Statement of the United States Copyright Office
before the
Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property,
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
109th Congress, 2nd Session
May 16, 2006
Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006
The Copyright Office appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments
to the Subcommittee regarding the progress that appears to have been
made towards reforming section 115 of the Copyright Act, which governs
the licensing of the reproduction and distribution rights for nondramatic
musical works. As the Subcommittee has heard at a number of hearings,
the existing section 115 does not comport with the realities of the digital
environment in which music creators, distributors and users now operate.
The draft Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (“SIRA”)
represents a significant advancement towards modernizing the Copyright
Act to facilitate digital audio transmissions of music while balancing
the interests of songwriters, music publishers, and online music services,
as well as the consuming public.
Overview
The draft legislation reflects an understanding and appreciation of
the many difficulties facing the music industry today with respect to
the digital environment.(1) The
most critical and time-sensitive issue is the current unavailability
of an efficient and reliable mechanism whereby legitimate music services
are able to clear all of the rights they need to make large numbers of
musical works quickly available by an ever-evolving number of digital
means while ensuring that the copyright holders are fairly compensated.
During the years of negotiations that have ensued to explore a possible
statutory mechanism via section 115, the various interested parties have
voiced concerns regarding numerous additional issues that face the music
industry as well, some of which the Office understands may be addressed
by other legislation. Although these additional issues are no doubt legitimate,
the sheer number and complexity of them ultimately render a holistic
solution improbable, if not impossible, and the immediate benefit that
the SIRA could bring to the music industry should not be delayed pending
resolution of the other issues or bills, nor should the fate of the SIRA
be tied to that of other legislation.
The SIRA appropriately focuses
on those issues absolutely necessary to establish a functional licensing
structure to enable legitimate music services to provide, and the consuming
public to enjoy, vast quantities and varieties of music through the digital
delivery of music online. It is also appropriate that the SIRA leaves
undisturbed the structure established by section 115 for the reproduction
and distribution of nondramatic musical works in physical formats (e.g.,
compact discs, vinyl records and cassette tapes), a structure that has
worked well for that marketplace.(2) Finally,
the Office understands that the SIRA has received initial support and
input from a variety of interested parties, which is crucial for its
success.(3) As the past few years of
negotiations have demonstrated, the field of music licensing is a highly
complex architecture supported in part by relationships, split rights,
side agreements and historical antiquities that are inextricably woven
into current business models. Therefore, for any legislation to benefit
and foster the industry, it must take these realities into account.
The SIRA addresses three principal concepts - blanket
licensing, designated agents and royalty rates — each of which is separately
addressed below. We caution that given the complexity of these issues
and the interrelatedness of the various copyrights implicated in the
digital delivery of one song, our comments today focus only on concepts.
The Office has not had the opportunity to conduct a careful review of
the draft legislative language, but will do so and provide further advice
to the Subcommittee within the next several days.
Blanket Licensing
The Copyright Office commends this Subcommittee for adopting a blanket
licensing approach to the digital reproduction and distribution of musical
works, and believes that such an approach is necessary for successful
reformation of section 115. Speed is the hallmark of the digital age.
If legitimate music services are not able to clear rapidly and relatively
easily the rights to the music that they wish to distribute and the consuming
public wishes to obtain online, then consumer demand for prompt access
to music upon its release will likely encourage and sustain unauthorized
distribution. The blanket licensing proposed in the SIRA attacks this
problem in two ways.
First, by simply filing one license application—or
in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses,
a limited number of applications—a legitimate music service can
obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in
the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright
owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring
the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically
granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing
processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the
new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does
not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize
the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally,
we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner
from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital
music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright
owners and licensees.
Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate
copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate
the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently,
there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies
and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can
result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues,
the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on
rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies
to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies
involve additional intermediate copies or not.
