[Federal Register: June 24, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34035-34039]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. RM 96-3A]
Notice and Recordkeeping for Subscription Digital Transmissions
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is requesting
further comments on the requirements by which copyright owners shall
receive reasonable notice of the use of their works from subscription
digital transmission services, and how records of such use shall be
kept and made available to copyright owners. The Digital Performance
Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 requires the Office to adopt the
regulations. The Office is requesting this additional comment before
issuing interim regulations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 1997.
ADDRESSES: An original and fifteen copies of the comments shall be
delivered to: Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office, LM-403,
James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E.,
Washington, D.C., or mailed to: Nanette Petruzzelli, Acting General
Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station,
Washington, D.C. 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nanette Petruzzelli, Acting General
Counsel, or Jennifer L. Hall, Senior Attorney, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O.
Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202)
707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 1, 1995, Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right
in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Public Law No. 104-39, 109 Stat. 336
(1995). The law gave to sound recording copyright owners an exclusive
right to perform their works publicly by means of a digital audio
transmission. 17 U.S.C. 106(6). Certain digital transmissions were
exempted from the scope of the right, 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1), while
nonexempt digital subscription services were given the opportunity to
qualify for a statutory license. 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2).
Congress directed the Librarian of Congress to establish
regulations under which copyright owners may receive reasonable notice
of the use of their sound recordings under the statutory license, and
under which entities performing the sound recordings shall keep and
make available records of such use. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2).
The Sec. 114 License for Nonexempt Subscription Transmissions
A nonexempt digital subscription service transmission is subject to
statutory licensing in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 114(f) if the
transmission is not part of an interactive service, does not exceed the
``sound recording performance complement,'' does not give an advance
program schedule or prior announcement of titles to be performed, does
not automatically cause the receiving device to switch from one program
channel to another, and includes information encoded by authority of
the copyright owner identifying the title, the featured artist, and
related information. 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2). The ``sound recording
performance complement'' is defined as:
the transmission during any 3-hour period, on a particular channel
used by a transmitting entity, of no more than--
(A) 3 different selections of sound recordings from any one
phonorecord lawfully distributed for public performance or sale in
the United States, if no more than 2 such selections are transmitted
consecutively; or
(B) 4 different selections of sound recordings--
(i) by the same featured recording artist; or
(ii) from any set or compilation of phonorecords lawfully
distributed together as a unit for public performance or sale in the
United States, if no more than three such selections are transmitted
consecutively: Provided, That the transmission of selections in
excess of the numerical limits provided for in clauses (A) and (B)
from multiple phonorecords shall nonetheless qualify as a sound
recording performance complement if the programming of the multiple
phonorecords was not willfully intended to avoid the numerical
limitations prescribed in such clauses.
17 U.S.C. 114(j)(7).
Digital subscription transmission services that qualify for the
statutory license may reach a voluntary agreement as to rates and terms
with sound recording copyright owners, or may petition the Librarian of
Congress to convene a copyright arbitration royalty panel (CARP) to set
rates and terms for those entities that have not reached voluntary
agreement. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). On June 4, 1996, no voluntary agreement
having been reached, the parties petitioned the Librarian to convene
such a CARP. Rates and terms set by the CARP will apply to all
subscription services not subject to voluntary agreement. 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(2)-(3). However, Congress also directed the Librarian of
Congress to establish regulations by which copyright owners may receive
reasonable notice of the use of their sound recordings under statutory
license, and under which records of such use shall be kept and made
available by the entities performing the sound recordings. 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(2). Anyone performing a sound recording publicly by means of a
nonexempt subscription transmission under section 114(f) may do so
without infringing the exclusive right of the sound recording copyright
owner by complying with the notice requirements that the Librarian
prescribes by regulation and by paying royalty fees in accordance with
the law. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5).
Rulemaking on Notice and Recordkeeping
On May 13, 1996, the Copyright Office published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register requesting comments on the
requirements by which copyright owners should receive reasonable notice
of the use of their works from subscription digital transmission
services and how records of such use should be kept and made available
to copyright owners. The Office asked commentators to consider both the
adequacy of the notice to sound recording copyright owners and the
administrative burdens placed on the digital transmission services in
providing notice and maintaining records of use. 61 FR 22004 (May 13,
1996).
