6 ms·
Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act
- moviuro 8y agohttps://archive.is/wE4qo https://archive.is/wE4qo Viva la GDPR...
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoDon't blame the GDPR (read: basic human rights to privacy) for the LA Times not respecting them.
- moviuro 8y agoI really don't blame the GDPR, I'm glad LA Times publicly acknowledges that they don't respect their readers. HN should totally have a bot for this kind of links, and automatically add the archive link in a comment.
- sp332 8y agoDoes hitting the "web" link underneath the URL help in this case? You could pull the Google cache I think.
- tinkerteller 8y agoPretty bad journalism. The article is full of what other people think of this act without ever revealing what really this new act does!
- harshreality 8y agoIt modernizes music. Why are you being such a buzzkill?! /s The main thing that seems clear is that it streamlines licensing somewhat.
- triodan 8y agoWhat does the new act entail? This article is severely lacking on that front.
- da_murvel 8y agoApparently it "ensures artists receive the compensation they are owed, encourages fair industry competition, and protects the intellectual property rights of studios nationwide—among other benefits."[0] However, I find it difficult to find anything about how this is actually implemented. Apart from this: "t changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available for streaming on these services and limits the liability a service can incur if it adheres to the new process. It funds the creation of a comprehensive database with buy in from all the major publishers and digital service providers." [1] Which to me sounds very vague. Found this also. "The MMA is a bill to be added to legislation with the goal of establishing a new collecting society, called the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), that would be empowered to provide a blanket license for streaming services to companies, covering mechanical rights in any songs not otherwise covered by a digital company’s direct deals with music publishers."[2] So if I interpret this quote correctly, it basically means that there's going to be some sort of organisation chaperoning artist and music makers without a license to their music, collecting a license fee from streaming services and paying it to said musicians and music makers? [0]https://mashable.com/article/music-modernization-act-your-money/ https://mashable.com/article/music-modernization-act-your-mo... [1] https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8216857/music-modernization-act-what-is-it-why-does-it-matter-jordan-bromley https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8216857/music-mo... [2]https://blog.songtrust.com/what-is-the-music-modernization-act https://blog.songtrust.com/what-is-the-music-modernization-a...
- LeoPanthera 8y agoThe act is complicated and difficult to summarise, but they didn't even try. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act Unlike most Wikipedia articles, reading just the first paragraph is not, in this case, enough.
- syshum 8y ago> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the copyright is held by a company The erosion of a vibrant Public Domain catalog is one of the greatest travesties of modern human civilization
- shshhdhs 8y ago> The erosion of a vibrant Public Domain catalog is on of the greatest travesties of modern human civilization Ok, well I was with you until that last point. This is not one of the “greatest” travesties compared to wars, genocides, concentration camps, torture, mass murders, pillage, etc. Some cultures were literally wiped from history, and it puts things in perspective. We can hopefully fix copyright with future legislation, but it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever.
- pjc50 8y agoSome of the more obscure stuff does end up lost entirely. This is more of a problem with digital formats, especially games, where copying is intrinsic to preservation. The arcade machines with self-wiping "DRM" systems are a particularly strong example. Most of the old Doctor Who episodes that have been recovered have been from copies that were not supposed to have existed.
- Angostura 8y agoActually those old Doctor Who episode were recorded perfectly legally. UK Copyright legislation has an exemption for recording off-air broadcasts for personal use for the purpose of timeshifting. It doesn't say how long you are allowed to shift the time.
- soundwave106 8y ago
- larkeith 8y agoWhy is it I'm so dubious that anything "hailed by the Music Industry" will prove beneficial for anyone except the corporations who own the copyrights?
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y agoYou can bet that if no record labels are speaking out against this law that it directly benefits them in some way.
- gophicer 8y agoMusician here. This means jack. Also kid rock? I mean I understand why he is there. Trumps base... But that dude just sucks.
- kizer 8y agoI’m glad I’m not the only one who felt confused and underwhelmed after reading this piece! I wanted the details.
- branksy 8y agoFrom Wikipedia: The bills in both House and Senate had bipartisan support, as well as strong support from numerous music industry groups representing musicians, producers, and publishers, as well as from digital streaming media services and related industry groups. Notably missing from the list are musicians themselves (who are the "groups representing them"?) and consumers. Is this actually a good thing? Will it lead to greater income for the majority of musicians (as opposed to the top 0.1%?). Will it end up raising prices on Spotify or making it harder for new streaming competitors to enter the market?
