CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. In all its many forms, music is a powerful influence. One of music’s great gifts is its knack for soothing the mind. Think of the way listening to your favorite song takes you to a place where, at least temporarily, life’s frustrations are quickly set aside. Music’s perhaps most endearing quality is its ability to unite. Whether it be a song, an artist, or an ensemble, each has its own way of joining those of different backgrounds in a shared passion. See generally Raymond MacDonald, The Social Functions of Music, in Routledge International Handbook of Music Psychology in Education and Community 5–21 (Andrea Creech, Donald A. Hodges & Susan Hallam eds., 2021). In the words of one enduring performer, “music seems to be the common denomination that brings us all together. Music cuts through all boundaries and goes right to the soul.” Id. at 5 (quoting Willie Nelson). Today’s case, however, offers at least one example of how music has the power to divide—even a family: a copyright suit in which heirs to a music composer’s fortune squabble over copyright assignments and associated royalties. Travilyn and Tammy Livingston (mother and daughter) each claim a right to royalties tied to certain songs authored by Jay Livingston (Travilyn’s father and Tammy’s grandfather). Between 1984 and 2000, Jay assigned his copyright interests in several songs to a music publishing company. See 17 U.S.C. § 201(d). In recent years, Travilyn invoked her statutory right to “terminat[e]” those copyright grants. Id. § 203(a). To do so, she filed termination notices with the United States Copyright Office, seeking to undo her father’s assignments to the company and recapture his interests in the copyrights for herself. Travilyn’s daughter Tammy, a beneficiary of her grandfather’s assignments, sued her mother, challenging the terminations. The district court dismissed Tammy’s complaint, holding that it failed to state a claim. We affirm.