Based on the foregoing and our involvement in discussions
on these issues over the past several years, we anticipate that the blanket
licensing approach would be welcomed by, or at least be acceptable to,
the various interested parties. Furthermore, we note that blanket licensing
has proven successful with respect to the section 114 compulsory license
for sound recordings, and would expect it to function similarly in the
section 115 context.
However, the Copyright Office strongly urges that the
SIRA not characterize streaming as a distribution or as a form of “digital
phonorecord delivery,” or DPD. A stream, whether interactive or
noninteractive, is predominantly a public performance, although the various
reproductions such a transmission requires makes it appropriate to address
in section 115. A stream does not, however, constitute a “distribution,” the
object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient;
the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may
temporarily exist on a recipient’s computer to facilitate the stream
and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in
facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient
simply do not qualify. Similarly, a stream should not be considered a
DPD as that term is presently defined by 17 U.S.C. 115(d), because it
most likely does not result in “a specifically identifiable reproduction
by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord.” The Office
recognizes that the SIRA proposes to amend the definition of DPD to specifically
incorporate streaming, but such an amendment is problematic because a
DPD is generally understood—and should be understood—to
be a distribution in and of itself. Characterizing streaming as a form
of distribution is factually and legally incorrect and can only lead
to confusion in an environment where the concept of distribution by means
of digital transmission is already the subject of misguided attacks.(6) The Office therefore suggests that the SIRA’s proposed section
115(e) apply to both digital phonorecord deliveries (which would not
include streaming) and streaming (as a form of transmission distinct
from digital phonorecord deliveries), and that the definition of “stream” be
reexamined in light of the foregoing discussion. The Office does, however,
support the SIRA’s conforming amendment to subparagraphs 115(c)(3)(C)
and (D) that deletes the reference to reproductions or distributions
of phonorecords “incidental” to a transmission. This undefined
term which lacks any legislative explanation has been the source of much
confusion and has prevented the establishment of rates for these actions.
Additionally, we note that the SIRA resolves complaints
by online music services about what they characterize as “double-dipping” in
one context, providing for a royalty-free license for intermediate copies
in the context of noninteractive streaming, but does not resolve other
situations involving arguably duplicative payments demanded by copyright
holders’ representatives for both the performance as well as the
reproduction and distribution rights when a musical work is delivered
by a mechanism which is not clearly solely a distribution or a performance.
Although these other situations involve important issues, it is not necessary
to resolve them at this time to make the SIRA an effective piece of legislation.
Its absence from the SIRA may even prompt the interested parties to resolve
it on their own. In fact, because the resolution of that issue is so
difficult due to the positions taken by music publishers and performing
rights organizations, it is actually a virtue of the SIRA that it defers
resolution of that intractable issue to another day.
Designated Agents
1. Conceptually
As the Register of Copyrights has previously testified, collective administration
of the copyrights in musical works has proven successful both domestically
in the context of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
(“ASCAP”), Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) and
SESAC, Inc.’s administration of performance rights, and internationally
for both performance as well as reproduction and distribution rights.(7) The
three domestic performing rights societies collectively are able to license
public performances of virtually all nondramatic musical works and do
so on a blanket basis. Currently, no similar mechanism exists with respect
to the reproduction and distribution of phonorecords of nondramatic musical
works, because the main licensing agent for these rights—the
Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (“HFA”)—is unable to license
a significant percentage of these works.
The SIRA creates this type of collective licensing structure for online
music services to obtain the digital reproduction and distribution rights
for musical works through the use of designated agents. It relieves licensees
of the difficulties in locating someone who is authorized to license
the reproduction and distribution of a particular song. The Office supports
this licensing structure, and notes the following features that will
help ensure its effectiveness.
Digital music services need to be able to obtain licenses
to cover all the musical works that they wish to make available. The
SIRA addresses this issue by including a default provision that grants
statutory authority to the General Designated Agent (“GDA”)
to license any works not specifically represented by an additional designated
agent. Since each agent is required to make available a list of the musical
works it is authorized to license for digital uses and any works not
affirmatively identified may be presumed to be covered by the GDA’s
license, a licensee is not only assured that it has the ability to secure
rights to all musical works, but it also has the necessary information
to determine from whom to secure rights for a particular work as well.