- weliketocode 8y agoI have the same concerns. I'm especially suspicious of anything with seemingly unanimous support.
- creaghpatr 8y ago>Intended to update music copyright law for the digital era, H.R. 1551 (formally the “Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act”) accomplishes three key things: making sure songwriters and artists receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972; allocating royalties for music producers; and updating licensing and royalty rules for streaming services to pay rights-holders in a more streamlined fashion, via a new, independent entity. Under the act, many music creators will have a more reliable way of collecting the money that they’re due. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/trump-signs-music-modernization-act-736185/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/trump-signs-mu...
- Bartweiss 8y agoThe support list definitely put my hackles up, as did the name. It's not quite "The Patriot Act", but it's in that "embarrassing to oppose the name" vein. To my surprise, it actually seems fine. The lack of representation for artists looks like a product of the law's main features not impacting active performers. The law has four distinct features, none of which have a significant impact on "some up-and-coming band played a song and wants to get paid". 1. It establishes a non-profit agency to track mechanical license holders of works, and allows streaming services to pay license fees into that agency, which will pass them along. This sounds like it might have bad effects, but in practice it's apparently an attempt to fix the problem of "Spotify can't offer this song because they can't find who they need to pay". Importantly, 'mechanical license' means "music and words", so this will track who owns Happy Birthday, but not change anything about how Spotify pays performers over "the song as we wrote and performed it". And since mechanical licensing is already compulsory, the fees can go to a clearinghouse without any need to negotiate a price. 2. It extends federal copyright laws to pre-1972 music. This will undoubtedly help some people and hurt others, but it mostly serves to clear out a rat's nest of state laws. Some much older works will enter public domain in 3 years, newer stuff will receive the usual 95 year copyright window. 3. Guarantees a portion of mechanical license fees to producers/engineers/etc who played a creative role in the production. Apparently not very controversial. 4. Fixes some jurisdictional weirdness with royalty rate disputes by spreading the cases across more judges. Mostly this looks like it fixes one big liability issue ("wait, who do we pay?") and several issues with existing laws, and it looks like artists are indifferent because the situation for people who actually perform a song is unaffected. I'm pleasantly surprised.
- bsenftner 8y agoKid Rock? This Congress? Whatever they are doing is fucked, and you can bet on that.
- sethhochberg 8y agoI work for an internet radio company and deal a lot with streaming royalties, I'll try to offer some more context here: - "groups representing (musicians)" from the article is, in this case, almost certainly referring to Performing Rights Organizations (aka PROs). The PROs are groups like ASCAP, BMI, and SoundExchange who manage the business of collecting and distributing royalties to artists. When you make a public performance of a work, or when you broadcast it in some way, you're required to obtain license from one or more of these PROs and report your usage of the work to them. They then determine what the artist is owed based on your usage. - big service providers in the industry, like Spotify or Pandora, can make "digital direct deals" with labels and content suppliers. This lets them skip parts of the process of reporting their royalties to PROs, and instead they negotiate and pay the record label or content supplier directly. A direct license like this is typically also required if you'll be offering downloads of tracks, not just streaming broadcast. - the biggest/best change on the artist side is from the Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) part of the collection of bills passed here, which officially recognizes producers for their contributions to a work and makes them eligible to receive royalties - the biggest/best change on the steaming provider side comes from the Music Modernization Act (MMA) part of the collection, which introduces the concept of a blanket mechanical license. Interactive streaming (think on-demand usage where the user has lots of control, not radio-style usage where the user has little to no control) requires a streaming mechanical license, and up until this point, these licenses have been cumbersome to get - you don't get one by default, you have to request one specifically for each track you want to play from the copyright holder, and the streaming provider themselves is responsible for trying to track down the rights on their own. Clearinghouses like the Harry Fox Agency try to simplify this process and provide tools for automating it, but, it is clunky at best. The MMA makes streaming mechanical licenses much more like a noninteractive statutory license, where no pre-approval is required for use as long as the streaming provider is properly registered with PROs and promises they'll record their usage, report it properly, and keep some money on-hand for the eventual royalty bill. I don't have much opinion on the parts of the legislation that relate to copyright for pre-1972 works. In short: it should be easier to get paid if you're a music producer, easier to get paid if you're an artist whose work is being used by interactive streaming services but you aren't big enough to be covered by a supplier or major-label direct license, and the barriers to entry for a service who wants to provide interactive streaming just got a little lower on the licensing side.