DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright Law Revision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW JULY 1961 Printed for the use of the House-- Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 676682 WASHINGTON : 1961 For sale by the Superlntendent of Documents, U.S. Qo7cmment Prlntlug O5ce Wn~bington25, D.O. - Prlco 45 cent8 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE LIBRAR~AWOF CORORESB, Washington, l).C. July 7, 1961. Hon. SAMRAYE~N, Igpealcw of the House of Representatices, Washington. D.C. SIB: As authorized by Congress, the Copyright Office of the =brary of Con- gress has in the past few years made a number of studies preparatory to a general revision of the copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code. That program bas now been completed. Thirty-four studies and a subject index have been published in a series of 12 committee prints issued by the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The studies have been widely circulated and interested persons were inrited to submit their comments and views. On the basis of the studies and the comments and views received. the Copy- right Ofece has prepared a report on the important issues to be considered and tentative recommendations for their solution in a general revision of the law. I am pleased to submit the report of the Register of Copyrights on general re vision of the copyright law to you find to the Vice President for consideration by the Congress. Very truly yours, L. QUINCYMUMFOBD, Librarian of Congress. (Enclosure : Copyright Law Revision Report.) IV Y1 BUMMAHY Cmpulsory license.-The present law provide that, when the copy- right owner of music once perinits it to be recorded, anyone else may record it upon payment of a statutory royalty. It is reconimended that this "compulsory license" be eliminated. UMINNINO AND ISNOTII OF COPYRIOIKT TERM "Public dissemination."-Works are now protected by the common law until they are either published in copies or registered voluntarily in un ublished form. The report proposes that common law protec- tion sR ould end, and the term of statutory copyright should begin, when a work has been "publicly disseminated" in any of the following publication of copies, (2) registration, (3) public perform- public distribution of sound recordings. Voluntary registration.-The privilege of secu~ingstatutory copy- right by voluntary registration-now available for some cl:+ssesof uil- published works only-would be extended to all classes of undissemi- nated works. Manuscripts in libraries.-The report also proposes to terminate common law rights, after a period of time, in manuscripts made avail- able to the public in a library. Duration of term.-The present term of copyright is 28 years from first publication or registration, renewable by certain persons for a second period of 28 years. The report recommends that the maximum term be increased from 56 to 70 years. With certain exceptions, the basic term would run for 28 years from first public dissemination, and would be renewable for a second wrni of 48 years. Unlike the present law, the second term would merely be an extension of existing rights. Any person claiming an interest in the copyright could submit the renewal application, and the longer term would accrue to the benefit of everyone holding any interest under the copyright. Limitation on lump-sum czs.qignmenfs.-Under the present law the renewal copyright reverts in certain situations to the author or other specified beneficiaries. The report proposes to drop this reversion and to substitute a limitation on the duration of lump-sum assign- ments. Any assignment by an author or his heirs mould not be effective after 20 years unless it provided for continuing royalties based on use or revenue from the work. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF COP1TRIGHT PROTECTlOS Noti~eof copyright.-The statute now requires, as a condition of copyright protection, that the published copies of a rno1.k bear a copy- . right notice. The report recommends that the requirement of notice on published copies be retained, but that inadvertent omission or errors in the notice should not forfeit the copyright. IIowc3ver inno- cent infringers misled by the omission or error ~vouldbe shielded from liability. Deposit and registration.--For works published with a copyright notice, the resent law also requires registration in the Copyright Office, inclu a ing the deposit of copies for the J,ibrary of Congress. The report proposes that the deposit of copies wanted for the Tlibrary should be mandatory, but that failure to register should not forfeit the copyright. IIomever, application for re~istrntion~vould still he a X PREFACE tl~t.Inw to cllaliging conditions, but its ad:iptability is lirl~ited. In nlallj respects, the st:itute is ilncertain, inconsistent, or in:ldequatz irl its npp1ic;ttion to present-day conditions. -1 gener:ll reex:imination and revisio~tIlave been ilrged on :ill sides. P.iS1' IiI.:\'ISIOS EFkOn'l'h ' liet\s ern 10.24 and I040 st I ong and cont iniloili efforts were 111:1tlr to revise the act of 1909. -1 nilniber of revision bills were introducecl, and rxtr~ldeclhearings \\.ere lleld by the congressional committees. Tlle proposed revisions nere designed mainly to conform oilr law with The legislative efforts aimed at I;.S. nlembersllip in the Rerne IdTnion mere abandoned after 1940. Instead, after the war, tho I;nited States participated in the development of a new worldwide convention-the Universal Copyright Convention-which was bnsi- cally consistent with the U.S. law. In 1054 the statute was amended in tlie relatively minor respects necessary to conform it with the Uni- vers;ll Copyright Convention, and the United States became n party to theU.C.C. when the Convention came into force in 1955. PRESENT REI'ISION PROORAM Copyright Office studies.-The movement for general revision, which had been suspended during the development of the Universal Copyright Convention, was revived in 1955. In the legislative ap- propriation acts for the next 3 years, Congress provided funds for a comprehensive program of research and studies by the Copyright Office as the groundwork for general revision. The studies were designed to present, as objectively as possible, the history and provisions of the present law, the problems it raiseq~ast proposals for revision, comparable provisions in foreign laws an In- ternational conventions, and an analysis of the issues and alternative solutions. Most of the studies were prepared by the Copyright Of- fice staff; a few were written by impartial specialists outside of the Office. In carryin out this program the Copyright Office has been as- sisted by a 8reneral Revision Pnnel of 29 copyright specialists ap- pointed by the Librarian of Congress. The Panel was chosen to in- cludo persons familiar with the problems and operations of the vari- ous groups concerned with copyright. -1 preliminary draft of each study \\-as sent to the members of the Panel for ~aeviern.and was tlien revised in the light of their comments. The nlenlbers werp also asked 'See "Copyright Law Reviston Study No. 1" (Senate cnmmittee print) CONTENTS Foreword-------------------------------------------------------- Lett,er of transmittal-- ---- ------ -- .................... -- ------ ---- The Report in Summary........................................... Preface---------------------------------------------------------- Ohapters I. Theoriesof Co gright---------------------------------------- 11. copyrightable korks---- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- 111. Rights of Copyright Owners ................................... IV. Unpublished Works: Common Law and Statutory Protection- - - - - V. Duration of Copyright ----- - - - -- -- ---------- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- VI. Notice of Copyright ------------------------------------------ VII. Registration and Deposit of Copies ----,------------------------ VIII. Ownemhip of Copyright-- .................................... IX. Remedies for Infringement.................................... X. International Aspects of Copyright ----- -- ------ ---- -------- ---- XI. Miscellaneous Problems ....................................... XII. Administrative Provisions---- - -- ---- -- -- - - - - - - -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- Appendixes : A. Listofst~dies-----------------------------------------~---- B. Summary of recommendations- - - ............................ Chapter I THEORIES OF COPYRIGHT OUTLINEOF CHAPTER A. Introduction---_-----------------------.----------------------- B. The nature of copyright----------------------------------------- 1. In general---------.---------_---------------------------- 2. Copyright as property--_____-.-_------------------------- 3. Copyright as a personal right .............................. a. Generally--------_-------------------------------- b. Moralrights------_-_-_--------------------------- c. Assignability of copyright ........................... 4. Copyright as a monopoly - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- - - ---- -- -- -- - - - - C. The pur oses of copyright-_-----------------------------.------- I. 8onsttitutional basis of the copyright law .-.-.-----_--------- 2. The rights of authors and the public interest ----------------- a. In general---------------------------------------- b. Limitations on author's rights ....................... c. The author's reward- .............................. I). Summary------------------------------------------------------ 1 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL WEVISlON
Recommended publications
  • Excesss Karaoke Master by Artist

