Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86803 

39Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

Accountability Office so this rule may 

be reviewed. 

D. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 encourages 

independent regulatory agencies to 

consider the impact of their actions on 

state and local interests. In adherence to 

fundamental federalism principles, the 

NCUA, an independent regulatory 

agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), 

voluntarily complies with the Executive 

order. This final rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the states, on 

the connection between the National 

Government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The NCUA has 

determined that this final rule does not 

constitute a policy that has federalism 

implications for purposes of the 

Executive order. 

D. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

The NCUA has determined that this 

final rule will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of Section 654 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 

1999.39

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701 

Credit unions, Low income, 

Nonmember deposits, Secondary 

capital, Shares. 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on December 17, 2020. 

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 

Secretary of the Board. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Board amends 12 CFR part 701 as 

follows: 

PART 701—Organization and 

Operations of Federal Credit Unions 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 701 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 

1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 

1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789. 

Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 

3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601– 

3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 

U.S.C. 4311–4312. 

■ 2. In § 701.6, revise paragraphs (a) and 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 701.6 Fees paid by Federal credit unions. 

(a) Basis for assessment. Each 

calendar year, or as otherwise directed 

by the NCUA Board, each Federal credit 

union shall pay an operating fee to the 

NCUA for the current fiscal year 

(January 1 to December 31) in 

accordance with a schedule fixed by the 

Board from time to time. 

(1) General. The operating fee shall be 

based on the average of total assets of 

each Federal credit union based on data 

reported in NCUA Forms 5300 and 5310 

from the four quarters immediately 

preceding the time the Board approves 

the agency’s budget or as otherwise 

determined pursuant to paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(2) Exclusions from total assets. For 

purposes of calculating the operating 

fee, total assets shall not include any 

loans on the books of a natural person 

Federal credit union made under the 

Small Business Administration’s 

Paycheck Protection Program, 15 U.S.C. 

636(a)(36), or any similar program 

approved for exclusion by the NCUA 

Board. 

(b) Coverage. The operating fee shall 

be paid by each Federal credit union 

engaged in operations as of January 1 of 

each calendar year in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of this section, except as 

otherwise provided by this paragraph 

(b). 

(1) New charters. A newly chartered 

Federal credit union will not pay an 

operating fee until the year following 

the first full calendar year after the date 

chartered. 

(2) Conversions. (i) In the first 

calendar year following conversion: 

(A) A federally insured state-chartered 

credit union that converts to a Federal 

credit union charter must pay an 

operating fee based on the average assets 

reported in the year of conversion on 

NCUA Forms 5300 or 5310 from the 

four quarters immediately preceding the 

time the Board approves the agency’s 

budget in the year of conversion. 

(B) An entity not insured by the 

NCUA that converts to a Federal credit 

union charter must pay an operating fee 

based on the assets, or average thereof, 

reported on NCUA Forms 5300 or 5310 

for any one or more quarters 

immediately preceding the time the 

Board approves the agency’s budget in 

the year of conversion. 

(ii) A Federal credit union converting 

to a different charter will not receive a 

refund of any operating fees paid to the 

NCUA. 

(3) Mergers. (i) In the first calendar 

year following merger: 

(A) A continuing Federal credit union 

that has merged with one or more 

federally insured credit unions must 

pay an operating fee based on the 

average combined total assets of the 

Federal credit union and any merged 

federally insured credit unions as 

reported on NCUA Forms 5300 or 5310 

in the four quarters immediately 

preceding the time the Board approves 

the agency’s budget in the merger year. 

(B) For purposes of this paragraph 

(b)(3), a purchase and assumption 

transaction where the continuing 

Federal credit union purchases all or 

essentially all of the assets of another 

depository institution shall be deemed a 

merger. 

(ii) A Federal credit union that merges 

with a Federal or state-chartered credit 

union, or an entity not insured by the 

NCUA, will not receive a refund of any 

operating fee paid to the NCUA. 

(4) Liquidations. A Federal credit 

union placed in liquidation will not pay 

any operating fee after the date of 

liquidation. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28490 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 210 

[Docket No. 2020–8] 

The Public Musical Works Database 

and Transparency of the Mechanical 

Licensing Collective 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing an interim rule regarding the 

Musical Works Modernization Act, title 

I of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte 

Music Modernization Act. The law 

establishes a new blanket compulsory 

license that will be administered by a 

mechanical licensing collective, which 

will make available a public musical 

works database as part of its statutory 

duties. Having solicited public 

comments through previous 

notifications of inquiry and a notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the Office is 

issuing interim regulations prescribing 

categories of information to be included 

in the public musical works database, as 

well as rules related to the usability, 

interoperability, and usage restrictions 

of the database. The Office is also 

issuing interim regulations related to 

ensuring appropriate transparency of 

the mechanical licensing collective 

itself. 

DATES: Effective February 16, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 

Associate Register of Copyrights, by 

email at regans@copyright.gov or Anna 

B. Chauvet, Associate General Counsel, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86804 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 115–264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018). 

2See S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 1–2 (2018); Report 

and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the 

Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and 

House Judiciary Committees, at 1 (2018), https://

www.copyright.gov/legislation/mma_conference_

report.pdf (‘‘Conf. Rep.’’). 

3As permitted under the MMA, the Office 

designated a digital licensee coordinator (‘‘DLC’’) to 

represent licensees in proceedings before the 

Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’) and the 

Copyright Office, to serve as a non-voting member 

of the MLC, and to carry out other functions. 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B); 84 FR 32274 (July 8, 2019); see 

also 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(i)(IV), (d)(5)(C). 

4 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(C)(i). 

5 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(i)(IV). 

6H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 5–6; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 5; Conf. Rep. at 4. 

7 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(12)(A). 

8See id. at 115(d)(3)(E), (e)(20). 9 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iii). 10 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II). 11 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v). 12 Id. 13H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 5–6, 14; S. Rep. No. 

115–339, at 5, 15; Conf. Rep. at 4, 12. The 

Conference Report further recognizes that the 

Office’s review will be important because the MLC 

must operate in a manner that can gain the trust of 

the entire music community, but can only be held 

liable under a standard of gross negligence when 

carrying out certain of the policies and procedures 

adopted by its board. Conf. Rep. at 4. 

14 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa). 

15H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 5–6, 14; S. Rep. No. 

115–339, at 5, 15; Conf. Rep. at 4, 12. 

16H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 14; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 15; Conf. Rep. at 12. 

17H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 14; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 15; Conf. Rep. at 12. 

18 84 FR at 32280. 

19See 85 FR 22568, 22570–71 (Apr. 22, 2020) 

(detailing various ways the statute promotes 

transparency of the mechanical licensing collective, 

such as by requiring the collective to publish an 

annual report, make its bylaws publicly available 

and its policies and practices ‘‘transparent and 

accountable,’’ identify a point of contact for 

publisher inquiries and complaints with timely 

redress, establish an anti-commingling policy for 

funds collected and those not collected under 

section 115, and submit to a public audit every five 

years; the statute also permits copyright owners to 

audit the collective to verify the accuracy of royalty 

payments, and establishes a five-year designation 

process for the Office to periodically review the 

collective’s performance). 

20 84 FR 49966, 49972 (Sept. 24, 2019). 

by email at achau@copyright.gov. Each 

can be contacted by telephone by calling 

(202) 707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 11, 2018, the president 

signed into law the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob 

Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, 

H.R. 1551 (‘‘MMA’’).1 Title I of the 

MMA, the Musical Works 

Modernization Act, substantially 

modifies the compulsory ‘‘mechanical’’ 

license for making and distributing 

phonorecords of nondramatic musical 

works under 17 U.S.C. 115.2 It does so 

by switching from a song-by-song 

licensing system to a blanket licensing 

regime that becomes available on 

January 1, 2021 (the ‘‘license availability 

date’’), and is administered by a 

mechanical licensing collective 

(‘‘MLC’’) designated by the Copyright 

Office (‘‘Office’’).3 Among other things, 

the MLC is responsible for 

‘‘[c]ollect[ing] and distribut[ing] 

royalties’’ for covered activities, 

‘‘[e]ngag[ing] in efforts to identify 

musical works (and shares of such 

works) embodied in particular sound 

recordings and to identify and locate the 

copyright owners of such musical works 

(and shares of such works),’’ and 

‘‘[a]dminister[ing] a process by which 

copyright owners can claim ownership 

of musical works (and shares of such 

works).’’ 4 It also must ‘‘maintain the 

musical works database and other 

information relevant to the 

administration of licensing activities 

under [section 115].’’ 5

A. Regulatory Authority Granted to the 

Office 

The MMA enumerates several 

regulations that the Office is specifically 

directed to promulgate to govern the 

new blanket licensing regime, and 

Congress invested the Office with 

‘‘broad regulatory authority’’ 6 to 

‘‘conduct such proceedings and adopt 

such regulations as may be necessary or 

appropriate.’’ 7 The MMA specifically 

directs the Office to promulgate 

regulations related to the MLC’s creation 

of a database to publicly disclose 

musical work ownership information 

and identify the sound recordings in 

which the musical works are 

embodied.8 As discussed more below, 

the statute requires the public database 

to include various types of information, 

depending upon whether a musical 

work has been matched to a copyright 

owner.9 For both matched and 

unmatched works, the database must 

also include ‘‘such other information’’ 

‘‘as the Register of Copyrights may 

prescribe by regulation.’’ 10 The 

database must ‘‘be made available to 

members of the public in a searchable, 

online format, free of charge,’’ 11 and its 

contents must also be made available 

‘‘in a bulk, machine-readable format, 

through a widely available software 

application,’’ to certain parties, 

including blanket licensees and the 

Office, free of charge, and to ‘‘[a]ny 

other person or entity for a fee not to 

exceed the marginal cost to the 

mechanical licensing collective of 

providing the database to such person or 

entity.’’ 12

In addition, the legislative history 

contemplates that the Office will 

‘‘thoroughly review[ ]’’ 13 policies and 

procedures established by the MLC and 

its three committees, which the MLC is 

statutorily bound to ensure are 

‘‘transparent and accountable,’’ 14 and 

promulgate regulations that ‘‘balance[ ] 

the need to protect the public’s interest 

with the need to let the new collective 

operate without over-regulation.’’ 15

Congress acknowledged that ‘‘[a]lthough 

the legislation provides specific criteria 

for the collective to operate, it is to be 

expected that situations will arise that 

were not contemplated by the 

legislation,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he Office is 

expected to use its best judgement in 

determining the appropriate steps in 

those situations.’’ 16 Legislative history 

further states that ‘‘[t]he Copyright 

Office has the knowledge and expertise 

regarding music licensing through its 

past rulemakings and recent assistance 

to the Committee[s] during the drafting 

of this legislation.’’ 17 Accordingly, in 

designating the MLC as the entity to 

administer the blanket license, the 

Office stated that it ‘‘expects ongoing 

regulatory and other implementation 

efforts to . . . extenuate the risk of selfinterest,’’ and that ‘‘the Register intends 

to exercise her oversight role as it 

pertains to matters of governance.’’ 18

Finally, as detailed in the Office’s prior 

notifications and notice of proposed 

rulemaking, while the MMA envisions 

the Office reasonably and prudently 

exercising regulatory authority to 

facilitate appropriate transparency of 

the collective and the public musical 

works database, the statutory language 

as well as the collective’s structure 

separately include elements to promote 

disclosure absent additional 

regulation.19

B. Rulemaking Background 

Against that backdrop, on September 

24, 2019, the Office issued a notification 

of inquiry (‘‘September NOI’’) seeking 

public input on a variety of aspects 

related to implementation of title I of 

the MMA, including issues regarding 

information to be included in the public 

musical works database (e.g., what 

additional categories of information 

might be appropriate to include by 

regulation), as well as the usability, 

interoperability, and usage restrictions 

of the database (e.g., technical or other 

specific language that might be helpful 

to consider in promulgating regulations, 

discussion of the pros and cons of 

applicable standards, and whether 

historical snapshots of the database 

should be maintained to track 

ownership changes over time).20 In 

addition, the September NOI sought 

public comment on any issues that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86805 

21 Id. at 49973. All rulemaking activity, including 

public comments, as well as educational material 

regarding the Music Modernization Act, can 

currently be accessed via navigation from https:// 

www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/. 

