Music Licensing Inc (SONG)

[Hi_Lo]

Jake P. Noch thanks you for helping him save up for paying his and his wife's delinquent credit card debt from American Express...and for your continued support and assistance in furthering this scam so he can continue stealing money from gullible investors like yourself.

He really appreciates it.

He also wants you to ignore news that he is facing federal government investigation into his fraud.

He wishes you to keep up the good work you are doing (to help him steal money).


Jake P. Noch's (BCAP, SONG and ASKE CEO/Custodian) fraud that we know of that is in the public record.

https://gemini.google.com/share/40bef49d5352

Gemini

FTC Inquiry Into Pro Music Rights
https://gemini.google.com/share/40bef49d5352
Created with Fast January 28, 2026 at 07:00 AMPublished January 28, 2026 at 07:01 AM

Prompt question:

Who referred Jake P. Noch to the Federal Trade Commission, what were the allegations in the letter and what were the outcomes of the U.S. Copyright Office inquiry mentioned in the letter?

Prompt answer:

In 2024 and 2025, Jake P. Noch and his company, Pro Music Rights (PMR), became the focus of congressional scrutiny and a subsequent inquiry by the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO).
Referral and Source
The referral of Jake P. Noch and PMR to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was led by U.S. Representative Scott Fitzgerald (along with other members of Congress). Following a U.S. Copyright Office inquiry that concluded in late 2025, Fitzgerald sent a formal letter to the FTC urging an investigation into PMR’s business practices.
Allegations in the Letter
The allegations leveled against Noch and PMR by Representative Fitzgerald and cited in related submissions (including those from competitors like BMI) include:
• Deceptive Marketing: Claims that PMR "feigns legitimacy" by exaggerating its market share (claiming 7.4%) and the size of its music catalog.
• Fraudulent Business Practices: Allegations that PMR’s catalog is largely comprised of "fabricated works" or AI-generated content credited to shell companies owned by Noch, rather than legitimate artists.
• Licensing Misrepresentation: Selling licenses for works that either do not exist or are not available for use, thereby misleading businesses.
• Securities Violations: Misleading financial disclosures related to taking the company public through a reverse merger, described by critics as a potential "stock-dumping scheme."
• Abuse of Legal Systems: Utilizing the court system and copyright claims to "enrich the CEO" rather than protect creators.
Outcomes of the U.S. Copyright Office Inquiry
The U.S. Copyright Office conducted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the proliferation of Performing Rights Organizations (PROs). On November 20, 2025, the Office issued its final report to Congress with the following outcomes:
• No Radical Restructuring: The USCO expressly declined to recommend "radical restructuring" of the PRO marketplace or new government-mandated regulations.
• Affirmation of PRO Value: The Office affirmed that PROs provide significant efficiencies to the music ecosystem and cautioned against over-regulation that could create competitive imbalances.
• Need for Data Transparency: While it did not recommend legal changes, it emphasized the need for "more robust data" and improved licensing clarity to protect both creators and licensees.
• Public Response: The inquiry received over 5,000 public comments, with a significant majority coming from music creators (including over 4,600 ASCAP members) defending the existing system.
In response to these developments, Jake P. Noch and Music Licensing, Inc. have "categorically rejected" the allegations, calling them politically motivated and defamatory, and have threatened legal action against Representative Fitzgerald and the organizations that provided testimony against them.

That alone is a lot of damning evidence - both from the public (verified with documentation) and the federal government.

More concerning Jake P. Noch's fraud.

Submitted for federal government review:

https://downloads.regulations.gov
PDF

PRO Fraud in Relation to Pro Music Rights (PMR) and Jake P. Noch ...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://downloads.regulations.gov/COLC-2025-0001-0006/attachment_1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibn4O8u62SAxWy6BoGHbdBCqkQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3PTV6cmmYJsRdirGWou93t