It is also important that a licensee should not have
to secure licenses from an unmanageable multiplicity of designated agents
in order to make available all of the works it desires; otherwise the
efficiency of the blanket licensing approach is undercut. By limiting
additional designated agents to those who represent at least a significant
percentage of relevant market share, the SIRA avoids the potential for
the proliferation of designated agents.
2. Logistical Issues
The creation and administration of designated agents necessarily raises
a number of logistical issues, including: the process by which to select
the General Designated Agent; funding sources for the designated agents
and their databases; copyright owners’ selection of a designated
agent to administer the digital reproduction and distribution rights
for their works; designated agents’ communication to potential
licensees of their available catalogues and licensing procedures; licensees’ use
of the agents’ databases; royalty reporting and compliance procedures;
disclosure and use of royalty data; the default administration procedures
should any designated agent cease operations; royalty dispute resolution;
and disposition of unclaimed royalty funds.(8) In
order to create a licensing structure that can remain sufficiently flexible
to adapt to changing technologies and the necessary conforming changes
to business platforms, it would be helpful for the legislation to focus
on the legal rights of various parties, and leave the majority of the
logistical issues to regulatory action.
Additionally, the Copyright Office has some concerns
regarding designated agents’ authority to collect and expend administrative
fees. The SIRA appears to give designated agents too much discretion
to use these fees - and even royalties collected under the license -
to inappropriately fund tangential activities. The Office believes that
the designated agents should be permitted to use such moneys only for
activities directly related to licensing music works under section 115
and the collection and distribution of royalty fees. Administrative
fees collected from licensees should not be used for other purposes,
such as “industry
negotiations, rate setting proceedings, litigation, and legislative
efforts,” as provided in proposed subparagraph115(e)(9)(D), and
it is also questionable whether it is appropriate to apply royalty collections
to those activities, rather than simply distribute those royalties to
copyright owners after deducting the actual costs of collecting and
distributing the royalties.(9) Consideration
should be given to limiting the use of the administrative fees, and
perhaps the royalties as well, for “licensing administrative costs” as
defined in proposed subparagraph 115(e)(15)(G). Moreover, while we understand
the reasons why licensees might be expected to share in the costs of
establishing the General Designated Agent’s infrastructure for
licensing and royalty collection and distribution, we do not understand
the rationale for the SIRA’s apparent requirement that licensees
pay for the establishment and maintenance of additional designated agents
as well. See proposed subparagraph 115(e)(12). Furthermore, we have
some concerns that the designated agents seem to be the sole judges
with respect to the auditing of whether a licensee has underpaid an
agent. If a designated agent determines that a licensee has underpaid
royalties by 10 percent or more, the licensee must bear the cost of
the designated agent’s
royalty compliance examination. There are obvious problems with an arrangement
that give the designated agent the sole discretion to make such a determination.
The regulatory provisions with respect to other compulsory licenses
entrust those determinations to independent auditors, which seems to
be a more appropriate structure. As part of the refining of the draft
SIRA, the Office would suggest that the issues of cost sharing. administrative
fees and auditing either be more fully fleshed out in the legislation
or be subject to a regulatory process and oversight.
Royalty Rates
The SIRA establishes a royalty-free rate for the making of server
and other intermediate copies necessary to facilitate noninteractive
webcasting. As the Register of Copyrights has previously testified,(10) intermediate
copies made in the course of streaming a licensed public performance
of a musical work should be subject either to an exemption or to a statutory
license. The Office believes that the SIRA’s
proposal to create a royalty-free compulsory license to address this
situation is a major step in the right direction, primarily because
we understand that several of the interested parties have preliminarily
agreed to this term and we believe it is a reasonable solution which
resolves the “double-dipping” scenario at least in this
context. However, we believe that a less burdensome and equally effective
approach would be to grant a statutory exemption for this activity.
