DOCSLIB.ORG

Library of Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Library of Congress Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 46 March 9, 2011 Part II Library of Congress Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 380 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Mar 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09MRR2.SGM 09MRR2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2 13026 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CRB DTRA, 72 FR 24084 (May 1, 2007) rates and terms,’’ the Judges ‘‘may consider (‘‘Webcaster II’’).1 This history was the rates and terms for comparable types of Copyright Royalty Board summarized by the United States Court digital audio transmission services and of Appeals for the District of Columbia comparable circumstances under voluntary 37 CFR Part 380 license agreements described in Circuit in Intercollegiate Broadcast subparagraph (A).’’ Id. § 114(f)(2)(B). [Docket No. 2009–1 CRB Webcasting III] System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board, 574 F.3d 748, 753–54 (DC Cir. 2009), as Intercollegiate Broadcast System, Inc. v. Digital Performance Right in Sound follows: Copyright Royalty Board, 574 F.3d 748, Recordings and Ephemeral [Since the nineteenth century, the 753–54 (DC Cir. 2009). Recordings Copyright Act protected the performance Forty petitions to participate were right of ‘‘musical works’’ (the notes and lyrics filed in response to the January 5, 2009, AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, of a song), but not the ‘‘sound recording.’’ notice of commencement of the Library of Congress. Writers were protected but not performers.] proceeding. The great majority of the ACTION: Final rule and order. In 1995, Congress passed the Digital petitioners were webcasters. During the Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act. subsequent period of voluntary SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges Pub. L. No. 104–39, granting the owners of negotiations, settlements were reached are announcing their final sound recordings an exclusive right in among many of the parties. In addition determination of the rates and terms for performance ‘‘by means of a digital to the negotiation phase required in this two statutory licenses, permitting transmission.’’ 17 U.S.C. § 106(6); see Beethoven.com LLC v. Librarian of Cong., 394 proceeding, 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3), certain digital performances of sound F.3d 939, 942 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The Digital Congress enacted the Webcaster recordings and the making of ephemeral Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, Pub. L. Settlement Acts of 2008 and 2009, recordings, for the period beginning No. 105–304, ‘‘created a statutory license in which expanded the opportunities to January 1, 2011, and ending on performances by webcast,’’ to serve Internet resolve the issues in this proceeding, as December 31, 2015. broadcasters and to provide a means of paying copyright owners. Beethoven.com, well as the issues in Webcaster II. This DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2011. legislation further impacted Webcasting Applicability Dates: These rates and 394 F.3d at 942; see 17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(2), (f)(2). To govern the broadcast of sound III by permitting the settling parties to terms are applicable to the period recordings, Congress also created a licensing determine if the settlements could be January 1, 2011, through December 31, scheme for so-called ‘‘ephemeral’’ recordings, considered as evidence before the 2015. ‘‘the temporary copies necessary to facilitate Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘Judges’’).2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the transmission of sound recordings during Eight settlements were resolved under Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or internet broadcasting.’’ Beethoven.com, 394 F.3d at 942–43; see 17 U.S.C. § 112(e)(4). the Webcaster Settlement Acts. 74 FR Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor. 9293 (March 3, 2009) (three Telephone: (202) 707–7658. E-mail: Congress has delegated authority to set rates for these rights and licenses under agreements); 74 FR 34796 (July 17, [email protected]. several statutory schemes. The most recent, 2009) (one agreement); 74 FR 40614 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: passed in 2005 [sic], directed the Librarian of (August 12, 2009) (four agreements). Congress to appoint three Copyright Royalty The rates and terms under these I. Introduction Judges who serve staggered, six-year terms. settlements were the basis of A. Subject of the Proceeding See 17 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. These Judges approximately 95 percent of webcasting conduct complex, adversarial proceedings, This is a rate determination described in 17 U.S.C. § 803 and 37 CFR royalties paid to SoundExchange in 3 proceeding convened under 17 U.S.C. § 351, et seq., and ultimately set ‘‘reasonable 2008 and 2009. SX PFF at ¶¶ 50, 51. 803(b) et seq. and 37 CFR part 351 et rates and terms’’ for royalty payments from Evidence was presented in this seq., in accord with the Copyright digital performances. 