The Billboard Q&a: Irwin Robinson

Nearly 15 years ago, a major motion picture company tapped publishing veteran and lawyer Irwin Robinson to helm its music publishing division. Paramount Pictures executives gave the new chairman/CEO of Famous Music a mandate: Grow the company.

At the time, Famous controlled fewer than 100,000 copyrights, primarily from film and TV shows, and had only signed a few acts like Living Colour and Martika. Today, Famous is one of the leading U.S. independent publishers, controlling more than 125,000 copyrights. Its roster includes artist/songwriters like Eminem, Busta Rhymes, Shakira and Daniel Powter—as well as such producer/songwriters as Linda Perry and Akon.

Earlier this month, parent company Viacom put Famous on the auction block. Whether Robinson ends up owning, running or leaving Famous remains to be seen. But his iconic status in the music publishing industry is set.

Robinson has weathered mergers and acquisitions for more than four decades. He joined Screen Gems-Columbia Music in 1964, remaining VP/GM after EMI purchased the company. In 1977, he became president of Chappell/Intersong until 1987, when Chappell and Warner Bros. Music merged. Robinson then became president/CEO of EMI Music Publishing Worldwide until joining Famous in 1992.

As chairman of the National Music Publishers' Assn. (NMPA), Robinson is front and center during one of the most critical times in publishing history as legislation, rate-setting proceedings, digital opportunities and piracy play major roles in the future of publishing.

What was the first thing you did at Famous to grow the company?

We took the company from a motion picture and TV base into the mainstream of contemporary music. In 1994, Viacom bought Paramount and decided to sell Famous. For 18 months, we didn't sign very many songwriters until Viacom was convinced to keep the company. Then we took a more aggressive approach, looking at songwriters, signing sparingly when the deal was right. We can't be in bidding wars with the big companies, but we're always able to get a budget that is necessary to sign songwriters, artists and producers.

How is Famous responding to the CD sales decline?

We are beefing up our efforts in all of the other license areas, with synch for film, TV and commercials. We have broadened our business, bought a production music library, Extreme Music Production, which owns copyrights and master rights, but which has a much higher profit margin than a traditional publishing business.

Labels and digital services say publishers are being unrealistic, even greedy, to want higher mechanical and digital royalty rates for compulsory licenses when music sales are dropping and digital distribution is at a nascent stage. Why should there be higher rates?

The rates for music have always been based on the value of the music, not whether or not someone is making a profit. With respect to the mechanical, we haven't had a huge rate rise in a century. It took three years short of a century to get from 2 cents to 9 cents. Music is the raw material for the product they're trying to sell. If we had a [consumer price index] increase, we'd be at 40 cents. We're only at 25% of that.

Does the compulsory license process need reform?

Yes, it does. For a compulsory license, [the record or digital media company must] go to the Copyright Office, pay a fee and get a license. Then it has to report once a month with certified statements and pay money. Nobody wanted to do that, which is why the Harry Fox Agency license was created—a "workaround" of the compulsory license. Since no one uses the [statutory procedure] too much, it should be reformed.

Publishers are sometimes seen as roadblocks to an artist's success, wanting license fees at rates that make it too expensive to offer promotional recordings. What is your position on offering gratis deals to help promote a new artist?

Famous has done that on any number of occasions. Where we find a difficulty in doing it is where there isn't a rate set for the kind of use that's going to be made, for example, video streaming. To give a low or gratis rate license even though that may help the artist is difficult because if you want to go into a rate setting [proceeding], it is evidence that may be used against you. Even with Shakira, we've gotten a small fee to protect the fact that it's a license, and there's language in the contract that it won't be used as evidence against us.

How would you describe the relationship between publishers and labels?

For the most part, it is cordial because the people we interact with at the labels are people who are interested in the talent—mostly A&R people. They aren't the ones taking the position that we want too much money. We encourage the careers of our artists, and we say we will help you with promotion.

How about the relationship between publishers and digital media companies?

Companies like MTV interact with publishers all the time, mostly in the area of synch [licensing for video]. But there isn't any real interaction between publishers and digital media companies; there's no direct connection since record companies are "passing through" our licenses. They don't need to talk to us, and we can't audit them because there's no privity of contract [i.e., publishers aren't parties to the contracts]. Pass-through is one of the rights we're trying to get rid of through legislation; we want to work with them [directly].

What are the NMPA's litigation priorities for 2007?

Certainly pay attention to the [peer-to-peer] services, satellite radio, social networking sites that profit without getting permission [to use the compositions]. At the moment, we're trying to negotiate with satellite radio companies.

Are there litigation priorities for Famous this year?

We hate litigation. When we are asked by the NMPA to be a part of a class or a principal plaintiff, we will do so. In the last couple years, Famous made settlements with a lot of karaoke companies and have collected a couple million dollars from two or three companies.

How much time do you dedicate to your role as NMPA chairman, and why?

A lot. Out of a work week, 20% of my time. I love songwriters and what they do. I spend the time at the NMPA because, for writers and publishers, it's worth the time to fight for them in Congress and to bring litigation to try to get as much money as we can from users who are not paying.

The [rate-setting proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board this year] is one of the more significant events that I will go through in my 50 years for both publishers and songwriters. But we have our armor and we're loaded with great economic data.