Legal
Page: 96
A lawyer for Marjorie Taylor Greene responded Wednesday to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising that the conservative lawmaker would make “no further use” of the song.
Two days after attorneys for Dre threatened to sue the Republican congresswoman for posting a video featuring the song to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” Greene waved the white flag in a brief response.
“We are in receipt of your correspondence of January 9, 2023,” Greene’s lawyer wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard. “On behalf of Congresswoman Greene, please be advised that no further use of Mr. Young’s copyright will be made by a political committee or via social media outlet she controls.”
Notably, the response letter was signed by Stefan Passantino, a former Trump administration lawyer who briefly made headlines last month over his work representing White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The video in question — posted Monday morning (Jan. 9) on Greene’s social media accounts — featured the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
After the video was posted, Dre quickly released a public statement, saying he would never license his music to someone as “divisive and hateful” as Greene. In a letter later that day, his attorney Howard King threatened to sue for copyright infringement — warning Greene that a federal lawmaker “should be making laws not breaking laws.”
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on.”
Wednesday’s response from Greene was exactly what was requested of her by Dre and King, who demanded that she respond with confirmation that the video had been removed by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But it would not prevent the star from still choosing to sue her over the republication of his song, however briefly it existed online.
Perhaps hinting at that possibility, Greene and Passantino’s letter stressed that it should not be read as “an admission of any fact or waiver of any rights or defenses.” Dre’s lawyer King did not immediately return a request for comment on whether he would pursue additional action against Greene.
The response is a notable change of tone for Greene, who on Monday responded to Dre’s threats with a sharply-worded statement to TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
Harry Styles is on the legal offensive to combat fake merch on the internet.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Chicago federal court, the pop star sued a number of online sellers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting Harry fans.
Arguing that the counterfeiters use misleading tactics to make it “difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer,” attorneys for Styles want a judge to issue a sweeping court order that would, among other things, force big web platforms like Amazon and Etsy (who are not named as defendants) to immediately shut down the listings.
“Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat defendants’ counterfeiting of its registered trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing counterfeit products over the Internet,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
In bringing the case, Styles is employing an anti-counterfeiting tactic that’s frequently used by big brands to fight fakes on the internet.
Such cases, filed against huge lists of URLs rather than actual people, allow brands to shut pirate sites down en masse, win court orders to freeze their assets, and continue to kill new sites if they pop up. The lawsuits also usually result in massive monetary judgments against the sellers, but those are typically hard to actually collect from elusive counterfeiters.
Notably, the counterfeiters that Styles is targeting in the lawsuit are not currently disclosed, because such lawsuits are designed to take them by surprise: “If defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions,” the pop star’s lawyers told the judge.
Such lawsuits are more common among big retails brands — Nike, Ray-Ban, Toyota and Tommy Hilfiger have all filed nearly-identical cases in the past two months — but the music industry also regularly uses the same tactic. Nirvana sued nearly 200 sites for selling fake gear in January; a few months later, the late rapper XXXTentacion’s company filed a similar case.
In his lawsuit, Styles claimed the counterfeiters are mostly located in China, or in “other foreign jurisdictions with lax trademark enforcement system.” And he claimed they used sophisticated methods to target fans searching for Harry’s merch while avoiding detection, including “multiple fictitious aliases” and the use of meta tags.
“Tactics used by defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for plaintiff to learn defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network,” the star’s attorneys wrote.
Gunna celebrated being home on Tuesday (Jan. 10) in his first pic since being released from jail after pleading guilty on Dec. 14 in the closely-watched criminal case against Young Thug and the other alleged members of an Atlanta gang.
The “Too Easy” rapper born Sergio Kitchens posted a snap in which he sits alone in a high-ceilinged living room on a white couch alongside a pointed message about the case. “N—as acting like they switching to a side But it’s only one side,” he wrote, while shouting out the YSL label and adding a plea to #FreeThug&Yak while proclaiming “GUNNA BACC!!!!!”
After spending most of the year in jail, Gunna stressed upon his release that he was not cooperating with prosecutors, with his lawyer noting that the 29-year-old MC had taken an Alford plea, which allows a defendant to enter a formal admission of guilt while still maintaining their innocence. In technical terms, Gunna pleaded guilty to a single charge against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, but was released because he was credited with one year of time served and the rest of the sentence was suspended.
