As we reported in a prior post about George Johnson’s grass roots effort to ask the Copyright Office to review that status of the compulsory license which is the raison d’être for the existence of their Mechanical Licensing Collective, the US Copyright Office turned him down. The Office has refused to look into a study on the continued viability of the compulsory license in the United States as part of the five year review of their Mechanical Licensing Collective. The five year review is the perfect opportunity to consider whether the compulsory license itself is fit for purpose.

This is particularly true after the near-fiasco of the MLC’s testimony to the House IP Subcommittee which is well worth watching, particularly the Subcommittee’s “show me the money” questioning about what the MLC is doing with the hundreds of millions that the MLC is “investing”. The only reason the MLC has these hundreds of millions is because of the compulsory license. This requires an explanation that nobody seems interested in making to the songwriters like George Johnson.

It seems to us impossible to consider one without the other and we appreciate George Johnson taking the time to make that argument to the Copyright Office. In coming days we will have some additional thoughts about the continued viability of the compulsory and look forward to a robust debate on the topic. We may have to conduct that conversation outside of the Imperial City, but that’s OK. There are many international interests involved as well as motivated constituents all around this country.

Here is the Copyright Office rejection letter. There are a number of assumptions it makes, such as the negotiation of Title I of the MMA was a free and open process and not a star chamber for the insiders. We’ll get to these in coming days.

Dear George,

Thank you for your letter requesting a study concerning repealing the section 115 compulsory license.  As you know, the section 115 license was previously explored by the Office and it was recently amended by Congress as part of the Music Modernization Act (MMA).  As the changes made to the license through the MMA have been effective only for the past two and a half years, the Office believes that it would be premature at this time to engage in a new study of the section 115 license.

To briefly recap this history, in 2015, the Copyright Office issued its policy report “Copyright and the Music Marketplace,” which reviewed the then-current conditions affecting the U.S. music marketplace and made various suggestions for reform, including with respect to the section 115 license.  The report was built on input we received from organizations and individuals, including yourself, who shared their insights and experiences in written comments and in roundtable discussions. 

With respect to the section 115 license, the report observed that “[m]any parties have called for either the complete elimination or modernization of section 115, citing issues such as the administrative challenges of the license, the inaccuracy and slowness of the ratesetting process, and frustration with government-mandated rates.”  Ultimately, however, the Office recommended modernizing, but not repealing, the section 115 license.  While the Office was sympathetic to arguments in favor of repealing the license, it was also concerned that eliminating the license would cause extraordinary difficulties associated with negotiating individual licenses for the millions of musical works offered on digital music providers’ services.

Three years later, Congress updated the section 115 license as a part of the MMA—an Act that Senator Grassley referred to as “the product of long and hard negotiations and compromise.”  One of the Act’s cornerstones was the new compulsory blanket section 115 license, which became available on January 1, 2021.  

Although we do not intend to undertake a new study of the section 115 license at this time, we want to remind you that the Office welcomes input from stakeholders and members of the public to better inform our decision-making.  I would like to thank you again for your letter and any additional views that you may wish to provide to the Office in the future.

Sincerely,

Suzy Wilson

General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights

U.S. Copyright Office