Blank Space: Film and Television’s Missing Statute
Blank Space: Film and Television’s Missing Statute
Meghan Goins*
Introduction
Artists and consumers alike are currently grappling with rapidly changing technology. As digital media grows in popularity and prominence, some art forms, such as music, may be more harmonious with copyright law than others. Copyright law should be applied more evenly across various art forms and streaming platforms to better incentivize creativity and make art more easily accessible to consumers. Recognizing that music copyright needed to be updated, Congress has recently acted to further those interests for the music industry. The passage of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA)[2] was a legislative response to the significant changes in the music industry.[3] To best achieve the goals of copyright law while balancing the interests of copyright holders and consumers, a statute analogous to the MMA should be passed for the film and television industries.
It will be important to first conduct a brief overview of the MMA and the history of the evolving vehicles for the consumption of copyright works. Rather than analyzing every major streaming platform, this Note will examine a few platforms which hold the most consumer attention regarding the specific art forms the platform provides access to. This Note will explore recent litigation and new developments within copyright law to determine how to achieve the goal of greater consumer accessibility to art. Ultimately, that discussion will lead to the recommendation that copyright standards for music should be adapted to visual media through a statute similar to Title I of the MMA.
I. Background
Copyrights are automatically created when an artist (also called the “author” for purposes of copyright law) generates a creative work in a fixed medium.[4] Beyond the copyright automatically generated when a work is created, artists may also seek a copyright registration, which functions as a “public record of . . . ownership” and gives artists “access to federal courts in the case of infringement.”[5] To obtain copyright registration for a musical composition, artists may register “an individual sound recording or musical work,” “up to ten unpublished works all by the same author,” or “up to twenty musical works or twenty sound recordings if the works are created by the same author or have at least one common author, and if the claimant for each work in the group is the same.”[6] For films, a copyright is also automatically created when the film is generated, but copyright law protects “only the expression fixed in a motion picture (camera work, dialogue, sounds, and so on)” and “does not cover the idea or concept behind a work or any characters portrayed in it.”[7] Television shows are automatically protected by copyright law as well. For any type of media, though, registration is required “in order to file an infringement lawsuit.”[8]
Licenses allow a person or entity other than the copyright holder to legally use the copyrighted work. To obtain a license, one can contact the owner of the copyright for a particular work.[9] Importantly, “licenses allow a copyright owner to retain the rights while giving someone else a right to exercise some of them. . . .”[10] The rights a licensee has depend on whether the license granted is exclusive or nonexclusive, aside from the inability of a licensee to “authorize others to exercise the rights to that work without permission from the copyright owner.”[11] Additionally, no licensee can “sue and potentially recover damages for [copyright] infringement.”[12] If the license granted is nonexclusive, the original copyright owner of the work may still authorize other entities to use the work, and the original copyright owner may still “[use] the work in the manner and length of time described in the license.”[13] If the copyright owner grants an exclusive license, no one other than the exclusive licensee may use the work in the agreed upon manner for the duration of the license agreement, and no one else may be granted a license for that work during that time.[14]
A plaintiff in an action for copyright infringement may recover damages if the plaintiff can show “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copyright of constituent elements of the work that are original.”[15] In the event of copyright litigation, the fair use doctrine allows an entity to, in some circumstances, use a copyrighted work without first obtaining a license from the copyright holder.[16] When a particular use falls under the fair use doctrine, it is not an infringing use of the copyrighted work.[17] The fair use doctrine is an existing mechanism within copyright law that allows for greater access to creative works.[18] In addition to the fair use doctrine, certain statutes have been created to address the needs of particular creative industries, such as the MMA for the music industry.[19] The following sections will explain the technological changes that necessitated the creation of the MMA, and the provisions of it that could resolve problems within the film and television industries.