PRO Fraud in Relation to Pro Music Rights (PMR) and Jake P. Noch
Introduction
I am submitting this report to bring to your attention significant concerns regarding Pro Music Rights (PMR), a purported performance rights organization (PRO) founded by Jake P. Noch as it concerns Docket No. 2025-1. Though claiming to be the 3rd largest PRO in the United States and cited in this offices report, evidence strongly suggests that PMR is engaging in fraudulent business practices, deceptive marketing, and potential securities violations; harming both licensees and investors in ways noted as a concern for your office. This report outlines how PMR has misrepresented its music catalog, falsely marketed its services, abuse of
local and federal court systems and manipulated financial disclosures to enrich its CEO. Specifically, the investigation reveals that:
• PMR’s catalog is largely comprised of fabricated works, many of which are AI-generated or
credited to shell companies owned by Jake P. Noch, rather than legitimate artists.
• The company has been selling music licenses for works that do not actually exist or are not
available for use, misleading businesses into purchasing a service that cannot be fulfilled.
• PMR has engaged in abusive litigation practices, using lawsuits to pressure victims into paying for
rights they do not need or that PMR does not control.
• Securities fraud concerns arise from the company’s misleading financial filings, including
claims of over $1 billion in revenue that appear to be artificially inflated.
• Jake P. Noch has exploited SEC Rule 3(a)(10) to issue and sell shares illegally, circumventing
restrictions that should apply to corporate insiders, resulting in massive dilution and potential
violations of securities laws.
This submission provides documented evidence, including data from PMR’s own database, SEC filings, social media claims, and independent financial analyses. Given the scale of these alleged infractions and their impact on consumers, investors, and the integrity of the U.S. music licensing system, I urge your office
to review these findings and consider taking regulatory or enforcement action, as an example to the much-needed improvements to PRO regulation.
Please find the following a full breakdown of the investigation, along with supporting citations.
1. PMR’s Work Library and Suspected Fake Entries
Scope and Structure of the Catalog:
PMR’s public work search database reveals a massive catalog (claimed “more than Two Million Musical works”(promusicrights.com). However, many entries have nonsensical titles and attributions, suggesting they are not real commercially released songs. For example, works titled “eile buck(a)” or “meningioma come” appear in the database (promusicrights.com) (promusicrights.com). These odd titles do not
correspond to known songs or artists, hinting they may be auto-generated placeholders rather than
legitimate compositions.
Shell Company Publishers:
A striking pattern is that the publishers for these works are often shell companies controlled by Jake P. Noch. In the PMR catalog, many songs list “Publishing Company A, LLC,” “Publishing Company B, LLC,” (promusicrights.com). Florida business records and SEC filings confirm these entities are companies formed in 2018 with Jake P. Noch as the managing member (sec.gov). PMR’s site frequently credits these same few LLCs (along with “Pro Music Rights Publishing Group, LLC,” another Noch entity
(promusicrights.com) as owning 100% of a work’s rights. In one example, “eile buck(a)” is attributed entirely to Publishing Co. A, Publishing Co. C, and PMR Publishing Group as publishers (promusicrights.com), and even lists Publishing Co. A and B as “writers” of the song (promusicrights.com) (promusicrights.com). This
circular ownership structure – where Noch’s own LLCs are both publisher and songwriter – strongly
indicates these works are not genuine third-party compositions, but rather entries created to pad PMR’s catalog.Further, Jakes notes that “… 2.5 million musical works, primarily sourced from songwriters, composers, and publishers affiliated with our CEO, Jake P Noch.” (sec.gov) This only confirms that instead of the numerous non-Jake related works claimed in promotional material, instead most of the works were sourced
from affiliates of Jake or Jake himself. This of course is not possible, unless the works themselves simply don’t exist in reality.
Proportion of Fake vs. Real Works:
By all indications, the overwhelming majority of works in PMR’s repertoire are these suspicious entries tied to Noch’s shell companies. In contrast, legitimate works by real artists or publishers are exceedingly scarce. For instance, PMR did sign a handful of actual artists; one known example is rapper OG Maco(famous for “U Guessed It”). Indeed, PMR’s database shows “U Guessed It” credited properly to OG Maco (Maco Mattox) as writer and artist (promusicrights.com) (promusicrights.com) – a normal attribution one would expect for a real song. Such entries with genuine artist names are rare. Meanwhile, dozens of pages of the catalog contain bizarrely titled songs with no discernible artist and only Jake Noch’s companies as rights-
holders (promusicrights.com)(promusicrights.com). This suggests that PMR’s “2 million works” claim is
largely built on fake or self-created works, with only a small fraction representing authentic songs from
independent artists.
Who Owns the Real Artists:
