track level data vs. a sampling of data – the vast majority of SX data *is* reported on track level data. In fact, 95% of the money distributed is based on census data. So the statement in absolute is not correct, but in practice, it is primarily correct. And it’s possible that that the sampled 5% disproportionately affects both the artists you represent, and the artists (and labels) I represent. So naturally, I’m interested in getting to 0% sampled data, which is one of the reasons I’ve established the metadata committee to review the feasibility of providing software to get past the inherent difficulties small webcasters (especially schools) face in reporting. I expect this committee to get into the trenches of this issue, and I welcome all opinions and suggestions in order come up with the best possible recommendation to the full board.”

This is the line that jumped out at me: “In fact, 95% of the money distributed is based on census data.” 95% is a great number, and it certainly looks like SoundExchange is doing a great job in getting that all that money out, but this statement is patently misleading, because that great percentage is based on “money distributed.” The problem with SoundExchange isn’t the “money distributed,” it’s with the money NOT distributed. That’s the money that’s building up in that investment account to the tune of nearly $200 million as of the end of 2008.

And there’s a whole other layer to the rotten onion of that bogus statistic that SoundExchange’s own data exposes. In filings with the CRB in May of this year, SoundExchange acknowledge that, as of March, 2009, it still hadn’t distributed 32% of the collected artist royalties, and still hadn’t even “allocated” over 16% of that money for money received for the calendar year 2006. Over twenty-seven months AFTER the end of the reporting period, one dollar in every three that artists were entitled to was still sitting at SoundExchange, and SoundExchange still didn’t know who was entitled to half of that. You can’t foist that off on sampling problems, and that 95% figure becomes a whole lot less impressive when you realize it’s 95% of a number that is far less than what SoundExchange should have paid out.

And before you explain this away as one bad year, the same filing says that, for 2007, you still don’t know who was entitled to 25% of the artist money, and you still hadn’t paid out over 40% of the artist money, 15 months after the end of the reporting period. For the first quarter of 2008, after one whole year, you still hadn’t identified the proper recipient of nearly one-third of the artist royalties, and you had paid out LESS THAN HALF. So, to put your claim of 95% payment in the proper context, for the first quarter of 2008, after one year, SoundExchange had paid out 95% of 48% based on census data. In this light, the number is not as impressive as you wanted it to sound, is it?

This is the problem with SoundExchange’s attempt to hide what it does from public scrutiny, Mr. Huey. Sometimes the real data comes out, and the attempts to hide are futile.

So, I really don’t need the “official communication outlets” of SoundExchange to put a spin on these numbers. I can read them myself, and they leave me with only one question for you;

Do you think not paying out 32% of artist royalties after 27 months is doing a good job?

P.S. I heard from a friend of mine who read your last response and got a real kick out of your claim that SoundExchange is not “beholden” to the RIAA in any way. He reminded me that during the last Webcaster rate setting hearings before the CRB, SoundExchange’s counsel held repeated strategy sessions with RIAA counsel, in the open, right in SoundExchange’s office. Now, of course, the RIAA had absolutely no standing to participate in those hearings directly, so do you really think SoundExchange was acting independently or taking marching orders? Did the independent Directors have a representative at the meetings? How about the artists? Were they represented? If you knew about this, why did you leave the SoundExchange strategy up to the RIAA? And if you didn’t know about it, does it make you wonder what else you don’t know?

You see, Mr. Huey, the same thing keeps happening over and over. SoundExchange people like you say one thing, and the things we can see with our own eyes say differently. Who are we supposed to believe?