{ "id": "R43984", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R43984", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century", "retrieved": "2021-03-18T04:03:48.797498", "id": "R43984_23_2021-02-23", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-02-23_R43984_06b3e9e9cf156bc7abcabe7603d9c74a6eae186d.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43984/23", "sha1": "06b3e9e9cf156bc7abcabe7603d9c74a6eae186d" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-02-23_R43984_06b3e9e9cf156bc7abcabe7603d9c74a6eae186d.html" } ], "date": "2021-02-23", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43984", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581860, "date": "2018-06-07", "retrieved": "2018-06-13T22:13:46.035553", "title": "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.\nCongress 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.\nAs 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. In some cases, the government sets the rates for music licensing, and the rate-setting standards that it uses reflect those compromises among interested parties.\nAs consumers have purchased fewer albums over the last 20 years, overall spending on music has declined. Nevertheless, as streaming services that incorporate attributes of both radio and physical media have entered the market, consumer spending has increased during the last two years. In 2016, for the first time ever, streaming and other digital music services represented the majority of the recorded music industry\u2019s revenues. As these services have proliferated and the number of songs released has increased, the process of ensuring that the various copyright holders are paid for their musical works and their sound recordings has grown more complex. Performers, songwriters, producers, and others have complained that in some cases current copyright laws make it difficult to earn enough money to support their livelihoods and create new music. In addition, several songwriters and publishers have sued music streaming services, claiming that the services have streamed their songs while making little effort to locate and pay the rights holders.\nIn April 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 415-0 to pass H.R. 5447, the Music Modernization Act, as amended. The bill would, among other things, modify copyright laws related to the process of granting, receiving, and suing for infringement of mechanical licenses, would create a new nonprofit \u201cmechanical licensing collective\u201d through which musical work copyright owners could collect royalties from online music services, and would change the standards used by a federal agency, the Copyright Royalty Board, to set royalty rates for certain statutory music licenses.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43984", "sha1": "d06d1766097f3684569890b58f71dd6c691b0152", "filename": "files/20180607_R43984_d06d1766097f3684569890b58f71dd6c691b0152.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R43984_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180607_R43984_images_019f3f6ba1141a8adbeb2b30d91fc2dffc8299af.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43984", "sha1": "caf9b623f727ecb9b1b83a6a0ad773c4bb63556f", "filename": "files/20180607_R43984_caf9b623f727ecb9b1b83a6a0ad773c4bb63556f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4754, "name": "Intellectual Property" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 580694, "date": "2018-04-30", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T10:17:19.622956", "title": "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.\nCongress 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.\nAs 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. In some cases, the government sets the rates for music licensing, and the rate-setting standards that it uses reflect those compromises among interested parties.\nAs consumers have purchased fewer albums over the last 20 years, overall spending on music has declined. Nevertheless, as streaming services that incorporate attributes of both radio and physical media have entered the market, consumer spending has increased during the last two years. In 2016, for the first time ever, streaming and other digital music services represented the majority of the recorded music industry\u2019s revenues. As these services have proliferated and the number of songs released has increased, the process of ensuring that the various copyright holders are paid for their musical works and their sound recordings has grown more complex. Performers, songwriters, producers, and others have complained that in some cases current copyright laws make it difficult to earn enough money to support their livelihoods and create new music. In addition, several songwriters and publishers have sued music streaming services, claiming that the services have streamed their songs while making little effort to locate and pay the rights holders.\nIn April 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 415-0 to pass H.R. 5447, the Music Modernization Act, as amended. The bill would modify copyright laws related to the process of granting, receiving, and suing for infringement of mechanical licenses, would create a new nonprofit \u201cmechanical licensing collective\u201d through which musical work copyright owners could collect royalties from online music services, and would change the standards used by a federal agency, the Copyright Royalty Board, to set royalty rates for certain statutory music licenses.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43984", "sha1": "1852112b7e45cb9aa5c535681cdc1d0e591320f0", "filename": "files/20180430_R43984_1852112b7e45cb9aa5c535681cdc1d0e591320f0.