Per other PRO databases, PMR doesn’t even own a large number of the stated catalogue works by both Jake Noch (BMI.com) and OG MACO (BMI.com), reported in the PMR catalogue as owning 100. BMI owning the rights to these works makes more sense, as these were all published well before the creation of PMR and no indications of rights transfer has occurred. Meaning, even the rights to works that are playable online and are attached to real artists are in question. In fact, Jake P Noch has a history of filing fraudulent copyright claims
on other artists works on multiple online platforms and in courts.
Statistical Breakdown by Publisher:
Although PMR has not published a full breakdown, a review of random samples from the database shows the same few shell publishers recurring. “Publishing Company A, LLC” appears to be attached to a huge number of entries, as do its sister entities B and C. All three were formed on the same date and managed by Noch (sec.gov), indicating they function as shell conduits for his catalog. In essence, Jake P. Noch (through
various LLCs) is on both sides of most works – he is the purported publisher and writer – meaning PMR is largely licensing music to itself. The proportion of works not owned by Noch’s entities seems minuscule. In the absence of official stats, anecdotal evidence suggests nearly 99% of PMR’s listed songs are tied to Noch’s companies, with very few legitimate outside publishers or PRO members represented, and even those are questionable. It is unclear how many legitime works PMR actually owns.Fake Works with Egregious Details:
The fake works in PMR’s library are often identifiable by their amateurish or absurd titles and credits. For example, “Meningioma Come” (seemingly named after a type of brain tumor) is one such entry(promusicrights.com). Its publishers are Publishing Company A and C, and PMR’s own pub group(promusicrights.com), and its writers include Publishing Company A and B, LLC as “Authors” (promusicrights.com)(promusicrights.com). The credited “artist” is “WholeRest,” a term more associated with a musical notation symbol than a performer(promusicrights.com). Other amusing examples include titles like “Cataleptic Zwischen,” “Gala(a) Dumfoundered,” and “Bibliopole Aquatics,” all of which list the same trio of shell publishers. Such entries read more like randomly generated word salad than actual songs. This pattern led observers to conclude that PMR populated its catalog with made-up works—potentially
even AI-generated titles or music. Indeed, industry commenters have noted that Noch “is marketing a
massive library, most of which are just songs he made up with AI, and never produced. This is fraud.”
(investorshub.advfn.com). In short, PMR’s work library appears to be largely a Potemkin catalogue –
millions of “ghost” works created to convey the illusion of a vast repertory.
2. Fraudulent Marketing of Services
Alleged Misrepresentation by PMR:
PMR and Jake P. Noch have marketed their PRO services on claims that appear to be false or grossly
exaggerated. They advertise PMR as the “5th ever” PRO with a “7.4% market share” and over 2 million
works, including songs by famous artists (docdroid.net) (justice.gov). In reality, if most of those works are fake (as detailed above), then PMR is offering licenses for a repertoire it cannot genuinely provide. This would mean that businesses paying PMR for music licenses are being misled – the service (access to a large catalog of popular music) is not what it seems. Such behavior falls under fraudulent marketing or false advertising, and legal precedent establishes that selling a service under false pretenses is unlawful.
Applicable Fraud and False Advertising Principles:
While there may be no identical case of a PRO inventing a catalog, general fraud case law and consumer protection statutes apply. Fraudulent inducement occurs when a company makes knowing misrepresentations to entice customers into a contract. Here, PMR’s representations about its catalog size and contents could qualify. For instance, if PMR tells a bar or streaming service that its license covers hit songs by artists like A$AP Rocky or Pharrell (justice.gov), but in truth PMR has no valid rights to those works per some federal alwsuits, the client has been misled into a contract that PMR cannot fulfill. This is analogous to a service provider promising a capability it does not have, which courts have found to be deceptive. U.S. law (both federal and state) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in commerce –
a standard that would encompass a music licensor overstating its repertory. For example, the Federal Trade Commission Act and state unfair trade practices acts allow authorities to take action when a business makes materially false claims about its product or service. In the music industry, even performance rights organizations are not exempt from truth-in-marketing; they must actually control the rights they license.
PRO-Specific Context:
Within the performance rights industry, we have seen disputes when rights are misrepresented, though typically in good faith errors or licensing overlaps – not outright fabrication. PMR’s case is unprecedented in scope. However, even established PROs have faced scrutiny. For example, in 2023 the rights administrator Songtrust was suspended by major societies (PRS, SACEM) over fraudulent accounts that had snuck into its system (digitalmusicnews.com). This wasn’t a marketing fraud by Songtrust per se, but it underscores
how seriously the industry treats fraudulent representations of rights ownership. If PMR knowingly bulked up its catalog with dummy entries and pitched itself as the “third-largest” PRO, a court or regulator would likely view that as a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact – the very definition of fraud. In any litigation or enforcement, PMR’s own statements (e.g., boasting a 7.4% market share and naming famous
