Artist Advocacy

The Moses Avalon Company has two sides to it’s business model: a profit side, which since 2000 has offered consultations, tools and education courses to assist music business professionals with their carers. There is also a non-profit side which performs advocacy efforts and provides consultation services at deeply discounted rates.

Artist Advocacy can mean many things. For us it primarily means two things:

First, we make great efforts to help keep the music space safe and fair for music creators so that the art form can prosper. These efforts include vetting new offerings to the music business public, exposing malfeasance and rip offs, as well as working with companies who may not realize that what they are doing might be harmful to music makers.

Secondly, advocacy means making help affordable. To facilitate that mission, the company offers discounted services that are subsidized by private donations. Up and coming artists, producers and songwriters in need of services pay only a small co-pay (displayed next to each service) with the balance of the services’ fees subsided by the Artists Advocacy Fund.

Some of our campaigns are listed below.

If you would like to make a donation to this fund you may do so by clicking here. Any amount is appreciated.

If you are an artist or producer who qualifies for this fund, go here for a list of services and co-pays.


  • Ongoing: Several times a year Mr. Avalon gives free lectures around the country teaching artist how to hang on to their rights.
  • In October of 2004 The Moses Avalon Company in concert with the Neighboring Rights Organization SENA facilitated the location and return of approximately $1,000,000 in unclaimed royalties to US artists and their producers.
  • In August 2003 Mr. Avalon, via articles and community pressure, focused on several online companies that took exclusive rights from artists, offering to distribute their music through Apple iTunes. After four months of consistent attention, one such company, CD Baby, announced that they intend to return $200,000.00 to their clients and admitted that no actual deal with iTunes existed at the time in which they took the money.
  • In September 2002 Attorney Generals in New Jersey and California used Mr. Avalon as a noted consultant to help build a case against RIAA-affiliated labels, regarding price-fixing of CDs in retail chains. This effort resulted in the return of over $150,000,000.00 in cash and goods to consumers from major labels.
  • In August 2002 the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee on Record Industry Accounting Practices spoke with and quoted Mr. Avalon in their preparatory brief to the committee. This information was used to impeach the RIAA at the Sacramento hearing, and has resulted in much attention on reform in the area of artist royalty reporting.
  • In February 2002 a Moses Supposes article drew out the Harry Fox Agency and the RIAA, who had entered into a morally-questionable agreement to create a blanket license for internet use: this agreement had the potential to deprive songwriters of millions in download and streaming royalties. This focused much attention on the conflict of interest created, because the RIAA was the sole owner of SoundExchange, the agency chosen to collect and distribute these sound recoding royalties. SoundExchange is now separated from RIAA.
  • In March 2001 a Moses Supposes article popped the lid off the Pacific Coast One-Stop, a California Distributor responsible for distribution default of payment for the sale of millions of records. Pacific was forced out of business five months later.