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R43984_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180430_R43984_images_019f3f6ba1141a8adbeb2b30d91fc2dffc8299af.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43984", "sha1": "82823602bbe88ff1ef7d54d93ce6ed0ac0cd5b6d", "filename": "files/20180430_R43984_82823602bbe88ff1ef7d54d93ce6ed0ac0cd5b6d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4754, "name": "Intellectual Property" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579978, "date": "2018-04-10", "retrieved": "2018-04-11T22:07:59.069333", "title": "Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century", "summary": "Songwriters and recording artists are legally permitted 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.\nCongress 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 consent decrees requiring music publishers to license their musical works to radio broadcast stations.\nAs 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. In some cases, the government sets the rates for music licensing, and the rate-setting standards that it uses reflect those compromises among interested parties.\nAs consumers have purchased fewer albums over the last 20 years, overall spending on music has declined. Nevertheless, as streaming services that incorporate attributes of both radio and physical media have entered the market, consumer spending has increased during the last two years. In 2016, for the first time ever, streaming and other digital music services represented the majority of the recorded music industry\u2019s revenues. As these services have proliferated and the number of songs released has increased, it has become more difficult to ensure that the various copyright holders are paid for their musical works and their sound recordings. Performers, songwriters, producers, and others have complained that in some cases current copyright laws make it difficult to earn enough money to support their livelihoods and create new music. In addition, several songwriters and publishers have sued music streaming services, claiming that the services have streamed their songs while making little effort to locate and pay the rights holders. \nSeveral bills related to music licensing are pending in the 115th Congress. Among the goals of these various bills is to make it easier for licensees to locate and pay music rights holders, to reduce the licensees\u2019 risk of being sued for unauthorized uses of songs, to make it less expensive for rights holders to sue for minor claims of infringement, and to revise the criteria the government uses to set royalty rates.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43984", "sha1": "e6dcd078aced688ea732a56f4cf3be237868c4be", "filename": "files/20180410_R43984_e6dcd078aced688ea732a56f4cf3be237868c4be.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R43984_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180410_R43984_images_019f3f6ba1141a8adbeb2b30d91fc2dffc8299af.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43984", "sha1": "e7524acb266b699a2123977e0b3e60a4afa84181", "filename": "files/20180410_R43984_e7524acb266b699a2123977e0b3e60a4afa84181.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4754, "name": "Intellectual Property" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579911, "date": "2018-04-06", "retrieved": "2018-04-09T13:04:30.664737", "title": "Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century", "summary": "Songwriters and recording artists are legally permitted 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. \nCongress 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 consent decrees requiring music publishers to license music to radio broadcast stations.\nAs 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. In some cases, the government sets the rates for music licensing, and the standards that it uses reflect those compromises among interested parties.\nAs consumers have purchased fewer albums over the last 20 years, overall spending on music has declined. Nevertheless, as streaming services that incorporate attributes of both radio and physical media have entered the market, consumer spending has increased during the last two years. In 2016, for the first time ever, streaming and other digital music services represented the majority of the recorded music industry\u2019s revenues. As these services have proliferated and the number of songs released has increased, it has become more difficult to ensure that the various copyright holders are paid for their musical works and their sound recordings. Performers, songwriters, producers, and others have complained that in some cases current copyright laws make it difficult to earn enough money to support their livelihoods and create new music. In addition, several songwriters and publishers have sued music streaming services, claiming that the services have streamed their songs while making little effort to locate and pay the rights holders. \nSeveral bills related to music licensing are pending in the 115th Congress. Among the goals of these various bills is to make it easier for licensees to locate and pay music rights holders, to reduce the licensees\u2019 risk of being sued for unauthorized uses of songs, to make it less expensive for rights holders to sue for minor claims of infringement, and to revise the criteria the government uses to set royalty rates.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43984", "sha1": "8f4b5dc52013c4fada8b3048aaeb82bd6c7ae878", "filename": "files/20180406_R43984_8f4b5dc52013c4fada8b3048aaeb82bd6c7ae878.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R43984_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180406_R43984_images_019f3f6ba1141a8adbeb2b30d91fc2dffc8299af.