artists (justice.gov) could be used as evidence that it misled stakeholders. Those statements were used to bolster PMR’s credibility in the market, attract licensees, and even influence government perception (PMR made these claims in a filing to the DOJ (justice.gov). 3. Suspected SEC Rule 3(a)(10) Violations in Noch’s Stock Scheme
How is PMR’s parent company, Music Licensing Inc. and Jake P Noch benefiting from this fraudulent PRO scheme?
Overview of the Scheme:
Jake P. Noch’s activities with Music Licensing, Inc. (the public company owning PMR, trading as
$SONG/SONGD) have drawn scrutiny as a potential stock-dumping scheme. In 2022, Noch orchestrated a reverse merger to take PMR public via Nuvus Gro Corp, and subsequent maneuvers allowed him to issue himself large blocks of stock. In particular, he utilized Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act – a provision that exempts certain securities issuances from registration if done to settle bona fide claims in a court-approved fairness hearing.
This exemption is meant for arm’s-length settlements, not for insiders to print stock for themselves. Yet, evidence suggests Noch did exactly that: he had his own affiliate entity (Jake P. Noch Family Office or similar) present a claim or note payable, then “settled” it by having the court approve the issuance of a massive number of new shares to that affiliate (i.e., to himself) under 3(a)(10). This allowed those shares to be issued
ostensibly as “free trading” (unrestricted) stock, bypassing the usual holding restrictions
(investorshub.advfn.com) (investorshub.advfn.com).
Why This Likely Violates SEC Rules:
SEC Rule 3a10 (Section 3(a)(10) exemption) has strict conditions. Notably, it cannot be used by insiders (affiliates) to issue themselves stock for capital-raising. The law requires a court to approve the fairness of the exchange, and it’s generally intended for situations like a company settling a debt with an unrelated creditor by issuing shares. The SEC’s Staff Legal Bulletin on 3(a)(10) makes clear that if the recipients are affiliates of the issuer, any shares they get are restricted and subject to resale limitations (sec.gov). In fact, affiliates are barred from freely reselling 3(a)(10) shares – they would have to abide by Rule 144, which
imposes holding periods and volume limits (sec.gov) (sec.gov). In PMR’s case, Jake Noch is an affiliate (as CEO and majority shareholder). By using an affiliate entity he controlled to receive shares, Noch was effectively on both sides of the “settlement.” According to commentary on the case, Noch’s lawyer misled the court about the 3(a)(10) rules, obtaining an illegal exemption so that Noch could “use company stock as an open bank account.” (investorshub.advfn.com)(investorshub.advfn.com). This would be a blatant violation because Section 3(a)(10) may not be used for insider self-dealing or as a means to raise new capital for the company (securitieslawyer101.com). The SEC itself has stated that 3(a)(10) is “commonly misused by dilution funders” and is not to be used as a capital-formation tool (securitieslawyer101.com). Noch’s maneuver appears to fit that forbidden pattern.
Affiliate Status and Legal Bar:
As an affiliate, Noch was explicitly barred from using Section 3(a)(10) to get unrestricted stock. The law treats affiliates receiving such shares as underwriters, meaning any resale is a distribution that typically requires registration or a valid exemption (sec.gov) (sec.gov). By bypassing that, Noch exposed himself and the company to liability for unregistered stock sales (violation of Securities Act §5). In plainer terms, he printed stock without a registration statement or legitimate exemption, which is illegal. Note that the company’s own attorney essentially aided Noch in this self-dealing instead of protecting the company – a
severe conflict of interest.
All of this would be red flags to the SEC. If investigated, Noch’s stock scheme could result in enforcement action for securities fraud, cancellation of the illegally issued shares, and/or insider trading allegations.
In summary, Noch’s 3(a)(10) stock issuance appears to have brazenly violated the letter and spirit of SEC rules, similar to past microcap fraud schemes that have been prosecuted. 4. Additional Supporting Evidence and Claims by PMR
Inflated Market Position Claims:
PMR has consistently portrayed itself as a major player among U.S. PROs, notably claiming to be the “third largest” by market share. In an August 2018 press release, PMR announced it had “reached a 7.4% market share making it the 3rd largest public performance rights organization in the United States.”(justice.gov). This statistic was based on the number of works in its repertory, as PMR explained in legal filings (justice.gov). Essentially, Jake Noch argued that with ~2 million works, PMR’s share of the total universe of songs was about 7.4%, putting it behind only ASCAP and BMI (and ahead of SESAC and the much smaller GMR). However, this claim is not substantiated by any independent industry data. Market share in the PRO context is usually measured by performance royalties collected/distributed, not just raw catalog count. By revenue or actual usage, PMR is nowhere near ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. In fact, PMR’s own financial filings suggest negligible real-world licensing revenue (as discussed below). Thus, the “7.4% market share” figure appears to be a self-calculated vanity metric. No evidence has emerged that PMR truly commands such a portion of performances or income; it’s a boast likely designed to lend credibility to an untested startup. Industry observers have greeted this claim with skepticism, especially
