Songwriters Equity Act 2015

On March of this year multiple Senators and Representatives Reintroduced H.R. 1283 and S. 662, which is also known as the Songwriters Equity Act (S.E.A.). This legislation was originally introduced in 2014 but has found backing from members of both sides of the aisle. What the bills essentially do is require the Copyright Royalty Board Judges to establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and seller, when setting royalty rates under the compulsory license available for the reproduction and distribution of musical works (a.k.a "mechanical license"). When they are establishing such rates the judges must base their decisions on the current marketplace and economics  as well as information presented by the participants.

What this means for songwriters is that the courts must establish digital performance rates based on fair market values, something songwriters have been trying to fight against since the digital age has affected the music industry. ASCAP even released a video (embedded below) and hashtag #StandWithSongwriters that emphasizes how one million streams earns a songwriter only $90.

Some people believe this bill doesn't go far enough and we really need to get rid of the Credit Royalty Board altogether to allow for a free marketplace. In 2012 a D.C. Circuit Court even found the 3-judge panel to be considered Unconstitutional, with the Senior Judge's opinion stating;

"Intercollegiate Broadcasting, Inc. appeals a final determination of the Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs” or “Judges”) setting the default royalty rates and terms applicable to internet-based “webcasting” of digitally recorded music. We find we need not address Intercollegiate’s argument that Congress’s grant of power to the CRJs is void because the provision for judicial review gives us legislative or administrative powers that may not be vested in an Article III court. But we agree with Intercollegiate that the position of the CRJs, as currently constituted, violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2. To remedy the violation, we follow the Supreme Court’s approach in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010), by invalidating and severing the restrictions on the Librarian of Congress’s ability to remove the CRJs. With such removal power in the Librarian’s hands, we are confident that the Judges are “inferior” rather than “principal” officers, and that no constitutional problem remains. Because of the Appointments Clause violation at the time of decision, we vacate and remand the determination challenged here; accordingly we need not reach Intercollegiate’s arguments regarding the merits of the rates and terms set in that determination."

The future of the music industry, streaming services, and intellectual property rights as a whole is still hard to determine as newer technologies keep changing the intellectual property landscape. One thing is certain, change is bound to happen soon.