Specifically, comments received in response to the 

September 2019 notification of inquiry are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC2019-0002&refD=COLC-2019-0002-0001, and 

comments received in response to the April 2020 

notification of inquiry and the notice of proposed 

rulemaking are available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&

so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&

dct=PS&D=COLC-2020-0006. Guidelines for ex 

parte communications, along with records of such 

communications, are available at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mmaimplementation/ex-parte-communications.html. As 

stated in the guidelines, ex parte meetings with the 

Office are intended to provide an opportunity for 

participants to clarify evidence and/or arguments 

made in prior written submissions, and to respond 

to questions from the Office on those matters. 

References to these comments are by party name 

(abbreviated where appropriate), followed by 

‘‘Initial September NOI Comment,’’ ‘‘Reply 

September NOI Comment,’’ ‘‘April NOI Comment,’’ 

‘‘NPRM Comment,’’ ‘‘Letter,’’ or ‘‘Ex Parte Letter,’’ 

as appropriate. 22See 85 FR at 22571 (citing multiple 

commenters). 

23 85 FR at 22568. 

24 85 FR 58170 (Sept. 17, 2020). 

25See DLC NPRM Comment at 1 (‘‘The DLC 

supports the Office’s proposed rule . . .’’); Music 

Artists Coalition (‘‘MAC’’) NPRM Comment at 4 

(‘‘MAC would like to again thank the Office for 

their leadership and responsiveness to public 

comments during the implementation of the 

MMA.’’); Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 1 

(‘‘The Academy is gratified that the Office’s NPRM 

reflects many of the concerns and priorities 

expressed in the Academy’s previous comments 

. . .’’); Songwriters of North America (‘‘SONA’’) 

NPRM Comment at 3 (‘‘SONA is grateful to the 

Copyright Office for its diligence and oversight in 

working to develop a strong regulatory framework 

to implement the MMA as the License Availability 

Date (‘‘LAD’’) quickly approaches.’’); 

SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 3 

(‘‘SoundExchange applauds the Office for going to 

great lengths to ensure that appropriate categories 

of information are included in the MLC Database. 

SoundExchange particularly appreciates the 

Office’s consideration of the public comments as it 

fashioned the regulations . . .’’). 

26See 85 FR at 22571 (advising that the Office 

may issue an interim rule to allow a flexible 

regulatory structure); DLC NPRM Comment at 1 

(‘‘The DLC would support the establishment of an 

interim rule, for similar reasons to those given by 

the Office in its recent usage and reporting 

rulemaking.’’). 

27 DPID ‘‘is an alphanumeric identifier that 

identifies the party delivering the DDEX message,’’ 

and ‘‘is also generally the party to whom the [digital 

music provider (‘‘DMP’’)] sends royalties for the 

relevant sound recording.’’ A2IM & RIAA Reply 

September NOI Comment at 8. 

28 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E), (e)(20). 

29See The MLC, Transparency, https://

themlc.com/faqs/categories/transparency (last 

visited Sept. 1, 2020) (web page no longer available) 

(noting that the MLC will ‘‘promote transparency’’ 

by ‘‘[p]roviding unprecedented access to musical 

works ownership information through a public 

database’’). 

30MLC Ex Parte Letter Dec. 3, 2020 (‘‘MLC Ex 

Parte Letter #11’’) at 3. According to the MLC, it 

‘‘began providing members with access to the MLC 

Portal at the end of September,’’ and ‘‘[s]everal 

thousand members have completed the onboarding 

process and thousands more have received 

invitations via email to complete the onboarding 

process.’’ Id. 

should be considered relating to the 

general oversight of the MLC.21

In response, many commenters 

emphasized the importance of 

transparency of the public database and 

the MLC’s operations, and urged the 

Office to exercise expansive and robust 

oversight.22 Given these comments, on 

April 22, 2020, the Office issued a 

second notification of inquiry,23 and on 

September 17, 2020, the Office issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’),24 both soliciting further 

comment on these issues. In response to 

the NPRM, the comments overall were 

positive about the proposed rule, 

expressing appreciation for the Office’s 

responsiveness to stakeholder 

comments.25

Having reviewed and considered all 

relevant comments received in response 

to both notifications of inquiry and the 

NPRM, and having engaged in 

transparent ex parte communications 

with commenters, the Office is issuing 

an interim rule regarding the categories 

of information to be included in the 

public musical works database, as well 

as the usability, interoperability, and 

usage restrictions of the database. The 

Office is also issuing interim regulations 

related to ensuring appropriate 

transparency of the mechanical 

licensing collective itself. Except as 

otherwise discussed below, the 

proposed rule is being adopted for the 

reasons discussed in the NPRM. The 

Office has determined that it is prudent 

to promulgate this rule on an interim 

basis so that it retains some flexibility 

for responding to unforeseen 

complications once the MLC launches 

the musical works database.26 In doing 

so, the Office emphasizes that adoption 

on an interim basis is not an openended invitation to revisit settled 

provisions or rehash arguments, but 

rather is intended to allow necessary 

modifications to be made in response to 

new evidence or unforeseen issues, or 

where something is otherwise not 

functioning as intended. 

The interim rule is intended to grant 

the MLC flexibility in various ways 

instead of adopting requirements that 

may prove overly prescriptive as the 

MLC administers the public database. 

For example, and as discussed below, 

the interim rule grants the MLC 

flexibility in the following ways: 

• To label fields in the public 

database, as long as the labeling takes 

into account industry practice and 

reduces the likelihood of user 

confusion. 

• To include non-confidential 

information in the public database that 

is not specifically identified by the 

statute but the MLC finds useful, 

including information regarding 

terminations, performing rights 

organization (‘‘PRO’’) affiliation, and 

DDEX Party Identifier (DPID).27

• To allow songwriters, or their 

representatives, to have songwriter 

information listed anonymously or 

pseudonymously. 

• To select the most appropriate 

method for archiving and maintaining 

historical data to track ownership and 

other information changes in the public 

database. 

• To select the method for displaying 

data provenance information in the 

public database. 

• To determine the precise disclaimer 

language for alerting users that the 

database is not an authoritative source 

for sound recording information. 

• To develop reasonable terms of use 

for the public database, including 

restrictions on use. 

• To block third parties from bulk 

access to the public database based on 

their attempts to bypass marginal cost 

recovery or other unlawful activity with 

respect to the database. 

• To determine the initial format in 

which the MLC provides bulk access to 

the public database, with a six-month 

extension to implement bulk access 

through application programming 

interfaces (‘‘APIs’’). 

• To determine how to represent 

processing and distribution times for 

royalties disclosed in the MLC’s annual 

report. 

II. Interim Rule 

A. Ownership of Data in the Public 

Musical Works Database 

The MLC must establish and maintain 

a free-of-charge public database of 

musical work ownership information 

that also identifies the sound recordings 

in which the musical works are 

embodied,28 a function expected to 

provide transparency across the music 

industry.29 The Office appreciates that 

the MLC ‘‘is working on launching the 

public search window on the website 

that will allow members of the public to 

search the musical works database in 

January [2021],’’ and that the MLC 

‘‘anticipates launching the bulk data 

program to members of the public in 

January’’ 30 (discussed more below). 

As noted in the NPRM, the statute and 

legislative history emphasize that the 

database is meant to benefit the music 

industry overall and is not ‘‘owned’’ by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86806 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

31 85 FR at 58172. Under the statute, if the 

Copyright Office designates a new entity to be the 

mechanical licensing collective, the Office must 

‘‘adopt regulations to govern the transfer of licenses, 

funds, records, data, and administrative 

responsibilities from the existing mechanical 

licensing collective to the new entity.’’ 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II) (emphasis added). The legislative 

history distinguishes the MLC’s public database 

from past attempts to control and/or own industry 

data. See 164 Cong. Rec. S6292, 6293 (daily ed. 

Sept. 25, 2018) (statement of Sen. Hatch) (‘‘I need 

to thank Chairman Grassley, who shepherded this 

bill through the committee and made important 

contributions to the bill’s oversight and 

transparency provisions.’’); 164 Cong. Rec. S501, 

504 (daily ed. Jan. 24, 2018) (statement of Sen. 

Coons) (‘‘This important piece of legislation will 

bring much-needed transparency and efficiency to 

the music marketplace.’’); 164 Cong. Rec. H3522, 

3541 (daily ed. Apr. 25, 2018) (statement of Rep. 

Steve Chabot); 164 Cong. Rec. H3522 at 3542 (daily 

ed. Apr. 25, 2018) (statement of Rep. Norma Torres); 

Conf. Rep. at 6 (‘‘Music metadata has more often 

been seen as a competitive advantage for the party 

that controls the database, rather than as a resource 

for building an industry on.’’); id. (noting that the 

Global Repertoire Database project, an EU-initiated 

attempt to create a comprehensive and authoritative 

database for ownership and administration of 

musical works, ‘‘ended without success due to cost 

and data ownership issues’’). 

32MLC Ex Parte Letter Aug. 21, 2020 (‘‘MLC Ex 

Parte Letter #7’’) at 2. 

33ARM NPRM Comment 1–2; see Recording 

Academy NPRM Comment at 2 (‘‘The Office states 

unambiguously that ‘the statute and legislative 

history emphasize that the database . . . is not 

‘‘owned’’ by the collective itself.’ This principle is 

affirmed by the MLC . . . The Academy appreciates 

that this issue is addressed in a clear, 

straightforward manner and included in the record 

to assuage any concerns to the contrary.’’); SGA & 

SCL NPRM Comment at 5 (‘‘SGA and SCL were 

gratified by the USCO’s clear statement’’ that MLC 

and vendor does not own data). 

34ARM asked that ‘‘the MLC be required to label 

[the featured artist field] . . . using the phrase 

‘primary artist,’ ’’ because ‘‘ ‘primary artist’ is the 

preferred term as ‘featured artist’ is easily confused 

with the term ‘featured’ on another artist’s 

recording, as in Artist X feat. Artist Y.’’ ARM April 

NOI Comment at 6. Because this is a statutory term 

and the Office wishes to afford the MLC some 

flexibility in labeling the public database, it 

tentatively declined this request. The proposed rule 

did, however, require the MLC to consider industry 

practices when labeling fields in the public 

database to reduce the likelihood of user confusion. 

