DOCSLIB.ORG

Music Licensing Overhaul Signed Into Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Music Licensing Overhaul Signed Into Law Intellectual Property& Technology Law Journal Edited by the Technology and Proprietary Rights Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP VOLUME 30 • NUMBER 12 • DECEMBER 2018 Music Licensing Overhaul Signed Into Law By Todd Larson, Jeremy C. Cain, and Jeremy P. Auster 30 resident Trump recently signed into law the Orrin albums, CDs and, more recently, digital downloads. PG. Hatch- Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization But the song-by-song licensing process mandated by August Act (MMA). The MMA consolidates three previ- the antiquated provisions of Section 115 has proved ously separate bills introduced over the past year: the remarkably burdensome – not to mention risky – original Music Modernization Act, the CLASSICS for interactive streaming services such as Spotify and 2018 (Classics Protection and Access) Act, and the AMP Amazon, who typically offer tens of millions of songs (Allocation for Music Producers) Act. As many com- for on-demand streaming, and nearly all of whom mentators have noted, the MMA represents the most have been sued for hundreds of millions of dollars in 8 significant music- related legislation since 1998’s statutory damages as a result of uncleared composi- Digital Millennium Copyright Act. tions that fell through the licensing cracks. The MMA was motivated by the industry-wide desire to fix that Modernizing the Section 115 problem. Mechanical License Section 115 of the Copyright Act1 establishes a The Blanket Mechanical License compulsory license for the rights to reproduce and The chief innovation of the MMA is the intro- distribute “mechanical” copies of nondramatic musi- duction – by January 1, 2021 – of a blanket license cal works, i.e., the underlying compositions embodied for mechanical rights in interactive streams and in sound recordings. For the better part of a hun- downloads (“covered activities” under the statute). A dred years, recording artists have secured mechani- digital music provider will be able to obtain a blan- cal licenses from songwriters (or their affiliated ket license by filing a simple notice with the newly music publishers) to include specific songs in their established Mechanical Licensing Collective, and thus avoid any need to file song-by-song notices.2 Rates for the blanket license will be set by the Todd Larson, an IP/Media partner in Weil, Gotshal & Manges Copyright Royalty Board in judicial proceedings LLP’s Litigation Department, represents and counsels a variety of similar to those used to set rates and terms for the traditional and new media clients. Jeremy C. Cain is an associate current Section 115 compulsory licenses.3 Digital in the firm’s Litigation Department, where he focuses his practice music providers and music publishers can also con- on complex commercial litigation and intellectual property tinue to negotiate mechanical licenses on a voluntary matters. Jeremy P. Auster is an associate in the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property and Media practice basis, with works covered by such licenses (and pre- groups. The authors may be reached at [email protected], sumably payments for such works) carved out from [email protected], and [email protected], respectively. the blanket license. Liability Limits for Prior Unlicensed Uses reproduction and distribution rights in covered Digital music providers that comply with activities.8 the payment and reporting terms of the blanket In a change from typical practice – where the mechanical license, once available, will be shielded expenses of collecting agencies like SoundExchange, from infringement liability for reproducing or American Society of Composers, Authors and distributing musical works in covered activities.4 Publishers (ASCAP), and Broadcast Music, Inc., The MMA also severely limits service liability for (BMI) are deducted from royalty collections prior mechanical copies made prior to the 2021 introduc- to distribution – the Collective is to be built and tion of the blanket license, including activities prior funded by an administrative assessment paid by even to enactment of the MMA itself. Specifically, blanket licensees on top of their license fees.9 The in any infringement suit filed after January 1, 2018, dollar amount and allocation of this assessment the copyright owner’s remedy is limited to the across licensees will be determined in separate pro- recovery of royalties due, provided the music service ceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board, the has made ongoing good- faith efforts (prescribed first of which is to commence within 270 days of in detail) to identify and pay for all works used on enactment of the MMA and conclude within a year its service, and has otherwise accrued payments for of commencement.10 unidentified works.5 This effectively forecloses new Somewhat controversially, the MMA requires lawsuits like those that bedeviled Spotify, Rhapsody, that even entities that may choose not to utilize and other on-demand streamers accused of failing the Section 115 blanket license or the services of to secure mechanical licenses in advance of offering the Collective – what the Act calls “Significant certain songs. Nonblanket Licensees” (SNLs) – nonetheless must pay a share of the administrative