The Office received a total of four comments and three reply
comments, as well as one surreply and one comment to the surreply.
Comments were submitted by the Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA); DMX, Inc. (DMX); Muzak; and Digital Cable Radio
Associates/Music Choice (DCR) (``commenting parties''). The comments
set forth a wide range of proposals for notice and records of use, with
varying form and content requirements. The comments also included
proposals concerning matters not addressed in the
[[Page 34036]]
Act, such as confidentiality and auditing.
On Thursday, November 14, 1996, the Copyright Office met with the
parties to facilitate agreement on notice and recordkeeping
requirements for digital subscription services under 17 U.S.C. 114, and
to discuss the proper regulatory and recordkeeping role for the Office.
See Memorandum from Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel, U.S.
Copyright Office, to Commenting Parties (Oct. 9, 1996). In attendance
were 15 individuals representing RIAA, DMX, Muzak, DCR, and the
Copyright Office. Further written comments were submitted in response
to a draft meeting summary distributed to participants by the Copyright
Office. A second meeting took place on Thursday, January 23, 1997. See
Memorandum from Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel, U.S.
Copyright Office, to Commenting Parties (Jan. 14, 1997). A summary of
the written comments and meeting discussions will be included with the
published interim regulations.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comments and meeting summaries are available in the
Public Information Office of the Copyright Office, Room LM-401,
James Madison Memorial Building, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Copyright Office requests further
written comment from interested parties relating to quarterly reports
of use to be provided by digital subscription services, before
proceeding to issue interim regulations under section 114. The
regulations will be issued on an interim basis due to the developing
nature of the technology to be employed in accommodating the reporting
requirements.
Policy Issues Relating to Quarterly Reports of Use Identified in
Discussions Among the Commenting Parties
The comments and the discussions among the commenting parties
raised the following issues relating to the quarterly reports of use.
1. Reporting Compliance With the Sound Recording Performance Complement
In addition to an initial notice to be filed, with an accompanying
filing fee, with the U.S. Copyright Office, the commenting parties
proposed generally that subscription services file quarterly reports of
use including data to indicate which sound recordings were performed
and the number of times (summary frequency data). In addition to the
summary frequency data, sound recording copyright owners proposed that
each quarterly report include a sample of the service's playlist, to
permit copyright owners: (1) To verify the accuracy of the summary
frequency data; and (2) to monitor compliance with the sound recording
performance complement defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(7). Under one
proposal, the sample would have consisted of a 30-day report each
quarter of either: (1) The service's actual playlist; or (2) its
intended playlist with an error log and an accompanying certification
of the information's accuracy by a service official. See RIAA
Additional Reply (Dec. 19, 1996) at 7.
In response, representatives of subscription services raised two
issues: (1) Whether the Act requires them to affirmatively report
compliance with the performance complement at all; and (2) if so,
whether a sample size could be developed with a true mathematical or
statistical basis. See DCR Additional Comment (Dec. 12, 1996) at 4-6;
Letter from Jon L. Praed to Jean R. Milbauer (Jan. 16, 1997). At the
January 23 meeting, RIAA indicated that it would attempt to determine
an appropriate sample size if the services were to provide appropriate
data. On February 11, the Copyright Office encouraged the services to
address RIAA's request for such data. Memorandum from Nanette
Petruzzelli, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, to
Commenting Parties (Feb. 11, 1997).
On March 11, 1997, after consulting with the other commenting
services, a representative for DMX proposed that the services simply
produce their entire intended playlist for each quarter instead of
providing summary frequency data or error logs, to enable copyright
owners to determine allocation of royalties and compliance with the
performance complement. Letter from Seth D. Greenstein, Esq., to Jean
R. Milbauer, Esq. (Mar. 11, 1997). This proposal was deemed generally
acceptable to the commenting parties provided that an agreeable
definition for ``intended playlist'' were reached. See Letter from Jean
R. Milbauer to Commenting Services (Mar. 13, 1997); Letter from Seth D.
Greenstein to Jean Milbauer, Esq. (Mar. 18, 1997); Letter from Fernando
R. Laguarda, Esq., to Jean R. Milbauer, Esq. (Mar. 18, 1997) (``without
waiving any legal objections previously set forth'').