    Excesss Karaoke Master by Artist

    XS Master by ARTIST Artist Song Title Artist Song Title (hed) Planet Earth Bartender TOOTIMETOOTIMETOOTIM ? & The Mysterians 96 Tears E 10 Years Beautiful UGH! Wasteland 1999 Man United Squad Lift It High (All About 10,000 Maniacs Candy Everybody Wants Belief) More Than This 2 Chainz Bigger Than You (feat. Drake & Quavo) [clean] Trouble Me I'm Different 100 Proof Aged In Soul Somebody's Been Sleeping I'm Different (explicit) 10cc Donna 2 Chainz & Chris Brown Countdown Dreadlock Holiday 2 Chainz & Kendrick Fuckin' Problems I'm Mandy Fly Me Lamar I'm Not In Love 2 Chainz & Pharrell Feds Watching (explicit) Rubber Bullets 2 Chainz feat Drake No Lie (explicit) Things We Do For Love, 2 Chainz feat Kanye West Birthday Song (explicit) The 2 Evisa Oh La La La Wall Street Shuffle 2 Live Crew Do Wah Diddy Diddy 112 Dance With Me Me So Horny It's Over Now We Want Some Pussy Peaches & Cream 2 Pac California Love U Already Know Changes 112 feat Mase Puff Daddy Only You & Notorious B.I.G. Dear Mama 12 Gauge Dunkie Butt I Get Around 12 Stones We Are One Thugz Mansion 1910 Fruitgum Co. Simon Says Until The End Of Time 1975, The Chocolate 2 Pistols & Ray J You Know Me City, The 2 Pistols & T-Pain & Tay She Got It Dizm Girls (clean) 2 Unlimited No Limits If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know) 20 Fingers Short Dick Man If You're Too Shy (Let Me 21 Savage & Offset &Metro Ghostface Killers Know) Boomin & Travis Scott It's Not Living (If It's Not 21st Century Girls 21st Century Girls With You 2am Club Too Fucked Up To Call It's Not Living (If It's Not 2AM Club Not
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G

