Photo: Krivitskiy
For those trying to make sense of the post-apocalyptic hell-scape known as the US Copyright Office, we wish you the best.
What started with a tech bro ambush has shifted into an all-out war for control over the US Copyright Office — and the critical policy direction that comes with it. Actually, it’s not entirely clear why former US Copyright chief Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired, though widespread conjecture pointed to the handiwork of tech bro operators like Elon Musk and David Shapiro — not to mention a very powerful cadre of pro-AI, Trump-allied tech titans.
Sounded logical enough, but why can’t they finish the deal?
As recently-fired Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter launches her legal counterattack against the Trump Administration, we’re guessing the White House will forge ahead with their chosen replacements at both the Copyright Office and umbrella Library of Congress.
But wait: the White House’s interim picks aren’t very pro-AI or pro-tech, raising serious questions over the tech bro puppet master theory. If Musk & Co. directed the dismissal of the more pro-copyright Perlmutter, why aren’t more AI-friendly replacements being named?
Tossing another perplexing incident into the riddle: Trump himself ‘re-truthed’ a rather anti-tech bro post on Truth Social — from antitrust advisor Mark Davis, who has sharply questioned the copyright-be-damned mantra of the AI class.
As we head into the weekend, some top-ranking Department of Justice officials are assuming positions at both the Library of Congress and US Copyright Office. But is that how this works?
A key argument in Perlmutter’s legal filing is that the White House and Department of Justice lack any authority to fire the heads of the Library of Congress (in this case, the recently-axed Carla Hayden) or Copyright Office. Instead, the head of the Library of Congress has the sole authority to appointed the Register of Copyrights, and only Congress can name the head of the Library of Congress.
That raises the question: will a federal judge issue an injunction and restore Perlmutter to her former post?
If so, get ready to crank the mayhem-meter to 11 — especially given that Carla Hayden would also be restored under the same order. Will the Trump Administration seek another method to dispose of Hayden and Perlmutter if a judge steps in?
Perhaps the more vexing question for the music industry is whether a restored Perlmutter will have anything close to her previous influence. Shaping copyright policy with a Director-under-attack seems dicey at best, with one policymaker telling DMN that a Trump-appointed, pro-copyright figure might be the best outcome here.
But how might those people be?
Besides the legal questions (and lawsuit) surrounding the shakeup, it remains to be seen whether the aforementioned DOJ officials will stick around in their new posts or soon make way for non-acting replacements.
Meanwhile, getting far less attention is a pernicious piece of pro-AI legislation in the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’.
The ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ passed the House by the narrowest of margins before heading off to the Senate. And buried with the voluminous Bill is a dastardly 10-year moratorium on state-led AI regulations. That’s right: by law, states would be prevented from enacting AI regulations, of any size or flavor.
It’s a big, beautiful bonus for AI megaliths like Google, Meta, OpenAI, with pesky regulations off the table for a full-blown decade.
As one might expect, state attorneys general argue that the moratorium would be “sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.” In a recent open letter to Congress, they point out that the absence of federal protections means states are often a first line of defense against technological harms—including those impacting personal identity, privacy, and creative rights.
On the AI side, the argument is that over-regulation will kill technological development and competitiveness with rivals like China. Of course, the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ still has a gigantic Senate hurdle, where plenty of changes are likely to occur. Can pro-copyright forces — not to mention state AGs — remove or soften the 10-year provision?
Sadly, this isn’t the best of times for copyright defenders like the NMPA, RIAA, and others.
The Trump Administration has its copyright defenders and big tech challengers, but can music’s well-heeled lobbyists steer this ship towards a zone of content protection and compensation? Part of the problem is Hollywood, which is ardently anti-Trump and, well, Californian. That anti-Trump energy has certainly dominated the music side, though DMN keeps hearing that the music industry would be wise to fire up its Nashville contingent, including its Red State superstar musicians.
Incidentally, that includes Trump pals like Kid Rock, who flanked the president during his ratification of the momentous Music Modernization Act during the first term.
Perhaps it’s time to roll out that game plan in the more critical battle against AI?
More as this chaotic situation develops.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Copyright, Feature Story, Intellectual Property Protection, Legislative, Music Law
This post was originally authored and published by Paul Resnikoff Digital Music News via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
