Three months after his first appearance on the show, entertainment/copyright lawyer and MPP Superfriend Marc Ostrow is back to talk some more about Fair Use, with me supplying a few hypothetical situations. But more importantly, Marc lays out the Department of Justice’s recent and unexpected ruling that PROs must abandon 70+ years of established industry practice and adopt a 100% Licensing regime, and what that means for you.
During the conversation, we covered:
- A history of ASCAP, BMI, and their consent decrees
- Rate courts and “reasonable rates”
- How consent decrees allow new streaming services to operate without paying for a license
- The differences between the ASCAP & BMI consent decrees
- How the PROs want their consent decrees to be relaxed to allow for sync and mechanical licensing
- How the Department of Justice ruled on 100% Licensing rather than addressing long-standing industry concerns
- An explanation of 100% Licensing vs. Fractional Licensing
- Who owns what in a collaborative effort
- “Absent a written agreement”
- How 100% Licensing impacts working musicians, the heirs of musicians who have passed, and musicians working outside the US
- How the DoJ’s ruling vitiates existing contracts
- The Copyright Office’s reaction to the DoJ’s ruling
- How the DoJ’s ruling might prevent many artists from collaborating with each other
- Who benefits from 100% Licensing (hint: it’s not you)
- The PRO’s challenges to the ruling, and potential outcomes
- A recap of Fair Use principles
- Some Fair Use hypothetical situations for composers, performers, and educators
Links:
Marc Ostrow: Why DOJ’s Mandate of 100% Licensing of Works by ASCAP and BMI is 100% Lunacy
Marc Ostrow: 100% Licensing summary and reaction
Marc Ostrow: Letter to DoJ
U.S. Copyright Office’s reaction to 100% Licensing ruling
MusicTechPolicy Podcast explaining 100% Licensing
Marc Ostrow: “Do You Have The Chutzpah To Take A Gamble On Fair Use?”
