Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Shake-Up to Music Licensing Regime Embraced by U.S. Copyright Office
Hollywood Reporter ^ | 10:44 AM PST 2/5/2015 | Eriq Gardner

Posted on 02/06/2015 1:47:09 PM PST by a fool in paradise

If adopted, these proposals will impact record labels, music publishers, producers, royalty collection groups, terrestrial and satellite radio, and music streaming services.

In a 245-page report issued on Thursday, the U.S. Copyright Office is throwing its weight behind what would be the most radical changes to how music is licensed in nearly a half century.

Many of the copyright laws governing music were first erected at the time that player pianos became popular and have developed through the advent of radio, new recording devices and, most recently, digital networks. Maria Pallante, director of the Copyright Office, believes the law is behind the times.

"The structures that evolved in the previous century to facilitate the lawful exploitation of musical works and sound recordings, while perhaps adequate for the era of discs and tapes, are under significant stress," states the report. "From a copyright perspective, we are trying to deliver bits and bytes through a Victrola."

Some of the proposals figure to spark controversy, debate and furious lobbying should the U.S. Congress tackle a broad overhaul of music licensing.

For example, the Copyright Office wants to extend the public performance right in sound recordings to terrestrial radio broadcasts — a big shift from the time when publicity was seen at payment enough to copyright owners. Also proposed is fully federalizing pre-1972 recordings, a change that would come on the heels of lawsuits against SiriusXM, Pandora and others who have been exploiting older sound recordings without compensation to their owners.

Many of the changes would be boon to those who hold or manage public performance rights.

The Copyright Office endorses reconsidering 75-year-old antitrust decrees for ASCAP and BMI and also wishes to give music rights owners such as publishers the ability to withdraw streaming rights from services. What's more, the proposal would essentially turn performance rights organizations into "music rights organizations" with the ability to bundle reproduction, distribution and performance rights together.

The report also envisions changes to which rights are subject to compulsory blanket licensing and which rights will be subject to free market negotiations. Certain digital uses and public television uses of music may fall under fixed rates while in other circumstances, music rights owners will be given more flexibility to seek bigger payouts. For the types of licensing that are subject to rate-setting, the Copyright Office is looking to streamline the procedures.

Other changes including allowing SoundExchange to administer record producer payments; having those in the music industry work on creating an authoritative public database of music data; and taking care of songwriters and recording artists who want more transparency in the deal-making between labels and publishers on one side and services like Spotify on the other.

The proposals would definitely be a huge shake-up of music licensing, though the Copyright Office makes clear that it is not attempting to reinvent the music industry altogether.

"As a number of commenters remarked during the course of this study, if we were to do it all again, we would never design the system that we have today," says the report. "But as tempting as it may be to daydream about a new model built from scratch, such a course would seem to be logistically and politically unrealistic. We must take the world as we find it, and seek to shape something new from the material we have on hand."

ASCAP president Paul Williams has this to say:

"With its report today, the US Copyright Office was clear: the current music licensing system needs reform and fast. The report emphasizes how the current system undervalues musical works – something many of our members experience daily. The many proposed updates – particularly recommendations intended to make the system more equitable for songwriters – underscore yet again the inefficiency of the current system for music fans and creators alike. As outlined in the report, the current marketplace is strained by the 70-year old consent decree regime and is not appropriately responsive to the free market, particularly in our new digital world. As we continue to advocate for our members in Washington, today’s report is an important step towards meaningful reform."

And here's the statement from Pandora's director of public affairs Dave Grimaldi:

"We believe that greater transparency will benefit artists and music lovers alike, and we look forward to working with the Copyright Office and stakeholders across the industry to advance a bright and thriving future for music. As we have said previously, Pandora would be open to supporting the full federalization of pre-1972 sound recordings under a technology-neutral approach that affords libraries, music services and consumers the same rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed with respect to all other sound recordings. Full-federalization would also guarantee that the full rights granted to these deserving recording artists, including termination rights under Chapter 3 of the Copyright Act."

