DOCSLIB.ORG

Music Licensing Transformed by the Passage of the Music Modernization Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Music Licensing Transformed by the Passage of the Music Modernization Act Music Licensing Transformed by the Passage of the Music Modernization Act BY STEVEN R. ENGLUND, ALISON I. STEIN AND AVA U. MCALPIN n October 11, 2018, the for public performance licenses products such as CDs and perma- president signed into administered by ASCAP and nent downloads and toward Internet law the Orrin G. Hatch– BMI, including randomized streaming. Digital music providers Bob Goodlatte Music assignment of judges to hear found it difficult and expensive to OModernization Act (MMA).1 This those proceedings and permit- obtain and administer mechanical major piece of bipartisan legisla- ting those judges to consider licenses for all the compositions in tion touches on nearly every aspect royalty rates for sound record- their vast libraries, while music pub- of U.S. copyright law that relates ings; and lishers and songwriters believed that to licensing of either musical com- providers often did not obtain valid positions or sound recordings. The (5) Provision of statutory licenses or pay required royalties legislation is the result of many procedures for producers, mix- and began filing litigation against years of examination of reform ers, and sound engineers to streaming services on that basis.2 proposals by Congress and the receive royalties for the use of The goal of the MMA’s blan- Copyright Office and many years of sound recordings under a stat- ket license is to make compulsory negotiations among industry stake- utory license. mechanical license administra- holders. The lengthy MMA makes tion for digital uses simpler and five principal sets of changes to the Blanket License for Digital more efficient and to ensure that a Copyright Act: Reproduction and Distribution of higher proportion of usage results Musical Compositions in payment of statutory royal- (1) Creation of a blanket The MMA’s centerpiece is a major ties to the proper music publishers statutory mechanical license rewrite of the “mechanical” com- and songwriters. To do so, the for digital music providers, pulsory license provisions in section MMA establishes the Mechanical which will be administered by 115 of the Copyright Act. That Licensing Collective, a nonprofit a new “Mechanical Licensing license was originally created as organization that will administer the Collective”; part of the Copyright Act of 1909 blanket license industrywide at the to provide a mechanism for licens- expense of digital music providers.3 (2) Substantial federaliza- ing reproduction and distribution of Among other things, the Mechani- tion of protection for pre-1972 musical compositions embodied in cal Licensing Collective will develop sound recordings, which gen- piano rolls. Even as recording tech- and provide a publicly accessible erally had been protected only nology progressed to vinyl records, database of current ownership infor- under state law; compact discs, and eventually down- mation for musical compositions.4 loaded digital files, the licensing The database will address a long-felt (3) Adoption of a “willing procedures remained substantially need for more accurate and timely buyer, willing seller” rate stan- the same. Under section 115, a com- ownership information for musical dard to be used when setting pulsory mechanical license was compositions, which should sim- rates for musical compositions available by serving on a copyright plify licensing of musical works for and sound recordings under owner a notice of intent (NOI) that all uses. statutory licenses; listed the individual musical com- Because it will take some time positions that the licensee intended to get the Collective up and run- (4) Changes to procedures to use, and then paying statutory ning, the blanket license will not be for “rate court” proceedings royalties on those individual compo- available until January 1, 2021.5 To sitions. In some cases, an NOI could obtain a blanket license once they be filed with the Copyright Office become available, a digital music Steven R. Englund, Alison I. Stein, instead. provider will need only submit a and Ava U. McAlpin are attorneys with However, after more than a notice to the Collective.6 During Jenner & Block. Jenner & Block advised century since the 1909 Act, the the transition period (i.e., prior to various clients in the industry negotiations mechanical license system was the availability of blanket licenses in connection with enactment of the under strain, as ownership of musi- on January 1, 2021), a digital music MMA. This article is based on an article cal composition copyrights