Re: Performers' Right in Sound Recordings

David McConville wrote:
>
>The Working Group on Intellectual Property's proposal was that Congress
>"add to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner in a sound recording
>the right to perform or authorize the performance of the sound recording
>by 'digital transmission.'" It was specified in the proposal that this
>would NOT apply to analog transmission...

I'll take your word on this part, wish I had time to dig up my copy of the Green Paper and examine the context for this language, though... It sounds like a "performance right" is being proposed for the copyright owner to exercise over digital broadcasts.

>The Working Group proposed that ALL digital transactions be considered
>reproductions, as well as extending the exclusive right of public
>performance to musical recordings for digital broadcasts. Do I have
>this correct?

This does not seem to be the same thing as the direct quote you started out with. I don't see any language therein about "reproduction". Are you also asking about reproduction (in addition to performance) because its mentioned somewhere else? Pass that quote along and maybe we can explore it.

>Does anybody have any idea exactly what radio stations would have to go
>through in order to broadcast if these proposals are made in to law?

Yes. Several of my previous posts tried to explore exactly that. If the first part quoted above does turn out to be a performance right (as opposed to Eugene Volokh's clarification of existing law theory) then I have publicly hypothesized that we are then looking at the necessity of creating a system like the ASCAP/BMI royalty collection system we now have for writers/composers rights. Anyone wanting to play a song in public or broadcast it would need 2 clearances (both probably requiring a fee paid to the appropriate rights holders): one for writers/composers (which is already done) and one to the performers on the sound recording or their assignees (usually the record company).

>It seems that by the time stations got clearance for EVERY song and paid
>royalties to EVERY party involved, only the wealthiest stations could
>broadcast.

As I've been told, that is why the Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters has been fighting against such rights for a long time. (Although since record companies are desperate to have their records broadcast, it is an open question in my mind how much they would actually make people pay them for providing publicity for their wares! Any economists out there have a theory on this?)

Sorry I don't know the current status of these NII IPWG recommendations. Someone out there must???

scott fedewa
stanford law school
<fedewacs[_at_]leland.stanford.edu> Received on Sat Dec 31 1994 - 08:09:57 GMT