“While I have agreed to always be truthful, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have NOT made any statements, have NOT been interviewed, have NOT cooperated, have NOT agreed to testify or be a witness for or against any party in the case and have absolutely NO intention of being involved in the trial process in any way,” the rapper said at the time of his release.
Gunna and Young Thug were indicted in May 2022, along with dozens of others, on accusations that their group YSL was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta street gang called “Young Slime Life”; both men were arrested and locked up in May 2022. The charges include allegations of murder, carjacking, armed robbery, drug dealing and illegal firearm possession over the past decade.
Young Thug and many others are set to stand trial on those charges in January.
See Gunna’s post below.
More than four years after gunmen killed emerging rap star XXXTentacion during a robbery outside a South Florida motorcycle shop, three suspects are now scheduled to go on trial. Shooting suspect Michael Boatwright, 28, and his accused accomplices, Dedrick Williams, 26, and Trayvon Newsome, 24, could all receive life sentences if convicted of first-degree murder. They are also charged with armed robbery. They have pleaded not guilty.
A fourth man, Robert Allen, 26, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last year and is expected to testify against the other three. Jury selection is set to begin Jan. 18 and is expected to last three weeks. The trial is expected to last into March. In pretrial hearings, the defendants’ attorneys have suggested there were others who had financial and personal motives for killing the singer, including members of his family and other rappers.
“It’s been over four long years in the making. We are excited to take this first step to bringing Dedrick home,” said Mauricio Padilla, Williams’ attorney. The attorneys for Boatwright and Newsome did not respond to emails seeking comment. The COVID-19 pandemic and legal wrangling delayed the start of the trial.
Circuit Judge Michael Usan rejected last week an attempt by Boatwright’s attorney, Joseph Kimok, to have him declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. He also rejected a motion by the defendants’ attorneys to try the three separately.
They argued that evidence presented against just one defendant would be prejudicial to the other two. They also argued that each defense attorney could try to establish his client’s innocence or mitigate his guilt by pointing fingers at the other two suspects — they argued that would unfairly prejudice the jury against the trio. Prosecutor Pascale Achille told Usan that any evidence presented would pertain to all three.
Usan ruled the defense attorneys’ arguments could apply in all trials where there are multiple defendants, but in this case they don’t outweigh the needs of “judicial economy” to not hold three trials if not absolutely required.
XXXTentacion, whose real name was Jahseh Onfroy, had just left Riva Motorsports in suburban Fort Lauderdale on June 18, 2018, with a friend when his BMW was blocked by an SUV that swerved in front. Two masked gunmen emerged, confronted XXXTentacion at the driver’s window and one shot him. They then grabbed a Louis Vuitton bag containing $50,000 cash the singer had just withdrawn from the bank, got back into the SUV and sped away.
XXXTentacion, 20, died at the hospital shortly after. He pronounced his name “Ex ex ex ten-ta-see-YAWN” and was a platinum-selling rising star who tackled issues including prejudice and depression in his songs. He also drew criticism over bad behavior and multiple arrests, including charges that he severely beat and abused his girlfriend.
Investigators say surveillance video from the store and other evidence links the three defendants and Allen to the killing.
They say video shows the SUV arriving at the motorcycle shop just as XXXTentacion and his friend entered. Williams and Allen followed them inside, with Williams making a small purchase. They then walked back to the SUV. About 10 minutes later, XXXTentacion and his friend tried to leave, but the SUV blocked them. Prosecutors say Boatwright and Newsome were the gunmen who confronted the rapper, with Boatwright firing the fatal shots.
Investigators say Boatwright’s fingerprints were found on the driver’s door of the rapper’s BMW. Williams was identified by a Riva Motorsports clerk, who said he was a regular customer. Williams told investigators he did not know the other three were planning a robbery.
A search of Williams’ social media showed photos of him with Allen, who was then identified from the surveillance video. Williams’ girlfriend told investigators that he told her that the other gunman was Newsome. They say cellphone data also links the defendants to the scene.