became provider’s potential exposure to lia- that originally appeared in the MLRC increasingly fractured and the music bility for copyright infringement is MediaLawLetter. market migrated from the sale of limited, so long as the digital music Winter 2019 n Communications Lawyer n 17 provider engages in good-faith, in pre-1972 sound recordings. How- protection for these works will pro- commercially reasonable efforts to ever, a last-minute compromise vide uniform legal treatment that identify, locate, and pay royalties to resulted in substantially full feder- should facilitate commerce involv- the owners of musical compositions, alization of protection of pre-1972 ing these recordings and result in and pays any remaining unpayable recordings in the enacted version of consistent payment for the use of royalties to the Collective once it is the MMA. these works. up and running.7 Now, under a new section 1401 Efforts to implement the new of Title 17, owners of pre-1972 Willing Buyer, Willing Seller mechanical licensing procedures sound recordings have federal pro- Rate Standard have begun in earnest. On Novem- tection against unauthorized use of Previously, some users of music ber 5, 2018, the Copyright Royalty their recordings that largely mir- under statutory licenses paid statu- Board published a notice in the Fed- rors the scope of federal copyright tory royalties set under a “willing eral Register soliciting comments on protection. That protection will con- buyer, willing seller” standard, “necessary and appropriate modi- tinue for the following periods: while others paid statutory royal- fications and amendments” to its • For recordings published ties set under an older standard regulations following enactment of before 1923, the term of pro- that had been interpreted to allow the MMA.8 Industry groups also tection ends on December 31, the Copyright Royalty Board to have begun the process of iden- 2021; set below-market rates. The MMA tifying proposed leaders for the • For recordings published establishes a “willing buyer, willing Collective.9 between 1923 and 1946, the seller” standard for setting royalty term of protection continues rates for mechanical licenses under Federal Protection for Pre-1972 until December 31 of the year section 115 of the Copyright Act18 Sound Recordings 100 years after publication; and for all users of sound record- A separate title of the MMA, • For recordings published ings under the statutory license in referred to as the “Classics Pro- between 1947 and 1956, the section 114 of the Copyright Act.19 tection and Access Act,” or the term of protection continues “Classics Act,” extends copyright- until December 31 of the year Changes to ASCAP and BMI Rate like federal protection to sound 110 years after publication; Court Proceedings recordings fixed before February 15, and For many decades, royalty rates 1972, commonly referred to as “pre- • For all other recordings under performance licenses for 1972 recordings.” Previously, such (including unpublished record- musical compositions issued by the recordings were largely excluded ings and ones published after performing rights organizations from the federal copyright system.10 1956), the term of protection ASCAP and BMI have been sub- Instead, prior to the enactment ends on February 15, 2067.14 ject to oversight by federal judges in of the MMA, pre-1972 record- While protection under section the Southern District of New York, ings were potentially protected 1401 largely mirrors federal copy- pursuant to consent decrees between under state statutory and common right protection, there are important those organizations and the Depart- law until February 15, 2067.11 As differences. For example, formali- ment of Justice dating back to a result, the law across the coun- ties such as registration do not 1941. Proceedings to set rates under try lacked uniformity. For example, apply, but there is a special statu- those consent decrees are com- while most states gave the owner tory process for rights owners to monly referred to as “rate court” of a pre-1972 recording the right record claims to works to be eligi- proceedings. Music publishers to control reproduction and dis- ble to recover statutory damages.15 and songwriters have long sought tribution of its recording, and one Additional provisions address set- changes to certain aspects of those federal district court found that a tlements of state law claims.16 The proceedings. The MMA makes two state statute provided a property Classics Act also includes a special such changes. right in the public performance of statutory process for seeking per- First, assignments of judges to a pre-1972 recording,12 the high- mission for noncommercial