Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Thursday called for greater protections for content creators as AI takes hold in the entertainment industry, while expressing some optimism that a long-sought music bill would move this Congress.
Schiff also had serious concerns about the Netflix and Paramount bids for Warner Bros. Discovery, and President Donald Trump‘s comments that he would have a role in whether any transaction gets the regulatory green light. On Wednesday, Trump said he would not favor any deal that does not include a sale of CNN, calling the news network’s content “poison.”
In an interview with Deadline, Schiff said he is concerned about a WBD sale’s impact on the workforce, “at a time when it’s never been under greater stress, after the pandemic, after the strikes, after the contraction of the streaming services.”
He also said that he was concerned “about the impact on the First Amendment and on media freedom and media consolidation, and the president using the leverage of his office and regulatory power to approve or disapprove of mergers, to change content to something that he would view more favorably –that is a grave threat to the freedom of the press.”
RELATED: Trump Celebrity Supporters: Famous Folks In Favor Of The 47th President
Netflix‘s deal is for Warner Bros. Discovery’s film and TV studio, HBO and HBO Max, while cable channels like CNN would be spun off into a separate entity. Paramount this week launched a hostile bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery including CNN. The Wall Street Journal reported that Paramount CEO David Ellison told Trump administration officials he would make major changes to the news network, which has long been a target of Trump’s ire. Trump also has met with Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix.
Schiff said that “to whatever degree, or even any degree in which the content of a news provider, whether it’s favorable or unfavorable to the president, is being discussed, it is wholly 100% improper. And any decision regulatory or otherwise, to favor one proposal over another, to placate the president’s personal interest is just anathema to the First Amendment, and puts our country even further on the slippery slope to where we don’t have a First Amendment.”
He added, “All of this is going to be the subject of oversight, and people need to understand that. I think there’s an ethic to get what you can get right now while the getting is good, but there’s going to be accountability.”
Schiff is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee, which this week held a hearing on the Music Fairness Act, which would give performers the right to compensation when broadcast radio stations play their songs over the airwaves. Musicians have long sought to close what they call a “loophole” in copyright law, given that they are paid when their works are played on digital or satellite radio. The bill also includes carve outs that limit royalties paid by smaller and college radio stations.
The hearing certainly created a lot of attention given the presence of Gene Simmons, who offered his testimony in support of the legislation, which has bipartisan support.
“I think it feels different,” Schiff said of the bill’s prospects. “I think it has a better chance of success now, and in part because the industries have so evolved now, a lot of the major radio stations are also in the digital platform business, and there’s been a convergence of technologies, and it makes less and less sense to treat a performer whose work is played on a streaming service differently than if their work is broadcast over the radio.”
Earlier on Thursday, Disney announced a landmark agreement with OpenAI for the use of the company’s IP, including classic characters and those from Star Wars. Disney also sent a cease and desist letter to Google over its use of its IP in AI inputs and outputs, a reminder that some of the thorniest issues of copyright and artificial intelligence likely will be resolved in court.
Trump, meanwhile, on Thursday signed an executive order to sideline state AI laws, which have been passed in recent years amid stalled tech legislation in Congress. The state efforts include a Tennessee law that gives performers control over their likeness and voice, and laws in California that establish guardrails for chatbots.
“This is one issue where Congress needs to get involved,” Schiff said. “There are a whole set of areas where I think AI regulation is necessary to protect children, to protect privacy, but also to protect creators, to make sure that they are compensated for their work like anyone else.”
DEADLINE: Does the Disney-OpenAI deal, and the company’s cease-and-desist letter, have the effect of creating some momentum for congressional action on copyright?
ADAM SCHIFF: I do think this is an issue that Congress really needs to pay attention to, and it’s one I’ve been working on for a couple years, and that is that copyright holders, creators whose works are used to help build these data sets and train these models, be compensated for their intellectual property. Certainly these companies have the resources to do it, and they have the technology to be able to use to divine whose IP work product has been utilized. This is one issue where Congress needs to get involved. There are a whole set of areas where I think AI regulation is necessary to protect children, to protect privacy, but also to protect creators, make sure that they’re compensated for the work like anyone else.
DEADLINE: What will happen next [after President Trump’s executive order to pre-empt state AI laws]? There are a number of Republicans against the idea. Could you see Congress trying to take some action to preempt that executive order?