The interim rule adopts this aspect of the proposed 

rule. ARM encourages the MLC to consider its 

previous labeling suggestions, but does not object 

‘‘to the Office’s decision to grant the MLC flexibility 

regarding how to label fields in the public database, 

as long as the MLC’s labelling decisions consider 

industry practices and the MLC picks field labels 

that reduce the likelihood of user confusion 

regarding the contents of each data field.’’ ARM 

NPRM Comment at 2. 

35 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii). 

36 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

37 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II). 

38Conf. Rep. at 7. 

39 85 FR at 22573; 85 FR at 58172–73. See Conf. 

Rep. at 7 (noting that the ‘‘highest responsibility’’ 

of the MLC includes ‘‘efforts to identify the musical 

works embodied in particular sound recordings,’’ 

‘‘identify[ing] and locat[ing] the copyright owners 

of such works so that [the MLC] can update the 

database as appropriate,’’ and ‘‘efficient and 

accurate collection and distribution of royalties’’). 

40 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(II)(bb). See MLC Initial 

September NOI Comment at 24 (contending that not 

all information contained in its database ‘‘would be 

appropriate for public disclosure,’’ and that it 

‘‘should be permitted to exercise reasonable 

judgment in determining what information beyond 

what is statutorily required should be made 

available to the public’’). 

41See 37 CFR 210.29(c) (proposing a floor of 

categories of information to be required in periodic 

reporting to copyright owners). 

the collective itself.31 The MLC 

acknowledges this, stating that ‘‘the data 

in the public MLC musical works 

database is not owned by the MLC or its 

vendor,’’ and that ‘‘data in this database 

will be accessible to the public at no 

cost, and bulk machine-readable copies 

of the data in the database will be 

available to the public, either for free or 

at marginal cost, pursuant to the 

MMA.’’ 32 The Alliance for Recorded 

Music (‘‘ARM’’), Recording Academy, 

and Songwriters Guild of America 

(‘‘SGA’’) & Society of Composers & 

Lyricists (‘‘SCL’’) praised the Office for 

addressing the issue of data ownership, 

with ARM ‘‘encourag[ing] the Office to 

make this point explicit in the 

regulations.’’ 33 In light of these 

comments, and the statute and 

legislative history, the interim rule 

confirms that data in the public musical 

works database is not owned by the 

mechanical licensing collective or any 

of its employees, agents, consultants, 

vendors, or independent contractors. 

B. Categories of Information in the 

Public Musical Works Database 

The statute requires the MLC to 

include various types of information in 

the public musical works database. For 

musical works that have been matched 

(i.e., the copyright owner of such work 

(or share thereof) has been identified 

and located), the statute requires the 

public database to include: 

1. The title of the musical work; 

2. The copyright owner of the musical 

work (or share thereof), and the ownership 

percentage of that owner; 

3. Contact information for such copyright 

owner; and 

4. To the extent reasonably available to the 

MLC, (a) the ISWC for the work, and (b) 

identifying information for sound recordings 

in which the musical work is embodied, 

including the name of the sound recording, 

featured artist,34 sound recording copyright 

owner, producer, ISRC, and other 

information commonly used to assist in 

associating sound recordings with musical 

works.35

For unmatched musical works, the 

statute requires the database to include, 

to the extent reasonably available to the 

MLC: 

1. The title of the musical work; 

2. The ownership percentage for which an 

owner has not been identified; 

3. If a copyright owner has been identified 

but not located, the identity of such owner 

and the ownership percentage of that owner; 

4. Identifying information for sound 

recordings in which the work is embodied, 

including sound recording name, featured 

artist, sound recording copyright owner, 

producer, ISRC, and other information 

commonly used to assist in associating sound 

recordings with musical works; and 

5. Any additional information reported to 

the MLC that may assist in identifying the 

work.36

In other words, the statute requires 

the database to include varying degrees 

of information regarding the musical 

work copyright owner (depending on 

whether the work is matched), but for 

both matched and unmatched works, 

identifying information for sound 

recordings in which the work is 

embodied (i.e., sound recording name, 

featured artist, sound recording 

copyright owner, producer, ISRC, and 

other information commonly used to 

assist in associating sound recordings 

with musical works). For both matched 

and unmatched works, the Register of 

Copyrights may prescribe inclusion of 

additional fields by regulation.’’ 37 The 

‘‘Register shall use its judgement to 

determine what is an appropriate 

expansion of the required fields, but 

shall not adopt new fields that have not 

become reasonably accessible and used 

within the industry unless there is 

widespread support for the inclusion of 

such fields.’’ 38

In considering whether to prescribe 

the inclusion of additional fields 

beyond those statutorily required, the 

Office focused on fields that the record 

indicates would advance the goal of the 

public database: Reducing the number 

of unmatched musical works by 

accurately identifying musical work 

copyright owners so they can be paid 

what they are owed under the section 

115 statutory license.39 At the same 

time, the Office is mindful of the MLC’s 

corresponding duties to keep 

confidential business and personal 

information secure and inaccessible; for 

example, data related to computation of 

market share is contemplated by the 

statue as sensitive and confidential.40

Recognizing that a robust musical works 

database may contain many fields of 

information, the interim rule establishes 

a floor of required information that 

users can reliably expect to access in the 

public database, while providing the 

MLC with flexibility to include 

additional data fields that it finds 

helpful.41 Stakeholder comments 

regarding the types of information to 

include (or exclude) are discussed by 

category below. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86807 

42MLC April NOI Comment at 9 (agreeing with 

inclusion of songwriter information for musical 

works); MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 32 

(same). 

43See SGA Initial September NOI Comment at 2; 

The International Confederation of Societies of 

Authors and Composers (‘‘CISAC’’) & the 

International Organisation representing Mechanical 

Rights Societies (‘‘BIEM’’) April NOI Comment at 2; 

SONA April NOI Comment at 2; see also Barker 

Initial September NOI Comment at 2; Future of 

Music Coalition (‘‘FMC’’) Reply September NOI 

Comment at 2; DLC Reply September NOI Comment 

at 26; Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 2; 

SONA NPRM Comment at 2, 4. 

44Because the statute’s definition of ‘‘songwriter’’ 

includes composers, the interim rule uses the term 

‘‘songwriter’’ to include both songwriters and 

composers. 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(32). To reduce the 

likelihood of confusion, the MLC may want to 

consider labeling this field ‘‘Songwriter or 

Composer’’ in the public database. 

45SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 2–3. 

46See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV), (iii)(I); see 

also 37 CFR 210.29(c)(2)(i), (ii), and (v) and (c)(3)(ii) 

(requiring the MLC to report certain types of 

information to copyright owners ‘‘known to the 

MLC’’). 

47See Kernen NPRM Comment at 1, U.S. 

Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2020–7, available at 

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2020- 

0004-0001; Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 

2 (‘‘[T]he Academy agrees that it is appropriate to 

give the MLC discretion to give songwriters the 

option to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym 

in the database.’’); SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 

3 (‘‘[W]e desire to make clear that SGA and SCL also 

continue to support the rights of those music 

creators who may wish not to be publicly associated 

with certain musical works. That is and must 

continue to be right of any songwriter or 

composer.’’). 

48 85 FR at 58173. 

49SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 3. 

50SONA NPRM Comment at 4. 

51 Id. at 4–5. 

52MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 4. 

53 Id. 

54 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV), (iii)(I)(dd). The 

statute also requires digital music providers to 

report the ‘‘producer’’ to the mechanical licensing 

collective. Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV), (iii)(I)(dd). See 

also 37 CFR 210.27(e)(1)(i)(E)(2). 

55See MLC Initial September NOI Comment at 13 

n.6 (originally believing that ‘‘producer’’ referred to 

‘‘the record label or individual or entity that 

commissioned the sound recording’’); Recording 

Academy Initial September NOI Comment at 3 

(urging Office to ‘‘clarify that a producer is someone 

who was part of the creative process that created 

a sound recording’’); RIAA Initial September NOI 

Comment at 11 (stating ‘‘producer’’ should be 

defined as ‘‘the primary person(s) contracted by and 

accountable to the content owner for the task of 

delivering the recording as a finished product’’); 

MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 34–35 

(updating its understanding). 

56 37 CFR 210.22(i) (defining ‘‘producer’’ for 

purposes of Subpart B of section 210). See 

Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 2 

(supporting proposed rule). 

57 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)–(iii). 

58Conf. Rep. at 7. The legislative history also 

notes that ‘‘the Register may at some point wish to 

consider after an appropriate rulemaking whether 

standardized identifiers for individuals would be 

appropriate, or even audio fingerprints.’’ Id. 

59 IPI is ‘‘[a] unique identifier assigned to rights 

holders with an interest in an artistic work, 

including natural persons or legal entities, made 

known to the IPI Centre. The IPI System is an 

international registry used by CISAC and BIEM 

societies.’’ U.S. Copyright Office, Unclaimed 

Royalties Study Acronym Glossary at 3, https:// 

Continued 

1. Songwriter or Composer 

Commenters—including the MLC42— 

overwhelmingly agreed that the 

database should include songwriter and 

composer information,43 and so the 

interim rule requires including such 

information in the public database, to 

the extent reasonably available to the 

collective.44 SGA & SCL suggest that the 

phrase ‘‘to the extent reasonably 

available to the collective’’ ‘‘serves to 

diminish the requisite and explicit 

value of songwriter/composer 

identifying information.’’ 45 The phrase 

‘‘to the extent reasonably available to 

the mechanical licensing collective’’ for 

songwriter or composer information is 

employed to mirror the statutory 

qualification with respect to inclusion 

of other types of information.46 For 

consistency with the statute (and the 

other fields discussed below), the 

interim rule adopts this aspect of the 

proposed rule without modification. 

Commenters also supported the 

ability of songwriters, or their 

representatives, to mask songwriters’ 

identity to avoid being associated with 

certain musical works by having their 

information listed anonymously or 

pseudonymously in the public musical 

works database.47 While the proposed 

rule granted the MLC discretion to allow 

songwriters this option,48 SGA & SCL 

suggest that ‘‘that such a regulation be 

extended into a mandatory direction to 

the MLC to accept such direction from 

a music creator.’’ 49 By contrast, while 

acknowledging ‘‘that writers often use 

pennames and that there are also 

current trends to hide an artist’s 

identity, in which case the writer may 

want to remain anonymous,’’ SONA 

expresses concern that ‘‘not having a 

songwriter’s name associated with a 

musical work is often one of the biggest 

challenges in ensuring a songwriter 

receives proper payment,’’ and that 

‘‘while at the time of creation that may 

be the express wish of the songwriter, it 

is critical that the creator and the 

musical work do not become dissociated 

over the term of the work’s 

copyright.’’ 50 SONA suggests that a 

songwriter should have the option of 

staying anonymous or using a 

pseudonym in the public database only 

if ‘‘the MLC has sufficient contact 

information with the songwriter’s 

representation,’’ and that the rule 

should ‘‘ensure adequate information to 

contact the songwriter or their 

representatives is easily accessible for 

users of that writer’s musical works.’’ 51

For its part, the MLC contends that 

‘‘[i]f the copyright owner or 

administrator requests that the writer be 

identified as ‘anonymous’ or by a 

pseudonym, it can do so when it 

submits the musical work information 

to the MLC,’’ and that the MLC will 

‘‘consider subsequent requests by an 

owner or administrator to change the 

name to ‘anonymous’ or to a 

pseudonym.’’ 52 The MLC contends that 

the regulations should not ‘‘make it 

mandatory for the MLC to change 

songwriter names in the musical works 

database at the request of any particular 

party, because such may not always be 

appropriate,’’ and that the MLC ‘‘is also 

responsible for maintaining an accurate 

musical works database, and must be 

afforded the ability to fulfill that 

function.’’ 53

Having carefully considered this 

issue, the Office has included in the 

interim rule adjusted language ensuring 

that the MLC develops and makes 

publicly available a policy on how it 

will consider requests by copyright 

owners or administrators to change 

songwriter names to be listed 

anonymously or pseudonymously. The 

Office encourages the MLC to grant any 

subsequent requests by a copyright 

owner or administrator to change a 

songwriter name to ‘‘anonymous’’ or to 

a pseudonym. 