II. Accessibility of Music
A. The Music Modernization Act
Following changes to modes of music consumption, the Music Modernization Act was adopted by Congress in 2018, which allows copyright owners to obtain a compulsory license, through which copyright owners can receive royalties for their work without needing to grant “explicit permission” each time a license is sought from that copyright owner.[20] The MMA reflects a recent legislative update in the realm of copyright law, expanding it beyond the changes made to copyright law under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976.[21] The MMA is divided into three Titles: “Musical Works; Modernization Act, The Classics Protection and Access Act; and The Allocation for Music Producers Act.”[22]
The first of the three Titles “replaces the existing song-by-song compulsory licensing structure for making and distributing musical works with a blanket licensing system for digital music providers to make and distribute digital phonorecord deliveries (e.g., permanent downloads, limited downloads, or interactive streams).”[23] Blanket licenses give the licensee the ability to use and “access. . . a rightsholder’s entire catalog.”[24] Successfully obtaining a blanket license also protects the licensee from “an action for infringement. . . .”[25] To obtain a blanket license under the MMA, one must satisfy certain requirements.[26] To be eligible, the “primary purpose in making phonorecords of the musical work [must be] to distribute them to the public for private use, including by means of digital phonorecord delivery.”[27] One must also “[h]ave a direct contractual, subscription or other economic relationship with listeners or. . . must exercise direct control over providing the service to the listeners; [b]e able to report revenues (or other consideration) generated by the service; and [b]e able to provide certain reporting on usage of sound recordings of musical work.”[28]
As of January 1, 2021, the blanket licensing system, in its current form, is being operated by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), established by the MMA.[29] Collective copyright management organizations can help artists to earn more for their work than they would under a performing rights organization (PRO), from which artists only earn performance royalties, or without either a PRO or a Collective Management Organization (CMO). [30] CMOs help artists to earn royalties for both the performance of their work and to earn “mechanical royalties.”[31] Mechanical royalties are earned when a licensee “reproduce[s] a piece of music onto CDs, DVDs, records or tapes.”[32]
B. Technological and Legal Progression
Prior to the Music Modernization Act’s passage in 2018, several important technological shifts changed the way in which consumers engage with musical works.
Early streaming platforms violated copyright law by distributing music without first obtaining licenses or permission from the copyright holders of the music.[33] Without the protection of the fair use doctrine, which would have allowed these early platforms to continue operating legally, such distribution constituted copyright infringement. For instance, LimeWire was sued by various record labels alleging that LimeWire had directly infringed on their copyrighted works and had induced copyright infringement.[34] LimeWire ultimately settled and agreed to pay over $100 million in damages.[35]
C. Streaming Titans and Digital Downloads
As technology continued to progress during the 2000s and 2010s, other legal streaming platforms rose in popularity. These platforms, to remain competitive, introduced new features to the market, such as digital downloading. Today, Apple Music, Spotify and SoundCloud are among the three most used music streaming platforms by consumers.[36] Spotify, which now has 640 million monthly users,[37] has a vast library of music[38] that spans countless genres, decades, and cultures.[39] Spotify is available in the form of a subscription, or as a free service with advertisements and restrictions on features such as the ability to “skip” songs.[40] Spotify had the largest payout to artists of any streaming platform in 2022, four years after the passage of the MMA.[41] To further illustrate the manner in which Spotify has grown to dominate the music streaming market, “[o]nline streaming services such [as] Spotify and Apple Music have become the music industry’s single biggest revenue source, overtaking physical sales and digital downloads for the first time.”[42] When a song or other audio on a streaming platform is played, artists can receive a payout.[43] These royalties consist of recording and publishing royalties. Importantly, publishing royalties “are [now] issued to publishers, collecting societies, and mechanical agencies.”[44]
Another notable feature of many current day streaming services is the ability to download the content found on the platform. Digital downloads, along with streaming, “predominate in the United States,”[45] rather than accessing music through physical copies such as vinyl, CDs, or other means. Digital downloads also allow streaming platform users to either obtain a permanent copy of a particular musical work, or to obtain a copy of a musical work “for offline listening.”[46] This gives consumers access to music without needing to obtain a physical copy of the music, meaning that consumers now have instantaneous access to nearly any song, provided it has been uploaded to the internet.[47] Both “the reproduction right” of “the sound recording and the underlying musical composition” are “implicat[ed]” by digital downloads.[48] The “reproduction right” is a right granted to artists through copyright law, giving them the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.”[49] The rights to “the sound recording and the underlying musical composition” are codified at 17 U.S.C. § 114, and these rights give artists the exclusive rights to the sound of the song and the song in its written form.[50]
In a post-Napster era of the internet, streaming platforms are “enabling the market to reach new regions of the world, while helping wean[] a generation of music fans away from free or pirated music.”[51]
III. Accessibility of Television and Motion Pictures
A. Licensing
Similar to the music industry, licenses can be obtained from the copyright owner or from an organization in order to show or distribute a film or television show.[52] Distributors of films and television shows include familiar companies such as Warner Bros., Sony, and Lionsgate.[53]
B. Technology
Technology has also changed the television and film industries. Similarly, to the music industry, consumers now rely more on the internet than physical copies to access visual media.[54]
Netflix, which launched in 1997 and launched its streaming service in 2007, “now owns a 7.8% share of the US screen time,” second to YouTube.[55] Netflix obtains distribution and licensing rights through “Digital Exploitation Agreements.”[56] Through “Digital Exploitation Agreement[s],” Netflix obtains a license from “the producer of the film. . . [for] the right to communicate the film to the public.”[57] In May 2023, Netflix changed its policies to make it more difficult for subscribers to share a singular account across multiple home addresses.[58] This change resulted in increased rates of new subscriptions despite the “substantial risk” that the updated policy posed for Netflix.[59] Netflix’s prominence and popularity within the industry does not come without problems, though. Problems for the future of copyright law and the market for creative works have arisen as competitors for Netflix have appeared in recent years, as streaming platforms have to keep up with one another and with rapidly changing technology.