Establishing an administrative apparatus and charging an administrative
fee for the issuance of a royalty-free license would offer little or
no benefit over an exemption, while creating costs and burdens for both
licensees and the designated agent.
The SIRA appropriately assigns responsibility for rate setting to the
Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”). It is important that both
the SIRA and the parties recognize that the CRB has discretion to determine
that some statutorily licensed uses, such as the reproduction of intermediate
copies for interactive streaming, may have a value of zero depending
on the given context and evidence presented. Similarly, the CRB
should be at liberty to establish different rates for various digital
uses of works licensed pursuant to this new compulsory license.
Another key component to ensure the effectiveness of
any legislation is to make the acquisition of a compulsory license independent
of the status of rate setting proceedings. In other words, even if an
interim or final rate for a particular digital use of musical works
has not been established, the music services must be able to obtain
a license and the corresponding legal certainty for that use if they
are to compete effectively with illegal distribution. By providing that
a license shall be effective upon the filing of an application, while
also providing for the setting of interim rates and for retroactive
adjustments once a final rate has been set, the SIRA accommodates the
needs of music services and music publishers.
Finally, the SIRA appears to omit a provision governing
one of the most significant and necessary aspects of any blanket licensing
scheme: there is no provision that addresses how royalties are to be
distributed by designated agents to copyright owners.(11) Clearly,
a designated agent should not have unfettered discretion to determine
how the royalties it collects should be allocated among copyright owners.
The statute should prescribe guidelines to ensure that royalties are
distributed in a fair and equitable fashion, giving each copyright owner
the royalties to which it is entitled based on the uses licensees make
of that copyright owner’s works. It may be appropriate to delegate
responsibility for crafting such guidelines to the Register of Copyrights
or the Copyright Royalty Board, but the statute should address this
issue in some respect. We note that the statutory license in section
114 also offers no guidance as to how royalties should be distributed
among copyright owners, and as a result, the Librarian of Congress had
to issue regulations, as part of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel
rate-setting process, governing SoundExchange’s distribution of
royalties.(12)
Conclusion
From the information the Copyright Office has received thus far, the
SIRA appears to be a productive step forward in modernizing section
115 of the Copyright Act for the digital age. Although there are undoubtedly
many drafting subtleties to be vetted and logistical issues to be addressed
or referred to the regulatory process, the Office supports the fundamental
concepts on which the SIRA is based. We are especially encouraged that
the SIRA is based upon principles agreed to by both music publishers
and online music services, and we commend both sides for the progress
they have made in overcoming what once seemed to be insuperable obstacles
to reaching a workable and beneficial solution. While we understand
that some obstacles to complete agreement remain, we encourage the parties
to resolve all outstanding differences and we encourage the Subcommittee
to complete the process of crafting legislation based on the working
draft of SIRA that will make fair and efficient licensing of musical
works for online services a reality.
As always, the Copyright Office
welcomes the opportunity to assist this Subcommittee as it completes
its work on this important issue.
1. For a detailed account of these difficulties
as well as a comprehensive history of the section 115 compulsory license,
please refer to the Register of Copyrights’ written statements
to this Subcommittee on June 21, 2005 and March 11, 2004. See Oversight
Hearing on “Copyright Office Views on Music Licensing Reform”:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005)
(statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights) (available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat062105.html); Section
115 of the Copyright Act: In Need of an Update?: Hearing Before the Subcomm.
on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House Comm.
on the Judiciary, 108th Cong.
(2004) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights) (available
at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031104.html). See
also Music Licensing Reform: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual
Prop of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement
of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights) (available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat071205.html).
These statements also describe the Copyright Office’s involvement
with inter-party negotiations on these matters.
2. We are aware that the recording industry has expressed
an interest in amending section 115 to address issues relating to licensing
of musical works in physical formats. Whether or not the amendments sought
by the recording industry are worthy of consideration, it would be a
mistake to jeopardize the progress that has been made in resolving issues
relating to online music licensing by tying it to the unresolved issues
relating to physical formats.