2. Studio Producer 

As the statute requires the public 

database to include ‘‘producer’’ to the 

extent reasonably available to the 

MLC,54 so does the interim rule. 

Initially, there appeared to be 

stakeholder disagreement about the 

meaning of the term ‘‘producer,’’ which 

has since been resolved to clarify that it 

refers to the studio producer.55 Because 

the term ‘‘producer’’ relates not only to 

the public database, but also to 

information provided by digital music 

providers in reports of usage, the Office 

defined ‘‘producer’’ in its interim rule 

concerning reports of usage, notices of 

license, and data collection efforts, 

among other things, to define 

‘‘producer’’ to mean studio producer 

throughout its section 115 regulations.56

3. Unique Identifiers 

The statute requires the MLC to 

include ISRC and ISWC codes, when 

reasonably available.57 According to the 

legislative history, ‘‘[u]sing standardized 

metadata such as ISRC and ISWC codes, 

is a major step forward in reducing the 

number of unmatched works.’’ 58 The 

proposed rule required the public 

database to include the Interested 

Parties Information (‘‘IPI’’) 59 and/or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86808 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/ 

glossary.pdf (last visited Dec. 18, 2020). 

60 ISNI is ‘‘[a] unique identifier for identifying the 

public identities of contributors to creative works, 

regardless their legal or natural status, and those 

active in their distribution. These may include 

researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual 

creators, performers, producers, publishers, 

aggregators, and more. A different ISNI is assigned 

for each name used.’’ Id. 

61 85 FR at 58188–89. 

62 Id. 

63 85 FR at 58174. 

64See CISAC & BIEM NPRM Comment at 1 

(‘‘appreciat[ing] that the Office has included 

international identifiers such as ISWC and IPI’’); 

SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 3 (‘‘strongly 

support[ing]’’ the inclusion of IPI, ISNI, and UPC 

data’’); SONA NPRM Comment at 5 

(‘‘commend[ing] the Office’’ for including IPI, ISNI, 

and UPC). 

65See MLC April NOI Comment at 9; MLC Ex 

Parte Letter #7 at 5; MLC NPRM Comment at 2–3. 

66SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 3. 

67 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)–(iii). 

68See DLC Reply September NOI Comment Add. 

at A–16; ARM April NOI Comment at 2; FMC April 

NOI Comment at 2; SONA April NOI Comment at 

5–6; SoundExchange Initial September NOI 

Comment at 8; Barker Initial September NOI 

Comment at 2. 

69Barker Initial September NOI Comment at 3. 

70MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 32 

n.16. 

71MLC April NOI Comment at 9. 

72MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 5. 

73CISAC & BIEM April NOI Comment at 1. See 

also Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, 

Composers and Publishers (‘‘JASRAC’’) Initial 

September NOI Comment at 2. 

74MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 6. 

75MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 44. 

76 85 FR at 58175; see 17 U.S.C. 115. 

77 85 FR at 58175; see 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining 

‘‘copyright owner’’ and ‘‘transfer of copyright 

ownership’’); id. at 115. 

78 85 FR at 58175; The MLC, Play Your Part, 

https://themlc.com/play-your-part (last visited Dec. 

18, 2020). According to the MLC, the DQI ‘‘does not 

act as a mechanism for delivering work 

registrations/works data,’’ but ‘‘[m]usic publishers, 

administrators and foreign CMOs may use 

[Common Works Registration] to deliver new and 

updated work registrations to The MLC.’’ The MLC, 

MLC Data Quality Initiative 2 (2020), https://

themlc.com/sites/default/files/2020-08/2020%20- 

%20DQI%20One%20Pager%20Updated%208-18- 

20.pdf (last visited Dec. 18, 2020). 

79 85 FR at 58175. 

80 Id. 

81 Id. 

International Standard Name Identifier 

(‘‘ISNI’’) 60 for each songwriter, 

publisher, and musical work copyright 

owner, as well as the Universal Product 

Code (‘‘UPC’’), to the extent reasonably 

available to the MLC.61 As proposed, the 

public database must also include the 

MLC’s standard identifier for the 

musical work, and to the extent 

reasonably available to the MLC, unique 

identifier(s) assigned by the blanket 

licensee, if reported by the blanket 

licensee.62 The Office sought public 

comment on whether IPIs and/or ISNIs 

for foreign collective management 

organizations (‘‘CMOs’’) should be 

required to be listed separately.63

In response to the proposed rule, 

commenters expressed continued 

support for including IPIs, ISNIs, and 

UPC,64 which the MLC has agreed to 

include.65 The interim rule thus adopts 

this aspect of the proposed rule without 

modification. SGA & SCL ‘‘support the 

comments of CISAC and BIEM . . . as 

to the listing of IPIs and ISNIs for 

foreign collective management 

organizations.’’ 66 As discussed more 

below, the Office declines to require the 

MLC to separately include IPIs and 

ISNIs for foreign CMOs in the database 

at this time, apart from where they may 

otherwise already be included as a 

relevant musical work copyright owner. 

4. Information Related to Ownership

and Control of Musical Works

By statute, the database must include 

information regarding the ownership of 

the musical work as well as the 

underlying sound recording, including 

‘‘the copyright owner of the work (or 

share thereof), and the ownership 

percentage of that owner,’’ or, if 

unmatched, ‘‘the ownership percentage 

for which an owner has not been 

identified.’’ 67 The statute also requires 

a field called ‘‘sound recording 

copyright owner,’’ the meaning of which 

is discussed further below. 

Although the MMA does not reference 

music publishing administrators—that 

is, entities responsible for managing 

copyrights on behalf of songwriters, 

including administering, licensing, and 

collecting publishing royalties without 

receiving an ownership interest in such 

copyrights—a number of commenters 

have urged inclusion of this information 

in the public musical works database.68

As one commenter suggested, because 

‘‘a copyright owner’s ‘ownership’ 

percentage may differ from that same 

owner’s ‘control’ percentage,’’ the 

public database should include separate 

fields for ‘‘control’’ versus ‘‘ownership’’ 

percentage.69 The MLC agreed,70 stating 

that ‘‘the database should include 

information identifying the 

administrators or authorized entities 

who license the relevant musical work 

and/or collect royalties for such work on 

behalf of the copyright owner.’’ 71 In 

addition, with respect to specific 

ownership percentages, which are 

required by statute to be made publicly 

available, the MLC expressed its 

intention to mark overclaims (i.e., 

shares totaling more than 100%) as such 

and show the percentages and total of 

all shares claimed so that overclaims 

and underclaims (i.e., shares totaling 

less than 100%) will be transparent.72

Relatedly, CISAC & BIEM raised 

concerns about needing ‘‘to clarify the 

concept of ‘copyright owner,’ ’’ as 

‘‘foreign collective management 

organizations (CMOs) . . . are also 

considered copyright owners or 

exclusively mandated organizations of 

the musical works administered by 

these entities,’’ and thus ‘‘CMOs 

represented by CISAC and BIEM should 

be able to register in the MLC database 

the claim percentages they represent.’’ 73

The MLC responded that it will ‘‘engage 

in non-discriminatory treatment 

towards domestic and foreign copyright 

owners, CMOs and administrators,’’ 74

and that it ‘‘intends to operate on a nondiscriminatory basis, and all natural and 

legal persons or entities of any 

nationality are welcome to register their 

claims to works with the MLC.’’ 75

The NPRM noted that ‘‘[w]hile the 

MMA does not reference foreign 

musical works specifically, nothing in 

the statute indicates that foreign 

copyright owners should be treated 

differently from U.S. copyright owners 

under the blanket licensing regime, or 

prevents the MLC from seeking or 

including data from foreign CMOs in 

building the public database.’’ 76 The 

Office also stated that ‘‘[w]here 

copyright ownership has been assigned 

or otherwise transferred to a foreign 

CMO or, conversely, a U.S. subpublisher, the statute does not specify 

that it should be treated differently from 

a similarly-situated U.S. entity that has 

been assigned or otherwise been 

transferred copyright ownership.’’ 77

The Office noted that the MLC appeared 

to be planning for data collection from 

foreign CMOs, as evidenced by 

promotional material in connection 

with its Data Quality Initiative (DQI).78

Based on public comments, the Office 

concluded that to the extent reasonably 

available to the MLC, it would be 

beneficial for the database to include 

information related to all persons or 

entities that own or control the right to 

license and collect royalties related to 

musical works in the United States, and 

that music publishing administrator and 

control information would be valuable 

additions.79 Accordingly, the proposed 

rule required the public database to 

include administrator(s) or other 

authorized entity(ies) who license the 

musical work (or share thereof) and/or 

collect mechanical royalties for such 

musical work (or share thereof) in the 

United States.80 It would not prevent 

the MLC from including additional 

information with respect to foreign 

CMOs.81

In response, CISAC & BIEM again 

expressed ‘‘the need to have CMOs 

clearly recognized as ‘copyright 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86809 

82CISAC & BIEM NPRM Comment at 1–2. 

83 Id. at 2 (emphasis added). 

84SONA NPRM Comment at 6 (‘‘When 

contemplating rules and procedures to implement 

a database intended to show the public information 

on the ownership of a musical work, it is important 

that the development of the database conceive that 

the data it incorporates and users that rely on that 

data are not all of U.S. origin.’’). 

85MLC NPRM Comment at 3 (citation omitted). 

86MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 4. 

87 17 U.S.C. 101. SGA maintains that ‘‘[m]any 

songwriters (including composers) and their heirs 

have carefully opted to retain ownership of the 

copyrights in their musical compositions, and to 

assign only limited administration or coadministration rights to third party music 

publishing entities,’’ and that ‘‘any songwriter or 

heir who retains copyright ownership in her or his 

portion of a work [should be able to] serve notice 

on the MLC at any time directing that she or he is 

to be listed as the copyright owner in the database 

as to that portion.’’ SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 

4. If a songwriter or a songwriter’s heir is the 

copyright owner of a musical work, the public 

database should identify the songwriter or heir as 

such, to the extent such information is available to 

the mechanical licensing collective. 

88See CISAC & BIEM et al. Ex Parte Letter Oct. 

27, 2020 at 2. 