In 2018, a smaller streaming platform’s attempt to provide consumers with an easier way to access television was not considered fair use and was held to be unlawful by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[60] The smaller streaming platform was distributing content from larger television networks, allowing its subscribers to not only watch ten-minute clips of television shows, but to also “email the clips for viewing by others, including those who are not TVEyes clients.”[61] The specific features of TVEyes platform that led to the lawsuit were the ten-minute clips available to its subscribers, as well as the shorter, fourteen-second clips available when a subscriber searched for a specific term.[62] Ultimately, fair use did not protect TVEyes largely because of the potential that TVEyes would harm the marketability of the news Fox was providing.[63]
In recent litigation involving major streaming platforms, including Netflix, the platforms sued an individual who was the “operator of two illegal streaming sites.”[64] That operator attempted, through two services, to provide consumers with content ordinarily available across several platforms that sometimes require separate subscriptions.[65] The operator’s two services, “AllAccessTV (AATV) and Quality Restreams,” gave consumers the opportunity to purchase subscriptions and to have access to a “live channel feed.”[66] The subscriptions allowed AATV and Quality Restreams subscribers to watch and download “copyrighted movies and TV shows.”[67] That recent case and TVEyes are two examples of the approach of modern copyright law as it relates to the distribution of visual media by entities other than major television networks or streaming platforms: attempts to distribute content for profit that belongs to another streaming platform will be swiftly stricken down, with no protection available from the fair use doctrine. This keeps visual media stuck in a patchwork of paywalls.
IV. “Television and Film” Modernization Act: Recommended Solution
One possible solution to the problems faced by consumers and potential consumers of visual media would be the passage of the film and television equivalent of Title I of the MMA, establishing a new licensing system for the film and television industries. A new statute is also needed to protect artists regardless of the streaming platform their works end up on or how much the work gets distributed across the internet, and to give consumers more reliable (and legal) access to visual media.
A. Artist Compensation
One problem shared by music streaming platforms is low pay for the creators of the media supplied by various platforms.[68] Writers, producers, and actors alike have received low royalties from Netflix, even when the television shows they have worked on have become popular.[69] A statute similar to Title I of the MMA could guarantee royalties for writers, producers, and actors, specifically. A “Film and Television” Modernization Act could do this by establishing a “mechanical licensing collective” that, like the MLC established by Title I of the MMA, “collect[s] and distribute[s] royalties, and identif[ies] musical works and their owners for payment.”[70] The MLC established by the MMA also maintains a database listing entities eligible to receive royalties.[71] An analogous statute for the film and television industries should provide for the creation and maintenance of a similar database. This could help ensure that creatives involved with the production of film and television projects earn royalties for their work, no matter where those projects (legally) end up across various streaming platforms.
Without a statute that ensures copyright holders receive compensation for the distribution of their work on streaming platforms, though, the film and television industries may face more strikes in the future, as technology continues to change. As seen in 2023, such strikes are incredibly costly and inherently reduce the content available to consumers because very little new content is being created.[72]
The MMA requires potential licensees to “have a direct contractual, subscription or other economic relationship with listeners or. . . must exercise direct control over providing the service to the listeners; [b]e able to report revenues (or other consideration) generated by the service; and [b]e able to provide certain reporting on usage of sound recordings of musical work.”[73] A similar statute for the film and television industries could mitigate some of the increased costs of fairly compensating writers and actors by requiring that licensees provide content through a paid subscription service, for which the revenues would have to be reported. This could, ideally, pave the way for greater transparency and accountability for the payment of royalties. Additionally, the licensees under such a statute should be required to report their usage of the copyrighted works to which they are given distribution rights, further ensuring that all royalties are accounted for.
