Earlier this week, Digital Music News broke the news of a voluntary settlement proposal tied to upcoming US-based mechanical licensing rates as part of the broader Phonorecords V proceedings. That settlement, which focused on a number of non-streaming formats, involved a who’s who of organizations across the label, publishing, and, surprisingly, indie realms — though Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights was noticeably edged out of the process.

So what happened?  The answer to that question, it turns out, depends on who you’re talking to.

As first reported by Digital Music News, the major record labels, alongside the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), the Music Artists Coalition, and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), have officially informed the Copyright Royalty Board of a proposed Phonorecords V settlement for a range of non-streaming formats.

The agreement, which specifically covers US-based mechanical rates for physical formats, ringtones, and permanent downloads from 2028 through 2032, proposes to leave the existing Phonorecords IV structure completely unchanged, save for continuing annual inflation adjustments calculated by the Consumer Price Index.

The proposal, which can be viewed in its entirely here, has immediately sparked vocal opposition from independent advocates and creators, including the Songwriters Guild of America, Jeff Price’s Word Collections, Eminem publisher Eight Mile Style, and copyright activist George Johnson. These parties declined to join the settlement—with Johnson noting they were never even sent the proposal to review—and are actively preparing to file formal objections in July 2026 to demand a higher, material composition rate of 15.65 cents per track rather than a modest inflation-adjusted growth rate.

But curiously, another famed pugilist of the music industry — the legendarily hard-negotiating Irving Azoff and his Global Music Rights, LLC — were edged out of this latest proposal.

Indeed, according to participant lists reviewed by DMN, GMR was ‘withdrawn’ from the process (which is the Copyright Royalty Board’s words, not ours). That is, despite the presence of a fairly large tent of participants, including the aforementioned heavyweights as well as DSPs like Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Google, and Amazon.

(Those mega-DSPS, which account for 98%+ of the US-based streaming music subscriber market share according to DMN Pro’s research, are undoubtedly prepped for a full-blown streaming-rate discussion. But much, much, more on that later.)

Back to the GMR situation, one negotiator offered a very simple explanation for the exclusion: GMR is a powerful performance royalty upstart, but they aren’t involved in mechanical licenses. That certainly makes sense, though let’s see what happens once deliberations move into the streaming realm, where mechanicals ‘dance’ alongside performance licenses in a delicate ‘sushi roll’ formula.

Others, however, pointed to something more sinister.

According to another more loquacious informant, GMR attempted to participate in the process, but the NMPA and DSPs filed a motion to ‘knock them out, and they were knocked out.’

That same source also relayed that GMR is feared for being ‘very powerful and very good at negotiating increases in royalty rates,’ while hat-tipping the oft-feared Azoff.  Hence, the motivation for ‘knocking them out.’

That was echoed by another source, who also pointed to a removal motion targeted at GMR specifically.

On the issue of performance royalties, a separate source pointed to backroom promises made to GMR that performance royalties wouldn’t go down during the upcoming proceedings. That appeared to be a first overture, which was followed by the ‘filing of a motion to deny their petition’ before GMR opted to withdraw. Separately, we reached out to GMR’s attorney and head of Business & Legal Affairs at Global Music Rights, Amanda Cooke, but have yet to receive a response.

As for the just-dropped Phonorecords V proposal: there’s certainly a broad group of companies and associations backing the plan to keep rates steady on downloads, physical formats, and ringtones.

The sudden settlement proposal also carries historical baggage, as the CRB previously rejected a similar physical-rate freeze proposal in 2022, citing the inherent conflicts of interest regarding the “vertical integration” between major record labels and major publishers.

Beyond that, the quick nature of the deal is being met with industry skepticism, as critics note that previous rushed Phonorecords IV agreements ultimately enabled the current streaming ‘bundling’ loopholes that severely slashed overall mechanical royalty payouts for songwriters and generated some unexpected ripples for the IP investment community.

More as this develops.