89See CISAC & BIEM September NOI Initial 

Comment at 3 (noting foreign musical works ‘‘may 

have a publisher or may be sub-published in the US 

in a way that the sub-publisher does not necessarily 

hold 100% of the mechanical rights’’); CISAC & 

BIEM et al. Ex Parte Letter Oct. 27, 2020 at 2 (noting 

‘‘the existence of certain limitations in certain 

cases, that prevent sub-publishers from collecting 

100% of mechanical (e.g. 25% limitation in the case 

of GEMA works)’’). 

90The rule uses the term ‘‘playing time.’’ See 37 

CFR 210.27(e)(1)(i)(D). 

91 85 FR at 58188–89; see Recording Academy 

NPRM Comment at 2; SONA NPRM Comment at 7; 

ARM April NOI Comment at 3; MLC Reply 

September NOI Comment at App. E; MLC April NOI 

Comment at 10; Recording Academy Initial 

September NOI Comment at 3; Recording Academy 

April NOI Comment at 3; RIAA Initial September 

NOI Comment at 6–7; SONA April NOI Comment 

at 6; SoundExchange Initial September NOI 

Comment at 7. Because UPC numbers are ‘‘productlevel’’ identifiers and sound recordings can thus 

have multiple UPC numbers (i.e., one for each 

product on which the sound recording appears), 

ARM and SoundExchange ask the MLC to be careful 

about conveying the association between the UPC 

number displayed in the database and the track at 

issue to reduce confusion. ARM NPRM Comment at 

2; SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 5. 

92 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV)(bb), (iii)(I)(dd)– 

(ee). 

owners,’’’ explaining that ‘‘outside the 

U.S., the ‘copyright ownership’ of the 

work is attributed to the CMOs 

managing the mechanical rights . . .’’ 82

CISAC & BIEM also contended that 

there is no ‘‘business need to include 

the creator percentage shares in the 

musical works’’ in the public database 

(as opposed to copyright owner share(s), 

which is required by the statute), ‘‘as 

this information [is] not required to 

license or distribute musical works, and 

constitutes particularly sensitive and 

confidential financial and business 

information for creators and their 

representatives.’’ 83 SONA emphasized 

the importance of the Office’s statement 

that ‘‘there is no indication that foreign 

copyright owners should have different 

treatment under the blanket licensing 

regime.’’ 84 For its part, the MLC has 

‘‘repeatedly maintained that it will 

engage in non-discriminatory treatment 

towards domestic and foreign copyright 

owners, CMOs and administrators,’’ and 

that ‘‘foreign CMOs should be treated no 

differently in the database from other 

mechanical rights administrators.’’ 85

The MLC also stated that if a foreign 

CMO ‘‘is an owner or administrator of 

US copyright rights, it will be treated as 

such, and in a non-discriminatory 

manner as compared to other US 

copyright owners or administrators.’’ 86

Having considered these comments, 

the Office reaffirms the general 

requirement that the database include 

information related to all persons or 

entities that own or control the right to 

license and collect royalties related to 

musical works in the United States, 

irrespective of whether those persons or 

entities are located outside the United 

States. The interim rule thus adopts this 

aspect of the proposed rule without 

modification. To address CISAC & 

BIEM’s concerns about the recognition 

of copyright ownership by foreign 

CMOs, the interim rule references the 

statutory definitions of ‘‘copyright 

owner’’ and ‘‘transfer of copyright 

ownership,’’ and states that a copyright 

owner includes entities, including 

foreign CMOs, to which ‘‘copyright 

ownership has been transferred through 

an assignment, mortgage, exclusive 

license, or any other conveyance, 

alienation, or hypothecation of a 

copyright or of any of the exclusive 

rights comprised in a copyright, 

whether or not it is limited in time or 

place of effect, but not including a 

nonexclusive license.’’ 87 Where a 

foreign CMO is the copyright owner of 

the musical work under U.S. law, the 

database should identify the foreign 

CMO as the copyright owner, along with 

its percentage share.88 The database 

should take a parallel approach with 

respect to administration rights. 

Depending upon the specific 

arrangements in place, this may mean 

that the database will need to display 

information related to both the foreign 

CMO as well as a U.S. sub-publisher or 

administrator (along with percentage 

shares).89 And while the songwriter or 

composer of the same musical work 

must, by regulation, be identified in the 

database as the songwriter or composer 

(as discussed above), if he or she is not 

the copyright owner due to assignment 

of the copyright to a foreign CMO, he or 

she would not have ownership shares to 

display in the database. To the extent 

that sub-publishers own or control 

foreign musical works in the U.S. and 

foreign CMOs do not (i.e., the foreign 

CMOs do not have a U.S. right of 

ownership or administration), the Office 

concludes that the mechanical licensing 

collective should not be required to 

include information about such foreign 

CMOs in the database. The Office 

recognizes that including foreign CMO 

information even when the CMOs are 

not copyright owners or administrators 

in the U.S. may be desired by certain 

commenters, but the Office is reluctant 

to require the MLC to include such 

information at this time, given the 

MLC’s indication that it needs to focus 

on more core tasks. As noted above, in 

considering whether to prescribe the 

inclusion of additional fields beyond 

those statutorily required, the Office 

focused on fields that the record 

indicates would advance the goal of the 

public database: Reducing the number 

of unmatched musical works by 

accurately identifying musical work 

copyright owners so they can be paid 

what they are owed under the section 

115 statutory license. Should confusion 

arise after the musical works database 

becomes publicly available, the Office is 

willing to consider whether adjustment 

to the interim rule is warranted. 

5. Additional Information Related To 

Identifying Musical Works and Sound 

Recordings 

Given the general consensus of 

comments, the interim rule largely 

adopts the proposed rule without 

modification, which requires the public 

database to include the following fields, 

to the extent reasonably available to the 

MLC: Alternate titles for musical works, 

opus and catalog numbers of classical 

compositions, and track duration,90

version, and release date of sound 

recordings.91 It also incorporates the 

statutory requirements to include, to the 

extent reasonably available to the 

mechanical licensing collective, other 

non-confidential information commonly 

used to assist in associating sound 

recordings with musical works (for 

matched musical works), and for 

unmatched musical works, other nonconfidential information commonly 

used to assist in associating sound 

recordings with musical works, and any 

additional non-confidential information 

reported to the mechanical licensing 

collective that may assist in identifying 

musical works.92 The MLC notes that 

‘‘[o]pus and catalog numbers for 

classical compositions and UPC have 

now been added to the DDEX format, so 

the MLC will provide that information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86810 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

93MLC NPRM Comment at 3. 94ARM NPRM Comment at 3; SoundExchange 

NPRM Comment at 5. 95ARM NPRM Comment at 3. 96 Id. at 2. 97See id. at 3. 98MLC NPRM Comment at 3. See MLC Ex Parte 

Letter #11 at 4 (contending that its proposed 

language allows it to ‘‘operate under its reasonable 

judgment as to which fields fit into the category’’). 99See DLC Initial September NOI Comment at 20; 

Music Innovation Consumers (‘‘MIC’’) Coalition 

Initial September NOI Comment at 2; Barker Initial 

September NOI Comment at 8–9. 

100See MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 

36 (pointing out that its ‘‘primary responsibility is 

to engage in the administration of mechanical rights 

and to develop and maintain a mechanical rights 

database,’’ and that ‘‘gather[ing], maintain[ing], 

updat[ing] and includ[ing] . . . performance rights 

information—which rights it is not permitted to 

license—would require significant effort which 

could imperil [its] ability to meet its statutory 

obligations with respect to mechanical rights 

licensing and administration by the [license 

availability date]’’); FMC Reply September NOI 

Comment at 3. 

101ASCAP & BMI Reply September NOI 

Comment at 2. 

102 85 FR at 22576; see 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(C)(iii) 

(limiting administration of voluntary licenses to 

‘‘only [the] reproduction or distribution rights in 

musical works for covered activities’’). 

103 85 FR at 58176. 

104 DLC NPRM Comment at 3; DLC Ex Parte Letter 

Dec. 11, 2020 (‘‘DLC Ex Parte Letter #8’’) at 3–4. 

105 DLC Ex Parte Letter #8 at 4. The DLC also 

states that ‘‘BMI has taken the position that it is not 

barred from licensing mechanical rights in addition 

to public performance rights, and ASCAP has 

sought an amendment to its consent decree 

permitting it to engage in such licensing,’’ and that 

‘‘[i]f the PROs begin to administer mechanical rights 

in the United States, then including information 

about PRO affiliation in the MLC’s database will be 

especially important.’’ Id. 

106 Id. 

107MAC NPRM Comment at 4. 

108Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 3; 

CISAC & BIEM April NOI Comment at 3; FMC April 

NOI Comment at 2; SGA & SCL NPRM Comment 

at 3–4; see also SONA NPRM Comment at 7 

(accepting Office’s decision not to compel PRO 

affiliation). 

109MLC April NOI Comment at 10. 

to the extent it is reasonably available to 

the MLC.’’ 93

ARM and SoundExchange seek clarity 

regarding the meaning of ‘‘release 

date.’’ 94 ARM maintains that because 

‘‘it is not uncommon for a given sound 

recording to be released on more than 

one product, each with its own release 

date,’’ ‘‘the release date included in the 

database must reflect the actual, not the 

intended, release date,’’ 95 and 

‘‘regulations should prohibit the MLC 

from publicly displaying any data about 

a sound recording prior to its actual 

release date.’’ 96 The Office agrees that 

‘‘release date’’ should not be an 

intended release date; rather, it should 

reflect the date on which the recording 

was first released. The Office 

encourages the MLC to include an 

explanation of release date in its 

glossary.97

Finally, the MLC contends that the 

phrase ‘‘other non-confidential 

information commonly used to assist in 

associating sound recordings with 

musical works’’ is vague, and suggests 

changing it to ‘‘other non-confidential 

information that the MLC reasonably 

believes would be useful to assist in 

associating sound recordings with 

musical works.’’ 98 After carefully 

considering the statute, legislative 

history, and comments, the Office agrees 

that the MLC should have some 

flexibility to include additional 

information that may be helpful for 

matching purposes, but is also mindful 

that the phrase proposed by the NPRM 

was taken directly from the statute. 

Accordingly, the Office has adjusted the 

interim rule to add the phrase 

‘‘reasonably believes, based on common 

usage’’ for consistency with the statute 

(i.e., the MLC is required to include, to 

the extent reasonably available to it, 

other non-confidential information that 

it reasonably believes, based on 

common usage, would be useful to 

assist in associating sound recordings 

with musical works). 