B. Consumer Access and Stability
It can become incredibly difficult for members of the public to access some films and television shows when, due to licensing agreements, they are removed from Netflix after a set amount of time.[74] Unstable consumer access is another reason why Congress should pass a statute similar to the MMA. Blanket licensing, especially one centralized and regulated through a licensing collective established through such a statute, could make it easier to distribute the content in a manner that the removal of it from one streaming platform would not render it nearly impossible to find and engage with. Through a blanket license, a platform such as Netflix would have the ability to distribute greater amounts of content without relying on piecemeal licensing agreements.
A statute similar to Title I of the MMA could inhibit competition between streaming platforms, ideally leading to fewer streaming platforms capable of legally distributing greater amounts of content. These streaming platforms could obtain blanket licenses through a “Film and Television Mechanical Licensing Collective,” which could allow for more streamlined distribution, with regard to both the content itself and the process of requesting a license for the use of such content. The existence of fewer streaming platforms with larger amounts of available content could mark the beginning of a more consumer-friendly streaming world.
C. Modernization
The passage of the MMA also demonstrates that updating the laws to reflect the needs of creatives and consumers in a rapidly changing world is not an impossible task, even though it may be a difficult one. Although daunting and murky, the realm of copyright law that protects film and television needs to be updated to combat the modern problems facing creatives and consumers alike, such as piracy on social media.
Rampant piracy on TikTok, and other popular social media applications, further highlights the urgency which copyright law must adapt to technological changes. Online piracy can be difficult to regulate, and if existing copyright law cannot control it, it is doubtful that a new statute for film and television would be able to do so either. To leave the film and television industry without greater protection from piracy, though, would allow piracy to continue to spiral out of control. In contrast to the manner in which music streaming platforms have reduced the demand for pirated copies of music,[75] piracy of visual media still poses a great threat to the market for visual media streaming platforms.[76] The screen recording capabilities on various devices allow users of those apps to create copies of the posted movies, meaning that an individual could create copies that exist even after the post in the screen recording has been removed at the request of a copyright holder.[77]
Congress must respond to piracy by ensuring that legal infrastructure is in place to better facilitate licensing for film and television, thereby eliminating the need for consumers to illegally access visual media when content is removed from a given streaming service. Additionally, as with artist compensation, requiring the usage of copyrighted works by licensees to be reported could mitigate some problems caused by piracy by establishing a more centralized method for tracking where certain content has legally ended up across the internet.[78]
V. Addressing the Complexities of Copyright Law: Potential Weaknesses
To propose a solution to problems within a particular creative field without acknowledging the flaws of that solution would do an incredible disservice to members of that field, the market, and consumers of the art produced by that field. Consequently, there are numerous potential issues that could arise if a kind of “Film and Television Modernization Act” is passed, each of which must be addressed. These potential issues include: monopolization, disparities between artists as a result of the MMA, and weaknesses—exposed by consumer engagement—with the copyrighted works made more easily available to them as a result of the MMA. Despite these concerns, though, there are ways that a “Film and Television” Modernization Act could ease them as the streaming world continues to change.
A. Problems
It should be acknowledged that there are problems within music copyright law and that adapting music copyright law to other forms of media will not necessarily solve all problems in copyright law. There is a risk that those problems may be transferred to the television and film industry if copyright law is treated as “one size fits all.”
One problem with passing a statute analogous to Title I of the MMA for the film and television industries is that the market for collective licensing is already “a heavily regulated market” regarding music because of the potential for “monopoly pricing…of collective copyright control.”[79] If collective blanket licenses are utilized for visual media, then heavy regulation will also be needed to prevent monopolization, and the process of getting to a point of effective regulation could be fraught with litigation, lasting several years and potentially causing problems for consumers. It is also possible that increased regulation in the film and television industries could exacerbate current consumer access issues by making it even more difficult to access copyrighted works.
