PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 22, 2018
Allocation for Music Producers Act or the AMP Act
This bill authorizes royalties for producers, mixers, and sound engineers who made a creative contribution to a sound recording. A nonprofit collective designated by the Copyright Royalty Board shall adopt procedures for such royalty payments for various digital transmissions of the recording.
The procedures shall allow the owner of the exclusive right to publicly perform the sound recording or the featured artist to instruct the collective to calculate and distribute the payments to the producers, mixers, and sound engineers. The instruction is called a "letter of direction."
For sound recordings fixed before November 1, 1995, the nonprofit collective shall adopt policies for collecting and distributing such royalties, even without a letter of direction. The collective and those seeking royalties shall attempt to contact the featured artist to get a letter of direction; however, if the artist does not object within a specified time frame, the collective may distribute the royalties.
People & committees
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2625 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2625 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2625 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2625 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.