I didn’t think so either. Yet that is precisely what the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal suggested when it dismissed the landmark case Rowntree v PRS, concerning up to £200 million in so-called Black Box money—royalties that remain unallocated because the rightful owner cannot be identified.
As someone who has worked both as a creator and within the governance structures of collective management organizations (CMOs), I found the Tribunal’s reasoning more revealing than the decision itself. I was invited to provide expert evidence—not on PRS’s actions directly, but on the systemic dynamics of Black Box royalties: who risks ending up there, and why.
What I did not anticipate was just how sensitive this subject would be. Shortly after giving my witness statement, I was called into a boardroom meeting by the STIM chair, senior administrators, and the now chair of the author organization SKAP. Their concern was that my comments might be seen as “irritating” PRS.
For me, however, PRS has always been synonymous with the rightsholders themselves—the creators and publishers whose rights we entrust to others to administer. Speaking up in their interest is not about provocation, but about responsibility. My contribution, then and now, is for them.
And my observation was straightforward: independent songwriters and smaller publishers are disproportionately disadvantaged. With fewer resources, less visibility, and limited administrative support, they are more likely to fall into the Black Box. Conversely, large publishers and high-profile artists—already recognized and paid—benefit again when unallocated royalties are redistributed.
What the Tribunal’s Dismissal Really Tells Us
Reading the judgment, I see five clear takeaways for creators and publishers everywhere:
- If the errors are too big, you can’t hold them accountable.
The Tribunal reasoned that the cost of correcting PRS’s mistakes would ultimately fall on members themselves. - If your contracts are weak, so are your royalties.
Writers and publishers have no inherent entitlement to revenues beyond PRS’s own rules—rules most members never read, let alone negotiate. - If you can’t identify the unidentifiable, you lose.
By definition, Black Box royalties are untraceable. This circular logic meant the case failed the so-called “Microsoft test” for damages. - If your representatives don’t represent you, you’re stuck.
The Tribunal noted that governance structures exist, but if songwriter representatives align more with administration than with their members, the courts won’t intervene. - Barriers to justice.
The cost and complexity of copyright litigation make collective action practically impossible for most rightsholders.
Why Law Alone Cannot Solve Systemic Technological Problems
The Rowntree case is less about legal liability and more about the inadequacy of traditional frameworks to resolve technological shortcomings. Courts are ill-equipped to address the root cause: insufficient data infrastructure for accurate rights attribution.
This points to a critical shift. The future of copyright management lies not in prolonged litigation, but in technological innovation.
The Rowntree case is not the end of the story. It is a clear reminder that the future of copyright management is not in increasingly complex litigation, but in technological innovation that serves creators, publishers, platforms, and consumers alike.
And finally, let’s agree on one simple principle: no legal overreach should ever be excused with “I didn’t know.”Whether it’s ignorance of the law or of available technology, that excuse is no longer acceptable.
Full decision here: