President Trump has signed the Music Modernization Act (MMA) into law, officially passing the most sweeping reform to copyright law in decades. The bill, heralded by labels, musicians, and politicians, unanimously passed through both the House and Senate before going to the president.
The bill revamps Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act and aims to bring copyright law up to speed for the streaming era. These are the act’s three main pieces of legislation:
- The Music Modernization Act, which streamlines the music-licensing process to make it easier for rights holders to get paid when their music is streamed online
- The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings
- The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio (Notably, this is the first time producers have ever been mentioned in copyright law.)
What does all this mean? First, songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972. Second, the MMA will improve how songwriters are paid by streaming services with a single mechanical licensing database overseen by music publishers and songwriters. The cost of creating and maintaining this database will be paid for by digital streaming services. Third, the act will take unclaimed royalties due to music professionals and provide a consistent legal process to receive them. Previously, these unclaimed royalties were held by digital service providers like Spotify. All of this should also ensure that artists are paid more and have an easier time collecting money they are owed.
As part of the MMA, blanket licensing and royalty payments will be more streamlined. As Meredith Rose from Public Knowledge told The Verge earlier this month:
“It also does a thing which you couldn’t really do with these kinds of licenses before: obtain a blanket license. You can license the whole corpus of musical compositions, and before you [didn’t have] an entity that was allowed to license everything. So if Spotify was starting today they’d be able to jump in and say, ‘Okay, I want all of it,’ write one check, and then just kind of go about their business.”
“The Music Modernization Act is now the law of the land, and thousands of songwriters and artists are better for it,” said Recording Industry Association of America president Mitch Glazier in a statement. “The result is a music market better founded on fair competition and fair pay. The enactment of this law demonstrates what music creators and digital services can do when we work together collaboratively to advance a mutually beneficial agenda.”
Comments
Whoever came up with this acronym deserves a medal.
By supermarkert on 10.11.18 1:14pm
Holy shit I skimmed past this part. Thank you for pointing out what I would have missed in my haste!
By Sadiki on 10.11.18 8:15pm
This law seems to address a bunch of problems plaguing the industry, both streaming and music. Stuff might cost a bit more, but the law was long overdue for an update.
By Fkeefe4th on 10.11.18 1:54pm
Can I get paid more for work I did decades ago too, please?
Wait, I have a better idea. Let’s make the copyright term more reasonable, ’cause nobody should be getting paid for something they did in 1971. All of those copyrights should be expired.
By Grouchy Ivan on 10.11.18 2:01pm
If an old song still provides as much value today as decades ago (as in people still find it entertaining to listen to), why shouldn’t they be paid anymore? Unlike patents, it doesn’t stifle innovation, so I’m not sure on what basis are you basing your argument on.
By OpssYourBad on 10.11.18 6:57pm
Why doesn’t that principle apply to builders, if a building is still being use and someone is still making money from it decades after it built, then surely they should still be getting their cut of the profits.
By redeo on 10.11.18 8:26pm
Because a contractor gets paid to perform a service. That’d be like asking why the principle doesn’t apply to your mechanic. He can fix your car, and then you can also pay him for every mile you drive afterwards too…
By frederick on 10.11.18 8:58pm
Because the builder doesn’t own the home and never did, and the songwriter does own the song. If you created something, you would want to have control over how it’s used too, that’s why people go to the copyright office and if someone else uses their song, they can have it taken down and even get money for it, if the song is registered, etc.
By peartechlish on 10.11.18 10:02pm
Patents expire, Intelectual property is not permanent even if you area genius Nikola Tesla and none can repplicate your intentions over a century later.
Patents then should also go way back instead of being limited to 25 years i think it is
By SDE Bellisarius on 10.12.18 1:30am
I suggest you reread what’s written.
By OpssYourBad on 10.12.18 6:42am
Because no additional value has been added, and the product/service has been paid for already. A better question is why do you think someone deserves compensation far beyond a fair price for the value provided? At this point you are essentially paying an exorbitant amount for a copying facility which has negligible cost. You are paying for gatekeeping not for the original works.
By DrRoboDog on 10.12.18 3:44am
Who are you to determine what is a fair price? If you don’t like it, don’t use it. If someone listens to the music still, then value is being added, as the listener and whoever chose to use the track both chose it over other songs.
By OpssYourBad on 10.12.18 6:44am
Who are you to determine that there is no fair price? After a song has generated 1000+ X cost as profit, why is it fair they deserve more? Each copy does not increase the cost.
By DrRoboDog on 10.16.18 4:13am
I never pretended to determine the fair price. That’s up to the market. If someone pays without deception or coercion, then they deserve to earn it. What the cost is is completely irrelevant.
Feel free not to pay if you feel like it’s not worth it, that’s how capitalism works.
When you sit on the chair you bought, it adds value to YOUR life. You paid for the chair (you gave value to the maker by paying it money), and the maker of the chair gave you value through your utility of the chair.
This is basic economics.
By OpssYourBad on 10.16.18 1:56pm
Agreed, unfortunately the middle men have manipulated the market to favour them in spite of both the content producer and consumer. In the past marketing and distribution were a huge financial burden and so their business model was necessary, however in today’s age the cost of both has dropped to almost nothing. Using their vast wealth they have lobbied for laws to protect their business model, and positioned themselves as a monopoly in distribution. Artists are coerced into accepting low price for their product, and consumers are deceived of the product cost, as well as the pay artist receive.
Exactly, just as the chair adds value to your life, so does the song add value to your life, neither of which is increasing value of the product itself, and so in both cases you shouldn’t have to pay more than the original cost.
By DrRoboDog on 10.17.18 5:04am
If you made something that is still making money for others, wouldn’t you want a cut of that?
By pallentx on 10.11.18 7:03pm
No way, copyright should last at least 70 years. Isn’t that the whole point of copyrights? You should be more concerned with extension of copyrights, like Mickey Mouse with Disney.
By peartechlish on 10.11.18 10:00pm
Yes! This is awesome news! Now please do photography next because it’s pretty much become a free-for-all now.
By NYC Babe on 10.11.18 2:12pm
Did hell freeze over? Is the Verge giving credit to Donald Trump?
By CptPatchyBeard on 10.11.18 2:16pm
Did hell freeze over? Did he do something reasonable?
By Nerdburgher on 10.11.18 2:19pm
"He" didn’t do it. He just didn’t stop it.
It wasn’t his idea. It wasn’t his legislation.
By pallentx on 10.11.18 7:04pm
If you read past the first sentence, you can get more information on the subject:
By yossarian729 on 10.11.18 3:10pm
lolz
By DJ Hemz on 10.11.18 3:48pm
The fact that it passed unanimously in the House and Senate is way more impressive than Trump being able to write his name on a piece of paper.
By Quint126 on 10.12.18 10:03am
He signed something he knew nothing about. The dude will sign anything.
By tg_nyc on 10.12.18 9:37am