SCHIFF: It’s a good question. On a very bipartisan basis, the Congress has rejected a total preemption of state laws and state regulation of AI when it came up as an amendment to the what the president calls his Big Beautiful Bill. Everyone voted against it, including the author of the amendment. Now, whether they would be willing to take on the president the Republican Party is a very different question. Thus far, they have been exceedingly unwilling to do so on just about anything, so I don’t know whether there would be a willingness to do that. I do suspect that the first thing that will happen is it will be challenged in court, and it will likely not survive, this executive order. I think trying to extort states by saying they won’t receive federal funding if they act to protect their constituents from some of the risks posed by AI isn’t going to fly legally, and it may be another reason why some Republican colleagues choose to duck the issue rather than confront it.
DEADLINE: The Music Fairness Act is about an issue that has been around for a long time. Musicians have long sought compensation for terrestrial radio airplay, but it’s always been blocked [amid the lobbying from] broadcasters. Do you see this time any different?
SCHIFF: I think it feels different. I think it has a better chance of success now, and in part because the industries have so evolved. Now, a lot of the major radio stations are also in the digital platform business, and there’s been a convergence of technologies, and it makes less and less sense to treat a performer whose work is played on a streaming service differently than if their work is broadcast over the radio. We’ve also made sure that the bill has carve outs for college radio stations and small radio stations. I understand the enormous financial pressure that many local broadcasters are under, and they provide a really vital service. So we want to make this work for everyone. But if a radio station has to pay all their employees, and they do, and they should, they should also compensate the talent that they’re airing. They managed to do with talk radio stations. They should be able to do it when they’re airing music as well.
DEADLINE: The President has made clear he’s going to be part of the [Warner Bros. Discovery regulatory review] process. He’s also made clear that he does not want CNN to remain under its current ownership. What do you think of what the president said, and also is there a role for the Senate to play when it comes into that type of executive interference over a DOJ process?
SCHIFF: I was at CNN last night, and in the lobby of CNN, they have exhibited the First Amendment, the text of the First Amendment. And I thought, “How ironic to see this at CNN, at a time when what is embodied in that amendment, the protection of the press against an oppressive government that would try to censor the press.” How ironic that this is exhibited at a time when their efforts to acquire CNN and potentially change the content to the president’s liking, and the president openly saying that’s exactly what he wants to do in personally weighing in on this merger. Now this comes in the context of the one of these companies settling litigation involving CBS by paying the president $16 million so that a merger could go through. And it comes in the context of ABC months earlier make its own payment to the president. So I have a number of deep concerns about where we are right now with both of these merger proposals.
Number one, I’m concerned about the impact on the workforce in the entertainment industry at a time when it’s never been under greater stress — after the pandemic, after the strikes, after the contraction of the streaming services. Now we have this further proposal for contraction, which I think by either estimate of either merger proposal will result in laying off thousands of people in a profitable industry, so I’m deeply concerned about the impact on the workforce. I’m also concerned, though, about the impact on the First Amendment and on media freedom and media consolidation, and the president using the leverage of his office and regulatory power to approve or disapprove of mergers, to change content to something that he would view more favorably. That is a grave threat to the freedom of the press. And finally, the additional issue now of the president’s son in law being involved in one of these transactions, leveraging money from the Gulf, which might further influence content with these companies. So there’s a lot to sift through here, and a lot of oversight that’s really going to be necessary.
[Affinity Partners, the firm owned by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, is part of the Paramount bid].
DEADLINE: What about the companies themselves. Do you think that they bear some of the responsibility for by going in and meeting with [Trump] and trying to win his favor?
SCHIFF: Well, it depends on what kind of appeal they’re making to win his favor. But to whatever degree, or even any degree in which the content of a news provider, whether it’s favorable or unfavorable to the president, is being discussed, it is wholly 100% improper. And any decision, regulatory or otherwise, to favor one proposal over another, to placate the president’s personal interest is just anathema to the First Amendment, and puts our country even further on the slippery slope to where we don’t have a First Amendment.
DEADLINE: Do you think that this is the type of situation that would carry over into the next Congress? Would Democrats pursue this in some kind of oversight role should they win back control?
SCHIFF: Yes, absolutely. I think everyone, whether they’re in the business world, in academia, at the law firms, at any of our institutions, who are being leveraged or pressured or extorted by this administration, all of this is going to come out. All of this is going to be the subject of oversight. And people need to understand that. I think there’s an ethic to get what you can get right now while the getting is good, but there’s going to be accountability. If it doesn’t happen under this Republican Congress, it will happen under the Democratic one.