2. Data Fields
The commenting parties are also attempting to negotiate agreement
on data fields to be provided in the reports of use that will permit
identification of sound recordings performed and distribution of
royalties to individual copyright owners, without placing unreasonable
burden on subscription services. See, e.g., DCR Additional Comment
(Dec. 12, 1996) at 4 n.7; RIAA Additional Reply (Dec. 19, 1996) at 2
n.1; Letter from Seth D. Greenstein, Esq., to Jean Milbauer, Esq. (Mar.
18, 1997).
3. Non-Collective Member Copyright Owners
Finally, issues exist concerning how the reports of use will be
kept or made available for sound recording copyright owners who are not
members of a collective, who cannot be located, or who refuse delivery.
RIAA has created a collective to collect and distribute its members'
sound recording performance royalties. Owners of copyright in an
estimated 90 percent of all sound recordings sold in the United States
are members of the RIAA trade association and will likely designate the
RIAA collective as their agent or representative; in those cases,
digital subscription services would file quarterly reports (and any
royalty payments and accounting information) with the RIAA collective.
Services, however, may not be able to employ the statutory license in
this manner for an estimated ten percent of all sound recordings sold
in the United States. Sound recording copyright owners that are not
members of the RIAA trade association may not be permitted by RIAA to
designate its collective as their agent to receive reports and
royalties. See RIAA Additional Reply (Dec. 19, 1996) at 9-10; DCR
Additional Comment (Dec. 12, 1996) at 7. Some copyright owners may
choose not to designate the RIAA collective. See 17 U.S.C. 114(e)(1)
(permitting designation of common agents on nonexclusive basis). The
location or identity of other sound recording copyright owners may be
unknown.
Copyright Office Preliminary Determinations and Additional Policy
Questions
Based on the comments and discussions among the parties, which will
be addressed more fully in the Office's interim regulations, the
Copyright Office has reached certain preliminary decisions and
identified certain additional policy questions.
The Office will accept an optional initial notice which may be
filed by digital transmission services indicating commencement of
transmission of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory
license. This initial notice, to consist simply of the service name,
address, and contact person, will be placed in Copyright Office
records, where copyright owners may obtain access to this information
concerning the use of sound recordings under
[[Page 34037]]
statutory license. Section 114(f)(2), however, requires that copyright
owners will receive notice of the use of their sound recordings; a
notice indicating commencement of transmission under statutory license
does not accomplish that objective, and therefore the regulation will
not require services to file such a notice. As discussed below,
copyright owners will most appropriately and reasonably receive notice
of the use of their sound recordings, and records of such use, by
direct service. The contents of the initial notice, and the appropriate
filing fee, will be discussed more specifically in the Office's interim
regulations.
The Office has concluded that the Digital Performance Right in
Sound Recordings Act of 1995 contemplates that digital subscription
services will keep and make available, not simply summary frequency
data, but records of use that will enable sound recording copyright
owners to generally monitor the services' compliance with the sound
recording performance complement. See 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2); 114(f)(5);
114(j)(7). The Office has determined that establishing such a
requirement is within its rulemaking authority under 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(2).
The Office has also determined that sound recording copyright
owners whose identity and location is known should be served directly,
or directly via their designated agent, with the quarterly reports of
use of their copyrighted works under the statutory license. The Office
will not accept for filing any quarterly reports of use. The Office
recognizes the potential burden for services of identifying and serving
individual copyright owners who are not members of a collective such as
RIAA's. See DMX Comment at 2, 8; Muzak Comment at 2; DCR Reply at 5-6.
The Office understands the possible disincentive that individual
reporting could create for performance of recordings owned by small or
independent record labels. See DMX Reply at 3. However, the regulations
must establish how records of use shall be kept and made available, and
the Office is unable to designate a particular entity as a central
records repository or as a collective agent. See 17 U.S.C. 114(e)(1).
In order to determine the appropriate regulatory structure of any
reporting requirements, the Office has examined analogous statutory,
regulatory, and industry precedent involving collective or compulsory
licensing of performance and reproduction rights in musical works.