The use of virtual private networks (VPNs) may also eliminate the need for such a statute. VPNs allow users to access content available on streaming platforms in other countries, making creative works easily accessible to consumers.[80] VPNs could eliminate the need for an improved blanket licensing system for visual streaming platforms. Downloading a VPN is a much quicker process than waiting for new legislation to facilitate greater consumer access to media. VPNs also give consumers unlimited access, in a sense, to media. A consumer could digitally “follow” a piece of media around if it comes and goes from various platforms and on different versions of those platforms in various countries.[81]
With the merging of several streaming platforms,[82] it is possible that a statute similar to the MMA is not needed to resolve the problem presented by the existence of so many streaming platforms with no overlapping content. Perhaps all one needs to do is wait for this era of streaming to end, and to simply wait for studios to combine their platforms until there are fewer platforms to subscribe to in order to access all the content one wishes to access.
Recent developments in music copyright have put legal flaws on display for consumers, calling into question the ability of a “Film and Television Modernization Act” to successfully facilitate increased consumer access to copyrighted works. As of February 2024, music distributed through United Music Group (UMG) has been removed from the app TikTok, leaving countless videos on the platform without any sound.[83] This ongoing situation is one example of the legal relationship between major music distributors and a social media platform failing and leaving consumers to deal with the fallout. If the MMA could not prevent such an event, then its ability to ensure that artists receive royalties for their work is dubious, as well as its ability to foster the distribution and access of creative works. Such an event begs the question: why have a mechanical licensing collective in place if it cannot stop a mass-deletion of media from a popular platform, and why have such a collective in place for film and television if countless amounts of content could theoretically be wiped from Netflix the day after its establishment?
Some artists were dissatisfied with the MMA not long after its passage. This dissatisfaction led to litigation between Eight Mile Style—the publishing company of the rapper Eminem—and Spotify, which began in August 2019, less than one year after the MMA was signed into law. In that case, the plaintiff went so far as to allege that the MMA is unconstitutional. In Eight Mile Style’s complaint, it argued that the MMA “retroactive[ly] eliminat[ed] . . . the right of a plaintiff to receive profits attributable to infringement, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees,” amounting to two violations of the Constitution: “denial of due process . . . and an unconstitutional taking of vested property rights.”[84]
B. Final Discussion
The current state of the film and television industries is piecemeal and fragmented, a choppy legal sea upon which consumers must travel to access protected creative works. Streaming platforms are ever-changing, altering their policies to compete with one another. In the midst of those changes, a statute that regulates licensing of the content on those streaming platforms could offer some stability and consistency for consumers. A statute is also needed to protect the rights of creatives within the film and television industries. Although such a statute might not solve all the problems in the film and television industries, it could serve as a step in a new, more positive direction for the future of film and television. Such a statute could fill the existing gaps in copyright law created by rapidly advancing technology and could mitigate issues that have arisen in the years since streaming became such a central part of the film and television industries.
Conclusion
While there are problems with the manner in which copyright law has been applied to music streaming platforms as well as visual media streaming platforms, aspects of music streaming platforms should be adapted to visual media streaming platforms to better provide consumers access to the greatest amount of art and to ensure that there will continue to be a market for streaming platforms. Changes should be made to allow consumers to access visual media more easily, similar to the manner in which music is easily accessible on the internet. The many creatives of the film and television industries, and the consumers of their content, could be served well by a federal statute with similar provisions as the Music Modernization Act. No one can say with complete certainty what the current trajectory of the streaming world is, but the passage of a “Film and Television” Modernization Act could place copyright law on a path toward a brighter future, one in which the “blank space” currently left by Congress is gone.
* J.D. Expected 2025, University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law; BA Political Science 2023, University of Kentucky.
[2] Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264 (2018) [hereinafter MMA].
[3] The Creation of the Music Modernization Act, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/creation.html?loclr=eamma" (last visited Mar. 4, 2025).
[4] What is Copyright?, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/#:~:text=What%20is%20copyright%20registration%3F,step%20is%20registering%20the%20work (last visited Mar. 4, 2025).
[5] What Musicians Should Know about Copyright, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20to%20use%20the%20sound,set%20by%20the%20licensing%20contract (last visited Mar. 4, 2025).
[6] Id.
[7] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular No. 45, Mar. 2014, at 1, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ45.pdf.
[8] Copyright litigation 101, Thomas Reuters (Dec. 16, 2022), https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/copyright-litigation-101/#:~:text=A%20copyright%20owner%20can%20sue,specific%20conditions%20(see%20below).
[9] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular No. 16A, Mar. 2021, at 1, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/m10.pdf.