given the dubious nature of PMR’s catalog. Without widespread license adoption by music users, PMR’s true market impact is minimal – certainly not third place. The assertion seems to be more marketing spin than reality.
AI-Generated Works and Social Media Boasts:
Jake Noch has not been shy about touting the size and innovation of PMR’s catalog on social media. In late 2023, PMR’s official Twitter/X account made waves by suggesting that it was leveraging artificial intelligence to expand its music library. Noch claimed to have developed proprietary AI (based on ChatGPT) to create new musical works, implying that PMR could generate music content at scale. An industry blog reported “PRO Music Rights’ subsidiary Music Licensing, Inc. takes its first step into AI-generated content with proprietary technology based onChatGPT.”(themusicandcopyrightblog.com). PMR even issued a press release in Feb 2023 about enhancing AI-based music with ChatGPT (prnewswire.com). These statements corroborate the notion that a significant portion of PMR’s 2+ million works may be AI-created compositions or otherwise synthetic. Noch essentially suggested PMR could swell its catalog by having AI write music, which is unprecedented for a PRO (PROs traditionally represent human songwriters).
On one hand, this was positioned as PMR being on the cutting edge of technology; on the other, it raises
serious questions about the quality and legitimacy of those works. The social media posts by PMR often celebrate milestones (e.g., number of works, market share) and sometimes even take jabs at competitors or critics, painting PMR as a disruptive force. However, these pronouncements have drawn incredulous reactions. Jake hints clearly to an AI music program in his garage prior to the formation of PMR in two X (formerly Twitter) posts highlighting 300 PC’s in a garage (X.com) (X.com). In company Jake notes that AI is a substantial part of the business, but noting in footnotes in the public shell’s filings (sec.gov). However, this disclosure stands in stark contrast to PMR’s practices, which include fabricating a music catalog filled with AI-generated works and falsely marketing it as one of the largest repertoires in the industry. This self-admitted risk raises serious questions about PMR’s licensing model, as the company appears to be knowingly leveraging AI-created music to mislead licensees into believing they are accessing a legitimate catalog.The use of AI to inflate a music catalog is a novel twist in this saga, but it ultimately reinforces the central allegation: PMR’s catalog and market stature are largely a fiction created by Noch.
Press Releases vs. Reality (Revenue and Deals):
PMR’s press releases and OTC market filings present a rosy picture of financial success that is starkly at odds with reality. For instance, PMR (under its parent Music Licensing, Inc.) announced “stellar” financial performance for 2023, claiming over $1.05 billion in total revenue and $46 million in net profit(globenewswire.com). These figures are astonishing – and almost certainly deceptive. The financial statement reveals that nearly all that “revenue” was booked as accounts receivable (unpaid license fees) and then largely written off as bad debt (globenewswire.com). In fact, the cash flow statement shows only a few hundred dollars in actual cash at year-end (globenewswire.com). This suggests PMR issued invoices for license fees to licensees who do not believe they are licensees – hence the huge bad debt expense of ~$993 million in 2023 (globenewswire.com). In fact, you can read the lawsuits, primarily in Collier County Court, many of his “licensees” where shocked to find out they were signed up for a “5 year contract” on 5+ locations after simply creating an account. This somehow has turned into “fees” of >$100k per lawsuit on average, for a service: they don’t believe they signed up for, did not use, PMR could not provide, and PMR falsely marketed to them to entice them to simply “make an account.” Some of them are single location small businesses other PROs offer almost free services for, like dance studios. Most are individuals who just signed up to see an account, one individual is on food stamps and his family is living in a shelter.
11-2024-CA-002212-0001-01
11-2024-CA-002204-0001-01
11-2024-CA-002004-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001625-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001624-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001622-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001610-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001608-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001394-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001381-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001380-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001377-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001368-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001367-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001366-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001037-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001025-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001024-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001022-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001021-0001-01
