|
|||||||
Music Copyright Changed in US |
Share Thread
|
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 19 - 03:46 AM It appears to me that after having been stopped for several years by Sonny Bono (rest his soul), the Copyright Clock has begun to click again. Works published in 1923 moved into the public domain in 2019, and the world has now resumed acquiring a new year's worth of music every year. The songs of the Great American Songbook will be coming into the Public Domain over the next two decades. I wonder if this will herald a rebirth of this wonderful collection of songs. Here's the scoop: Ah, it's a wonderful time to be alive! -Joe- |
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 17 Dec 18 - 02:04 AM I also hope"Big G" will continue their "Chilling Effects" transparency. Sincerely, Gargoylr <It is a brillant example of verbal judo that permits Fox Agency to trip over their own hubris. |
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: medievallassie Date: 17 Dec 18 - 12:06 AM I really do wish Mudcat had a LIKE button! |
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:35 PM It appears....from my last 5.5 months in the Schengen Area ... access to simple USA newspapers is restricted. The news-media is requied to register. It is easy to enderstand why the flow to the"torrent" is ten-fold...mudcat...mremains, remarkably. neuatrak |
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Dec 18 - 12:23 AM The SoundExchange link that Rapparee provided gives some good information. I was especially interested to see that the law provides for a publicly accessible database for song ownership information. This is a question I deal with a lot, and such a database would be very helpful to me. The Harry Fox Agency Songfile database just isn't comprehensive enough, so licensing always involves a lot of guesswork. This is bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously or nearly so, so I tend to think it will be OK. Maybe that's a wrong assumption, but my reading of the articles makes me think it will be fair and just. Here's what SoundExchange says:
After undertaking a thorough review of the Copyright Act during his tenure as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced comprehensive music licensing reform legislation (H.R.5447) with Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on April 10, 2018. On April 11, 2018, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously (32-0) to approve the legislation and on April 25, 2018 the full House voted unanimously (415-0) to pass the legislation. On May 10, 2018, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Senate version of the Music Modernization Act (S.2823). The Music Modernization Act is a bipartisan package that incorporates several pieces of consensus legislation. Background The bill includes the CLASSICS Act (H.R.3301/S.2393), the AMP Act (H.R.881/S.2625) and rate standard parity provisions from the Fair Play Fair Pay Act (H.R.1836) and would: The bill also reflects elements from the previously introduced Music Modernization Act (H.R.4706/S.2334) and would: Rap also provided a link to TheVerge.com, which also has good information:
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: 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:
“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.” |
Subject: RE: Music Copyright Changed in US From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:38 PM It appears to be aimed at fairness, begging the question, "where's the catch?" There probably is one in there somewhere. |
Subject: Music Copyright Changed in US From: Rapparee Date: 15 Dec 18 - 03:27 PM I haven't seen anything on this here and it has some big implications, so here goes. The The Music Modernization Act has been signed into law. Here's another link. |
Share Thread: |
Subject: | Help |
From: | |
Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") |