17 U.S.C. § 114(f). proceeding by SoundExchange, Inc. Royalty Judges’ Notice announcing * * * Rates should ‘‘most clearly represent (‘‘SX’’), representing the owners, and the rates and terms that would have been three webcasters, College Broadcasters, commencement of proceeding, with a negotiated in the marketplace between a request for Petitions to Participate in a Inc. (‘‘CBI’’), Live365, Inc. (‘‘Live365’’), willing buyer and a willing seller.’’ Id. [17 and Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, proceeding to determine the rates and U.S.C. § 114(f)(2)(B)] ‘‘In determining such terms for the digital public performance rates and terms,’’ the Judges must ‘‘base of sound recordings by means of an [their] decision on economic, competitive 2 In the pleadings filed and during the testimony, eligible nonsubscription transmission or and programming information presented by Live365 attempted to introduce evidence about the parties.’’ Id. Specifically, they must agreements that contained provisions that they were a transmission made by a new not to be considered as precedential under the consider whether ‘‘the service may substitute subscription service under section 114 Webcaster Settlement Acts. Following the clear for or may promote the sales of of the Copyright Act, as amended by the language of the statute that these agreements were phonorecords’’ or otherwise affect the not ‘‘admissible as evidence or otherwise taken into Digital Millennium Copyright Act ‘‘copyright owner’s other streams of revenue.’’ account,’’ 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(C), these attempts were (‘‘DMCA’’), and for the making of Id. § 114(f)(2)(B)(i). The Judges must also rejected. See, e.g., 4/19/10 Tr. at 210:9–10 ephemeral copies in furtherance of these consider ‘‘the relative roles of the copyright (sustaining objection to Live365’s motion to enter digital public performances under owner and the transmitting entity’’ with into evidence the ‘‘Pure Play Agreement’’). section 112, as created by the DMCA, respect to ‘‘relative creative contribution, 3 References to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be cited as ‘‘PFF’’ or ‘‘PCL,’’ published at 74 FR 318 (January 5, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, and risk.’’ Id. § 114 respectively, and reply findings and conclusions of 2009). The rates and terms set in this law shall be cited as ‘‘RFF’’ or ‘‘RCL,’’ respectively, (f)(2)(B)(ii). Finally, ‘‘[i]n establishing such proceeding apply to the period of preceded by the name of the party that submitted January 1, 2011 through December 31, same and followed by the paragraph number. 1 The two prior webcasting proceedings often Similarly, references to the written direct testimony 2015. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(3)(A). have been referred to informally as ‘‘Webcaster I’’ shall be cited as ‘‘WDT’’ preceded by the last name and ‘‘Webcaster II,’’ respectively, as opposed to the of the witness and followed by the page number. B. Statutory Background formal caption ‘‘DTRA’’ (which stands for ‘‘Digital Likewise, references to the written rebuttal A lengthy review of the history of the Transmissions Rate Adjustment’’). In the current testimony shall be cited as ‘‘WRT’’ preceded by the proceeding, we use the caption ‘‘Webcasting III’’ and last name of the witness followed by the page sound recordings compulsory license is intend to caption future webcasting proceedings number. References to the transcript shall be cited contained in the Final Determination for using the term ‘‘Webcasting’’ followed by the as ‘‘Tr.’’ preceded by the date and followed by the Rates and Terms in Docket No. 2005–1 appropriate Roman numeral. page number and the name of the witness. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Mar 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09MRR2.SGM 09MRR2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13027 Inc. (‘‘IBS’’).4 CBI only presented royalty rates an opportunity to comment on royalty rate for the section 112 license evidence to support adoption of its the agreement and shall provide to is bundled with the fee for the section settlement with SoundExchange for participants in the proceeding under section 114 license. There is one additional noncommercial educational webcasters. 803(b)(2) that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the term in the stipulation that was not SoundExchange and Live365 presented agreement an opportunity to comment on the included in Webcaster II. The royalty evidence related to commercial agreement and object to its adoption as a rate for the section 112 license is webcasters. The webcasting royalties basis for statutory terms and rates; and attributed to be 5% of the bundled paid by Live365 to SoundExchange for (ii) The Copyright Royalty Judges may royalties. There was no objection to the 2008 and 2009 were less than 3 percent decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for stipulation. There was evidence of total webcasting royalties paid to statutory terms and rates for participants that presented to support the minimum fee SoundExchange.