With their multiple channels and round-the-clock transmission,
digital services in some respects resemble traditional radio
broadcasters, who provide reports to three collective performing rights
societies (that, in turn, monitor hours of radio play). Practically
speaking, owners of copyright in musical works generally authorize one
of these collective rights societies to license public performances in
order to be compensated and receive records of use.
On the other hand, under the section 115 license and its
accompanying regulations, by which record companies and others make and
distribute phonorecords of nondramatic musical works, compulsory
licensees must serve the copyright owner or its agent directly with
notice, and with monthly and annual statements of account (which
include records of distribution). See 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1); 17 U.S.C.
115(c) (4)-(5); 37 CFR 201.18(e)(2); 37 CFR 201.19 (e)(7)(i), (f)(7).
The requirement of actual notice, however, attaches only if the
registration or other public records of the Copyright Office identify
the copyright owner and include an address at which notice can be
served; otherwise, it is sufficient to file the notice in the Copyright
Office. 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1); 37 CFR 201.18(e)(1).<SUP>2</SUP> If the
notice is sent to the last address shown for the copyright owner in
Copyright Office records, and is returned because the copyright owner
is no longer there or has refused delivery, the licensee shall file the
notice with the Copyright Office, along with evidence that it was sent
by certified or registered mail to that address, and a brief statement
that the notice was sent to the last address shown in Copyright Office
records but was returned. 37 CFR 201.18(e)(3). Where an address for the
copyright owner is not known, or the copyright owner has refused
delivery, licensees may file their monthly and annual statements of
account with the Copyright Office Licensing Division, along with any
evidence of certified or registered mailing. 37 CFR 201.19
(e)(7)(ii)(A), (f)(7)(iii)(A).<SUP>3</SUP> Any monthly or annual
statement of account so filed with the Office must be accompanied by a
brief statement of why the statement was not served on the copyright
owner. 37 CFR 201.19 (e)(7)(ii)(A), (f)(7)(iii)(A). As a matter of
business practice, some compulsory licensees may also create an escrow
account to set aside royalties at the statutory rate for a certain time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To be entitled to receive royalties under compulsory
license, the copyright owner must be identified in the registration
or other public records of the Copyright Office. 17 U.S.C.
115(c)(1).
\3\ The regulations specify that the filing, or failure to file,
a monthly or annual statement of account with the Office has no
effect ``other than that which may be attributed to it by a court.''
37 CFR 201.19 (e)(7)(ii)(C), (f)(7)(iii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the initial meeting of the commenting parties, there was some
discussion of an escrow account or trust fund for section 114 royalty
payments for copyright owners who are unknown or cannot be located. See
Summary of Nov. 14 Meeting 1 (Jan. 2, 1997). The Office has no
authority to require services to set aside section 114 royalties; just
as some record companies may escrow royalties for unknown publishers
under section 115, services may decide for business and legal reasons
to escrow section 114 royalties. Because, however, the Office has
concluded that it will not receive reports of use under the section 114
license and cannot designate a particular entity as a central
collective or records repository, the Office sees no alternative to
requiring subscription services that perform sound recordings under the
section 114 license to serve the sound recording copyright owner whose
identity and location is known, or its designated agent, directly with
reports of use.
The Office is therefore requesting comment on how digital services
will identify and locate sound recording copyright owners whose sound
recordings are performed, and how the regulation should define a sound
recording copyright owner ``whose identity and location is known'' so
as to trigger the requirement of direct service. Only copyright owners
whose location or identity is unknown, or who refuse delivery, will not
be directly served.
1. Reports of Use for Unknown Copyright Owners
In the event that an address for a copyright owner is not known, or
the copyright owner has refused delivery, no additional filing will be
required at the Copyright Office. All digital services may file an
initial notice with the Office indicating their commencement of
transmission. All services will be required to maintain their records
of use (i.e., either the reports of use, or the information underlying
the reports of use) for a period of three years, the statutory
limitation for copyright infringement actions. As a matter of business
practice, services are strongly urged to maintain any evidence of
mailing and a brief statement as to why the reports of use were not
served on the copyright owner. While recognizing burdens associated
with retention of such records, the Office believes it is in the
services' interests to do so. Services may wish to consider designating
a collective agent to maintain their reports
[[Page 34038]]
of use for the three year period, and in any event must establish
reasonable access procedures and conditions.
Copyright owners who wish to contact digital services may do so
directly or through their designated representatives. The Office
envisions that owners of copyright in sound recordings performed under
the section 114 license who have not been directly served, but who make
their identity and location known at some point in time, should have
access to records of use of their works for the preceding three years,
and should thereafter be served directly with reports relating to
subsequent performances. The Office therefore inquires how services
propose to make records of use reasonably available and accessible, and
how copyright owners whose works are performed but who have not been
directly served should make their identity and location known.
Subscription services may want to comment on how such copyright owners
might identify their sound recordings, and how a regulation might
delineate boundaries within which such copyright owners may demand
access to records of use.
2. Audit of Records of Use
A related, although not identical, question concerns the auditing
of the digital services' records of use by copyright owners in general.
During discussions, the commenting parties agreed that any rules
governing audits of accounting records were best handled under section
114(f)(2) as a matter of rates and terms, to be addressed and resolved
through CARP or negotiation. However, in order to ensure access to
records of use and limit the potential for multiple audits, some
parties proposed a regulation that would permit audits of the
information underlying the reports of use, but would limit copyright
owners to a single such audit per year; such procedure would be
initiated by a notice of intent to audit, filed with the Copyright
Office and published in the Federal Register, with a comment period for
all interested parties to agree on choice of auditor. See DMX Comment
at 12-13; RIAA Reply at 14-16, 18. The Office is assuming that the
decision to provide the intended playlists in the quarterly reports
largely obviates the need for an audit regulation, and in any event is
inclined to see the practice of auditing as a business and legal
decision. The Office will issue no regulation, therefore, concerning
audit of the information underlying the reports of use.
3. Confidentiality of Records and Data Separation
Finally, the Office recognizes confidentiality concerns that
services have expressed in relation to serving playlist information and
programming details upon sound recording copyright owners. See Muzak
Comment at 2-3. Precautions that may be implemented at a large
collective to protect the information's confidentiality may be
difficult to duplicate by dozens of smaller recipients. Yet the Office
also recognizes that the commenting services' desire to avoid
burdensome data separation and the production of different data in
different formats for different copyright owner entities was a primary
motivator for the proposal ``simply to produce the entire intended
playlist for each quarter,'' subject to appropriate confidentiality
provisions. See Letter from Seth D. Greenstein, Esq., to Jean Milbauer,
Esq. (Mar. 11, 1997). Even if a software program can be developed to
separate and extract names of copyright owners who are, or are not,
members of a particular collective, there may eventually be multiple
collectives. On the other hand, because royalties must be paid to small
and individual copyright owners whose works are performed, the Office
recognizes that services will necessarily generate some data to
determine those royalties, and undertake some separation of copyright
owner names, sound recording identifiers, and frequency of
performances. The Office inquires whether services plan to provide
their intended playlists for each quarter to small and individual sound
recording copyright owners (as well as to a major collective such as
the RIAA's) and, if not, whether the services can propose an
alternative reporting mechanism that would indicate which sound
recordings were performed and the number of times (summary frequency
data), and permit sound recording copyright owners to monitor
compliance with the sound recording performance complement (perhaps
through date and time information). The Office requests comment as to
whether services will extract the names of individual copyright owners,
or members of various collectives, in order to provide such individuals
or entities with separate royalties or reports, and whether this would
provide a means for an alternative reporting mechanism. The Office
inquires whether copyright owners should be required to sign and return
a confidentiality agreement before receiving reports consisting of
playlist information, and whether the regulation should permit
copyright owners to waive service of reports including performance
complement information in order to receive simply the summary frequency
data pertaining to the use of their sound recordings only. We also seek
comment on the estimated costs for providing intended playlists to
different parties, and on who should bear the costs of serving,
maintaining, and accessing such records of use.
The Office is providing a 60-day comment period with this inquiry
to permit the parties to conduct any discussions and reach agreement on
any outstanding issues; there will be no reply period. We would
particularly appreciate comment from sound recording copyright owners
not represented by RIAA, and are aware of at least one such entity that
has requested records of use from DMX. See Letter from Seth D.
Greenstein, Esq., to Jean Milbauer, Esq. (Mar. 11, 1997).
Questions for Comment
The Office requests public comment on the following questions
relating to the quarterly reports of use to be provided by digital
subscription services:
(1) The Office has determined that digital subscription services
should provide records of use that will indicate which sound recordings
were performed and the number of times, and that will enable sound
recording copyright owners to monitor compliance with the sound
recording performance complement defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(7). Should
a service provide its intended playlist as the vehicle for such
reporting? Is an alternative reporting mechanism available?
(2) What should be the definition of ``intended playlist''? Would a
service provide its intended playlist for each day, and each channel,
at the close of each quarter? How long after the close of each quarter
should the report be due? If the intended playlist is made available,
would error logs also be required in the event of a system malfunction?
(3) Should the reports of use bear a certification by a service
representative, and, if so, why? What would be the content of such a
certification?
(4) The Office has determined that sound recording copyright owners
whose identity and location is known should be served directly, or
directly via their designated agent, with quarterly reports of use of
their copyrighted works under the statutory license. In serving small
and individual sound recording copyright owners, who are not members of
a major collective such as RIAA's, will services provide their intended
[[Page 34039]]
playlists or can they propose an alternative reporting requirement that
would indicate which sound recordings were performed and the number of
times (summary frequency data) and permit monitoring of the performance
complement? What costs are involved in providing the intended playlist
to different parties? Who should bear the costs of serving,
maintaining, or accessing these records of use?
(5) Does provision of the intended playlist raise confidentiality
problems? If so, what measures can a service or copyright owner take to
protect its confidentiality? Should there be any express restrictions
on the use of this information and, if so, what restrictions? If in
fact the information is confidential or trade secret, and no
satisfactory alternative reporting requirement can be devised, should
the copyright owner be required to sign and return a confidentiality
agreement before receiving reports of use consisting of playlist
information? Should the regulation permit the copyright owner to waive
service of information relating to the performance complement in order
to receive simply the summary frequency data pertaining to the use of
their sound recordings only?
(6) How do digital subscription services plan to identify and
locate copyright owners of sound recordings they perform under
statutory license? Beyond identification in the Copyright Office
registration records, how should the regulations define a sound
recording copyright owner ``whose identity and location is known'' for
the purpose of triggering the requirement of direct service? How will
services identify and locate foreign sound recording copyright owners?
(7) How do services anticipate that they will separate the names of
members of various collectives, or of independent copyright owners, in
order to provide such individuals or entities with separate reports?
Given that services must pay royalties to small and individual
copyright owners whose works are performed, what data will services
generate to determine those royalties, and what separation of copyright
owner names, sound recording identifiers, and performance frequency
will they necessarily undertake? Could the data generated for royalty
calculation and distribution be made available in reports of use, as an
alternative to the intended playlists, in a way that would permit
copyright owners to generally monitor the performance complement?
(8) How should copyright owners who have not been directly served
make their identity and location known to digital services? How might
these copyright owners identify their sound recordings for digital
services?
(9) Should services retain their reports of use for three years, or
is there information underlying the reports of use (such as summary
frequency data, and date and time information) that might be more
easily kept and made available? How do services plan to make records of
use for a three year period reasonably available and accessible for
copyright owners who have not been directly served? Are regulations
concerning access for such individuals and entities needed?
(10) What data fields and sound recording identifiers are
available, and which of these should be included in the quarterly
reports of use? Will the date and time of the performance be identified
and, if so, how? With respect to compilation albums, what data fields
should be included in the reports of use? If there are any particular
sound recording identifiers or data fields that should not be required,
or that should not be required during the interim regulatory period,
state which fields, and why.
(11) Should the regulations address the reporting of non-music and
foreign programming? How would such programming be defined? What notice
and recordkeeping requirements would apply to such programming?
(12) Should the Office expressly recognize a transition period
before services must provide reports conforming completely to the
regulations? If so, what should be the transition period, and what is
the minimum information that should be required?
Dated: June 18, 1997.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 97-16553 Filed 6-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-31-P
(10/3/97)