11-2024-CA-001019-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000868-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000867-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000864-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000855-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000849-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000472-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000466-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000463-0001-01
11-2024-CA-000455-0001-01
This is part of a publicly stated “collections campaign” noted on the company’s social media (x.com), filings, and press releases (globenewswire.com). PMR is utilizing the courts as a weapon to manufacture revenue claims for services Jake P Noch knowingly and purposefully cannot provide to licensees as part of a larger self-enrichment scheme for himself. To date, <.1% of the revenue claimed has been collected. The result is an accounting mirage: PMR can claim over a billion in “sales” on paper, yet those were not realized. This reinforces the allegation that PMR’s clients (if they exist in number) are not truly paying, possibly because the licenses are not seen as legitimate or enforceable. Furthermore, PMR’s claim of major licensees is questionable. They have mentioned deals with TikTok, Triller, iHeartMedia, etc. in press statements (globenewswire.com) (stocktitan.net), but details are scant. If those deals exist, their monetary value seems minimal (and could even be licensing of PMR’s own music tracks, such as Jake Noch’s Sosa Entertainment content, rather than broad catalog licenses). The “third-largest PRO” narrative also included an assertion that PMR represented works by a litany of star artists (justice.gov). Aside from OG Maco, there is no evidence any of those artists directly signed with PMR. Many listed (e.g., Fall Out Boy, 2 Chainz, Nipsey Hussle) were likely named because PMR might have one composition involving them (perhaps through a collaborator or a partial right that Noch acquired). It’s telling that no major music publishers or estates have publicly acknowledged PMR as a rights holder for those artists. This casts doubt on PMR’s boast that it had “notable artists” in its portfolio beyond a few exceptions(docdroid.net).
Checkered Past:
These revelation aligns with Jake P. Noch’s pattern of deception, as demonstrated by his previous Spotify streaming scam, in which he allegedly manipulated streaming numbers to fraudulently claim royalties(Vice). Taken together, these findings reinforce concerns that Noch’s business ventures are built onexploiting digital loopholes to fabricate revenue streams that do not reflect actual music industryparticipation. “This was one of the most egregious fraudulent streaming operations from a single rightsholder that Spotify had to deal with in its company’s history,” Spotify wrote in its complaint.
In addition to previous legal actions, Jake P. Noch's Pro Music Rights (PMR) filed 10 separate copyright
infringement lawsuits in December 2019 against major technology and streaming companies, including Apple, Google, YouTube, Amazon, SoundCloud, Pandora, Deezer, 7digital, iHeartRadio, and Rhapsody. These lawsuits, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, allege that these platforms publicly performed PMR's members' copyrighted musical works without authorization or compensation. PMR seeks statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each act of willful infringement. Jake P. Noch stated, "Each of the music streaming services sued has made a business decision to use music without compensating songwriters." (musicbusinessworldwide.com)
Furthermore, in March 2020, PMR filed an antitrust lawsuit against several industry players, including
Apple, Amazon, Google, YouTube, Spotify, and various industry associations, alleging the formation of an illegal cartel to suppress competition and fix prices in the performance rights market. Noch claimed that these entities engaged in a group boycott against PMR, refusing to negotiate licensing agreements and thereby violating antitrust laws.(guitargirlmag.com). These were dismissed.
Jake P Noch has abused the court system, in an attempt to legitimize his scheme to defraud the market, but fails to do so successfully to date outside of a few default judges to innocent victims who could not afford a lawyer.
Conclusion:
The pattern that emerges from all the above is one of systematic deception: Jake P. Noch, through PMR and related entities, appears to have fabricated a music rights empire – complete with a giant song catalog,Impressive market share, and huge revenues – to entice both investors and licensees. The evidence from PMR’s own database, legal filings, and financial statements strongly indicates that most of PMR’s purported assets (musical works and revenues) are fictitious or grossly overstated. Because of the lack of clarity and oversight in the industry, pariah’s on the industry like Jake P Noch have been able to scam the system by manufacturing a fake library of works and scamming the public markets and courts for his personal gains. Without swift action, Jake P Noch stands to pocket >$50M over the next year or so from his fraudulent PRO paired with defrauding the public markets through the courts. What began as an ostensible new competitor in music rights now looks to be a cautionary tale of how far one individual allegedly went to concoct success – and how the truth is catching up.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dq9qd0j3ADId