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]
  • Sonos Connect:Amp
    SONOS® CONNECT Product Guide THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, information retrieval systems, or computer network without the written permission of Sonos, Inc. SONOS and all other Sonos product names and slogans are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sonos, Inc. SONOS Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off. Sonos products may be protected by one or more patents. Our patent-to-product information can be found here: sonos.com/legal/patents iPhone®, iPod®, iPad® and iTunes® are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Windows® is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries. Android™ is a trademark of Google, Inc. MPEG Layer-3 audio decoding technology licensed from Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson. Sonos uses MSNTP software, which was developed by N.M. Maclaren at the University of Cambridge. © Copyright, N.M. Maclaren, 1996, 1997, 2000; © Copyright, University of Cambridge, 1996, 1997, 2000. All other products and services mentioned may be trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. August 2014 ©2004-2014 by Sonos, Inc. All rights reserved. SONOS CONNECT:AMP The SONOS CONNECT:AMP (formerly ZonePlayer 120) includes a built-in state-of-the-art digital amplifier that can power large or small speakers, allowing you to enjoy superior audio quality in every room. • Includes a multi-port Ethernet switch to enable direct connections to routers, computers, or other Sonos products.
    [Show full text]
  • PLAY:5 the ULTIMATE ALL-IN-ONE LISTENING EXPERIENCE with the DEEPEST, RICHEST Hifi SOUND
    PLAY:5 THE ULTIMATE ALL-IN-ONE LISTENING EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEEPEST, RICHEST HiFi SOUND. PLAY:5 BENEFITS SONOS WIRELESS HiFi SONOS HiFi SOUND SYSTEM BENEFITS Five custom-designed speakers powered by five dedicated digital amplifiers (two tweeters, two mid-range drivers, and one subwoofer HiFi SOUND AND ROCK-SOLID WIRELESS driver) provide crystal-clear, high-quality sound. Experience your favorite music from the only wireless music system that combines warm, full-bodied HiFi sound with the most powerful STEREO PAIR FOR BIGGER SOUND solutions for delivering rock-solid wireless performance in any home. Turn two PLAY:5s into separate left and right channel speakers for big stereo sound in one room. STREAM ALL THE MUSIC ON EARTH A single app lets you play your entire music library, stream all of your favorite Music Services and tune in to more than 100,000 Internet Radio stations and podcasts. Play the same song in every room, in perfect sync—or play different music in every room—from any source. SIMPLE TO SET-UP, CONTROL, AND EXPAND Control your favorite music sources and listening experience with a free app for iOS, Android, Mac or PC. And since it is a modular system, you can easily add music to more rooms with a simple button press. PLAY:5 SPECS AUDIO NETWORKING* AMPLIFIER Five Class-D digital amplifiers WIRELESS CONNECTIVITY Works on your home WiFi network with any 802.11b/g, 2.4GHz broadcast capable router. Also works on HEADPHONE Auto-detecting 3.5 mm headphone connection SonosNet, a secure AES encrypted, peer-to-peer wireless mesh AUDIO LINE-IN Auto-detecting 3.5 mm audio line-in connection network.
