The Verge: 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.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61732015/455919660.jpg.0.jpg)
5 comments:
I don't fully understand every part of this new legislation, because I am not too familiar with how prior to this the streaming services for music world paid the creators. I do think having specific laws on the way music is now shared and enjoyed is important because of how much it has changed in the past few years. I am very interested to see how companies like Spotify may or may not change their policies. It does seem that the musicians and music creators are going to be better compensated for their work by how much it is actually listened too, which I think is always best to put the money in the hands of the creators and not just in the service that broadcasts it publicly. In theater, especially in our environment we constantly have to think about the copy rights to music, so I am curious how this will play a part in specific places looking for direct rights for songs.
This is a good thing to see in this day and age. Unfortunately with the onset of streaming, being a musician has become even more unaffordable. Especially through Spotify who pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream, depending on contracts and audience size. This is nowhere near the amount that small artists need to survive on, as they would be towards the lower end. If an artist receives 2 million listens at the lowest end of the bracket, then they would make 12,000 dollars, before tax. That is lower than minimum wage. This is why some smaller artists default to other platforms, such as BandCamp, which allows artists to name their own price for their music. BandCamp itself also takes a much smaller cut than platforms such as Spotify. This legislation will help to make sure that artists are more adequately compensated for their work from the past, and in the future.
I am actually very supportive of this new legislation! I remember for many years how hard it was for Spotify to secure the music of certain artists who believed in being paid for having their music streamed, most notably Taylor Swift. The amount that artists were previously being paid wasn't nearly enough, and the ability to stream music at incredibly low prices absolutely had a negative impact on record sales. While I never necessarily believed that Taylor Swift needed all that extra cash, I understood and supported the basic principle that she stood with. I have been concerned for awhile with how far behind the government is in legislating all the things that new technology can do. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is a very small one. I hope this new law will allow more people to have access to great music in a way that isn’t so detrimental to aspiring musicians.
So on the one hand, I am really excited that "songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972." I also think that the focus on bringing the law up to speed in a streaming age is important. "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." I think this is a really important shift, and while spotify and the like won't like it, these laws are here to protect the artists, not the distributors. The third part of the act allows for the "tak[ing of] 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." I am surprised that this legislation was able to pass--I assumed that spotify or maybe apple music would have put up more of a fight, or perhaps the ease of being able to obtain a blanket license was something that outweighs the financial loss.
Spotify came under a fine lense in 2014 when Taylor Swift refused to allow her music to be streamed on spotify (lucky for all the die hard T Swizzle fans out there a deal was later made). She citd her reasoning as monetary. Spotify allowed her music to be played for free and that did not sit well with her, saying it caused artists to “undervalue themselves or undervalue their work.” I see where she is coming from. An artist wants credit and compensation for people enjoying their work. Spotify was notoriously bad at paying their artists, many below a fraction of a cent per stream. Although personally I think placing financial barriers in art is not beneficial to the world at large, people need to be paid in order to live. I hope this copyright law helps artist get the money they deserve and I (quite selfishly) hope that it doesn't harm streaming services enough that they need to increase the financial barrier between people and art.
Post a Comment