    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.
  • Winter Newsletter 2006

    Winter Newsletter 2006

    Volume 23 Number 1 LLAW NEWSLETTER Page 1 NEWSLETTER Law Librarians Association of Wisconsin A Chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 WINTER 2006 President’s Message WisBlawg (http://www.law.wisc.edu/blogs/wisblawg/) Bev Butula, Davis and Kuelthau just found a new home. Bonnie Shucha’s acclaimed legal blog is a regular read for an endless amount of Anyone else out there watch “Project Runway?” I am legal professionals. She has summed up her goal per- completely addicted to the program. If you have not fectly – “Searching Smarter….With a Little Help from seen it, it is a reality show where aspiring fashion de- a Law Librarian.” If you haven’t had a chance to take a signers must design and create a garment based on the tour, please do! Bonnie has spoke about Blogs and weekly challenge. One week they had to make a cos- RSS feeds at several different conventions/institutes/ tume for figure skater Sasha Cohen. The original and seminars. interesting outfits that go down the runway at the end of the show each week constantly amaze me. The My last stop in this “authorship” tour is the publication contestants have an extraordinary amount of talent. initiative launched by Carol Bannen and currently chaired by Susan O’Toole. Most of you know that Why am I writing about a television show? Well, the AALL/West awarded this project the Marketing Award answer is actually quite simple. The show highlights for the “Best Campaign” in 2004. So many individuals individual skill.
  • Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine

    Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine

    united states copyright office section 1201 rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention recommendation of the acting register of copyrights october 2018 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention Recommendation of the Acting Register of Copyrights TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 9 A. Section 1201(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. 9 B. Relationship to Other Provisions of Section 1201 and Other Laws ........................ 11 C. Rulemaking Standards ................................................................................................. 12 D. Streamlined Renewal Process ...................................................................................... 17 III. HISTORY OF SEVENTH TRIENNIAL PROCEEDING ................................................ 20 IV. RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 22 V. DISCUSSION OF NEW PROPOSED CLASSES ............................................................. 31 A. Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual Works—Criticism and Comment ......................... 31 B. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones

    ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones

    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
  • The Role of the Register of Copyrights in the Registration Process: a Critical Appraisal of Certain Exclusionary Regulations *

    The Role of the Register of Copyrights in the Registration Process: a Critical Appraisal of Certain Exclusionary Regulations *

    [Vol.116 COMMENT THE ROLE OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS IN THE REGISTRATION PROCESS: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF CERTAIN EXCLUSIONARY REGULATIONS * Under the Copyright Act,' the only action required in order to obtain a valid statutory copyright in a published work is publication with the prescribed notice.' In order to perfect the rights accruing under his copyright, however, the claimant must also "promptly" de- posit two copies of the best edition of the copyrighted work, together with a claim of copyright, in the Copyright Office. 3 Fulfillment of this requirement of registration and deposit is a condition precedent to any action for copyright infringement, but the copyright itself ordi- narily remains valid pending fulfillment.4 Thus, although most claimants register their works as a matter of course, registration may be deferred, without loss of any rights, until the eve of suit. Unfortunately for some copyright claimants, however, the re- quirement of registration cannot be satisfied by the claimant's acts alone: recent cases also require that the Register of Copyrights actually issue a certificate of registration before infringement proceedings can be brought.5 To the extent that the Register has any discretion to * This Comment has been entered in the 1968 Nathan Burkan Memorial Compe- tition. ' 17 U.S.C. §§ 1-215 (1964). 2 Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30 (1939) ; United States v. Backer, 134 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1943). 17 U.S.C. § 10 (1964), provides: Any person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this title; and such notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, except in the case of books seeking ad interim protection under section 22 of this title.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01–618. Argued October 9, 2002—Decided January 15, 2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . by securing [to Authors] for limited Times . the exclusive Right to their . Writings.” In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copy- rights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copy- right protection generally lasted from a work’s creation until 50 years after the author’s death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author’s death, 17 U. S. C. §302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the en- larged terms to existing and future copyrights alike. Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain, brought this suit seeking a de- termination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” prescription and the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
  • Circular 2 Copyright Registration