Photos of Boatwright and Newsome holding up large amounts of $100 bills, timestamped on the night of the killing, were also found on their phones, prosecutors say.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings, and all the fun stuff in between. This week: A huge group of artists push to clear up uncertainty about termination rights and streaming royalties, Dr. Dre threatens to sue Marjorie Taylor Greene, the man accused of murdering Takeoff is released on bond, and more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Top Artists Demand Streaming Royalties Rule
When I first reported in October that the U.S. Copyright Office was looking to enact an “obscure” rule change about termination rights and streaming royalties, I received a bit of light-hearted criticism from some folks who had been following the issue closely. They conceded that the subject matter was complex — it’s mind-meltingly complex, trust me — but also said that the stakes were huge.
I guess others agree: In a letter sent last week, more than 350 artists, songwriters, managers and lawyers threw their weight behind the Copyright Office’s proposed rule change, saying they were worried about music creators being “deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.” Signed by Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer, Dave Matthews, members of The Black Keys and many others, the letter said that opposition to the agency’s new rule would constitute “a vote against songwriters.”
What’s this new rule they’re so fired up about? As mentioned, it’s pretty arcane stuff. (Go read our explainer if you want more details.) But basically:
The group created by the Music Modernization Act in 2018 to collect mechanical royalties from streaming services (the Mechanical Licensing Collective, or MLC) enacted a new policy in 2021, dealing with who should receive such royalties after a songwriter invokes their termination right. Termination is a provision under copyright law that allows creators to take back control of their works decades after signing them away to a publisher. The problem? The MLC’s new policy seemed to say that if a song had already been uploaded to Spotify’s server prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, those royalties would need to keep flowing to their old publisher — seemingly forever — regardless of who now owned them.
That bizarre outcome would seem to be at odds with the basic point of termination, which is designed to help original creators finally derive value from their own works. So in October, the Copyright Office proposed a new rule requiring the MLC to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” calling it an “erroneous” reading of the law. And last week, spurred by groups like the Music Artists Coalition, a huge number of influential members of the music industry said they agreed.
Some of the wording of the letter — about a “vote against songwriters” — was pretty ominous. But it doesn’t seem like there’s any real industry opposition to the Copyright Office’s change. The National Music Publishers’ Association has quibbles about how such changes are enacted, fearing that they might lead to uncertainty and litigation over past practices. But the group says it fully supports a rule change and the goal of making sure that terminating songwriters actually get paid.
Will the Copyright Office enact the new rule as originally proposed, or make changes when the final rule is released? We’ll let you know what the final rule looks like — and whether everyone likes it.
Other top stories this week…
DR. DRE WARNS REPUBLICAN – Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, threatening the conservative lawmaker with a copyright lawsuit for using the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post. “One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” the letter read.
MORE MUSIC TROUBLE FOR TRILLER – Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against Triller over allegations that the video-sharing app has failed to make payments for months under its music licensing agreements, despite “lavish” spending elsewhere.
MIGOS MURDER SUSPECT RELEASED – Patrick Xavier Clark, the man accused of murdering Migos rapper Takeoff, was released from a Houston jail after posting a $1 million bond. He was placed under house arrest and will be subject to GPS monitoring.
LAWSUIT OVER UMG’S SPOTIFY STAKE – ’90s hip-hop duo Black Sheep filed a class action against Universal Music Group over the label’s ownership stake in Spotify, claiming UMG has accepted low royalties in return for stock in the streaming service. Seeking to represent thousands of others, the case says UMG is “withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.”
SONY SETTLES FUTURE CASE – Sony Music reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that claimed the name of Future’s chart-topping album High Off Life infringed the trademark rights of a company called High Off Life LLC, a creative agency that says it’s used the name for years.
ROCKER ARRESTED ON GUN CHARGES – Matt Shultz, the lead singer of the band Cage the Elephant, was arrested in New York City and hit with two charges of criminal possession of a weapon after police found two loaded firearms in his room at the Bowery Hotel.
MARILYN MANSON CASE DROPPED – A federal judge tossed out one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Marilyn Manson, dismissing a case filed by model Ashley Morgan Smithline because she failed to retain a new lawyer after splitting with her old legal team last fall.
GLORIA TREVI ABUSE SUIT – Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi was hit with a new lawsuit over a decades-old claim of sexual assault against two minors, who alleged the singer “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were between the ages of 13 and 15 back in the early 1990s. Trevi strongly denied the accusations, saying she’d been “totally acquitted” when such claims were made in a criminal case in Mexico in the 2000s.
