Re: Copyright Extension

Professor Dennis S. Karjala wrote:
>

snip
> My guess here is that broadcasters and recording companies must in
> any event take out licenses from ASCAP and BMI, because much of their
> subject matter will be under copyright even without the extension. In
> theory these licenses should cost less to the extent a given station
> plays public domain music, but since there is no real market in operation
> in this field, these users may feel that extension is only a minor part
> of their problem. But it's a good question. I do not understand why
> such users of copyright-protected works have not taken a more active role
> in opposing the extension.

First:
Recording companies don't deal with ASCAP and BMI for the "mechanical" licenses recording companies require, and for which they negotiate on a song-by-song basis (except for "compulsory" licenses, for which they also pay royalties on a song-by-song basis) with the copyright owner (usually the music publisher) or its representative.

Second:
ASCAP and BMI administer performing rights which need to be licensed by broadcasters (among others), which used to be available only on a complete library "package" basis, but which under recent changes in case law and otherwise can be obtained on a use-by-use and song-by-song basis.

Third:
Why, indeed, are copyright users not more active in this term extension issue?

--
1267 Stoner Avenue, PH 2     MARTIN PERLBERGER	     15 Park Row, #500
Los Angeles, CA 90025				    New York, NY 10038
310 312 1400; Fax 1872				212 233 3676; Fax 3678
Entertainment, International, Real Estate, Public/Fine Art Law Offices