3. Specifically, we understand that the draft
SIRA is based on concepts discussed and tentatively agreed to by the
National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and
the Digital Media Association (“DiMA”). However, we recognize
that because these organizations have apparently not reached agreement
on all relevant issues and others have yet to provide their input, it
may be premature to conclude that the SIRA represents a solution acceptable
to all stakeholders.
4. That is, all musical works that have been distributed
in the form of phonorecords to the public in the United States under
the authority of the copyright owner. The SIRA would not alter the current
provision in section 115 that limits the scope of the compulsory license
to musical works that have already been recorded and released.
5. As defined in SIRA, a “limited download” is “a
digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording of a musical work that
is only available for listening for (i) a definite period of time (including
a period of time defined by ongoing subscription payments made by an
end user); or (ii) a specified number of times.”
6. See, e.g., Brief of Amici Curiae Computer & Communications
Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association in connection
with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Elektra Entertainment
Group, Inc. v. Barker, No. 05 CV 7340 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 24, 2006).
7. Collective administration has also proven
successful with respect to the section 114 statutory license for sound
recordings. The section 114 license is slightly different from the proposed
section 115(e) license in that the former is a true statutory license
wherein SoundExchange simply administers all royalties paid for this
license, and the latter would be a compulsory license whereby the statute
grants the authority to and mandates designated agents to issue the relevant
licenses, albeit subject to statutory requirements and rates set by the
Copyright Royalty Board.
8. In the current draft of the SIRA, it
is unclear whether the “reasonably diligent” search a designated
agent must make for copyright owners of unclaimed funds, see proposed
subparagraph 115(e)(11)(B)(i), would require more than “reasonably
diligent efforts to publicize the existence of the unclaimed funds and
the procedures by which copyright owners may claim such funds from the
designated agent.” See proposed subparagraph 115(e)(11)(B)(ii)(I).
As the Subcommittee knows, current discussions regarding possible legislation
addressing orphan works would require users of orphan works to engage
in a reasonably diligent search in good faith to locate the owner of
the infringed copyright in order to enjoy the benefit of the proposed
limitation on remedies. It may not be unreasonable to impose a similar
requirement on designated agents who have collected royalties belonging
to unlocatable copyright owners.
9. It is also unclear what relationship,
if any, there is between the activities provided in proposed subparagraph
115(e)(9)(D) and the “other administrative costs” defined
in proposed subparagraph 115(e)(15)(J). It is possible that proposed
subparagraph 115(e)(15)(A) means that the fees charged to licensees might
be used in part to fund those “other administrative costs.”
10. Section 115 of the Copyright
Act: In Need of an Update?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th
Cong. 22 (2004) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights)
(available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031104.html).
11. It is also unclear how a licensee
would allocate royalty payments among designated agents, if additional
designated agents are certified under proposed subparagraph 115(e)(9)(C).
While the mechanism for allocation might be simple if royalties continue
to be calculated as a “penny rate”—e.g., the
current royalty for each phonorecord delivered is 9.1 cents—the
method of allocation would be unclear if royalties are set on a basis
such as a percentage of the music service’s revenues, a basis that
both the current section 115 and the proposed revision to section 115
appear to (and ought to) permit. If a digital music service is required
to pay a royalty of x percent of its revenues, how would it determine
what percentage of that royalty is to be paid to each designated agent?
12. See Determination of Reasonable
Rates and Terms for the Digital Performance of Sound Recordings, 63 Fed.
Reg. 25394, 25412, 25414 (May 8, 1998); see also Recording Indus.
of Am. v. Librarian of Congress, 176 F.3d 528, 531, 535 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Not only does section 114 not set forth any guidelines regarding allocation
of royalties by the collective that receives the royalties, it is also
silent with respect to how royalties are to be collected and distributed
to copyright owners. The mechanism of one or more collectives to receive
royalty payments and disburse them to copyright owners was a necessary
creation of the regulatory process in the Copyright Office and the Library
of Congress.
|