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43984", "sha1": "53505d4abc239243f3e94a12c000d3249f911673", "filename": "files/20180406_R43984_53505d4abc239243f3e94a12c000d3249f911673.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4754, "name": "Intellectual Property" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 449310, "date": "2016-01-29", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:21:32.058054", "title": "Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century", "summary": "Taylor Swift made headlines around the world when she pulled her entire catalog of recorded music from the digital steaming service Spotify in November 2014. She reportedly felt that Spotify devalued her music by making her entire albums available on its free service. As a songwriter, a composer, and a singer, Ms. Swift is entitled to get paid for (1) reproductions and public performances of the notes and lyrics she creates (the musical works), as well as (2) reproductions, distributions, and certain digital performances of the recorded sound of her voice combined with the instruments (the sound recordings). The amount Ms. Swift gets paid for her musical works and sound recordings depends on market forces, contracts among a variety of private-sector entities, and federal laws governing copyright and competition policy. \nThe laws that determine who pays whom in the digital world were written, by and large, at a time when music was primarily performed via radio broadcasts or distributed through physical media (such as sheet music and phonograph records), and when each of these forms of music delivery represented a distinct channel with unique characteristics. With the emergence of the Internet, Congress updated some copyright laws in the 1990s. It applied one set of legal provisions to digital services it viewed as akin to radio broadcasts and another set to digital services it viewed as akin to physical media. Since that time consumers have increasingly been consuming music via digital services that incorporate attributes of both radio and physical media. However, companies that compete in enabling consumers to access music may face very different costs to license music, depending on the technology they use and the features they offer. These differences in technology and features also affect the amount of money received by songwriters, performers, music publishers, and record companies. \nU.S. copyright law allows performers and record labels to collectively designate an agent to receive payments and to negotiate the licensing fees that certain types of digital music services must pay to stream music to their customers. Groups representing public radio and educational stations reached voluntary agreements with the agent, SoundExchange, in 2015. Rates paid by parties that do not reach voluntary agreements with SoundExchange during a limited negotiation period are instead set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress.\nOn December 16, 2015, the CRB set rates for online music streaming services for the period 2016 through 2020. For nonsubscription services, the CRB reduced the per-stream rate it had set in the previous rate proceeding, but the costs paid by several \u201csmall\u201d music streaming services are likely to increase. Advocates of the small streaming services have launched a petition asking Congress to either allow their previous agreements to continue indefinitely or discontinue the requirement that small streaming services pay royalties to performers and record labels. SoundExchange has objected that the rates set by the CRB do not provide adequate compensation to performers and record labels.\nMembers have introduced several bills in the 114th Congress that would change the amounts various participants in the music industry pay or receive in royalties. These bills are controversial, as they could alter the cost structures and revenues of broadcast radio stations, songwriters, performers, and others at a time when the music industry\u2019s overall revenues are not growing. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing a review of consent decrees it entered into with music publishers in the 1940s. The outcome could affect the extent to which songwriters can control the use of their works.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43984", "sha1": "94b04bd4f8922f60fdb7ab8a461568bb0ab6458e", "filename": "files/20160129_R43984_94b04bd4f8922f60fdb7ab8a461568bb0ab6458e.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43984", "sha1": "1bf6f7588cfe5b443ed702010eabd2355ac2576b", "filename": "files/20160129_R43984_1bf6f7588cfe5b443ed702010eabd2355ac2576b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2688, "name": "Intellectual Property Rights" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc627114/", "id": "R43984_2015May07", "date": "2015-05-07", "retrieved": "2015-06-15T14:46:40", "title": "Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century", "summary": "This report describes the current legal framework governing licensing and rate-setting in the music industry. It also examines the changes in technology and consumer behavior that have reshaped the industry.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150507_R43984_fc9b3c1e9560745d0fc1a19a4222d458a1037394.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150507_R43984_fc9b3c1e9560745d0fc1a19a4222d458a1037394.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Music", "name": "Music" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Copyright", "name": "Copyright" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "License agreements", "name": "License agreements" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Internet and Telecommunications Policy" ] }