uses of hear rate-setting proceedings will est courts of two states determined pre-1972 recordings that are not now be made randomly, on a case- that their state law provided no pub- being commercially exploited.17 by-case basis.20 Previously, one lic performance right in pre-1972 The continuation of state protec- judge had retained jurisdiction over sound recordings.13 Some large digi- tion for pre-1972 recordings when each consent decree for many years. tal music services refused to pay the all other works were brought into The aim of this change is to neutral- artists who created those works for the federal system in the Copy- ize any perceived biases and bring a the use of their recordings. right Act of 1976 was a historical fresh perspective to each rate court The Classics Act was originally anomaly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G
    The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G. Knowles, Partner, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Lisa M. Schreihart, Attorney Abstract The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (“MMA”), enacted October 11, 2018, is the most significant reform of music copyright law in decades. As the first major legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 to affect music royalties, the MMA has made major strides in improving compensation and to level the playing field for all music creators, including songwriters, legacy artists, and music producers. The MMA modernizes the musical works licensing scheme for today’s digital music environment, provides federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, and ensures that music producers can get a piece of the royalty pie. The MMA may also have some shortcomings that allow room for legislative growth in the modern music era. This paper describes the key parts of the MMA and eXamines the benefits and criticisms of the Act that have surfaced in the Act’s first year as law. An Overview of the Music Modernization Act The Music Modernization Act (MMA), proposed as H.R. 1551 by Representatives Orrin G. Hatch and Bob Goodlatte, combined the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (S. 2334), the Classics Protection and Access Act (S. 2393), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (S. 2625). The MMA, an amended version of S. 2823, passed unanimously both in the House as H.R. 5447 on April 25, 2018 and in the Senate on September 18, 2018. The MMA was enacted October 11, 2018. The MMA is intended to: 1) increase compensation to songwriters and streamline licensing of their music; 2) enable artists who recorded music before 1972 to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital services; and 3) enable music producers (e.g., record producers, sound engineers, and other studio professionals) to receive royalties for their creative contributions to recorded music.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Modernization Act Updates and Related News
    Information provided by the TUNED IN United States Copyright Oce Music Modernization Act Updates and Related News From the Copyright Office Issue 3 July 1, 2020 Dear Readers, These past few weeks and months have been hard for our country. While it is impossible for us to fully grasp the extent of that pain, they have been especially hard for members of the Black community. Writing a newsletter without acknowledging that is impossible. We all have a role to play in creating a fairer world, the Copyright Office and the music industry included. I hope we are all taking time to recharge and reflect. Why? Because, put simply, music has a powerful effect on us all. It is the soundtrack to social change, a call to action, and a source of solace and strength when we need it most. The industry has been, and continues to be, hit hard by COVID-19. But we need you more than ever. As we gear up for the license availability date in January, the Copyright Office is putting out a number of resources to educate the public about upcoming changes under the MMA. I’ve shared a few highlights with you below. With care, Regan Smith General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights U.S. Copyright Office Copyright Office Requests Public Comments on MLC Best Practices As directed by the Music Modernization Act (MMA), the U.S. Copyright Office is undertaking a public study and soliciting UNCLAIMED ROYALTIES STUDY public comments to recommend best practices that the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) may implement to effectively identify and locate copyright owners with unclaimed royalties of musical works, encourage copyright owners to claim accrued royalties, and ultimately reduce the incidence of unclaimed royalties.
    [Show full text]
  • Entertainment & Sports Lawyer 33.3
    Meet the New Boss: NOI Table Top Three Services Filing NOIs Number of NOIs Tech Giants Rely on April, 2016—January 201711 Per Service Amazon Digital Services LLC 19,421,902 Loopholes to Avoid Google, Inc. 4,625,521 Pandora Media, Inc. 1,193,346 Paying Statutory According to a recent story on the subject in Royalties with Mass Billboard12: Filings of NOIs at At this point [June 2016], 500,000 new the Copyright Office [songs] are coming online every month [much lower than the reported numerical By Chris Castle average to date], and maybe about 400,000 of them are by indie songwriters [which There is a fundamental rule of music licensing— may include covers], many of whom who if you don’t have a license from the copyright don’t understand publishing,’ Bill Colitre, owner, don’t use the music. In the new thing of VP/General Counsel for Music Reports, “permissionless innovation,”1 the “disruptors” a key facilitator in helping services to pay want to use the music anyway. Nowhere is publishers, tells Billboard. ‘For the long tail, this battle more apparent than the newest music publishing data from indie artists often new thing—mass filing of “address unknown” doesn’t exist’ when their music is distributed compulsory license notices for songs. to digital services. You’re probably familiar with U.S. compulsory Conversely, neither digital retailers, i.e., music mechanical licenses2 for songs mandated by users, nor aggregators appear to be able (or Section 1153 of the Copyright Act.4 We think perhaps willing) to collect publishing information
    [Show full text]
  • What We Don't See When We See Copyright As Property Jessica Litman University of Michigan Law School, [email protected]
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2018 What We Don't See When We See Copyright as Property Jessica Litman University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2018 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Jessica D. Litman. "What We Don't See When We See Copyright as Property." Cambridge L. J. 77, no. 3 (2018): 536-58. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT WE DON’T SEE WHEN WE SEE COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY JESSICA LITMAN* ABSTRACT. For all of the rhetoric about the central place of authors in the copyright scheme, our copyright laws in fact give them little power and less money. Intermediaries own the copyrights, and are able to structure licenses so as to maximise their own revenue while shrinking their pay-outs to authors. Copyright scholars have tended to treat this point superficially, because – as lawyers – we take for granted that copyrights are property; property rights are freely alienable; and the grantee of a property right stands in the shoes of the original holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Review—Updates and Changes from 2018
    Intellectual Property Review—Updates and Changes from 2018 Cosponsored by the Intellectual Property Section Friday, February 22, 2019 9 a.m.–1:30 p.m. 4 General CLE credits INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW—UPDATES AND CHANGES FROM 2018 SECTION PLANNERS Ian Gates, Dascenzo Intellectual Property Law PC, Portland Parna Mehrbani, Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland Thomas Vesbit, Lorenz & Kopf LLP, Portland Mark Wilson, Klarquist Sparkman LLP, Portland OREGON STATE BAR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ian D. Gates, Chair Parna A. Mehrbani, Chair-Elect Thomas E. Vesbit, Past Chair Christopher D. Erickson, Treasurer Mark W. Wilson, Secretary Scott D. Eads Kimberly Nicole Fisher Tomas Gomez-Arostegui Andrew J. Harrington Andrea Hicks Jasinek Kelly R. Lusk Kristin M. Malone Cassandra L. Mercer Kevin S. Ross Sara Maurer Vanderhoff Marie A. Weiskopf The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2019 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Intellectual Property Review—Updates and Changes from 2018 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule. v Faculty. .vii 1. Presentation Slides: Trademark Law Review . .1–i — Alicia Bell, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland, Oregon — Carla Todenhagen Quisenberry, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland, Oregon 2. 2018 Patent Law Review .
    [Show full text]
  • The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act
    The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act A Guide for Sound Recordings Collectors This study was written by Eric Harbeson, on behalf of and commissioned by the National Recording Preservation Board. Members of the National Recording Preservation Board American Federation of Musicians National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Billy Linneman Maureen Droney Alternate: Daryl Friedman American Folklore Society Burt Feintuch (in memoriam) National Archives and Records Administration Alternate: Timothy Lloyd Daniel Rooney Alternate: Tom Nastick American Musicological Society Judy Tsou Recording Industry Association of America Alternate: Patrick Warfield David Hughes Alternate: Patrick Kraus American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers SESAC Elizabeth Matthews John JosePhson Alternate: John Titta Alternate: Eric Lense Association for Recorded Sound Collections Society For Ethnomusicology David Seubert Jonathan Kertzer Alternate: Bill Klinger Alternate: Alan Burdette Audio Engineering Society Songwriters Hall of Fame George Massenburg Linda Moran Alternate: Elizabeth Cohen Alternate: Robbin Ahrold Broadcast Music, Incorporated At-Large Michael O'Neill Michael Feinstein Alternate: Michael Collins At-Large Country Music Foundation Brenda Nelson-Strauss Kyle Young Alternate: Eileen Hayes Alternate: Alan Stoker At-Large Digital Media Association Mickey Hart Garrett Levin Alternate: ChristoPher H. Sterling Alternate: Sally Rose Larson At-Large Music Business Association Bob Santelli Portia Sabin Alternate: Al Pryor Alternate: Paul JessoP At-Large Music Library Association Eric Schwartz James Farrington Alternate: John Simson Alternate: Maristella Feustle Abstract: The Music Modernization Act is reviewed in detail, with a Particular eye toward the implications for members of the community suPPorted by the National Recording Preservation Board, including librarians, archivists, and Private collectors. The guide attemPts an exhaustive treatment using Plain but legally precise language.
    [Show full text]
  • Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21St Century
    Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century Updated February 23, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43984 SUMMARY R43984 Money for Something: Music Licensing in the February 23, 2021 21st Century Dana A. Scherer Songwriters and recording artists are generally entitled to receive compensation for Specialist in (1) reproductions, distributions, and public performances of the notes and lyrics they create (the Telecommunications musical works), as well as (2) reproductions, distributions, and certain digital public Policy performances of the recorded sound of their voices combined with instruments (the sound recordings). The amount they receive, as well as their control over their music, depends on market forces, contracts between a variety of private-sector entities, and laws governing copyright and competition policy. Who pays whom, as well as who can sue whom for copyright infringement, depends in part on the mode of listening to music. Congress enacted several major updates to copyright laws in 2018 in the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA; P.L. 115-264). The MMA modified copyright laws related to the process of granting and receiving statutory licenses for the reproduction and distribution of musical works (known as “mechanical licenses”). The law set forth terms for the creation of a nonprofit “mechanical licensing collective” through which owners of copyrights in musical works could collect royalties from online music services. The law also changed the standards used by a group of federal administrative law judges, the Copyright Royalty Board, to set royalty rates for some statutory copyright licenses, as well as the standards used by a federal court to set rates for licenses to publicly perform musical works offered by two organizations representing publishers and composers, ASCAP and BMI.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Licensing in the 21St Century
    Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century (name redacted) Specialist in Telecommunications Policy June 7, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R43984 Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century Summary Songwriters and recording artists are legally entitled to get paid for (1) reproductions and public performances of the notes and lyrics they create (the musical works), as well as (2) reproductions, distributions, and certain digital performances of the recorded sound of their voices combined with instruments (the sound recordings). The amount they get paid, as well as their control over their music, depends on market forces, contracts among a variety of private-sector entities, and laws governing copyright and competition policy. Congress first enacted laws governing music licensing in 1909, when music was primarily distributed through physical media such as sheet music and phonograph records. At the time, some Members of Congress expressed concerns that absent a statutory requirement to make musical works widely available, licensees could use exclusive access to musical works to thwart competition. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) expressed similar concerns in the 1940s, when it entered into antitrust consent decrees requiring music publishers to license their musical works to radio broadcast stations. As technological changes made it possible to reproduce sound recordings on tape cassettes in the late 1960s and in the form of digital computer files in the 1990s, Congress extended exclusive reproduction and performance rights to sound recordings as well. Many of the laws resulted from compromises between those who own the rights to music and those who license those rights from copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EVALUATION of the MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT Bronté
    STREAMING INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: AN EVALUATION OF THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT Bronté Story1 I. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT The Music Modernization Act (MMA) was passed unanimously by the House and Senate and signed into law in October of 2018 by President Donald Trump.2 Its overall purpose is to modernize United States copyright law by bringing it into the twenty-first century.3 One of the most important aspects of this Act is it sets out to create a Mechanical Licensing Collective (“MLC”), which will be funded by digital music providing services that will in turn be granted blanket mechanical licenses for “interactive streaming or digital downloads of musical works.”4 The MLC is one of the main outcomes of Title I of the MMA, which embodies three different titles.5 Title I’s overall purpose is to assist in the music licensing industry as more streaming services continue to develop.6 Before this revision, streaming services required individual licenses 1. Bronté Story is a 2020 candidate for Juris Doctor from SMU Dedman School of Law. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Combined Journalism-Political Science from University of Arkansas – Fayetteville in 2017. 2. Dave Davis, Music Modernization Act of 2018 Becomes Law, COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE CTR.: COPYRIGHT BLOG (Oct. 11, 2018), http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-modernization-act- introduced-house-senate/. 3. See id. 4. Overview of the Music Modernization Act, https://lieu.house.gov/sites/lieu.house.gov/files/Overview%20of%20the%20Music%20Moderniz ation%20Act.pdf (last visited Mar. 7, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • What We Don't See When We See Copyright As Property
