By , February 02, 2018.

National Association of Broadcasters Signs on to Support Music Modernization Act — NAB’s support means that there is broad support for the MMA, which was introduced in the House and Senate over the past several weeks. The bill would, among other things, create a licensing collective to administer and distribute mechanical royalties under a newly created blanket license that digital music services can use to reproduce and distribute songs.

How Lamar Alexander brokered deal that led to Music Modernization Act — A compelling behind the scenes look at one of the Senators involved in crafting, and ultimately introducing along with a number of other Senators from both parties, the Music Modernization Act in the Senate.

Project to “Restate” Copyright Law Under Scrutiny — “The hope was that the drafters would take their responsibility and the Advisors’ comments seriously, especially since the Advisory group includes some of the nation’s leading copyright experts, and that at the end of the day a clear, accurate, and balanced Restatement might be produced. As it turns out, very few of the Advisors’ comments have been adopted to date, even though many comments address the accuracy of the draft and/or the need for balance.” For more on the ALI project, check out Concerns over ALI Copyright Restatement Leave Project in Limbo, by Kevin Madigan.

Appeals Court: ISPs Don’t Get Copyright Shield Without Enforcement of Meaningful Repeat Infringer Policy — A fairly significant decision from the Fourth Circuit, which held, among other things, that Section 512’s repeat infringer policy requirement is not limited to only “adjudicated” infringers. The court also rejected Cox’s argument that the Sony Betamax decision acts as an absolute shield from liability rather than, as the Supreme Court held in Grokster, merely one rule among many for establishing fault.

Major Studios, Streamers Win Early Battle in War With TickBox — Although the decision came on a preliminary injunction motion in a district court, it is still significant as it is one of the first decisions to consider the liability of “illicit streaming devices”. The court had little difficulty finding that distributing devices with ready access to infringing content and promoting their use for infringement creates liability.