6. Performing Rights Organization 

Affiliation 

In response to the September NOI, a 

few commenters maintained that the 

public database should include PRO 

affiliation.99 By contrast, the MLC and 

FMC raised concerns about including 

and maintaining PRO affiliation in the 

public database.100 The largest PROs, 

the American Society of Composers, 

Authors, and Publishers (‘‘ASCAP’’) and 

Broadcast Music, Inc. (‘‘BMI’’), also 

objected, stating that because ‘‘music 

performing rights organizations such as 

BMI and ASCAP all have 

comprehensive databases on musical 

works ownership rights, and these 

databases are publicly available,’’ 

‘‘administration of data with respect to 

the licensing of public performing rights 

does not require government 

intervention.’’ 101

After evaluating these comments, in 

the April NOI the Office tentatively 

concluded against requiring PRO 

affiliation in the public database, noting 

that ‘‘[b]ecause the MMA explicitly 

restricts the MLC from licensing 

performance rights, it seems unlikely to 

be prudent or frugal to require the MLC 

to expend resources to maintain PRO 

affiliations for rights it is not permitted 

to license.’’ 102 Similarly, the Office 

declined to require the inclusion of PRO 

affiliation in the proposed rule.103

In response to the NPRM, the DLC 

asked the Office to reconsider and 

include PRO affiliation in the public 

database.104 The DLC contends that PRO 

affiliation may aid matching in some 

instances, giving the example of 

songwriters affiliated with ASCAP being 

able to ‘‘target their searches of the 

MLC’s database for works that the MLC 

has affiliated with ASCAP,’’ and ‘‘more 

readily confirm that the PRO and MLC 

databases contain consistent 

information regarding information such 

as share splits and unique identifiers’’ 

(i.e., ‘‘mak[ing] the MLC database a 

useful cross-check for PRO data’’).105

The DLC asks that the MLC ‘‘not throw 

away valuable musical works 

metadata,’’ and states it ‘‘would not be 

opposed to an accommodation such as 

a six-month transition period for this 

aspect of the database.’’ 106 MAC 

similarly requests inclusion of PRO 

affiliation.107 By contrast, CISAC & 

BEIM, FMC, Recording Academy, and 

SGA & SCL agree it should not be 

included, with Recording Academy 

stating that ‘‘information related to 

public performance rights goes beyond 

the scope of the MMA, which is focused 

on mechanical rights.’’ 108 For its part, 

the MLC contends that it ‘‘should be 

afforded the opportunity to focus on its 

main priority of a robust and fulsome 

mechanical rights database,’’ and not 

include PRO affiliation, but that ‘‘[i]f, at 

some time in the future, the MLC has 

the capacity and resources to also 

incorporate performance rights 

information, it may undertake this task 

. . .’’ 109

Having considered these comments, 

the statutory text, and legislative 

history, the Office concludes that the 

mechanical licensing collective should 

not be required to include PRO 

affiliation in the public database at this 

time. The Office recognizes that PRO 

affiliation is desired by certain 

commenters, particularly licensees, for 

transparency purposes, and that the 

record contains some limited 

suggestions that it could be a useful data 

point in the MLC’s core project of 

matching works under the mechanical 

license. Without further information, 

the Office is reluctant to require the 

MLC to include such information, given 

the statutory prohibition against 

administering performance licenses and 

the MLC’s suggestion that it needs to 

focus on more core tasks. In addition, in 

a related rulemaking, the Office 

declined to require that musical work 

copyright owners provide information 

related to PRO affiliation in connection 

with the statutory obligation to 

undertake commercially reasonably 

efforts to deliver sound recording 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86811 

110 85 FR 58114, 58121 (Sept. 17, 2020). 111 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(v); 85 FR at 22576; 85 

FR at 58176–77. 112See DLC Initial September NOI Comment at 

20; SoundExchange Initial September NOI 

Comment at 10; CISAC & BIEM April NOI Comment 

at 3; FMC April NOI Comment at 2; SoundExchange 

April NOI Comment at 4–5; SONA April NOI 

Comment at 9. 113MLC April NOI Comment at 12. 114MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 4. 115MLC April NOI Comment at 12. 

116 85 FR at 58189. 117 85 FR at 22576; 85 FR at 58177; 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(M)(i); id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(aa). 118CISAC & BIEM NPRM Comment at 2–3. 

SoundExchange asserts that ‘‘the regulations 

[should] make clear that, in addition to ‘archiving 

and maintaining such historical data,’ the MLC 

shall make such historical data available to the 

public.’’ SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 4. The 

interim rule, like the proposed rule, identifies the 

categories of information that must be included in 

the public musical works database, which includes 

historical information. See 85 FR at 58188 (‘‘This 

section prescribes the rules under which the 

mechanical licensing collective will provide 

information relating to musical works (and shares 

of such works), and sound recordings in which the 

musical works are embodied, in the public musical 

works database prescribed by 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E). . . .’’). 

119 17 U.S.C. 203, 304(c), 304(d). 

120Barker Initial September NOI Comment at 4. 

121MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 19, 

App. at 10–11; see also 85 FR at 22532–33. 

122 DLC Ex Parte Letter Feb. 14, 2020 (‘‘DLC Ex 

Parte Letter #1’’) at 3; DLC Ex Parte Letter #1 

Presentation at 15; DLC Ex Parte Letter Feb. 24, 

2020 at 4; DLC Ex Parte Letter Mar. 4, 2020 (‘‘DLC 

Ex Parte Letter #3’’) at 5. 

123 85 FR at 22576. 

124 DLC April NOI Comment at 4 n.19; SGA & 

SCL April NOI Comment at 8; SONA April NOI 

Comment at 2–3. 

125MLC April NOI Comment at 10. 

126Recording Academy April NOI Comment at 3. 

See also Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 3 

(‘‘The decision not to require the inclusion of 

termination information in the public database is 

prudent and appropriate.’’). 

127 85 FR at 58178. 

128SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 4. 

information to the MLC.110 Given that 

the MLC intends to source musical work 

information from copyright owners or 

administrators, requiring the MLC to 

‘‘pass through’’ PRO affiliation from 

DMPs may potentially be confusing as 

to the source of such information or 

result in incorrect or conflicting 

information. After the MLC has been up 

and running, the Office is willing to 

consider whether modifications to the 

interim rule prove necessary on this 

subject. In the meantime, as previously 

noted by the Office, not requiring the 

MLC to include PRO affiliation does not 

inhibit the MLC from optionally 

including such information.111 Should 

the MLC decide to include PRO 

affiliation in the database and source 

such information from DMPs’ reports of 

usage, the Office encourages the MLC to 

include an explanation of PRO 

affiliation and the sourcing of such 

information in its glossary. 

7. Historical Data 

In response to the September NOI and 

April NOI, multiple commenters 

asserted that the public database should 

maintain and make historical ownership 

information available.112 For its part, 

the MLC stated its intention to 

‘‘maintain information about each and 

every entity that, at any given point in 

time, owns a share of the right to receive 

mechanical royalties for the use of a 

musical work in covered activities,’’ and 

to ‘‘maintain at regular intervals 

historical records of the information 

contained in the database.’’ 113 The MLC 

confirmed that it ‘‘will maintain an 

archive of data provided to it after the 

license availability date (‘LAD’) and that 

has subsequently been updated or 

revised (e.g., where there is a post-LAD 

change in ownership of a share of a 

musical work), and the MLC will make 

this historic information available to the 

public.’’ 114 The MLC contends that ‘‘it 

should be permitted to determine, in 

consultation with its vendors, the best 

method for maintaining and archiving 

historical data to track ownership and 

other information changes in its 

database.’’ 115

The proposed rule adopted the MLC’s 

request for flexibility as to the most 

appropriate method for archiving and 

maintaining historical data to track 

ownership and other information 

changes in the database, stating that the 

MLC shall maintain at regular intervals 

historical records of the information 

contained in the public musical works 

database, including a record of changes 

to such database information and 

changes to the source of information in 

database fields, in order to allow 

tracking of changes to the ownership of 

musical works in the database over 

time.116 No commenters objected to this 

aspect of the proposed rule. The Office 

continues to believe that granting the 

MLC discretion in how to display such 

historical information is appropriate, 

particularly given the complexity of 

ownership information for sound 

recordings (discussed below). 

Accordingly, the interim rule adopts 

this aspect of the proposed rule without 

modification. As previously noted by 

the Office, the MLC must maintain all 

material records of the operations of the 

mechanical licensing collective in a 

secure and reliable manner, and such 

information will also be subject to 

audit.117 CISAC & BIEM did seek clarity 

on whether the database will include 

historical information for both musical 

works and sound recordings.118 The 

Office confirms that the interim rule 

broadly covers information changes in 

the database, which covers information 

relating to both musical works and 

sound recordings. 

8. Terminations 

Title 17 allows authors or their heirs, 

under certain circumstances, to 

terminate an agreement that previously 

granted one or more of the author’s 

exclusive rights to a third party.119 In 

response to the September NOI, one 

commenter suggested that to the extent 

terminations of musical work grants 

have occurred, the public database 

should include ‘‘separate iterations of 

musical works with their respective 

copyright owners and other related 

information, as well as the appropriately 

matched recording uses for each 

iteration of the musical work, and to 

make clear to the public and users of the 

database the appropriate version eligible 

for future licenses.’’ 120 Separately, as 

addressed in a parallel rulemaking, the 

MLC asked that the Office require 

digital music providers to include server 

fixation dates for sound recordings, 

contending that this information will be 

helpful to its determination whether 

particular usage of musical works is 

affected by the termination of grants 

under this statutory provision.121 The 

DLC objected to this request.122

In the April NOI, the Office sought 

public input on issues that should be 

considered relating to whether 

termination information should be 

included in the public database.123 The 

DLC, SGA & SCL, and SONA support 

including information concerning the 

termination of grants of rights by 

copyright creators in the public 

database.124 By contrast, the MLC 

contended that it ‘‘should not be 

required to include in the public 

database information regarding statutory 

termination of musical works per 

se.’’ 125 The Recording Academy asked 

the Office to ‘‘set aside any issue related 

to termination rights and the MLC until 

it conducts a full and thorough 

examination of the implications . . . for 

songwriters and other authors, 

including an opportunity for public 

comment.’’ 126

The proposed rule did not require the 

mechanical licensing collective to 

include termination information in the 

public database, an approach that is 

adopted by the interim rule.127 While in 

response to the NPRM, SGA & SCL 

reiterate their viewpoint that this 

information should be required, at this 

time, the Office is not convinced this 

requirement is necessary in light of the 

statutory obligation to maintain an upto-date ownership database.128 Indeed, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86812 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

129MLC April NOI Comment at 9. 

130MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 34. 

131ARM April NOI Comment at 3 (contending 

that the public database should indicate ‘‘which 

data was provided to the MLC by the actual 

copyright owner or its designee, which was 

provided by a DMP and which was provided by 

some other third party’’) (footnote omitted); DLC 

Initial September NOI Comment at 20; DLC Reply 

September NOI Comment at Add. A–15–16; FMC 

April NOI Comment at 2 (agreeing that public 

database ‘‘should include provenance information, 

not just because it helps allow for judgments about 

how authoritative that data is, but because it can 

help writers and publishers know where to go to 

correct any bad data they discover’’); CISAC & BIEM 

April NOI Comment at 3 (‘‘Submitters of 

information should be identified, and when the 

information is derived from copyright owners 

(creators, publishers, CMOs, etc.), it should be 

labelled, and it should prevail over other sources 

of information.’’). 

132 DLC April NOI Comment at 4; SoundExchange 

Initial September NOI Comment at 10–11. 

133A2IM & RIAA Reply September NOI Comment 

at 2–3 (asserting MLC should be required to obtain 

its sound recording data from a single authoritative 

source); Jessop Initial September NOI Comment at 

3 (‘‘The MLC should obtain sound recording 

information from as close to the source as possible. 

In practice this means from the record label or 

someone directly or indirectly authorized to 

manage this information for them.’’). 

134MLC April NOI Comment at 12. 

135MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 4. 

136 Id. at 2. 

137 85 FR at 58189. 

138 Id. at 58178. 

139 Id. 

140 Id. 

141ARM NPRM Comment at 3; SoundExchange 

NPRM Comment at 3. 