Authorities in Puerto Rico arrested Randy Ortiz Acevedo of the popular reggaeton duo Jowell & Randy on domestic violence charges after a judge on Monday (Jan. 9) ruled there was sufficient evidence against the singer.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Ortiz, who is not required to enter a plea yet, was detained on a $15,000 bond, prosecutor Anthony Oyola told reporters. A publicist for Ortiz did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Oyola said the charges stem from a Jan. 7 incident but declined to provide further details given that it’s a domestic violence case. He added only that Ortiz’s mother testified on behalf of the singer before he was charged.
Jowell & Randy are considered reggaeton pioneers that began their careers 20 years ago. In October, the group released their first new music since 2020’s pandemic-inspired “Se Acabó la Cuarentena” featuring Kiko el Crazy when they dropped “Toro.”
Produced by Subelo Neo and composed by Mora, the ultra-perreo was a distillation of the Puerto Rican duo’s essence. “We feel the responsibility to ‘romper la calle’ very hard,” Jowell told Billboard at the time. “We cannot play with being experimental and bringing concepts that are not the sound people expect from us.”
The pair said they had recorded enough songs for three albums for the follow-up to 2020’s Viva El Perreo, which peaked at No. 5 on the Top Latin Albums chart; at press time the album’s release date had not yet been announced.
Lawyers for Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday (Jan. 9), threatening her with legal action after she used the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post.
Hours after the superstar publicly slammed the Republican congresswoman over the post — he said he’d never license his song to someone so “divisive and hateful” — his lawyers formally told Taylor Greene that her post constituted copyright infringement and that she had until Wednesday to remove it.
“You are wrongfully exploiting his work through the various social media outlets to promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” wrote attorney Howard King in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard.
The video in question — posted Monday morning on Greene’s social media accounts — features the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
If actually unlicensed, the use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement would almost certainly constitute infringement. In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers told Greene as much — and then some.
“The United States Copyright Act says a lot of things, one of the things it says is that you can’t use someone else’s song for your political campaign promotions unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song, a step you failed to take,” King wrote.
Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, and Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Donald Trump.
Owing to the complex thicket of blanket licenses that govern the public performance of music, it’s actually more complicated than you might expect for artists to prevent their music from being played at political rallies. But the use of music in a video advertisement is far more straightforward; if a politician doesn’t secure a license, a musician has a great case for copyright infringement.
In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers said that a federal lawmaker ought to know that.
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on. We’re writing because we think an actual lawmaker should be making laws not breaking laws, especially those embodied in the constitution by the founding fathers.”
Greene’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Billboard, but she reportedly told TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
Universal Music Group is suing Triller over allegations that the video-sharing app has failed to make payments for months under its music licensing agreements, echoing accusations made by Sony Music Entertainment in a similar lawsuit last year.
In a complaint filed Thursday (Jan. 6) in Los Angeles court, the music giant’s publishing arm claimed that Triller stopped making payments in April 2022 under two different licensing deals and had missed several required payments since.
Universal says it filed a notice of default in November and terminated the deal earlier this week, but that Triller has still not paid the money it owes — despite allegedly spending plenty of cash elsewhere.
“During the same period that Triller was defaulting on its payment and reporting obligations, it was reported that Triller was spending substantial amounts of money acquiring companies … and throwing lavish events catering to members of the media and entertainment industry,” the company wrote.
Universal says Triller has also breached provisions that require the company to report how the music has been used on the platform. Combined with the lack of payment, Universal cited the breaches as cause to terminate the licensing contract, effective Jan. 3.
In a statement to Billboard, Triller downplayed the seriousness of the case, saying it dealt with only “a very small percentage of the catalogue, and is the ordinary course of business for the music industry and over a small amount of money.”
“This will be decided upon in a proper venue in a few years, and we clearly believe we are in the right and that a court will find in our favor,” Triller wrote in the statement. “It’s a plain vanilla case that virtually every social network has faced in one form or another. It’s not the first and won’t be the last but similar to the past disputes of these nature they tend to settle quietly and end up being a lot to do about nothing .”