Look at the 46:26 mark on the above video.

...where Jake says that what he eventually did do - dump massive amounts shares - would be illegal and he should be sued.

"No intention of converting at this time...(I won't) be one of those CEOs who don't follow their fiduciary responsibility and then make a control block where they can convert billions of shares, not happening, not going to happen, please, again no legal advice but sue the hell out of me. If I did do that it would be fraud"

That is the most damning evidence (besides the massive dilution itself). A judge seeing that video would rap up the case against Jake P. Noch's fraud and rule against him.

Any judge sees this video and what Jake P. Noch said in the video and looks at the MASSIVE and repetitive 3a10 dilution with a 1 for 500,000 reverse split and another 1 for 1,000,000 reverse split (not to mention his outrageous salary), the case would pretty much be over for Jake...but hopefully the Federal Trade Commission investigation of him (since they have more resources) from a referral from congress for fraud will see all this damning video evidence and the blatant fraud and take action by referring him to the SEC and DOJ.

The FTC investigation is the beginning of the end for this scammer of epic proportions.

It would be great to see a class action lawsuit against Jake at the same time the FTC refers his case to the SEC and DOJ.

Yet even more concerning Jake P. Noch fraud:

JAKE P. NOCH - CURRENT BCAP CEO MASSIVE SPOTIFY FRAUD

https://www.billboard.com/pro/spotify-indie-label-streaming-fraud-millions-fake-accounts-countersuit/

Spotify Countersues Indie Label, Alleging Massive Streaming Fraud & Millions of Fake Accounts

Spotify has countersued indie label Sosa Entertainment and its founder Jake Noch, alleging massive streaming fraud, unjust enrichment and the creation of millions of fake accounts to generate…

In November 2019, indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment and its founder, 20-year-old Jake Noch, filed a lawsuit against Spotify that alleged the streaming service failed to pay royalties on over 550 million streams of its music. The suit, which was also brought on behalf of Noch’s PRO Pro Music Rights (which was later removed), sought $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement, and alleged that Spotify removed its music not because it detected “abnormal streaming activity,” as the service claimed, but because it was trying to dodge paying royalties on the streams.

Now, Spotify has fired back with a countersuit alleging that Noch “designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams” in order to “manipulate Spotify’s system to extract undeserved royalties at the expense of hardworking artists and songwriters.” The filing, which is supported by screenshots of messages allegedly between Noch and a “bot farmer” and charts that show streams on Noch’s music go from zero into the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, also alleges that Noch directed the bot farmer to create millions of fake accounts and changed the names of songs in his catalog to closely resemble those of established hit songs, like XXXTentacion’s “SAD!” and DJ Snake’s “Taki Taki.”