    Cambridge Law Jo11mal, 77(3), November 2018, pp. 536-558 ©Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2018. This is au Open Access article, distributed under the te1ms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi: l O. l Dl 7/S00081973180006DD WHAT WE DON'T SEE WHEN WE SEE COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY JESSICA LITMAN* ABSTRACT. For all of the rhetoric about the central place ofauthors in the copyright scheme, our copyright laws in fact give them little power and less money. Intermediaries own the copyrights, and are able to structure licenses so as to maximise their own revenue while shrinking their pay-outs to authors. Copyright scholars have tended to treat this point superficially, because - as lawyers - we take for granted that copyrights are property; property rights are ji-eely alienable; and the grantee of a property right stands in the shoes of the original holder. I compare the 1710 Statute of Anne, ·which created statut01y copyrights and consolidated them in the hands ofpublishers and printers, with the 1887 Dawes Act, which served a crucial fimction in the American divestment of Indian land. I draw from the stories of the two laws the same moral: Constituting something as a freely alienable property right will almost always lead to results mir­ roring or exacerbating disparities in wealth and bargaining power. T11e legal dogma surrounding property rights makes it easy for us not to notice. KEYWORDS: Copyright, Property, Authors' Rights, alienability, DawesAct.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT to CONGRESS February 2019 * * *
    ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS February 2019 * * * UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR IPEC ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS: This report is submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §8114. During the past two years, President Trump and his Administration have worked to promote strong intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, both domestically and abroad. As part of an integrated approach, the Trump Administration views our intellectual property strategy, policy and enforcement efforts, together, as key to helping secure the future of our innovative economy and to maintaining our competitive advantage. The Trump Administration’s Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress, developed by the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, brings together the combined and coordinated efforts of the White House, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Copyright Office. This report was originally mandated to be submitted by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator a decade ago by the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, and builds upon that framework to provide an overview of the Trump Administration’s intellectual property enforcement strategy and policy efforts. For the United States’ approach to intellectual property and innovation policy to be successful, it must continue to be a combined effort that includes all branches of government, the private sector, and our international partners. The Trump Administration continues to build on past strategic efforts in all areas of intellectual property policy, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, both domestically and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Need to Know About the Music Modernization Act Abdo & Abdo1
    VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1 WINTER 2019 Entertainment and Sports Lawyer A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION FORUM ON THE ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS INDUSTRIES What You Need To Know About The Music Modernization Act Abdo & Abdo1 n October 11, 2018, The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Good- sound recordings along with the musical performers, did not latte Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) was enjoy a statutory right to royalties on streaming revenues.14 Osigned into law.2 The MMA amends the Copyright The Copyright Act has been periodically updated to Act and will have a significant impact on the music industry protect authors’ economic rights in times of technologi- in general and the music publishing industry in particular.3 cal advancement.15 From the invention of phonorecords, to Since the last major revision of the Copyright Act in 1998,4 player piano rolls, digital radio, internet file sharing, per- the music industry has experienced a profound paradigm manent audio downloads, music streaming and beyond, shift. Most music consumers no longer purchase physical the law has always chased technology.16 The MMA is yet records, such as CDs, cassette tapes, and vinyl records.5 In another statutory fix that has been years in development fol- 2016, for the first time ever, streaming services accounted lowing years of need.17 This Article distills the MMA to its for the majority of U.S. music industry revenue.6 As of Mid- essential provisions, and explains its importance in the con- Year 2018, the Recording Industry Association of America text of the digital music streaming economy. (“RIAA”) reported that streaming accounts for 75% of U.S.
    [Show full text]