In spite of the bipartisan agreement of Congress, and the general consensus that the MMA helps musicians, there are some legitimate criticisms of the MMA from interested parties. The first, and perhaps most important criticism, is related to the nature of streaming music revenues. It’s a fact that 90% of streaming revenues are generated by less than 10% of the songs.
This means that for 90% of the artists, including some Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur winners, NEA Jazz Masters, GRAMMY-nominees and winners, revenues from their music has collapsed completely. Meanwhile, the streaming companies struggling to make a profit from subscriptions base their earnings on the 10% of songs that earn money for them.
This means that record companies are often not willing to advance money for recording albums for most artists, who are left to their own devices to fund their recordings, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Other criticisms have addressed the corporate control of the collective to administer the royalties, saying there would not be enough transparency and there needs to be a provision for artists and Songwriters to audit the streaming distribution and financial allocations.
There has also been criticism of provisions in the law to provide immunity from prosecution for the collective if they screw up or are negligent. Additionally, there may be issues with musicians and bands from overseas who would be faced with the hassles and expense of filing for copyrights in the U.S. in order to get paid their royalties.
As with most legislation, the MMA was written mainly by Lobbyists and Corporate Lawyers, in this case working for the major companies that control the music industry, like Spotify and YouTube, with input from major publishing/record companies like Sony/Warner/Universal, who have ownership in Spotify.
There are some critics of the law that say this gives these traditional big players too much power to suppress the rights of smaller artists, and that the MMA is the result of clever crafting that just further protects and insulates the powerful Publishers and the big data companies.
If you do some digging on the internet you can find quite a few further strong criticisms of the MMA written by Attorneys and other industry observers. Some of the arguments are incredibly intricate and complex, but the main idea is that too much power and protection was given to the big industry players and some artists will be denied their due process rights and income.