Indie Hip-Hop Label Files Suit Against Spotify Over Catalog Takedown

Noch, who lists himself as the chief executive of Sosa and Pro Music Rights, as well as a handful of additional music companies, has quite the proud litigious history, having released several press releases touting lawsuits against Spotify, Apple, Google, YouTube, Amazon, SoundCloud, Pandora, Deezer, iHeartRadio and more. Pro Music Rights claims a database of some 2 million tracks, including more than 23,000 by various artists using some form of the name “LEGATO,” like LEGATO_DIMY, LEGATODE45, LEGATODI001, LEGATOGILL2002 and LEGATOKAL999, to name a few.

According to Spotify’s counterclaim, filed Monday (May 18), the service first detected artificial streaming activity on Noch’s content in March 2016 and eventually banned his music from the service, before extending that ban to all content related to Noch. Noch then tried to “smuggle” the content back onto the service using slightly different names and created millions of fake accounts to stream that music.

In June 2016, a whistleblower contacted Spotify with screenshots that purported to show Noch directing the person to create millions (direct quote: “i need millions”) of fake accounts. And while Spotify had identified the fraud a few months prior, the company had already paid a small amount of royalties to Sosa and Noch — royalties that otherwise would have gone to legitimate songwriters with songs being streamed by legitimate fans. According to the complaint, for one of Noch’s albums that jumped from zero streams to more than 400,000 in just days, 99% of its streams came from Spotify’s ad-supported free tier and from accounts registered to male users in the United States, a pattern that was also found for other works.

Noch then changed distributors and changed the names of some of his companies in order to dodge Spotify’s fraud detection systems, with slightly different artist names, song titles and cover artwork. In one section of the complaint, attorneys wrote that “analysts at Spotify found that 5,500 ‘users’ streaming one of the Sosa albums ‘originated’ from a small American town with a total population of 10,000. For that album, the stream count jumped from zero to 749,000 streams in a span of only two days… This pattern is highly anomalous and not at all correlated to any possible pattern of genuine streaming activity.”

In another example from the complaint, in what the filing calls “title track parasitism,” Noch and Sosa uploaded tracks called “SAD!” with the same punctuation as the XXXTentacion hit, and “Taki Take,” shortly after the similarly-named DJ Snake song reached the top 20 of the Billboard Hot 100. Some of the tracks that Noch and Sosa would release on Spotify were AI-generated sound loops.

In all, Spotify’s counterclaim seeks relief for fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, indemnification, unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices. As another line in the complaint reads, “This was one of the most egregious fraudulent streaming operations from a single rights holder that Spotify had to deal with in its company’s history.”

After the publication of this story, Noch provided a comment to Billboard which reads, in part, “Spotify’s claims are laughable… I also greatly look forward to the day we get to go to court, and I hope that all of Spotify’s shareholders will pay close attention to these cases… Time will prove that we are right.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gmvd/spotify-sues-self-described-music-prodigy-who-allegedly-ran-royalties-scam

Spotify Sues Self-Described 'Music Prodigy' Who Allegedly Ran Royalties Scam

Spotify says Jake Noch "[generated] hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams" and engaged in "title track parasitism" among other fraudulent practices on its platform.

JC

By Jelisa Castrodale

May 19, 2020, 4:38pm

Last November, the 20-year-old head of indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment filed a massive (and massively complicated) lawsuit against Spotify, alleging that the digital music service hadn't paid royalties on more than 550 million streams of its songs. According to Billboard, Sosa Entertainment founder Jake Noch also named his other company, PRO Music Rights, as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and the co-plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages, asking for $150,000 for each infringement.

Noch's lawsuit accused Spotify of a number of transgressions, including unfair and deceptive business practices, willfully removing Sosa Entertainment's content, "obliterating" his expectations, and refusing to pay royalties. In a statement, Noch said that he was willing to "fight to the end" if it meant that Spotify would ultimately compensate the artists who were affected.

"I have a duty to see this through so that I can pay my artists what they are owed from Spotify," he said. "I know others feel the same way as I blaze this trail for the music community, who I know is behind me and roots for our success in bringing down Spotify."

Part of Noch's problems with the company started in the spring of 2017 when Sp