The RIAA put out a long statement and here's part of it:

"The office recognizes a consensus within the industry that the current system for licensing musical compositions is broken. Reform is necessary to develop new revenue streams for all creators and innovative consumer product offerings for music fans. The office also recognized that it is time to fix the system to ensure that all creators are paid fair market value for their work, regardless of the platform on which their work is used. For example, a performance right for FM and AM radio is long overdue. The fact that a multi-billion dollar broadcasting industry that derives its value from music gets a special interest carve-out from paying artists and labels continues to be indefensible."


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Music/Entertainment
KEYWORDS: apple; bigmedia; copyright; copyrightlaw; ios; ipod; itunes; musiclicensing
Link to the full report:

http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf

1 posted on 02/06/2015 1:47:09 PM PST by a fool in paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

What does “federalizing” pre-1972 recordings mean??


2 posted on 02/06/2015 1:54:27 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
What does “federalizing” pre-1972 recordings mean??

Before 1972, federal copyright law did not protect musical recordings; the only way to copyright music was to copyright the sheet music and lyrics. Therefore, if someone recorded a musical performance without permission and sold records of that performance, only the songwriters could sue for copyright infringement; the performer was without legal recourse. Since 1972, you can copyright not only the notes and lyrics, but also a recorded performance. The proposal, apparently, is to retroactively give copyright protection to musical recordings made before 1972.

3 posted on 02/06/2015 2:06:59 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

okay. thanks


4 posted on 02/06/2015 2:10:58 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

.


5 posted on 02/06/2015 2:18:29 PM PST by not2be4gotten.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

>> The proposal, apparently, is to retroactively give copyright protection to musical recordings made before 1972 <<

A very bad idea, which the SCOTUS should (but will not) hold unconstitutional.

To wit:

Article One, Section Eight of the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish copyright and patent laws for the following reason —

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

On the other hand, RETROACTIVE copyright protection does nothing of the sort, since the works in question have ALREADY been created.


6 posted on 02/06/2015 2:20:42 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

What Fedgov really needs to do is to move copyright back to the original maximum duration to 28 years.


7 posted on 02/06/2015 2:27:30 PM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Mickey Mouse will vociferously argue that point.


8 posted on 02/06/2015 4:08:19 PM PST by telstar12.5 (...always bring gunships to a gun fight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

RIAA headquarters - You will never find a more loathsome hive of scum and villainy.


9 posted on 02/06/2015 4:52:12 PM PST by Bobalu (If we live to see 2017 we will be kissing the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn

Google needs to provide a translator for articles like this, but from what I’m able to ascertain:
1. Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime.
2. Will playing the record more than once be a crime as well? A record’s a performance and a performance is a moment in time. No more freeloading on moments in time.
3. Hippy rockers might get some retirement pay, something I’m all for.
4. This proposal was written by the RIAA. If it passes and if they’re selling any stock, I’m buying.
5. There will be no music on the radio.
6. There will be no refuge in folk song covers. Led Zeppelin will have to pay retroactive royalties to Memphis Minny’s descendants.
7. I wonder if visual artists can get on the bandwagon? Maybe we could set up a reasonable fee schedule, like 5 cents a glance. Then descendants of artists could charge the museums for a piece of the action. Such a boon to creativity!
8.Of course, the RIAA will not be able to enforce every potential instance of non-compliance. They’ll need help. Get those resume’s up to date’s; it’s going to be a goldmine!


10 posted on 02/06/2015 5:00:38 PM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

If the radio stations were smart they would ALL stop playing music when this goes into effect. They should demand payment for advertising.


11 posted on 02/06/2015 5:21:41 PM PST by Lurkina.n.Learnin (It's a shame nobama truly doesn't care about any of this. Our country, our future, he doesn't care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsomer

>> Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime <<

Sorta hard to enforce, doncha think? I imagine non-commercial uses will be exempt, just as today you can sing “Happy Birthday” at a non-commercial event w/o paying a fee to an organization like BMI or ASCAP. (I’m told, however, that the song is still under copyright protection for commercial uses.)

>> Will playing the record more than once be a crime as well? <<

For commercial use? No, the “rights” organizations (RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, maybe others) would probably prefer blanket licenses, like they used to have for small restaurants and like I guess they still have for radio stations. And the cost of a license would probably be tied to the commercial enterprise’s revenue.

>> Hippy rockers might get some retirement pay, something I’m all for <<

Not me. Let ‘em rot in whatever rat holes they’ve been inhabiting for the last 30 years.

>> This proposal was written by the RIAA. If it passes and if they’re selling any stock, I’m buying <<

Uh, I think you’d have to be a recording company to join the Association.

>> There will be no music on the radio <<

What about live performances? I think the world needs more of such entertainment.

>> There will be no refuge in folk song covers. Led Zeppelin will have to pay retroactive royalties to Memphis Minny’s descendants <<

That’s already the case. Old songs have long been protected, thanks to the retrospective copyright law that Congress enacted 15 or 20 years ago. The proposed new regs would cover the performance components of old recordings, with the new royalties going to the performers or the recording companies or maybe both. Publishers and songwriters would appear not to benefit anew, since they are already protected.

>> I wonder if visual artists can get on the bandwagon? Maybe we could set up a reasonable fee schedule, like 5 cents a glance. Then descendants of artists could charge the museums for a piece of the action. Such a boon to creativity! <<

Hey, now you’re really onto something. I’m with you!

>> Of course, the RIAA will not be able to enforce every potential instance of non-compliance. They’ll need help. Get those resume’s up to date’s; it’s going to be a goldmine <<

Yeah, not only the lawyers could strike gold, but also some of those worn-out hippy rockers you mentioned might get work. Give ‘em a badge and a gun, then put ‘em out in the trenches!


12 posted on 02/06/2015 5:59:37 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: telstar12.5
Mickey Mouse will vociferously argue that point.

Indeed. And it's quite fortunate for the mouse that we have the best congress money can buy.

13 posted on 02/06/2015 9:27:01 PM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

After 40 years, labels lose rights to archival material, which can mean, the surviving members or the estates of the dead ones get the rights back. This is happening now to bands of the 1970s.

Apparently it’s another job for DHS.

Feds Interrogate Man Wearing Google Glass in Movie Theater
betabeat.com | 1/21/14 9:35am | By Jordyn Taylor
Posted on 01/21/2014 10:26:20 AM PST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114024/posts


14 posted on 02/07/2015 5:24:07 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Pandora/internet music services are destroying big media's business model of continually fleecing the public for new formats of music delivery.

So Big Media is buying Congress again to get even more power over copyrighted material.

Doesn't matter who controls the Congress or the White House, it's always the same circus, just different clowns.

15 posted on 02/07/2015 10:35:16 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime <
"Sorta hard to enforce, doncha think? I imagine non-commercial uses will be exempt,"

Not that hard-- in Cuba everybody's a cop. We haven't got that far to go.
I wonder if NPR, claimed to be a "nonprofit," has to pay the RIAA "royalties." (The artists get little if any actual royalties.)
Maybe we should all form non-profits. It seems very profitable.

">> Hippy rockers..."
" Let ‘em rot..."

Where's your sense of charity? Besides, have you turned on the radio lately?

Old songs have long been protected, thanks to the retrospective copyright law that Congress enacted 15 or 20 years ago.

That was Clinton's doing. I'm convinced it was a quid pro quo; you'll recall there was nothing he wouldn't sell for a few campaign bucks. It smells as bad now as it did back then. Remember, that was back in the day when the RIAA was suing private citizens into bankruptcy--at least ones who had anything--because their kid neglected to click off the "share" button on their download app. Most parents were unaware and considered it akin to the radio.

If somebody plays a song and I like it, I'll buy the record or maybe go to the show. I don't care what they look or smell like. But at the same time, I don't feel anyone's obliged to pump quarters into them like some parking meter.

I'd say make the copyrights on recordings good for five years--half the span of a patent. Seems fair to me, considering the expense of the patent and the relative benefit to society.

When people talk about "intellectual property" I get 'skeeved'* out. Intangibles-intellectual clouds,light rays,electric pulses or sound waves are not property. If you're a scholar, sell a book. There are enough penalties for plagiarism. If you're a singer, sell the record or tickets. "Intellectual property" as a concept is an open invitation to havoc: It can only be enforced randomly. It's impossible to know when you've done something that will make you vulnerable; this is already happening in the software industry. Worst of all, it opens the door of your home to professional snoops.

*skeeve
"(verb) to gross out; to digust; to make your skin crawl, sometimes with undertones of sexual deviance/perversion"
(from Urban Dictionary) I recently heard my kid use it. I don't think anyone's got a copyright, so feel free.

16 posted on 02/08/2015 6:00:30 PM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tsomer

>> I wonder if NPR, claimed to be a “nonprofit,” has to pay the RIAA “royalties.” <<

I imagine that they need to have licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to play songs controlled by those three copyright enforcers. I do remember watching C-SPAN once when somebody asked Bryan Lamb why his bumper music was always something written by Bach. He said it was to avoid paying for copyrighted songs.

>> The artists get little if any actual royalties <<

Maybe they don’t get enough. But if so, it’s something they need to negotiate with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the various publishers. I think it’s a marketplace matter, not a governmental problem.

>> Intangibles - intellectual clouds, light rays, electric pulses or sound waves are not property <<

Sorry, but if Congress and the Courts invest those intangibles with the status of property that can be bought and sold, then they are property, regardless of whether you approve.

>> If you’re a scholar, sell a book <<

What if somebody makes bootleg copies? Then the author gets no return whatsoever for his work.

>> There are enough penalties for plagiarism <<

That’s a totally different issue. And let’s ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, who seems to have paid no price at all for her plagiarism. Ditto for the CNN commentator Zakaria (I forget his first name) of Pakistani origin? I believe he’s still going strong, again despite his admitted plagiarism.

>> If you’re a singer, sell the record <<

Again, what if somebody makes bootleg copies of your record? You get no return.

>> “Intellectual property” as a concept is an open invitation to havoc <<

Tell it to the Founding Fathers, who had the wisdom to put patent and copyright protections into the Constitution. Even though they never used the modern term “intellectual property,” that’s exactly what we’ve had — in effect — for the last 226 years since the US Constitution became operative. It doesn’t mean, of course, that every single aspect of patent, trademark and copyright law as enacted by the Congress and interpreted by the Courts is wise or beneficial. Far from it. But as a general concept, intellectual property has long served us well.


17 posted on 02/08/2015 8:19:34 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
"Even though they never used the modern term “intellectual property,” that’s exactly what we’ve had — in effect — for the last 226 years since the US Constitution became operative. It doesn’t mean, of course, that every single aspect of patent, trademark and copyright law as enacted by the Congress and interpreted by the Courts is wise or beneficial.

Sorry for waiting so long for this reply; you make good points and I'm not opposed to some protection for artists and inventors.

I'm also not that familiar with the history of the development of that concept. But from my limited perspective this is what I see: originally monopolistic control over use and marketing of some technical innovation was extended to inventors who met criteria under examination by an expert. This was intended to encourage commercial expansion and technical innovation for the ultimate benefit of the entire country. Copyrights and trademark protections were similarly granted--I would argue-- more for the public benefit than for the individual who conceived it. I think that this reflects enlightenment thought (think Adam Smith,) not any utopian pre-marxist conception of the masses.

Also, remember that pure science, and art was largely the past time of the wealthy and admired as philanthropic activity.

Or so it seems to me.

When art and science became professions, it was reasonable to extend protections for publication and claims of authorship, but I don't think the original conceivers of these rules would have accepted the idea that ideas and conceptions could be claimed as property, or that patents and copyrights should ever benefit individual holders of those claims (who now very often are not the originators of the novelty) at the expense of future innovation or other fundamental rights.

That's putting the cart before the horse, and it is why I find "intellectual property" pernicious.

18 posted on 03/09/2015 8:46:24 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tsomer

>> I don’t think the original conceivers of these rules would have accepted the idea that ideas and conceptions could be claimed as property, or that patents and copyrights should ever benefit individual holders of those claims (who now very often are not the originators of the novelty) at the expense of future innovation or other fundamental rights. <<

Of course. That’s the exact reason why so many academics (lawyers and free-market economists) specialize in intellectual property questions. They wrestle with these issues every day. And they can be extremely critical not only of the laws passed by Congress, but also of the interpretations placed on those laws by the Courts. On the other hand, none but the Marxists, other extreme left wingers and anarchists say that we should never have something called “intellectual property.”


19 posted on 03/10/2015 7:38:14 AM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson