ASCAP and BMI push back against U.S. copyright office inquiry
ASCAP and BMI respond to a federal inquiry, defending PROs and warning that more regulation could hurt music creators.
In response to the U.S. Copyright Office’s ongoing inquiry into the structure and practices of performance rights organizations (PROs), both ASCAP and BMI, two of the largest and most established PROs in the United States, have submitted strong, detailed defenses of their roles, missions, and impact on music creators.
The inquiry, launched in early 2025, seeks to gather public input on the growing number of PROs, the licensing challenges they pose for music users, and questions surrounding transparency and fairness in royalty distribution. It comes on the heels of criticism from several licensee groups, including broadcasters and digital platforms, who argue that a more fragmented licensing landscape increases costs and creates inefficiencies.
ASCAP, which represents over one million songwriters, composers, and music publishers, pushed back firmly on the idea that more oversight is needed. In their official submission, ASCAP emphasized that the current system already balances the needs of creators and licensees, and warned that additional regulation could disrupt this equilibrium.
They highlighted ongoing efforts to improve transparency, including maintaining a publicly accessible online database of all works in their repertoire and publishing royalty rates and distribution methods. According to ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews, these steps demonstrate the organization’s commitment to openness and efficiency, without the need for further federal intervention.
In their statement, ASCAP also pointed out what they see as inconsistencies in the position of music users: while licensees often advocate for competition in the market, they now complain that the emergence of additional PROs has made licensing more complex. “You can’t have it both ways,” Matthews noted. “Competition should be encouraged, not penalized.”
BMI offered a similar response, arguing that the current framework serves the creative community well and that the Copyright Office’s inquiry is being driven more by the interests of major licensees than by any systemic issue.
CEO Mike O’Neill characterized the inquiry as a “solution in search of a problem,” and suggested that the real motivation behind it is a desire from licensees to lower their royalty payments. BMI also included a letter signed by nearly 7,000 of its affiliates, all voicing support for the organization and the existing PRO system.
BMI’s filing underscored that its royalty distributions are audited and carefully managed, with regular updates and transparency in reporting. The organization emphasized that it has evolved significantly over the past decade, improving its technology and data-sharing practices to ensure fair and timely payments to rights holders.
Both ASCAP and BMI used their responses to push back against what they view as a growing narrative, primarily from large digital platforms and media companies, that the PRO model is outdated or inefficient. Instead, the organizations argue that they are uniquely equipped to advocate for songwriters, collect royalties fairly, and manage complex licensing across thousands of platforms.
They also warned that introducing further regulations or attempting to centralize the licensing process could end up weakening the bargaining power of creators, especially in an era where revenue from music is increasingly fragmented across platforms like Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and streaming radio.
The U.S. Copyright Office will continue accepting public comments through spring, with a deadline for written submissions set for April 11, 2025, and reply comments accepted until May 27, 2025.
The outcome of this inquiry could significantly influence how PROs operate moving forward, and potentially reshape how music licensing is handled in the U.S. While ASCAP and BMI remain firmly opposed to increased oversight, the pressure from licensees and the Copyright Office’s interest in modernizing copyright practices suggests that change, in some form, may be on the horizon.
