Protect Working Musicians Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to rebalance negotiating power in the digital music market by allowing independent artists to collectively bargain for licensing terms without violating antitrust laws.
What it actually does
This bill creates a limited antitrust safe harbor, allowing "Individual Music Creator Owners" to collectively negotiate music licensing terms or collectively refuse to license their music with "Dominant Online Music Distribution Platforms" and companies engaged in generative artificial intelligence. It defines specific criteria for both independent creators and dominant platforms to be eligible for this exemption, aiming to address a perceived power imbalance in the digital music market.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current digital music market is distorted, with dominant online platforms exploiting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "notice and takedown" system to profit from unlicensed music while dictating unfair terms to creators. They contend that independent music creators lack the resources to fight these platforms individually, leading to decimated careers. This bill would restore fair market competition and ensure creators receive fair value for their work, fostering a healthier music ecosystem and society.
Opponents contend
Opponents, likely dominant online platforms and tech industry groups, would argue that such an antitrust exemption could lead to price fixing, stifle innovation, and increase costs for consumers. They might contend that the current market mechanisms, including the DMCA's safe harbors, are necessary for the scale and accessibility of online music distribution. They may also argue that collective negotiation could create a cartel-like environment, harming competition and potentially limiting consumer choice or increasing subscription prices.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing for a thorough understanding within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title: Protect Working Musicians Act of 2026
This section formally names the legislation as the "Protect Working Musicians Act of 2026." This short title provides a common and easily recognizable name for the bill, facilitating its discussion and identification in legislative and public discourse.
Supporters argue
A clear and concise title helps communicate the bill's purpose and garner public support for its objectives of protecting independent musicians.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a bill's short title, as it is a procedural element.
Tradeoffs
N/A
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Music Market Imbalance and DMCA Shortcomings
This section outlines Congress's rationale for enacting the bill. It asserts that music is a vital cultural and economic asset, but the online market for its distribution has become distorted. It claims that "Dominant Online Music Distribution Platforms" use their market power and exploit the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "notice and takedown" system to force unfair licensing terms on "Independent Music Creator Owners." These findings argue that this imbalance decimates music careers and that Congress has a duty to resolve conflicts when antitrust laws hinder the promotion of fair markets for creative works.
Section 3(a)
Definitions for Antitrust Safe Harbor Eligibility
This subsection defines key terms crucial for the bill's application. It specifies what constitutes an "antitrust law," a "Dominant Online Music Distribution Platform" (an entity with over $100 million in annual music distribution revenue that operates an online service and is not eligible for a specific statutory license), and an "Individual Music Creator Owner" (musicians, songwriters, or entities owning copyrights who earned less than $1,000,000 in licensing revenues in the prior year or qualify as a small business). It also defines "generative artificial intelligence" as AI capable of creating novel media.
Section 3(b)
Antitrust Safe Harbor for Collective Negotiation and Refusal to License
This is the core operative provision, granting "Individual Music Creator Owners" an exemption from antitrust liability. They can collectively negotiate music licensing terms with "Dominant Online Music Distribution Platforms" or generative AI companies, or collectively refuse to license their music to them. This protection is conditional: negotiations must not be solely about price, must be nondiscriminatory among similarly situated independent creators, must be directly related and reasonably necessary for negotiations consistent with antitrust laws, and must not involve any parties outside the defined independent creators or dominant platforms.
Section 3(c)
Rule of Construction: Limitation on Scope of Act
This section clarifies that, apart from the specific antitrust safe harbor provided in the Act, the bill does not modify, impair, or supersede the general operation of existing antitrust laws. This ensures that the exemption is narrowly construed and does not inadvertently alter broader antitrust jurisprudence.
The antitrust safe harbor is conditional on collective negotiations not being solely about price, being nondiscriminatory as to similarly situated independent creator/owners, and being "directly related to and reasonably necessary for negotiations with a Dominant Online Music Distribution Platform that are otherwise consistent with the operation of the Antitrust laws."
Section 3(b)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include limiting conditions to exemptions, ensuring they are not abused. It's crucial for defining the precise scope and preventing the safe harbor from being interpreted as a blanket permission for anti-competitive behavior.
Case for: Supporters would argue these conditions are vital safeguards to prevent abuse of the exemption, ensuring that collective action remains focused on fair negotiation and market correction rather than anti-competitive price manipulation or discrimination among creators.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these conditions are vague or difficult to enforce, potentially leading to legal challenges and uncertainty for both creators and platforms. They could also contend that limiting negotiations beyond price undermines the core intent of empowering creators to achieve truly fair market value.
Estimated impact: These conditions will significantly shape the practical application and legal defensibility of any collective action taken by independent creators, determining what types of collective bargaining are permissible and what could still trigger antitrust scrutiny.