The lawsuit is the latest recent legal trouble for Triller. Sony filed a similar case in August, saying it had terminated its licensing deal with the company after months of non-payment. That case, filed in federal court, claimed that Triller had continued to use Sony music without a license — meaning it had also infringed Sony’s copyrights. The case remains pending.
Before that, Triller got into a messy fight with Swizz Beatz and Timbaland, who sued in August over allegations that they were still owed $28 million from the sale of their Verzuz livestream series to Triller. The company was sued again later that month by a smartphone app consulting firm, which claimed the company had failed to pay more than $100,000 in fees. Both cases were quickly settled on confidential terms.
It’s also not the first sign of problems between Triller and Universal. In early 2021, the music giant abruptly pulled its catalog from the platform, claiming Triller had “shamefully withheld” artist payments. Three months later, the two companies announced a new worldwide licensing agreement, spanning recorded music and publishing and restoring the UMG catalog to the app. But in December, UMG was one of several major music companies to again be pulled down from the platform.
Gloria Trevi is denying allegations in a newly filed sexual lawsuit that claim she and her former producer Sergio Andrade “groomed” and “exploited” two underage girls in the 1990s.
“My words are directed to everyone who may have seen recent allegations about me but do not know the background and my story,” the Mexican pop star began in a statement published on her social media accounts Jan. 6. “Being a victim of physical and sexual abuse is one of the worst things that can happen to a human being. I say it, and I know it, because I am a survivor. And, my thoughts go out to anyone who, like me, has ever been the victim of any kind of abuse.
“But I will not remain silent while I am unfairly accused of crimes I did not commit. These false accusations, which were first made against me 25 years ago, have been tried in various courts and, in all instances, I have been completely and totally acquitted,” she continued. “For these old, disproven claims to resurface now is tremendously painful for me and for all my family. The accusations were false when they were made and remain false today.”
The new civil complaint was filed Dec. 30 in Los Angeles County. In the suit, which was obtained by Billboard, two Jane Does allege that the Mexican pop star along with Andrade “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were 13 and 15 years old. The 30-page lawsuit — which does not specifically name Trevi or Andrade, though the timeline and album details mentioned make clear they are the defendants — also includes allegations of childhood sexual abuse and harassment and/or assault.
In the ’90s, Trevi was one of the biggest Latin pop stars in the world, but her successful career came to a halt in 1999 when criminal complaints were filed against her and Andrade. The complaints accused them of corrupting minors, kidnapping and rape. Trevi fled to Brazil, where she was captured and arrested, and the singer was held behind bars for nearly five years. In 2004, a Mexican court acquitted the pop star and found her not guilty on the charges of rape, kidnapping and corruption of minors.
She has maintained her innocence since, which she addressed in her Jan. 6 statement. “A trial court carefully examined all the evidence during a judicial process which lasted almost 5 years, and they ruled in my favor,” Trevi wrote. “The verdict was upheld on appeal. That is why I filed a lawsuit in the United States to expose and hold all those who are trying to defame me accountable.”
The singer concluded: “I will continue to move forward and work to get justice in this case — and I will do so knowing that the truth is on my side.”
Trevi previously discussed the impact the 1999 allegations had on her livelihood in a September 2022 interview with Billboard. “I felt that I lost my career,”she said at the time. “But I kept a positive attitude and believed in myself. You can lose a battle but not the war, and that mindset was very constant in me.”
The same year she released from prison, Trevi put out Cómo Nace el Universo, which was written while she was incarcerated, and addressed her time behind bars. The album peaked No. 2 on the Latin Pop Albums chart and No. 4 on Top Latin Albums.
Read Trevi’s full statement — which she shared in both Spanish and English — below.
Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting and a slew of other musicians are throwing their support behind a new federal copyright rule aimed at making sure that songwriters who regain control of their music actually start getting paid their streaming royalties after they do so.
As first reported by Billboard in October, the U.S. Copyright Office wants to overturn a policy adopted by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (which collects streaming royalties) that critics fear might lead to a bizarre outcome: Even after a writer uses their so-called termination right to take back control of their songs, royalties may continue to flow in perpetuity to the old publishers that no longer own them.
In a letter Thursday organized by the Music Artists Coalition, more than 350 artists, songwriters, managers and music lawyers urged the Copyright Office to grant final approval for the proposed rule, warning that “music creators must not be deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.”
“We stand together in support of USCO’s rule and believe that anything contrary would undermine the clear Congressional intent to allow songwriters, after an extended period of time, to reap the benefit of the songs they create,” the signatories wrote to the Copyright Office.
“It is simple, a songwriter who validly terminates a prior grant is the correct recipient of royalties,” the group wrote. “A publisher whose grant was terminated – and has received the benefit of the songwriter’s work for decades – is not the proper or intended recipient of these royalties.”
To fully understand the legal complexities of the Copyright Office’s proposed rule and what it might mean for songwriters, read this explainer.
Thursday’s letter, also signed by Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer, Dave Matthews, members of the Black Keys and others, came on the final day of the so-called “comment period,” in which outside groups could submit their opinion on the Copyright Office’s proposed rule.
The letter was the product of a call for signatures by the Irving Azoff-led Music Artists Coalition, which, along with other groups like Songwriters of North America, the Black Music Action Coalition and the Nashville Songwriters Association International, helped raise the alarm about the issue and spurred the Copyright Office to take action last year.
“Too often, music artists are quietly stripped of their rights,” Azoff said in a statement to Billboard announcing the letter. “But, today, the industry stood up to say ‘Not on our watch!’ We applaud the Copyright Office for its proposed rule. This rule should pass unamended and without delay.”
The Copyright Office introduced its new rule in October, saying the MLC’s policy had been based on an “erroneous” understanding of the law that created ambiguity about who should be receiving streaming royalties after a songwriter invokes their termination right and regains ownership of their music. Ordering MLC to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” the new proposal would make clear that when a songwriter takes back their music, they should obviously start getting the royalties, too.
In a message to members ahead of Thursday’s letter, MAC offered a plain-English explainer of the complex legal mechanics at play in the situation. The group urged its members to help end what it believed amounted to a loophole in the system created by 2018’s Music Modernization Act, warning that it could defeat the very purpose of both the new law and termination.
In an interview with Billboard, Susan Genco, co-president of The Azoff Company and a leader at MAC, said the group’s call to action – and the letter that came from it — was an example of how songwriters have become better mobilized after years of being “kept in the dark” on complicated policy matters that could have adverse effects.
“This is a big part of our role, to figure out which issues impact music creators the most, prioritize them, and then explain them to the community,” Genco said.
“We tried to paint a very clear picture for them,” added Jordan Bromley, a prominent music attorney and another key member of MAC, in the same interview. “Oh you think you’re getting your streaming mechanicals back through termination? Think again.”
In addition to advocating for the new rule, Thursday’s letter also came with something of a warning. The final sentence, separated into its own paragraph, read: “Any view opposing the USCO’s rule is a vote against songwriters.”
While not outright oppositional, the Copyright Office has received pushback on the proposed changes from the National Music Publishers’ Association. In a Dec. 1 submission, the group said it supported the overall goal of the new rule, but warned that the agency’s proposed approach “may have far-reaching and unintended consequences” and would likely lead to litigation in other spheres. Among other issues, the group said the rule must not apply retroactively.
“The breadth of the USCO’s legal reasoning in the [proposed rule] seems likely to increase legal uncertainty and questions,” the NMPA wrote. “This uncertainty will almost definitely raise the likelihood of litigation … including litigation concerning past payments made in accordance with what was then industry custom and practice.”
The NMPA instead advocated for “a consensus-based legislative solution” that would be passed by Congress, which it said could be narrower and more “carefully crafted” to avoid the problems the group has with the Copyright Office’s legal analysis.
In a statement to Billboard, NMPA president David Israelite stressed the industry group was aligned with songwriters on the ultimate policy goal.
“We strongly support songwriters receiving all mechanical royalties after a termination and have been working towards crafting legislation to ensure that outcome for years alongside the major songwriter groups,” Israelite said. “While not a concrete legislative remedy, our comments reflect our support for the Copyright Office’s proposed rule and offer ways to make that rule even more robust and less susceptible to legal challenges.”
The text of the Copyright Office’s proposed rule is available in its entirety on the agency’s website. The public comment period ended on Thursday, but all submitted comments will be made public on a public docket. The agency will review all comments and issue a final rule in the months ahead.
Read the entire letter sent to the Copyright Office on Thursday here: