US performance rights organization BMI has launched a campaign urging its affiliates (songwriters, composers, and publishers) to make their voices heard in the US Copyright Office’s inquiry into PROs.
The USCO launched an investigation on Monday (February 10) in an effort to answer “questions related to the increase in the number of PROs and the licensing revenue distribution practices of PROs.”
The inquiry was triggered by a letter sent last year by three US House representatives on the House Judiciary Committee. The letter echoed concerns from small businesses that new PROs set up in recent years are making it more difficult to ensure that music played publicly by those businesses is properly licensed.
“Licensees have reported receiving demands for royalties from new entities claiming to represent songwriters, and threatening litigation if the demands are not met,” the letter stated.
“Considering that the possibility of substantial statutory copyright damages poses an existential risk for most bars, restaurants, and other small businesses, many feel compelled to pay these entities on top of what they already pay for blanket licenses from the traditional PROs.”
BMI, which counts as one of those “traditional PROs,” has asked its affiliates – songwriters and music publishers – to submit comments to the USCO, urging it not to introduce new regulations on performance rights orgs.
“We believe the goal of these licensees [businesses that license music from PROs] is not to question how the marketplace functions or call attention to new PROs who have actually gained very little traction in the industry, but ultimately to pay you less for your creative work,” BMI said to songwriters and publishers.
“Unfortunately, this is not new. Licensees and their lobbying organizations have been making false and misleading arguments like these with that very goal in mind for years. And as we always have, BMI will continue to advocate tirelessly on your behalf to stop that from happening.”
“We believe the goal of these licensees [is] ultimately to pay you less for your creative work.”
BMI
BMI prepared a form letter that its affiliates can submit to the USCO ahead of an April 11, 2025, submission deadline. The full text of the letter is below.
Of the six PROs operating in the US, one – ASCAP – is a not-for-profit operation. The remaining five – BMI, SESAC, and relatively new entrants Global Music Rights (GMR), PRO Music Rights, and AllTrack – are run for profit.
BMI was run as a not-for-profit for much of its eight-decade history until the organization shifted to a for-profit model in 2022. The following year, it announced it was being sold to private equity firm New Mountain Capital, a move that raised concerns among some songwriters that such a move could negatively impact their royalties.
Shortly before the sale to New Mountain was made public, BMI announced that it would reduce the payouts to songwriters and publishers from 90% of royalties collected to 85%. Following the sale, BMI allocated $100 million of the proceeds to its songwriter and publisher affiliates.
Below is the full text of BMI’s letter, which it is urging affiliates to submit to the USCO.
February 11, 2025
Ms. Shira Perlmutter
Register of Copyrights
United States Copyright Office
Washington, D.C. 20559-6000
Dear Register Perlmutter:
We are writing in response to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published by the U.S. Copyright Office in the Federal Register on February 10, 2025, titled “Issues Related to Performing Rights Organizations.” We recognize this inquiry was initiated in response to a September 2024 letter sent to you by three Members of Congress. We strongly believe that letter focused solely on the perspective of music licensees and failed to consider our perspective as songwriters, composers and music publishers who earn our living from the public performance royalties collected by PROs. We are similarly disappointed that the questions posed in your inquiry also focus on music users, and not music creators.
This is concerning because it is apparent that the Congressional letter’s intention was to question the efficacy of the music licensing marketplace in order to further a specific agenda of additional regulation of PROs and ultimately enable licensees to pay less to music creators and copyright owners for the use of our creative work.
Unfortunately, this is not new. Licensees and their lobbying organizations have been making the same false and misleading arguments with that very goal in mind for years. Now they are using the emergence of new PROs—who have gained very little traction in acquiring any share of repertoire actually used by licensees—as the centerpiece of their renewed push for regulation.
We know that new entrants are evidence of a competitive, vibrant and functional marketplace. Competition, particularly for creators, is positive. Moreover, we appreciate that it is critical for licensees to understand who represents the music they use in their businesses and—as representatives of our repertoire—for PROs to be clear about their catalogs. To this end, BMI and ASCAP have already delivered an industry solution called Songview, which provides transparency around copyright ownership. If other organizations are not as committed to transparency, there are already state laws across the country governing PROs that protect consumers from deceptive business practices. We don’t believe new regulation or oversight on us as creators or on BMI, the PRO that collects and pays our royalties, is required. What is required is simply enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
In today’s music industry, streaming services and the fractions of pennies they pay per-stream have made it even more difficult for us to earn a living. We rely on public performance royalties for our livelihoods now more than ever. This is why we also noted with interest the request for the Office to evaluate the collection and distribution of general licensing dollars. As you know, this is a broad category that includes, among others, bars, restaurants, and other smaller venues with live performances, and it is well known that music usage in this category is the most difficult to capture. Moreover, every dollar PROs spend tracking data means dollars coming out of our royalty pool.
Again, we believe this is a false issue raised by music users for the specific purpose of reducing license fees. However, even accepting this concern as sincere, it is clear that the solution to this purported problem should not fall on us and our PROs. The obligation of music users to pay for the right of public performance exists regardless of and without relation to the distribution practices of PROs. If licensees truly are concerned about royalty distribution, we and our PRO would welcome additional reporting from them to better capture their usage of our music in their businesses.
Lastly, regarding live concert venues, it is standard practice that those licensees deduct public performance licensing fees straight out of the pockets of the artists performing at their venues (artists who are very often songwriters). We believe it would be useful to know how widespread this practice is, and whether the total fees they deduct exceed what they pay for their public performance licenses, if and when a venue has actually even taken the necessary licenses.
Importantly, songwriters are the ultimate small business owners who work hard at their profession and deserve fair compensation. We are already the most heavily regulated segment of the music industry. PROs exist to ensure we can continue to earn a living through our craft and keep creating the music that is both a powerful driver of the U.S. economy and widely enjoyed around the world.
Thank you for your attention to our thoughts on this matter.Music Business Worldwide