assessment and pro- The Mechanical Licensing Collective vide usage reports to the Collective or face enforce- The MMA establishes a Mechanical Licensing ment actions and damages.11 SNLs are defined as Collective to collect and distribute Section 115 roy- entities engaging in covered activities that offer alties to music publishers and songwriters.6 In order more than 5,000 sound recordings under volun- to fulfill that task, the Collective is charged with tary and/or individual download licenses and meet building and maintaining a Musical Works Database modest revenue thresholds.12 that will link sound recordings (as reported by In another somewhat controversial provision, licensee services) to the underlying musical com- in the event a blanket licensee plays tracks that the positions embodied in those recordings, along with Collective cannot tie to a copyright owner, the the information identifying the owners of the com- MMA requires the Collective to hold on to the positions and their respective ownership shares. royalties for such performances for three years in This database shall be made available to the public an interest- bearing account and to make a series free of charge in a searchable, online format, and to of specified efforts to identify the rightful recipi- digital music providers in a bulk, machine-readable ent. After that point, any still unclaimed royalties format.7 are to be allocated and distributed to known pub- Notably, the MMA largely limits the Collective lishers based on their respective market shares – a to offering and administering (but not negotiat- process likely to favor large publishers with popu- ing or pricing) the blanket license – a compromise lar, well-known catalogs over smaller songwriters motivated by the objections of private entities such who may not know to register their works with the as the Harry Fox Agency who were concerned the Collective.13 Collective would leverage its role as an industry- subsidized mechanical licensing administrator to Changes Beyond Section 115 compete in the voluntary licensing of performance, The MMA alters in several significant ways the synchronization, lyric, and other publishing rights. operation of the ASCAP and BMI rate courts and While the Collective will be allowed to adminis- the Copyright Royalty Board, the judicial bodies ter voluntary as well as compulsory licenses, that charged with setting royalty rates for various uses of remit is limited to voluntary licenses granting only musical compositions and sound recordings. 2 Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal Volume 30 • Number 12 • December 2018 Assignment of Judges in ASCAP and BMI DOJ that it intends to review, and potentially ter- Rate Court Cases minate, the existing ASCAP and BMI decrees. To start, the MMA changes the manner in which judges are assigned to so-called “rate court” Changes to Copyright Royalty Board Rate proceedings that set rates and terms for the pub- Setting lic performance of musical works14 under licenses Currently, the Copyright Royalty Judges are from ASCAP and BMI. Currently, rate-setting guided by the so-called “801(b)” standard when cases under the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent they set rates for the Section 115 compulsory decrees are assigned to the same designated judges mechanical licenses and the Section 114 statu- in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District tory licenses covering the public performance of of New York (SDNY): Judge Cote for ASCAP and sound recordings by satellite radio and “preexist- Judge Stanton for BMI. Under the new law, rate- ing subscription services” (e.g., Music Choice). court petitions will be assigned to other SDNY The MMA eliminates the 801(b) standard – which judges on a random basis, with Judges Cote and previously has provided the judges a degree of Stanton retaining jurisdiction over the ASCAP policy discretion when setting rates – and imposes and BMI consent decrees generally but getting an across-the-board application of the “willing involved in specific rate-court cases only where buyer/willing seller” rate-setting standard cur- a party seeks an interpretation of the respective rently used to set the rates for non-interactive Decree.15 webcasters. That standard requires the judges to set rates based on what would be negotiated on the Benchmark Evidence in Rate Court Cases open market, without the accompanying policy Previously, § 114(i) prohibited the ASCAP and considerations.16 BMI rate-court judges from considering as bench- Section 103 of the MMA also extends the statu- marks the rates paid by digital music providers to tory license rates applicable to satellite radio and sound recording owners (which historically have the preexisting subscription services (currently set often been higher than the rates paid to perform the through year-end 2022) through the end of 2027, underlying musical works as licensed by ASCAP meaning there will be no need for the “SDARS IV” and BMI).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notice of Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License
