Streaming Services Ask Regulators to Drop Gmr From Phonorecords V
A coalition made up of Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, and Google, which owns YouTube Music, has submitted a shared request asking the Copyright Royalty Board to strike Global Music Rights from Phonorecords V. That proceeding will determine the mechanical royalty rates paid on U.S. recordings from 2028 through 2032. The request surfaced in a filing made public on July 10, 2026, and the companies frame their reasoning entirely around process rather than dollars and cents. Their argument is that Global Music Rights operates as a performing rights organization built around public performance licensing, so it lacks the kind of substantial stake needed to participate in a case governing mechanical rates under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.
At Issue Is What Kind of Rights Gmr Represents, Not Simply Its Presence in the Case
According to the filing, Global Music Rights functions as a PRO that licenses public performance rights on behalf of songwriters and composers. Building on that description, the streaming companies contend that this focus puts the organization outside the boundaries of a case built specifically around mechanical royalties. Rather than pushing back, Global Music Rights dropped out of the fight without objection. None of the parties involved — Global Music Rights, the streaming platforms, the National Music Publishers’ Association, or the Nashville Songwriters Association International — agreed to comment publicly, and the two publisher organizations informed the court that they were staying neutral.
Although the legal argument being made is technical and limited in scope, the surrounding circumstances tell a more complicated story. Every time a song streams on demand, it triggers payment of both a mechanical royalty and a performance royalty simultaneously, and the formulas used to calculate each one are tied together. As a result, adjusting mechanical rates inevitably ripples into performance-royalty economics too, which means an organization like Global Music Rights has a real financial interest in the case’s outcome even though the proceeding itself is officially centered on mechanical rights alone.
Irving Azoff and the Companies’ Underlying Motives Take Center Stage
Digital Music News, which has been tracking the filings, suggests the real driving force may be far more straightforward than the procedural justification the platforms offered: it comes down to Irving Azoff’s track record as a formidable negotiator who has repeatedly pushed royalty rates upward. According to one source, Azoff carries enormous influence and considerable skill at securing rate increases, which is precisely why keeping him out of the room benefits the companies that ultimately foot the bill. That same source pointed out that this isn’t the platforms’ first maneuver of this kind, recalling how Spotify previously bundled audiobooks into its Premium tier during the last rate cycle specifically to shrink its payment obligations to songwriters under Phonorecords IV.
Azoff hasn’t been shut out entirely — he retains a presence in the process through the Music Artists Coalition — though people close to the matter are skeptical about how vigorously he plans to push back this time around. That’s a significant detail, because the stakes here go beyond whether a single organization gets to participate; the case also determines whose voice counts as the rules governing future mechanical royalties take shape.
Rates for Physical Formats Are Nearing Resolution as the Bigger Streaming Battle Looms
The settlement currently on the table addresses physical media, permanent downloads, and ringtones. Backing that proposal are the major record labels, the NMPA, NSAI, the Music Artists Coalition, and A2IM, all of whom want to preserve the existing Phonorecords IV framework while adjusting the figures upward for inflation through 2032. Not everyone is on board, however: the Songwriters Guild of America, Word Collections, Eight Mile Style, and copyright advocate George Johnson declined to sign and are drafting formal objections pushing instead for a 15.65-cent rate. The settlement was slated to be opened for public comment around July 10.
Still ahead, and carrying far greater financial weight, is the negotiation over streaming royalty rates. Coverage of the filings describes the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding as the mechanism that effectively sets the minimum payout underlying every streaming royalty statement, and it situates this particular dispute within a larger trend of murky rate-setting across the music business — pointing to the NMPA’s AI licensing agreements and Spotify’s AI-powered remix tool, which still carries no disclosed price, as further examples. Viewed that way, pushing Global Music Rights out of the case accomplishes more than resolving a procedural technicality — it shrinks the pool of participants before the remaining streaming-rate questions get decided.
Where Phonorecords V Goes From Here
Phonorecords V continues to be the Copyright Royalty Board case tasked with setting the statutory U.S. mechanical royalty rates that will apply from 2028 to 2032. Now that Global Music Rights is no longer part of it, the proceeding moves ahead first with the proposed settlement covering non-streaming formats, and afterward turns to the streaming-rate negotiations that will ultimately set the financial baseline for the coming rate period. No new hearing date has been specified in the coverage, though it’s clear the public-comment period was the next expected step and that the streaming-rate discussions remain unresolved.
For editorial consideration and industry coverage inquiries, contact [email protected]