    [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 Spotify Paradox: How the Creation of a Compulsory License Scheme for Streaming On-Demand Music Platforms Can Save the Music Industry
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title The Spotify Paradox: How the Creation of a Compulsory License Scheme for Streaming On-Demand Music Platforms Can Save the Music Industry Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7n4322vm Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 22(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Richardson, James H. Publication Date 2014 DOI 10.5070/LR8221025203 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Spotify Paradox: How the Creation of a Compulsory License Scheme for Streaming On-Demand Music Platforms Can Save the Music Industry James H. Richardson* I. INTRODUCTION �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 II. ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING LOCALLY STORED MEDIA, AND THE RISE OF STREAMING MUSIC ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 A. The Digitalization of Music, and the Rise of Locally Stored Content. ......47 B. The Road to Legitimacy: Digital Media in Light of A&M Records, Inc. ..48 C. Legitimacy in a Sea of Piracy: The iTunes Music Store. ...........................49 D. Streaming and the Future of Digital Music Service. ���������������������������������50 III. THE COPYRIGHT AND DIGITALIZATION �������������������������������������������������������������������51 A. Statutory Background ................................................................................51 B. Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ................................52
    [Show full text]
  • Is Community Radio in Crisis in the Global North?: Lessons from Australia and the United States
    Is community radio in crisis in the Global North?: Lessons from Australia and the United States Heather Anderson* Griffith University, Australia Clemencia Rodríguez* Temple University, United States Abstract This article explores the relevance of community radio in the Global North. Its significance in the Global South is uncontested (Gumucio Dagron, 2011; Rodríguez, 2011; Tacchi, 2002), however, in the Global North the role of community radio is not necessarily so clear. According to a 2017 study published by New York University, newer digital services are changing the way people listen to content, endangering the future of traditional radio (Miller, 2017). In this environment, the relevance of community radio can be put into question. Based on three different case studies – two in Australia and one in the US – our analysis explores community broadcasters’ strategic initiatives that, although different, intend to address specific communication needs in particular audiences. Our analysis suggests that the future of community radio in the Global North depends on its ability to detect needs and audiences at the hyper-local level. Keywords Community media, community radio, Global North, sustainability, low-power FM radio Introduction The significance of community radio in the Global South is uncontested (Gumucio Dagron, 2011; Rodríguez, 2011; Tacchi, 2002); in media ecologies where only precarious Internet access is available to the majority of the population, community radio still has the potential to serve various information and communication needs (i.e., serving as a local public sphere, showcasing local voices otherwise left at the margins, connecting people and organisations, facilitating local governance and community participation in decision-making processes).
    [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]
  • Finding a Partner Model with Broadcasters at Tunein.Com.” Stanford Casepublisher 204-2011-1
    S TANFORD U NIVERSITY 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 4 - 1 S CHOOL OF E NGINEERING C ASEP UBLISHER DRAFT Rev. May 17, 2011 DRAFT COPY DO NOT CITE: R. Chen et al. “Finding a Partner Model with Broadcasters at Tunein.com.” Stanford CasePublisher 204-2011-1. 17 May 2010. DRAFT COPY DO NOT CITE FINDING A PARTNER MODEL WITH BROADCASTERS AT TUNEIN.COM T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Introduction 1. Overview of Online Broadcast Industry 1.1. Industry Trends 1.2. Industry Participants 2. TuneIn Background 2.1. RadioTime 2.2. Tunein Radio 3. Business Model 3.1. Metrics 3.2. Market Reaction 4. Conclusions 5. Discussion 6. Questions 7. Exhibits 8. References 9. Authors Professors Micah Siegel (Stanford University) and Fred Gibbons (Stanford University) guided the de- velopment of this case using the CasePublisher service as the basis for class discussion rather than to il- lustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a business situation. S TANFORD 204-2011-01 Finding a Partner Model at TuneIn.com Introduction !Founded in 2002, TuneIn delivers free Internet radio from all over the world. The application streams radio stations from 50,000 local, international, and Internet stations spanning 140 countries and 55 di"erent languages in over 150 products.1) It provides users with access to live radio content through a variety of media including websites, smart- phones, home entertainment devices, and auto in-dash receivers. 2) The application also al- lows users to pause, rewind, and record live radio programs. Although there are numerous online applications that o"er music streaming, TuneIn di"erentiates itself by focusing on radio programming.
    [Show full text]