DRAFT INTERNET STREAMING DEAL DRAWS ATTACKS, SUPPORT
Proposal for applying compulsory licenses to on-demand streams and limited downloads has prompted strong criticism from some in online music arena. Comments, posted Tues. by Copyright Office, respond to office’s Dec. 14 request for comments on tentative agreement signed by RIAA, National Music Publishers’ Assn. (NMPA) and Harry Fox Agency (HFA) last Oct. Agreement for Internet music subscription services was to give RIAA, its member labels and new online services such as pressplay and MusicNet immediate access to every musical work authorized to be licensed by HFA, which then would issue licenses for both streamed music and limited downloads.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In joint comments, RIAA, NMPA, HFA and Songwriters Guild of America urged Copyright Office to begin rulemaking on regulations “providing for the availability of statutory compulsory licenses for digital delivery of all copyrighted musical works on substantially the same basis as licenses are available” under their proposed contract. In their comments, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC said they “applaud” the agreement, which they said proved that market solutions to the challenges raised by digital music business models “do indeed work.” Nevertheless, they said, Copyright Office shouldn’t conduct rulemaking or at least should limit proceeding to addressing only application of mechanical compulsory license to certain Internet transmissions of copyrighted music.
National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers and Video Software Dealers Assn. blasted proposed accord, saying its provisions on limited downloads were “designed to gain the revenue stream consumers might be willing to pay for access to public performances of these works, while at the same time enjoying the control and efficiencies (but not the limitations) of a single digital reproduction (the download).” Digital Media Assn. (DiMA) said Copyright Office had no business adopting regulations and rates at variance with Copyright Act “simply because a party accedes to a contrary interpretation.” DiMA said in other key respects agreement was “but an empty vessel” because it left open basic points for further negotiation or litigation.
Liquid Audio, which provides software for Internet music delivery, blamed Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for creating such confusion in definition of rights implicated in downloads and streaming that it gave performing rights organizations and mechanical rights agencies chance to try to “double dip” by charging both performance and mechanical fees for streaming and downloads. It said agreement is nothing more than attempt to compromise copyright law by using private accord to establish precedent that mechanical licenses are needed for on-demand steams and server copies
Terry Smith, founder of Copyright.net, said proposed agreement was more of “hindrance” to rollout of new music services than “Band-Aid covering the wounds” of “collective inaction” of industry. It discriminates heavily in favor of major music interests, he wrote, to the disadvantage of independent publishers and writers.