Artists lose ally in copyright
MUSIC artists are reacting with outrage at the dismissal of the head of the US Copyright Office, calling the move an attack that is part of a larger effort to erode their creative rights and to bolster advocates of free content.
“This is a major affront to copyright,” said songwriter and music publisher Dean Kay. “Google seems to be taking over the world – and politics . . . Their major position is to allow themselves to use copyright material without remuneration.”
The Copyright Office administers the complex set of rules governing copyright and advises Congress on policy and legal issues. It is a federal department within the Library of Congress.
New Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden last month abruptly removed Maria Pallante from the position she held since 2011 and reassigned her to a role of “senior adviser.” In a letter to Pallante that was obtained by the Washington Post, Hayden listed Pallante’s new duties, including undertaking a review of the library’s retail operation. The job would require Pallante to file weekly reports to a deputy librarian, Hayden wrote; it would “not require any communications with Members of Congress”. Pallante was told to move out of her office, and people close to the situation in the library reported that she was locked out of her computer.
Pallante resigned three days later. In a letter posted online, she requested the “reinstatement of access to my computer and email”. A library spokesman said she was not denied access.
Singer Don Henley said Pallante’s ouster was “an enormous blow” to artists. “She was a champion of copyright and stood up for the creative community, which is one of the things that got her fired,” he said.
Although personnel changes are not uncommon when a new leader comes in, many in the creative industries interpret Hayden’s move – made six weeks after she took office – as proof of her anticopyright bias. They say Hayden’s library background aligns her with Google, which owns YouTube, the source of many claims of copyright infringement.
“The librarian wants free content, and the copyright office is there to protect creators of content. They are diametrically opposed ideologies,” Henley said.
Copyright regulations are more critical and more controversial than ever because of dramatic changes in technology. In one camp are tech and internet companies that seek exemptions to regulations in their efforts to spark innovation. On the other side are filmmakers, authors, musicians and TV producers who want to limit free use and be paid for their creativity. Many of their representatives, including the Motion Picture Association of America, praised Pallante and advocated for a strong successor.
“It is imperative that the next and future Registers have the expertise, support, resources, and independence to continue the Office’s essential and constitutionally-backed role of advancing the arts by rewarding creators for their work,” Joanna McIntosh, the MPAA’s executive vice president for global policy, said in a statement.
Pallante was considered an ally of the film, television, music and publishing industries, which contribute between $750 billion and $1 trillion in annual economic activity and employ more than 5 million people. Last year, she issued a report, “Copyright and the Music Marketplace,” that listed fair compensation to music creators as its first guiding principle. The report also opposed a change in music licensing supported by the Justice Department, noting that “Congress, not the DOJ,” has authority to change the system. She also advised Congress that a Federal Communications Commission proposal requiring cable providers to make their content accessible to third parties appeared to violate copyright regulations.
Kay and Henley say technological changes are undercutting their livelihoods.
“There’s a mind-set that the digital giants have fostered that everything on the Internet should be free,” Henley said. “You don’t make any money from recording music anymore,” he added. “The streaming services have wiped out that revenue stream.”
A Google spokesman said the company had no contact with the Library of Congress or the administration about Pallante or the Copyright Office.
Kay said he sees the losses personally and in his publishing business. “It’s all moving digital and streaming, and unless we can straighten things out and get copyright adhered to in terms of paying fairly, we’ll see great damage to all kind of creators,” he said.
But advocates for broad digital access say that Pallante was too cozy with artists and that her focus on their rights came at the expenses of others, including the public. In a recent, sharply critical report that found systemic bias at the Copyright Office, Meredith Rose of the nonprofit group Public Knowledge concluded that the office had aligned itself with the entertainment industry and “regularly disregarded the concerns of . . . libraries, archives and the public at large”.
Public Knowledge, which advocates for consumer rights, released the report in September, before Hayden was sworn in.
“The Copyright Office advertises itself as a research entity, producing reports, but at the same time they very much act as a lobbying art for content producers,” Rose said.
Julie Todaro, president of the American Library Association, dismissed the idea that Hayden’s library career makes her an automatic adversary to strong copyright enforcement.
“People look at copyright as content providers versus users,” Todaro said. “Technology makes everybody both, so libraries represent and respect both.”