Musical Artists Ask for The CLASSICS Act

[rumours 45,521]

As of now, 212 musical artists have showcased support for Congress to pass the CLASSICS Act.

Essentially, this Act would add federal copyright protection to songs that were recorded prior to February 15, 1972. The current complaint is that with the "ambiguity in state and federal copyright laws", many songs from this time period are receiving considerable airplay while the artists are receiving next to nothing in royalties.

Advocates for the bill state that reform is needed in order to protect the intellectual property of the singers, songwriters, and producers associated with these often-played tracks.

Here is a picture that shows the 212 artists that have advocated for the bill:

While the bill is meant to be bipartisan in nature, it does not have unilateral support from companies that distribute/play music. Most reports state that the two companies this bill affects the most (in regards to being forced to now pay royalties) would be Pandora and SiriusXM Satellite Radio. While Pandora has showcased support for the bill, Sirius ("which aggressively tries to reduce the rates it pays for music, in a variety of ways" according to Billboard) is opposed to this piece of legislation. 

What do you all think? Should songs from this time period receive stronger copyright protection?

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8098693/senate-bipartisan-classics-act-pre-1972-recordings

https://musicrow.com/2018/02/garth-brooks-dolly-parton-trisha-yearwood-sign-classics-act-petition/

[rumours 45,521]

Well, this thread flopped lol. 

I thought this would make for some interesting conversation 

[Oriane 18,984]

I don't completely get it. Are older artists not receiving a lot when their music is played ? It surprises me when I see how much you have to pay to use these songs. I think music should be a lot cheaper when the artist dies, but it shouldn't be the case if they're still here... Maybe it's because, sadly, these artists are not popular enough to get as many royalties as current artists when their music is being played and used, so the labels etc make it cheaper or otherwise the radios wouldn't take the risk to play them.

[rumours 45,521]

2 hours ago, Oriane said:

I don't completely get it. Are older artists not receiving a lot when their music is played ? It surprises me when I see how much you have to pay to use these songs. I think music should be a lot cheaper when the artist dies, but it shouldn't be the case if they're still here... Maybe it's because, sadly, these artists are not popular enough to get as many royalties as current artists when their music is being played and used, so the labels etc make it cheaper or otherwise the radios wouldn't take the risk to play them.

The main issue is that digital services are required by federal law to pay royalties on songs recorded/released after 1972. For songs released before 1972, legislation on royalties is done on a state by state basis. This makes everything (litigation especially) super complicated, and many times artists with songs recorded before 1972 don't receive the proper royalties for the use of their songs. This federal act will force digital services to pay royalties on songs recorded before 1972 just as they do for songs released after 1972. 

 

In terms of your statement about popularity having an impact, I'd say that's partially true in the sense that these songs aren't being played on modern 2010s pop stations on Sirius XM for example. However, there are many stations dedicated solely to 50s, 60s, and 70s music on Sirius XM where these songs are being played in rotation constantly. Therefore, many artists (or those that own the rights to that artist's publishing) are not receiving proper payment for the use of these songs in this capacity.

[StrawberryBlond 13,244]

I think that any artist who has their song played on the radio deserves money for it. It doesn't matter how old the song is nor does it matter if the artist hasn't been relevant for years. Everyone should be paid the same. Every artists has to make a living. Its not the artists fault that they released music before mp3 downloads, video sharing sites, streaming services, etc. existed. The older ones have been screwed over in so many ways and this is just one of them. It's wrong that the young, current stars get all the advantages.

[rumours 45,521]

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I think that any artist who has their song played on the radio deserves money for it. It doesn't matter how old the song is nor does it matter if the artist hasn't been relevant for years. Everyone should be paid the same. Every artists has to make a living. Its not the artists fault that they released music before mp3 downloads, video sharing sites, streaming services, etc. existed. The older ones have been screwed over in so many ways and this is just one of them. It's wrong that the young, current stars get all the advantages.

My other issue is that the year that they chose (1972) seems totally arbitrary.

Why does a record that was released in 1973 deserve federal-mandated royalties but one from 1971 not?

[Mirages 20,259]

Tony get that money from the first half of your long-lasting career 

[rumours 45,521]

5 minutes ago, Mirages said:

Tony get that money from the first half of your long-lasting career