CRB Approves Streaming Services’ Request to Access Web VI Materials Amid the Phono V Rate-Setting Proceeding — Albeit With a Few Conditions

Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has officially granted streaming services’ request to access unredacted Web VI materials amid the ongoing Phono V proceeding – albeit with a few conditions.

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge Trevor Jefferson recently gave the green light to said access in a brief order, after Pandora, Spotify, Apple, and Amazon quietly submitted the corresponding motion closer to September’s start.

And as many will recognize from our in-depth coverage, the request arrived amid a contentious rate-setting process covering interactive streaming mechanicals across 2028 and 2032.

Additionally, a similarly heated proceeding is underway for permanent downloads and physical releases, and when it comes to the non-interactive use of recordings, the likes of SiriusXM and SoundExchange have been participating in the Web VI (2026-2030) proceeding for some time.

While Web VI’s determination is forthcoming, the above-noted streaming services made clear their position that delaying access pending its issuance would “create needless inefficiencies and delay.”

As for the reasons behind the request, the same DSPs pointed to overlapping evidence, potentially worthwhile “economic analyses,” and more.

“Although this proceeding concerns mechanical royalty rates for interactive streaming services, it follows the same willing-buyer-willing-seller legal standard applied in Web VI,” the relevant Phono V participants summed up. “The two proceedings have also historically involved overlapping issues, including evidence concerning licensing for the interactive services at issue in this proceeding.”

Meanwhile, they were also adamant that the Web VI documents’ public versions wouldn’t do the trick. In the services’ own words, the redacted resources “may not reveal how the specific economic analyses presented may have influenced the Judges’ determination, or how—if at all—those analyses might impact this proceeding.”

Evidently, the arguments resonated with the CRB. Returning to the aforementioned conditions, then, existing protective orders still apply to the platforms’ use of the documents at hand.

Likewise in effect: Three paragraphs’ worth of provisions that the DSPs say “SoundExchange requested.”

First, access “shall not be granted to any outside counsel (who were not counsel of record for a participant in Web VI) who are currently, and/or during the course of this proceeding, directly participating in license negotiations with sound recording companies outside the context of settlement of legal claims,” according to the order.

Next, non-“litigating participants” must request access to the unredacted docs. A notice will then hit the docket, and for the 10 following days, the entities that provided the materials in question can “seek relief necessary to prevent any potential competitive harm.”

Finally, the streaming services must abide by AI-use terms in connection with the materials – including by ensuring that the appropriate programs’ settings shield the sensitive information from third parties and developers themselves. (Put differently, it might be a good idea to abstain from feeding the files into AI.)

Time will tell how these materials factor into Phono V, which is now in full swing. Earlier this month, Spotify and others submitted in-depth proposals, and the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) promptly called out Amazon Music’s floated terms as an attempt “to squeeze songwriters.”