BILL DONAHUE, Billboard; Flo Rida, Old Lawsuits & ‘Raging Bull’: Supreme Court’s Big Music Copyright Case Explained
"The phrases “retroactive relief” and “three-year lookback period” might make your eyes glaze over, but the Warner v. Nealy case has big implications for copyright-heavy industries like music....
“Without a clear national rule setting the temporal limits of recoverable damages, amici and their members face serious uncertainty.”"
C-Span; Music & Tech Executives Testify on Artificial Intelligence & Copyright
"Music industry and tech company executives as well as a visual artist and a law professor testified on artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on copyright and intellectual property before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Topics included publicity and fair use of content, an opt-out process for creators, notating content that has been created using AI, deep fake technology, and ways that Congress can help protect intellectual property."
Abigail Smith, American University Intellectual Property Brief; Taylor Swift is a Pioneer of Intellectual Property Rights
"Every time Taylor Swift walks out the door, she facilitates massive changes for the intellectual property rights of artists in the music industry.
Taylor Swift is one of the most popular artists in the world. Even if you don’t like her music, you have to admire her fighting spirit. Lately, she has been in a public battle with Ticketmaster over the availability of tickets for her upcoming tour. Before that, she fought with music streaming services to promote selling albums—thus, profiting off the work put into creating those albums—instead of allowing them to be streamed for free. Before that, she was fighting for her ownership rights over her music. Many of Taylor Swift’s battles have to do with her intellectual property rights, and the outcomes may impact all musicians."
"The fight over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has touched a nerve. The music industry is bracing for what may be a high-wattage lobbying battle reminiscent of the one over the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill that was abandoned in 2012 after opposition from technology activists and Internet giants like Google and Wikipedia. The copyright law gives “safe harbor” to Internet service providers that host third-party material. While music groups criticize the law, some legal scholars and policy specialists say any change to it would need to be considered carefully, particularly to preserve protections like fair use. “Anything that rewrites the D.M.C.A. isn’t just going to affect YouTube,” said James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the University of Maryland. “It is going to affect blogs. It is going to affect fan sites. It is going to affect places for game creators and documentarians and all kinds of others.” In December, the United States Copyright Office asked for comments about D.M.C.A. as part of a review of the law, and filings by record companies show how laborious copyright policing can be."
"Napster did not last long, two years. But for a while at the dawn of this century it claimed to have 70 million registered users. It spawned a host of Internet music-swapping providers, more than a few of them falling on the dubious side of the law. Most important, it irrevocably altered not only the way in which Americans absorbed music but also their belief system in what they should pay. The conviction theologically held by many boiled down to a single word: nothing. “You have a generation of people now who expect their music for free,” Greg Hammer, managing director of Red Bull Records, a branch of the energy-drink company, told Retro Report. “It’s very difficult to change.” The music industry is not alone in coming to terms with altered realities. As every sentient soul surely knows by now, the “culture of free” — words borrowed from the title of this week’s video — has turned the print world upside down, pushing newspapers, magazines and book publishers into a frantic search for financial safe harbors. With the advent of broad Internet use in the 1990s came a notion that information should be free. Never mind that the gathering and transmission of information can be a costly proposition and that (dirty word alert) money is needed if the survival of, say, a newspaper is to be ensured. As with music in Mr. Hammer’s observation, a generation now believes that the written word, whether on processed wood or in pixels, should come without charge."
"The U.S. Federal Court decision that SiriusXM violated the Turtles' pre-1972 master copyrights by playing their music without licensing it or paying performance royalties is a big win for the music industry, but does it have meaning beyond California where the legal battle took place? Like all lawsuit decisions, the ruling may have legal implications for other ongoing court cases, but the ruling has just decided a battle, not the war. That war centers on whether SiriusXM and other digital music services like Pandora, have the right to play pre-1972 recorded music without licensing nor paying royalties to record labels and the artists because -- those services argue -- the master recording copyright didn't exist until 1972 in federal law. Digital service, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, must pay master recordings rights-holders and music publishers for broadcast, unlike terrestrial radio, which only has to pay royalties to publishers. But Sirius only pays for recordings created after 1972 when federal law recognized the master recording copyright."
"Michael Robertson, a pioneer in the digital music business who has repeatedly clashed with record companies over legal issues, was found liable this week for $41 million in a long-running federal copyright infringement suit. Mr. Robertson’s latest conflict with the music industry was over MP3tunes, a company he founded in 2005 and shut down two years ago. MP3tunes let its users back up digital music files on remote services on the Internet — an early version of the so-called cloud lockers that technology giants like Apple and Google offer as part of their standard suite of digital music offerings... During the MP3tunes trial, Mr. Robertson said that the company canceled the accounts of users who abused the locker system. In a statement on Thursday, he accused the music industry of suing his company “to send a message to others not to partner with us or to emulate our business,” and criticized the system of statutory damages for copyright infringement, which led to charges of up to $100,000 per song. “I’m still holding out hope that the legal system will end up at the right place,” Mr. Robertson added. “Sometimes it takes a while with new technologies.”"