    Notice of Use of Sound Recordings 5 under Statutory License United States Copyright Office In accordance with 37 CFR 370.2, the transmission service named below hereby files with the Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office, a notice stating the service’s intention to use the statutory license under sections 112(e) or 114(d)(2), or both, of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended by Public Law 104-39, 109 Stat. 336, and Public Law 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860. Please enclose a check or money order for the nonrefundable filing fee of $40.00, payable to Register of Copyrights. Mail to: Check, if applicable: Copyright Royalty Board Amended filing ATTN: Licensing Division PO Box 70977 Washington, DC 20024-0977 Please type or print the requested information for each item. If this is an amended filing, please indicate which item contains new information by checking the “New Information” box to the left of that item. New Information 1 Name of service 2 Mailing address NOTE: A post office box is acceptable if it is the only address that can be used in that geographic location. 3 Telephone no. 4 Fax no. 5 Website address of service http:// NOTE: Information must be provided on how to gain access to the online website or home page of the service, or where information may be posted under the regulations concerning the use of sound recordings. 6 Nature of license and category of service: (Check all that apply) a Statutory license for digital transmissions, 17 USC §114(d)(2) Preexisting subscription service Eligible nonsubscription transmission
    [Show full text]
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G
    The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G. Knowles, Partner, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Lisa M. Schreihart, Attorney Abstract The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (“MMA”), enacted October 11, 2018, is the most significant reform of music copyright law in decades. As the first major legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 to affect music royalties, the MMA has made major strides in improving compensation and to level the playing field for all music creators, including songwriters, legacy artists, and music producers. The MMA modernizes the musical works licensing scheme for today’s digital music environment, provides federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, and ensures that music producers can get a piece of the royalty pie. The MMA may also have some shortcomings that allow room for legislative growth in the modern music era. This paper describes the key parts of the MMA and eXamines the benefits and criticisms of the Act that have surfaced in the Act’s first year as law. An Overview of the Music Modernization Act The Music Modernization Act (MMA), proposed as H.R. 1551 by Representatives Orrin G. Hatch and Bob Goodlatte, combined the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (S. 2334), the Classics Protection and Access Act (S. 2393), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (S. 2625). The MMA, an amended version of S. 2823, passed unanimously both in the House as H.R. 5447 on April 25, 2018 and in the Senate on September 18, 2018. The MMA was enacted October 11, 2018. The MMA is intended to: 1) increase compensation to songwriters and streamline licensing of their music; 2) enable artists who recorded music before 1972 to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital services; and 3) enable music producers (e.g., record producers, sound engineers, and other studio professionals) to receive royalties for their creative contributions to recorded music.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft of 7/26/2019 RECONCEPTUALIZING
    Draft of 7/26/2019 RECONCEPTUALIZING COMPULSORY COPYRIGHT LICENSES 72 Stanford Law Review (Forthcoming 2020) Jacob Victor* ABSTRACT United States copyright law generally assumes that by providing property entitlements in creative works, the free market will balance between two competing priorities: incentivizing creators to produce works and ensuring the public has adequate access to this content. But the Copyright Act also outlines several detailed compulsory licensing schemes requiring the owners of certain copyright interests, musical works in particular, to license to anyone at government-set prices. Consistent with broader property theory concepts, scholars tend to treat compulsory copyright licenses as liability rules used only to address market failures caused by transaction costs. This Article questions that account, arguing that compulsory licensing also plays an important and underexplored role in furthering copyright’s specific policy agenda. A close analysis of the music regulatory regime and its history shows that its primary function has been to recalibrate the balance between creators’ financial incentives and public access to expressive works in situations where free market licensing would yield problematic outcomes. Unlike liability rules designed only to address transaction costs, for which regulators generally try to mimic market rates using market proxies, the compulsory music licensing regime traditionally used copyright policy- oriented rate-setting criteria. Applying these criteria, regulators often chose below-market
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Rates and Terms: Docket 2005-1 CRB DTRA
    UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) ) DIGITAL PERFORMANCE RIGHT ) Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND ) EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS ) ____________________________________) DETERMINATION OF RATES AND TERMS I. INTRODUCTION A. SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING This is a rate determination proceeding convened under 17 U.S.C. 803(b) et seq. and 37 CFR 351 et seq., in accord with the Copyright Royalty Judges’ Notice announcing commencement of proceeding, with a request for Petitions to Participate in a proceeding to determine the rates and terms for a digital public performance of sound recordings by means of an eligible nonsubscription transmission or a transmission made by a new subscription service under section 114 of the Copyright Act, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and for the making of ephemeral copies in furtherance of these digital public performances under section 112, as created by the DMCA, published at 70 FR 7970 (February 16, 2005). The rates and terms set in this proceeding apply to the period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(3)(A). B. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The parties to this proceeding are: (i) Digital Media Association and certain of its member companies that participated in this proceeding, namely: America Online, Inc. (“AOL”), Yahoo!, Inc. (Yahoo!”), Microsoft, Inc. (“Microsoft”), and Live365, Inc. (“Live 365”) (collectively referred to as “DiMA”); (ii) “Radio Broadcasters”(this designation was adopted by the parties): namely, Bonneville International Corp., Clear Channel Communications, Inc., National Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee (“NRBMLC”), Susquehanna Radio Corp.; (iii) SBR Creative Media, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Great Copyright Act
    THE NEXT GREAT COPYRIGHT ACT Twenty-Sixth Horace S. Manges Lecture by Maria A. Pallante1 I. INTRODUCTION Tonight my topic is the next great copyright act, but before I speak about the future, I would like to talk a little about the past, including the role of the Copyright Office in past revision activities. In my remarks, I will address the need for comprehensive review and revision of U.S. copyright law, identify the most significant issues, and suggest a framework by which Congress should weigh the public interest, which includes the interests of authors. I also will address the necessary evolution of the Copyright Office itself. Those of you who have been to our offices in Washington know that we have a conference room featuring portraits of the former Registers of Copyright dating back to 1897.2 When guests are seated at our table, the former Registers preside on high, wearing a variety of expressions and overseeing complex conversations about copyright law in the digital age. Sometimes I think they would be startled by the discussions we have, but then again it might all sound familiar. Solberg (1887-1933) Thorvald Solberg was the first and longest-serving Register of Copyrights. He seems inspired in his portrait, and for good reason. Solberg was a visionary leader, a champion of authors’ rights, and an early advocate for the United States’ adherence to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”).3 Under his care, the Copyright Office grew from a handful of employees to more than a hundred professional staff, and took on the many assorted roles that are still critical to the mission of the Office today.
    [Show full text]
  • The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act
    The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act A Guide for Sound Recordings Collectors This study was written by Eric Harbeson, on behalf of and commissioned by the National Recording Preservation Board. Members of the National Recording Preservation Board American Federation of Musicians National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Billy Linneman Maureen Droney Alternate: Daryl Friedman American Folklore Society Burt Feintuch (in memoriam) National Archives and Records Administration Alternate: Timothy Lloyd Daniel Rooney Alternate: Tom Nastick American Musicological Society Judy Tsou Recording Industry Association of America Alternate: Patrick Warfield David Hughes Alternate: Patrick Kraus American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers SESAC Elizabeth Matthews John JosePhson Alternate: John Titta Alternate: Eric Lense Association for Recorded Sound Collections Society For Ethnomusicology David Seubert Jonathan Kertzer Alternate: Bill Klinger Alternate: Alan Burdette Audio Engineering Society Songwriters Hall of Fame George Massenburg Linda Moran Alternate: Elizabeth Cohen Alternate: Robbin Ahrold Broadcast Music, Incorporated At-Large Michael O'Neill Michael Feinstein Alternate: Michael Collins At-Large Country Music Foundation Brenda Nelson-Strauss Kyle Young Alternate: Eileen Hayes Alternate: Alan Stoker At-Large Digital Media Association Mickey Hart Garrett Levin Alternate: ChristoPher H. Sterling Alternate: Sally Rose Larson At-Large Music Business Association Bob Santelli Portia Sabin Alternate: Al Pryor Alternate: Paul JessoP At-Large Music Library Association Eric Schwartz James Farrington Alternate: John Simson Alternate: Maristella Feustle Abstract: The Music Modernization Act is reviewed in detail, with a Particular eye toward the implications for members of the community suPPorted by the National Recording Preservation Board, including librarians, archivists, and Private collectors. The guide attemPts an exhaustive treatment using Plain but legally precise language.
    [Show full text]
  • Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21St Century
    Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century Updated February 23, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43984 SUMMARY R43984 Money for Something: Music Licensing in the February 23, 2021 21st Century Dana A. Scherer Songwriters and recording artists are generally entitled to receive compensation for Specialist in (1) reproductions, distributions, and public performances of the notes and lyrics they create (the Telecommunications musical works), as well as (2) reproductions, distributions, and certain digital public Policy performances of the recorded sound of their voices combined with instruments (the sound recordings). The amount they receive, as well as their control over their music, depends on market forces, contracts between a variety of private-sector entities, and laws governing copyright and competition policy. Who pays whom, as well as who can sue whom for copyright infringement, depends in part on the mode of listening to music. Congress enacted several major updates to copyright laws in 2018 in the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA; P.L. 115-264). The MMA modified copyright laws related to the process of granting and receiving statutory licenses for the reproduction and distribution of musical works (known as “mechanical licenses”). The law set forth terms for the creation of a nonprofit “mechanical licensing collective” through which owners of copyrights in musical works could collect royalties from online music services. The law also changed the standards used by a group of federal administrative law judges, the Copyright Royalty Board, to set royalty rates for some statutory copyright licenses, as well as the standards used by a federal court to set rates for licenses to publicly perform musical works offered by two organizations representing publishers and composers, ASCAP and BMI.
    [Show full text]
  • Church Music Publishers Association Guide to Copyright Information
    GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT INFORMATION (Updated 2019 Edition) ©2013 Church Music Publishers Association (Reproduced with permission of the Church Music Publishers Association (C.M.P.A.), representing the following Member Companies): –Abingdon Press –LifeWay Worship Resources –Albert E. Brumley & Sons Music –Lillenas Publishing Company –Alfred Publishing Company –Lilly Mack Music –Augsburg Fortress –Lorenz Corporation –Beckenhorst Press, Inc. –Manna Music, Inc. –Bethel Music Publishing –MorningStar Music Publishers –Capitol CMG Publishing –Neil A. Kjos Music Company –Celebrating Grace –Nelon Music Group –Centricity Music Publishing –North Point Music Publishing –Choristers Guild –OCP Publications –Concordia Publishing House –Pavane Publishing –Daywind Music Publishing –PraiseCharts Publishing –Editora Adorando Ltda –Review & Herald Publishing Association –Fred Bock Music Company –Santa Barbara Music Publishing –Gaither Music Company –Shawnee Press –Gateway Create Publishing –Simpleville Music Publishing, LLC –Getty Music Label, LLC –Small Stone Media –GIA Publications, Inc. –Songs of Emack –Hal Leonard Publishing Corp. –Sony/ATV Music Publishing –Hamblen Music Company –SpiritSound Music Group –Harding Music Group –Sunmin Music –Hillsong Music Publishing –Troubadour for the Lord Music –Hinshaw Music, Inc. –Tyscot Publishing, Inc. –Hope Publishing Company –Vineyard Music –Integrity Music –Watershed Music Group –Invitation Publishing –Wondrous Worship –J&A Music –Word Entertainment –Jeffers Handbell Supply, Inc. –Word Music & Church Resources –Jubilate
    [Show full text]
  • The RIAA, the DMCA, and the Forgotten Few Webcasters: a Call for Change in Digital Copyright Royalties
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 61 Issue 2 Article 7 3-2009 The RIAA, the DMCA, and the Forgotten Few Webcasters: A Call for Change in Digital Copyright Royalties Kellen Myers Indiana University Maurer School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Myers, Kellen (2009) "The RIAA, the DMCA, and the Forgotten Few Webcasters: A Call for Change in Digital Copyright Royalties," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 61 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol61/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The RIAA, the DMCA, and the Forgotten Few Webcasters: A Call for Change in Digital Copyright Royalties Kellen Myers* I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 432 II. WEBCASTING AND COPYRIGHT LAW: A HISTORY ................... 435 A. How Webcasting Works ................................................... 435 B. CopyrightBackground .................................................... 435 C. The Musical Work (Composition)
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Sources of Copyright-Free Or Licensed Media: Below Are a Number of Resources Available Which Can Be Used in Teaching and Learning
    Potential Sources of Copyright-free or licensed media: Below are a number of resources available which can be used in teaching and learning. Remember to check that resources labeled as 'copyright free' are from a trustworthy source! If you use any of the information on these sites, you should quote the site name and copyright owner. Media Lawful use Potential sources – for recording / online use, including in Blackboard Potential sources – off-line use only type Use images : The British Museum online - the British Museum collection database online. CERN: Images Search over two million objects from the entire Museum collection • where their copyright has expired http://copyright.web.cern.ch/ Flickr - Creative Commons advanced search - use Flickr's advanced search page • use images subject to a Creative Commons (CC) Notes: licence, attribute the licence owner and honour to include only photos (or short video clips) that have a Creative Commons • CERN provides images free of charge any restrictions licence. for educational and informational use. • use Open Educational Resources that allow the Flickr - The Commons - a number of publicly-held photographic collections • Images may not be used in a misleading, use of images in this way from around the world that have 'no known copyright restrictions' inappropriate or offensive manner, in a • where you obtain permission to use them from FreeFoto.com - free for commercial or non-commercial on-line use; free military context, in advertising or the copyright holder for non-commercial off-line use promotion, or in a manner that suggests • Create your own images ImageAfter – free high resolution images of objects, places, animals, any kind of endorsement by CERN or its mechanics, insects, signs, circuits and plants etc personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Made with Creative Commons MADE with CREATIVE COMMONS
    ii Made With Creative Commons MADE WITH CREATIVE COMMONS PAUL STACEY AND SARAH HINCHLIFF PEARSON Made With Creative Commons iii Made With Creative Commons by Paul Stacey & Sarah Hinchliff Pearson © 2017, by Creative Commons. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA), version 4.0. ISBN 978-87-998733-3-3 Cover and interior design by Klaus Nielsen, vinterstille.dk Content editing by Grace Yaginuma Illustrations by Bryan Mathers, bryanmathers.com Downloadable e-book available at madewith.cc Publisher: Ctrl+Alt+Delete Books Husumgade 10, 5. 2200 Copenhagen N Denmark www.cadb.dk [email protected] Printer: Drukarnia POZKAL Spółka z o.o. Spółka komandytowa 88-100 Inowrocław, ul. Cegielna 10/12, Poland This book is published under a CC BY-SA license, which means that you can copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the content for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. License details: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Made With Creative Commons is published with the kind support of Creative Commons and backers of our crowdfunding-campaign on the Kickstarter.com platform. iv Made With Creative Commons “I don’t know a whole lot about non- fiction journalism. The way that I think about these things, and in terms of what I can do is. essays like this are occasions to watch somebody reason- ably bright but also reasonably average pay far closer attention and think at far more length about all sorts of different stuff than most of us have a chance to in our daily lives.” - DAVID FOSTER WALLACE Made With Creative Commons v vi Made With Creative Commons CONTENTS Foreword xi Introduction xv PART 1: THE BIG PICTURE 1 The New World of Digital Commons by Paul Stacey 3 The Commons, the Market, and the State .
    [Show full text]
  • XPP-PDF Support Utility
    BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal® VOL. 88, NO. 2168 PAGES 509–574 JUNE 20, 2014 HIGHLIGHTS BNA INSIGHTS Mere Implementation of Abstract Idea With Computer Not Patent-Eligible COPYRIGHT: The author says the A method, a computer system, and a computer-readable medium to carry out Supreme Court’s final judgment a method for ensuring that a party to a contract has sufficient funds in its ac- in the Aereo case could clarify count are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the U.S. Supreme Court or further muddy the nation’s holds. Affirming a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, copyright laws in a manner not the high court echoes a 2010 ruling that killed a patent on a computer algo- seen since the days of the player rithm for hedging investment risks. Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. piano. Page 565 Page 513 ALSO IN THE NEWS TTAB Again Finds ‘Redskins’ Disparaging, Orders Registrations Cancelled The various trademark registrations used by the Washington Redskins ‘‘must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the re- COPYRIGHTS: Technology is spective times they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trade- changing distribution channels mark Act of 1946,’’ the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board holds in a split de- and business models of view- cision. The board’s ruling strips away the team’s ability to rely on certain fed- ing content and recent court eral laws to enforce its trademark rights, which, if the registrations are decisions are creating uncertain- cancelled, will subsequently have to be grounded in common law.
    [Show full text]