    Circular 2 Copyright Registration

    CIRCULAR 2 Copyright Registration This circular provides guidelines for An application for copyright registration contains three submitting a complete, accurate essential elements: a completed application form, a nonre- fundable filing fee, and a nonreturnable deposit—that is, a copyright claim. It covers copy or copies of the work being registered and “deposited” • Completing online and paper with the Copyright Office. The Office will not review your claim until it has received these three elements in compliance applications with its regulations and policies. • Submitting a filing fee This circular provides guidelines to help you make sure 1 • Preparing a deposit copy you submit a complete, accurate copyright claim. Detailed registration requirements can be found in the Compendium • Communicating with the Office of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. • Determining when your registration takes effect Copyright Application A copyright application establishes the basic facts of a claim: the title of the work, the author of the work, the name and address of the claimant or owner of the copyright, the year of creation, whether the work is published, whether the work has been previously registered, and whether the work includes preexisting material. Once submitted to the Office, the application becomes part of the public record and can be viewed by the public upon request. In completing an application, it is important to give clear and accurate information. Establishing a full, accurate record serves the public interest, provides potential licensees with accurate information, and decreases the cost of copyright litigation. Online Application The Copyright Office strongly encourages you to apply online to register an individual literary work, visual arts work, motion picture, musical work, sound recording, other per- forming arts work, or single serial issue.
  • Intellectual Property and the Presumption of Innocence Irina D

    Intellectual Property and the Presumption of Innocence Irina D

    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2015 Intellectual Property and the Presumption of Innocence Irina D. Manta Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Irina D. Manta, Intellectual Property and the Presumption of Innocence, 56 1745 (2015) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/1120 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IRINA D. MANTA* ABSTRACT Our current methods of imposing criminal convictions on defen- dants for copyright and trademark infringement are constitutionally defective. Previous works have argued that due process under the Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the jurisdictionalele- ment. Applying this theory to criminal trademark counterfeiting results in the conclusion that prosecutors should have to demon- strate that an infringing mark needs to have traveled in or affected * Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Maurice A. Deane School of
  • The Value of the Copyright Clause in Construction of Copyright Law, 2 Hastings Const

    The Value of the Copyright Clause in Construction of Copyright Law, 2 Hastings Const

    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 2 Article 9 Number 1 Winter 1975 1-1-1975 The alueV of the Copyright Clause in Construction of Copyright Law Thomas Boggs Richards Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas Boggs Richards, The Value of the Copyright Clause in Construction of Copyright Law, 2 Hastings Const. L.Q. 221 (1975). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol2/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE VALUE OF THE COPYRIGHT CLAUSE IN CONSTRUCTION OF COPYRIGHT LAW* By THoMAs BOGGS RICHARDS** The present law in the United States governing copyright is essen- tialy that enacted when Congress consolidated all federal copyright 2 statutes in 1909.1 Largely because of unanticipated developments, * This note was originally written as a paper for the 1974 Nathan Burkan Mem- orial Competition sponsored by the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Pub- lishers. ** Member, Third-Year Class, School of Law, University of California at Davis. 1. The 1909 Act provides: "Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive
  • The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act

    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.
  • Economics of the Radio Industry

    Economics of the Radio Industry

    ØSICL?)' a, IMAsO 9 _ á_ "v7,,,^.L- .a -r-_- - ` /h41 I o,1 E - ECONOMICS OF THE RADIO INDUSTRY BY HIRAM L. JOME, PH.D. PROFESSOR OP ECONOMICS. DENISON UNIVERSITY CHICAGO NEW YORK A. W. SHAW COMPANY LONDON, A. W. SHAW AND COMPANY. LIMITED 1925 COPYRIGHT 1925, BY A. W. SHAW COMPANY PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA -.- HISTORY OF BROADCASTING: Radio to Television ADVISORY EDITOR Dr. Christopher Sterling, Temple University EDITORIAL BOARD Dr. Marvin R. Bensman, Memphis State University Dr. Joseph Berman, University of Kentucky Dr. John M. Kittross, Temple University Economics of the Radio Industry HIRAM L. JOME PIT ARNO PRESS and THE NEW YORK TIMES New York 1971 Reprint Edition 1971 by Amo Press Inc. Reprinted from a copy in The Newark Public Library LC# 75-161149 ISBN 0-405-03568-3 HISTORY OF BROADCASTING: RADIO TO TELEVISION ISBN for complete set: 0-405-03555-1 See last pages of this volume for titles. Manufactured in the United States of America TO RICHARD T. ELY Adviser, teacher, and friend, who, making a suc- cess of his own life, has always shown a willing- ness and eagerness to help the younger generation make a success of theirs. - PREFACE THE art and the science of wireless were more than 25 years old before the general public began to take much thought of the legal and economic problems which this de- velopment caused. This is characteristic of a constantly changing society. The time comes, however, when tech- nical developments give rise to social problems of such magnitude that it would be folly to ignore them.