[10] Copyright Licensing Under the Law, Justia, https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-licensing/ (Oct. 2024).
[11] Michelle Kaminsky, What is a Copyright License?, LegalZoom, https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-is-a-copyright-license (Jan. 24, 2025).
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
[16] U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ (Nov. 2023).
[17] 17 U.S.C. § 107.
[18] U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index, supra note 16.
[19] The Music Modernization Act, Copyright.gov, https://copyright.gov/music-modernization/.
[20] 17 U.S.C. § 115; Compulsory license, Black’s Law Dictionary (12 ed. 2024).
[21] Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 851 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2017); see also The Creation of the Music Modernization Act, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/creation.html?loclr=eamma (last visited Mar. 9, 2025).
[22] The Music Modernization Act, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2025).
[23] Musical Works Modernization Act, Copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/115/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2025).
[24] What Is a Blanket License?, Songtrust, https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-a-blanket-license.
[25] Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) § 102(d)(1)(D).
[26] Digital License Coordinator, The Blanket License – Who Needs It and What You Need to Know, https://digitallicenseecoordinator.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Defining-and-Differentiating-between-a-%E2%80%9CBlanket-Licensee%E2%80%9D-and-a-%E2%80%9CSignificant-NonBlanket-Licensee%E2%80%9D-Resource-Document.pdf; MMA § 102(a)(1).
[27]MMA § 102(a)(1).
[28] Digital License Coordinator, The Blanket License – Who Needs It and What You Need to Know, https://digitallicenseecoordinator.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Defining-and-Differentiating-between-a-%E2%80%9CBlanket-Licensee%E2%80%9D-and-a-%E2%80%9CSignificant-NonBlanket-Licensee%E2%80%9D-Resource-Document.pdf.
[29] U.S. Copyright Office, Frequently Asked Questions, copyright.gov, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/faq.html#:~:text=The%20Music%20Modernization%20Act%20updates,addresses%20distribution%20of%20producer%20royalties.
[30] Id. at 5; Andrew Parks, Defining Pay Sources: CMO vs PRO, SONGTRUST, (last updated Dec. 11, 2023), https://blog.songtrust.com/pay-sources-difference-between-a-pro-and-cmo.
[31] Andrew Parks, Defining Pay Sources: CMO vs PRO, SONGTRUST, (last updated Dec. 11, 2023), https://blog.songtrust.com/pay-sources-difference-between-a-pro-and-cmo.
[32] BMI, What is the difference between performing right royalties, mechanical royalties and sync royalties?, BMI Member FAQs, https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_the_difference_between_performing_right_royalties_mechanical_r.
[33] Quinn He, The vast accessibility of modern music streaming, Mass. Daily Collegian, (Dec. 10, 2019), https://dailycollegian.com/2019/12/the-vast-accessibility-of-modern-music-streaming/.
[34] Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F.Supp.2d 398, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
[35] Jonathan Stempel, LimeWire to pay record labels $105 million, ends suit, Reuters, (May 13, 2011), https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE74B783/.
[36] He, supra note 33.
[37] Shubham Singh, Spotify Users Statistics 2025: Subscribers & Demographics Data, demandsage, (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.demandsage.com/spotify-stats/.
[38] See Tim Ingham, Over 60,000 Tracks Are Now Uploaded To Spotify Every Day. That’s Nearly One Per Second, Music Bus. Worldwide, (Feb. 24, 2021), https://perma.cc/A34C-4TVJ.
[39] He, supra note 33.
[40] Get more out of your music with Premium, Spotify, https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/.
[41] Singh, supra note 35.
[42] Music streaming overtakes physical sales for the first time -industry body, Reuters, (Apr. 24, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/music-sales/music-streaming-overtakes-physical-sales-for-the-first-time-industry-body-idUSL8N1S143H.
[43] See Spotify, Royalties, Spotify for Artists, https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/.
[44] Id.
[45] Eric Priest, The Future of Music Copyright Collectives in the Digital Streaming Age, 45 Colum. J.L. & Arts 1, 6 (2021).
[46] Id. at 7.
[47] See id.
[48] Id.
[49] 17 U.S.C. § 106(6).
[50] Moses Singer, Getting in Turn with Copyright Law: Musical Compositions vs. Sound Recordings in Richardson v. Kharbouch, Moses Singer Publ’ns (Mar. 5, 2024), www.mosessinger.com/publications/getting-in-tune-with-copyright-law-musical-compositions-vs-sound-recordings-in-richardson-v-kharbouch.
[51] Reuters, supra note 42.
[52] See, e.g., Media - Public Performance and Streaming Licenses: How to Obtain Rights, Univ. of Wis. Whitewater, https://libguides.uww.edu/c.php?g=548422&p=3762449#:~:text=Feature%20films%20and%20television%20shows,pictures%20from%20many%20major%20studios.https://libguides.uww.edu/c.php?g=548422&p=3762449#:~:text=Feature%20films%20and%20television%20shows,pictures%20from%20many%20major%20studios.
[53] See, e.g., Market Share for Each Distributor 1995-2024, The Numbers, https://www.the-numbers.com/market/distributors.
[54] See Sarah Whitten, The Death of the DVD: Why Sales Dropped More than 86% in 13 Years, CNBC (Nov. 8, 2019), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html.
[55] Mindy Born, 60 Netflix Statistics & Facts for 2025: Subscribers, Revenue & More, Cloudwards (May 13, 2024), https://www.cloudwards.net/netflix-statistics/.
[56] Riya Gupta, How Does Netflix Obtain the Rights for Streaming Movies, iPleaders (Apr. 26, 2021), https://blog.ipleaders.in/netflix-obtain-rights-streaming-movies/ .
[57] Id.
[58] Aaron Gregg & Eli Tan, Netflix Sign-Ups Double After Crackdown on Account Sharing, Wash. Post (June 9, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/09/netflix-password-sharing-rules/.
[59] Id.
[60] Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169, 173–74 (2d Cir. 2018).
[61] Id. at 175.
[62] Id.
[63] Id. at 179–80.
[64] Winston Cho, Disney, Major Studios Get $30M From Illegal Streaming Sites Amid Piracy Crackdown, Hollywood Rep. (Mar. 27, 2023), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-major-studios-win-judgment-from-illegal-streaming-sites-1235361828/.
[65] Id.
[66] Id.
[67] Id.
[68] Nathan Kamal, Netflix Pays Zero Royalties for Its Most Popular Show Ever, Inside the Magic (June 28, 2023), https://insidethemagic.net/2023/06/netflix-squid-game-zero-royalties-nk1/.
[69] Id.
[70] U.S. Copyright Off., supra note 23.
[71] See 37 C.F.R. § 210.31 (2020).
[72] See, e.g., Robert Hum, The Hollywood Actors’ Strike is Over, but the Impact Will Linger for Some Big Companies, CNBC (Nov. 9, 2023), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/09/sag-aftra-strike-impact.html#:~:text=CFO%20Gunnar%20Wiedenfels%20said%20on,strong%20films%20and%20games%20performance.%E2%80%9D (discussing the strike’s financial impact on studios and movie theaters).
[73] Digital License Coordinator, supra note 26.
[74] Why Do TV Shows and Movies Leave Netflix?, Netflix, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/60541.
[75] See Reuters, supra note 40.
[76] Brett Danaher, Michael D. Smith & Rahul Telang, Piracy and Copyright Enforcement
Mechanisms, 14 Innovation Pol'y & Econ. 25, 27 (2014).
[77] See How to Screen Record Protected Videos [Completed Guide], iTop, https://recorder.itopvpn.com/blog/how-to-screen-record-protected-videos-1225 (Dec. 23, 2024).
[78] See, e.g., Digital License Coordinator, supra note 24.
[79] Priest, supra note 43, at 2.
[80] What is a VPN?, Microsoft Azure, https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-vpn#:~:text=A%20VPN%2C%20which%20stands%20for,and%20firewalls%20on%20the%20internet.
[81] Id.
[82] See, e.g., Ana Faguy, What a Warner Bros./Paramount Merger Could Mean for Users, Forbes (Dec. 21, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/12/21/what-a-warner-brosparamount-merger-could-mean-for-users/?sh=6b9de96c1dbe.
[83] Jem Aswad, TikTok Begins Removing Universal Music Publishing Songs, Expanding Royalty Battle, Variety (Feb. 27, 2024), https://variety.com/2024/music/musicians/tiktok-removing-universal-music-publishing-songs-1235923848/.
[84] Althea Legaspi, Eminem Publisher Sues Spotify for Copyright Infringement, Rolling Stone (Aug. 21, 2019), https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/eminem-publisher-spotify-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-874956/.