142ARM NPRM Comment at 3; CISAC & BIEM 

NPRM Comment at 2. 

143MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 5. 144See id. (noting ‘‘the importance of flexibility 

in precisely how such information is provided 

online to ensure coherent displays and a quality 

user experience’’). 145 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV)(bb), (iii)(I)(dd). 146RIAA Initial September NOI Comment at 2 

(footnote omitted). Although the RIAA’s initial 

September NOI comments suggested that the ERN 

feed included a field labeled sound recording 

copyright owner (SRCO), upon reply, it clarified 

that there is no such specific field. See A2IM & 

RIAA Reply September NOI Comment at 8 n.5. 147RIAA Initial September NOI Comment at 2. 

the MLC has noted its intention to 

include information regarding 

administrators that license musical 

works and/or collect royalties for such 

works,129 as well as information 

regarding ‘‘each and every entity that, at 

any given point in time, owns a share 

of the right to receive mechanical 

royalties for the use of a musical work 

in covered activities,’’ 130 which 

presumably should include updated 

ownership information that may be 

relevant for works that are being 

exploited after exercise of the 

termination right. The Office’s 

conclusion does not restrict the MLC 

from optionally including such 

information. 

9. Data Provenance 

In response to both notifications of 

inquiry, commenters overwhelmingly 

supported having the public musical 

works database include data provenance 

information.131 The DLC and 

SoundExchange contend that including 

data provenance information will allow 

users of the database to make their own 

judgments as to its reliability.132 Others 

noted that for sound recordings, firsthand data is more likely to be 

accurate.133 For its part, the MLC 

maintains that it ‘‘should be given 

sufficient flexibility to determine the 

best and most operationally effective 

way to ensure the accuracy and quality 

of the data in its database, rather than 

requiring it to identify the source of 

each piece of information contained 

therein.’’ 134 The MLC also stated that it 

‘‘intends to show the provenance of 

each row of sound recording data, 

including both the name of and DPID for 

the DMP from which the MLC received 

the sound recording data concerned,’’ 

and that it ‘‘intends to put checks in 

place to ensure data quality and 

accuracy.’’ 135 For musical works 

information, the MLC maintains that it 

‘‘will be sourced from copyright 

owners.’’ 136

The proposed rule would require the 

MLC to include data provenance 

information for sound recording 

information in the public database, 

though it grants the MLC some 

discretion on how to display such 

information.137 The proposed rule 

would not require the MLC to include 

data provenance information for 

musical work information, as the MLC 

intends to source musical works 

information from copyright owners 

(which commenters generally 

supported).138 Specifically, the Office 

noted that ‘‘data provenance issues 

appear to be especially relevant to 

sound recording information in the 

public database,’’ particularly ‘‘given 

that the MLC intends to populate sound 

recording information in the public 

database from reports of usage, as 

opposed to using a single authoritative 

source.’’ 139 The Office sought public 

input on this aspect of the proposed 

rule.140

ARM and SoundExchange both ask 

for regulations to require the MLC to 

identify the actual person or entity from 

which the information came, as opposed 

to including a categorical description 

such as ‘‘digital music provider’’ or 

‘‘usage report,’’ though ARM does ‘‘not 

oppose inclusion of those sorts of 

descriptors along with the party 

name.’’ 141 In addition, ARM and CISAC 

& BIEM contend that the database 

should also include data provenance 

information regarding musical works 

information, with ARM stating that data 

provenance information for musical 

works ‘‘would be of similar benefit to 

users of the database, particularly those 

who are required to pay mechanical 

royalties outside of the blanket 

license.’’ 142 For its part, the MLC 

‘‘confirmed that it will include in the 

database DMP names and DPID 

information where it receives it.’’ 143

Accordingly, the interim rule states that 

for sound recording information 

received from a digital music provider, 

the MLC shall include the name of the 

digital music provider. Because the 

MLC has stated that it will source 

musical work information from 

copyright owners and administrators of 

those works, and because (as noted 

above) copyright owners and 

administrators will already be included 

in the database, the Office concludes at 

this time that the regulations do not 

need to require data provenance 

information for musical works. Should 

future instances of confusion suggest 

that modifications to the interim rule 

are necessary, the Office is willing to 

reconsider this subject. The interim rule 

does not dictate the precise format in 

which such information is made 

available in the database.144

C. Sound Recording Information and 

Disclaimers or Disclosures in the Public 

Musical Works Database 

1. ‘‘Sound Recording Copyright Owner’’ 

Information 

In response to the September NOI, 

RIAA and individual record labels 

expressed concern about which 

information will populate the database 

and be displayed to satisfy the statutory 

requirement to include ‘‘sound 

recording copyright owner’’ (SRCO) in 

the public musical works database.145

Specifically, RIAA explained that under 

current industry practice, digital music 

providers send royalties pursuant to 

information received from record 

companies or others releasing 

recordings to DMPs ‘‘via a specialized 

DDEX message known as the ERN (or 

Electronic Release Notification),’’ which 

‘‘is typically populated with 

information about the party that is 

entitled to receive royalties (who may or 

may not be the actual legal copyright 

owner), because that is the information 

that is relevant to the business 

relationship between record labels and 

DMPs.’’ 146 In short, information ‘‘in the 

ERN message is not meant to be used to 

make legal determinations of 

ownership.’’ 147 RIAA noted the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86813 

148 Id. at 3. Those concerns were echoed in ex 

parte meetings with individual record labels. See 

Universal Music Group (‘‘UMG’’) & RIAA Ex Parte 

Letter Dec. 9, 2019; Sony & RIAA Ex Parte Letter 

Dec. 9, 2019 at 1–2. 

149SoundExchange Initial September NOI 

Comment at 11–12. 

150Sony & RIAA Ex Parte Letter Dec. 9, 2019 at 

2 (noting that ‘‘DIY artists and aggregators serving 

that community’’ may be most likely to populate 

the DPID field); A2IM & RIAA Reply September 

NOI Comment at 8–10. The LabelName represents 

the ‘‘brand under which a Release is issued and 

marketed. A Label is a marketing identity (like a 

MusicPublisher’s ‘Imprint’ in book publishing) and 

is not the same thing as the record company which 

controls it, even if it shares the same name. The 

control of a Label may move from one owner to 

another.’’ Digital Data Exchange (‘‘DDEX’’), DDEX 

Data Dictionary, http://service.ddex.net/dd/ 

ERN411/dd/ddex_Label.html (last visited Dec. 17, 

2020). ‘‘PLine’’ is ‘‘[a] composite element that 

identifies the year of first release of the Resource 

or Release followed by the name of the entity that 

owns the phonographic rights in the Resource or 

Release. . . . In the case of recordings that are 

owned by the artist or the artist’s heirs but are 

licensed to one of [their] member companies, the 

PLine field typically lists those individuals’ names, 

even though they generally are not actively 

involved in commercializing those recordings.’’ 

A2IM & RIAA Reply September NOI Comment at 

9 (citing Music Business Association and quoting 

DDEX, DDEX Release Notification Standard Starter 

Guide for Implementation 28 (July 2016), https://

kb.ddex.net/download/attachments/327717/ 

MusicMetadata_DDEX_V1.pdf). 

151 85 FR at 22577. 

152ARM April NOI Comment at 4. A2IM & RIAA 

initially stated that ‘‘[b]ecause the PLine party is, 

in many cases, an individual who would not want 

to be listed in a public database and is often not 

the party who commercializes the recording, the 

regulations should prohibit that party name from 

appearing in the public-facing database.’’ A2IM & 

RIAA Reply September NOI Comment at 9. The 

Office understands that ARM, of which A2IM and 

RIAA are members, does not object to PLine being 

displayed in the public musical works database. 

153ARM NPRM Comment at 10, U.S. Copyright 

Office Dkt. No. 2020–5, available at https://

beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2020-0005- 

0001. 

154MLC April NOI Comment at 13. See also 

Digital Data Exchange (‘‘DDEX’’) NPRM Comment at 

2, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2020–5, available 

at https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC2020-0005-0001 (‘‘[T]he DPID, although a unique 

identifier and in relevant instances an identifier of 

‘‘record companies’’, does not identify sound 

recording copyright owners. It only identifies the 

sender and recipient of a DDEX formatted message 

and, in certain circumstances, the party that the 

message is being sent on behalf of.’’). 

155 DLC Letter July 13, 2020 at 10 (stating ‘‘it 

would require at least a substantial effort for some 

services’’ (around one year of development), ‘‘and 

would be an impracticable burden for some 

others’’). 

156Recording Academy April NOI Comment at 3. 

Compare ARM April NOI Comment at 5 (stating 

‘‘there is no single field in the ERN that can 

simultaneously tell the public who owns a work, 

who distributes the work and who controls the right 

to license the work’’). 

157As the MMA also requires ‘‘sound recording 

copyright owner’’ to be reported by DMPs to the 

mechanical licensing collective in monthly reports 

of usage, the Office has separately issued an interim 

rule regarding which information should be 

included in such reports to satisfy this requirement. 

Because industry practice has not included a single 

data field to provide definitive data regarding sound 

recording copyright ownership, that rule proposes 

that DMPs can satisfy this obligation by reporting 

information in the following fields: LabelName and 

PLine. See 37 CFR 210.27(e)(4). 

158 85 FR at 58180. 

159See ARM April NOI Comment at 5 (suggesting 

that ‘‘LabelName’’ be described as ‘‘U.S. Releasing 

Party (if available),’’ and that ‘‘PLine’’ be described 

as ‘‘Sound Recording Owner of Record (who may 

not be the party that commercializes the recording; 

note that this party may change over time)’’). 

potential for confusion stemming from a 

field labelled ‘‘sound recording 

copyright owner’’ in the public database 

being populated by information taken 

from the labels’ ERN messages—for both 

the MLC (i.e., the MLC could 

‘‘inadvertently misinterpret or misapply 

the SRCO data’’), and users of the free, 

public database (i.e., they could 

mistakenly assume that the so-called 

‘‘sound recording copyright owner’’ 

information is authoritative with respect 

to ownership of the sound recording).148

Relatedly, SoundExchange noted that it 

‘‘devotes substantial resources’’ to 

tracking changes in sound recording 

rights ownership, suggesting that 

inclusion of a SRCO field ‘‘creates a 

potential trap for the unwary.’’ 149 A2IM 

& RIAA and Sony suggested that three 

fields—DDEX Party Identifier (DPID), 

LabelName, and PLine—may provide 

indicia relevant to determining sound 

recording copyright ownership.150

In the April NOI, the Office sought 

public comment regarding which data 

should be displayed to satisfy the 

statutory requirement, including 

whether to require inclusion of multiple 

fields to lessen the perception that a 

single field contains definitive data 

regarding sound recording copyright 

ownership.151 In response, ARM did not 

object ‘‘to a regulation that requires the 

MLC to include [DDEX Party Identifier 

(DPID), LabelName, and PLine] in the 

Database, provided the fields are each 

labeled in a way that minimizes 

confusion and/or misunderstanding,’’ as 

‘‘this will lessen the perception that a 

single field contains definitive data 

regarding sound recording copyright 

ownership information.’’ 152 For DPID, 

the Office understands that ARM does 

not object to including the DPID party’s 

name, but does ‘‘object to the numerical 

identifier being disclosed, as the list of 

assigned DPID numbers is not public 

and disclosing individual numbers 

(and/or the complete list of numbers) 

could have unintended 

consequences.’’ 153 The MLC ‘‘ha[d] no 

issue with including LabelName and 

PLine information in the public 

database to the extent the MLC receives 

that information from the DMPs,’’ but 

expressed concern about including 

DPID because it ‘‘does not identify 

sound recording copyright owner, but 

rather, the sender and/or recipient of a 

DDEX-formatted message.’’ 154 The DLC 

stated that LabelName and Pline ‘‘are 

adequate on their own,’’ as DPID ‘‘is not 

a highly valuable data field,’’ and 

contended that the burden of converting 

DPID numerical codes into parties’ 

names (to address ARM’s concern about 

displaying the numerical identifier) 

outweighs any benefit of including DPID 

in the public database.155 The Recording 

Academy, although acknowledging that 

‘‘DDEX ERN information is an important 

source of reliable and authoritative data 

about a sound recording,’’ asserted that 

‘‘many of the fields serve a distinct 

purpose in the digital supply chain and 

do not satisfy the ‘sound recording 

copyright owner’ field required in the 

MLC database.’’ 156

The proposed rule tentatively 

concluded that DPID does not have as 

strong a connection to the MLC’s 

matching efforts or the mechanical 

licensing of musical works as the other 

fields identified as relevant to the 

statutory requirement to list a sound 

recording copyright owner. In light of 

this, and the commenters’ concerns, the 

proposed rule did not require the MLC 

to include DPID in the public database. 

In case the MLC later chooses to include 

DPID in the public database, the 

proposed rule states that the DPID 

party’s name may be displayed, but not 

the numerical identifier. In addition, 

because industry practice has not 

included a single data field to provide 

definitive data regarding sound 

recording copyright ownership, to 

satisfy the statute’s requirement to 

include information regarding ‘‘sound 

recording copyright owner,’’ the 

proposed rule requires the MLC to 

include data for both LabelName and 

PLine in the public database, to the 

extent reasonably available.157 In light 

of numerous comments expressing 

similar views, the Office tentatively 

concluded that inclusion of these two 

fields would adequately satisfy the 

statutory requirement by establishing an 

avenue for the MLC to include relevant 

data that is transmitted through the 

existing digital supply chain, and thus 

reasonably available for inclusion in the 

public database.158

Regarding labeling, the Office 

tentatively declined to regulate the 

precise names of these fields,159

although the proposed rule precluded 

the MLC from labeling either the PLine 

or LabelName field ‘‘sound recording 

copyright owner,’’ and required the 

MLC to consider industry practices 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86814 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

160The same limitation applies if the MLC elects 

to include DPID information. 

161 85 FR at 58180 (quoting MLC Ex Parte Letter 

#7 at 4). 

162 Id. 

163 Id. (quoting MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 4). 

164 Id. (quoting DDEX NPRM Comment at 1, U.S. 

Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2020–5, available at 

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2020- 

0005-0001). 

165ARM NPRM Comment at 3–4. 

166 Id. at 4. 

167SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 4. 

168A2IM & RIAA Reply September NOI Comment 

at 9; CISAC & BIEM Reply September NOI 

Comment at 8; SoundExchange Initial September 

NOI Comment at 12; RIAA Initial September NOI 

Comment at 10; ARM April NOI Comment at 6–7; 

Recording Academy April NOI Comment at 3–4. 169MLC Reply September NOI Comment at 36– 

37; MLC April NOI Comment at 13. 

170See ARM NPRM Comment at 4; MLC NPRM 

Comment at 4; Recording Academy NPRM 

Comment at 3; SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 

5–6. 

171ARM NPRM Comment at 4. 

172SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 6. 

173MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 5. 

174 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(i). 

175 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV)(bb), (iii)(I)(dd). 

176 85 FR at 58180. 

177See id. at 58180–81; ARM Ex Parte Letter July 

27, 2020 at 1–2; ARM April NOI Comment at 3; 

ARM NPRM Comment at 6, U.S. Copyright Office 

Dkt. No. 2020–5, available at https://

beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2020-0005- 

0001; Jessop Initial September NOI Comment at 3; 

SoundExchange Initial September NOI Comment at 

12; DLC Reply September NOI Comment at 10; DLC 

Ex Parte Letter #3 at 2. During this proceeding, 

RIAA designated SoundExchange as the 

authoritative source of ISRC data in the United 

States. RIAA, RIAA Designates SoundExchange as 

when labeling fields in the public 

database to reduce the likelihood of user 

confusion.160 The Office also expressed 

appreciation that the MLC intends to 

‘‘make available in the database a 

glossary or key, which would include 

field descriptors.’’ 161 The Office 

specifically encouraged ‘‘the MLC to 

consider ARM’s labeling suggestions 

with respect to the PLine and 

LabelName fields.’’ 162 The Office 

strongly disagreed with the MLC’s 

notion that ‘‘the names or labels 

assigned to these fields in the public 

database is not ultimately the MLC’s 

decision,’’ and that ‘‘it is ultimately at 

DDEX’s discretion.’’ 163 The Office 

explained that ‘‘[w]hile DDEX 

‘standardizes the formats in which 

information is represented in messages 

and the method by which the messages 

are exchanged’ ‘along the digital music 

value chain’ (e.g., between digital music 

providers and the MLC), DDEX does not 

control the public database or how 

information is displayed and/or labeled 

in the public database.’’ 164

The Office received no comments in 

opposition to this aspect of the 

proposed rule. In response, ARM agreed 

with the Office’s decision to include 

LabelName and PLine in the public 

database, prohibit the MLC from 

labeling either field ‘‘sound recording 

copyright owner,’’ and require that the 

MLC ‘‘consider industry practices when 

labeling fields in the public database to 

reduce the likelihood of user 

confusion.’’ 165 ARM also reiterated its 

labeling suggestions for the PLine and 

LabelName fields.166 Similarly, 

SoundExchange ‘‘welcome[d]’’ the 

Office’s approach of prohibiting the 

MLC from identifying either the PLine 

or LabelName field as the ‘‘Sound 

Recording Copyright Owner,’’ and 

directing the MLC to consider industry 

practices when labeling fields in the 

public database to reduce the likelihood 

of user confusion.167

Given the overwhelming support 

expressed in the comments, and for all 

of the reasons given in the NPRM, the 

interim rule adopts this aspect of the 

proposed rule without modification. 

2. Disclaimer 

Relatedly, the Office received 

persuasive comments requesting that 

the MLC be required to include a 

conspicuous disclaimer regarding sound 

recording copyright ownership 

information in its database. ARM, A2IM 

& RIAA, CISAC & BIEM, Recording 

Academy, and SoundExchange agreed 

that the public database should display 

such a disclaimer.168 And the MLC itself 

has agreed to display a disclaimer that 

its database should not be considered an 

authoritative source for sound recording 

ownership information.169

The proposed rule would require the 

MLC to include in the public-facing 

version of the musical works database a 

conspicuous disclaimer that states that 

the database is not an authoritative 

source for sound recording ownership 

information, and explains the labeling 

of information in the database related to 

sound recording copyright owner, 

including the ‘‘LabelName’’ and 

‘‘PLine’’ fields. The proposed rule 

would not require that the disclaimer 

include a link to SoundExchange’s ISRC 

Search database. 

The proposed rule was largely 

supported, and is now adopted without 

modification.170 Because the MLC 

intends to populate the public musical 

works database with sound recording 

information from reports of usage 

(discussed below), ARM did suggest that 

the disclaimer ‘‘explain that the sound 

recording data displayed in the database 

has been provided by users of the sound 

recordings, not by the owners or 

distributors of the sound recordings,’’ 

and that ‘‘MLC require users to click on 

the disclaimer to acknowledge that they 

have seen and accepted it.’’ 171

SoundExchange agrees, noting that it is 

‘‘critically important the MLC’s 

disclaimer concerning sound recording 

information be clear and prominent, and 

perhaps linked to a more detailed 

explanation of the issue, because this 

design decision carries a significant risk 

of confusing the public, which needs to 

understand what the MLC Database is 

and what it is not.’’ 172 For its part, the 

MLC believes having the disclaimer 

state that sound recording information 

has been provided by users of the sound 

recordings ‘‘may be confusing to the 

public, as sound recording information 

reported by DMPs will largely be the 

data provided by the respective record 

labels.’’ 173

Given that the proposed rule requires 

the MLC to include a conspicuous 

disclaimer that states that the database 

is not an authoritative source for sound 

recording ownership information, and 

explain the labeling of information 

related to sound recording copyright 

owner, including the ‘‘LabelName’’ and 

‘‘PLine’’ fields, the Office adopts this 

aspect of the proposed rule without 

modification. The Office endorses 

SoundExchange’s suggestion that the 

MLC consider providing a more detailed 

explanation of the issue, and also notes 

that the rule does not prohibit the MLC 

from linking to SoundExchange’s ISRC 

Search database. 

3. Populating and Deduplication of 

Sound Recording Information in the 

Public Musical Works Database 

The statute requires the MLC to 

‘‘establish and maintain a database 

containing information relating to 

musical works (and shares of such 

works) and, to the extent known, . . . 

the sound recordings in which the 

musical works are embodied.’’ 174 As 

noted above, for both matched and 

unmatched musical works, the public 

database must include, to the extent 

reasonably available to the MLC, 

‘‘identifying information for sound 

recordings in which the musical work is 

embodied.’’ 175

As discussed in the NPRM, 

throughout this and parallel 

rulemakings, ‘‘commenters have 

expressed concern about the MLC using 

non-authoritative sources to populate 

the sound recording information in the 

public database.’’ 176 Some commenters, 

including several representing recorded 

music interests, maintained that sound 

recording data in the public database 

should be taken from copyright owners 

or an authoritative source (e.g., 

SoundExchange) rather than DMPs.177


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86815 

Authoritative Source of ISRC Data in the United 

States (July 22, 2020), https://www.riaa.com/riaadesignates-soundexchange-as-authoritative-sourceof-isrc-data-in-the-united-states/. 

178 DLC Reply September NOI Comment at 10. 

179 DLC Ex Parte Letter #3 at 2. 

180MLC Initial September NOI Comment at 24. 

181MLC Ex Parte Letter #7 at 2. 

182 85 FR at 58181. 

183 Id.; see SoundExchange Initial September NOI 

Comment at 5 (‘‘[T]he success of the MLC Database 

. . . will depend on it having sufficiently 

comprehensive data of sufficiently high quality that 

it will be respected and used throughout the 

industry.’’); RIAA Initial September NOI Comment 

at 11 (record labels ‘‘anticipate making frequent use 

of the MLC database’’). 

184 85 FR at 58181; see 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(i), 

(ii)(IV)(bb), (iii)(I)(dd). As RIAA explains, ‘‘member 

labels vary the metadata they send the different 

DMPs in order to meet the services’ idiosyncratic 

display requirements,’’ which if passed to the MLC 

even in unaltered form, would result in the MLC 

‘‘still receiv[ing] conflicting data that it will have 

to spend time and resources reconciling.’’ A2IM & 

RIAA Reply September NOI Comment at 2. 

185 85 FR at 58181 (citing 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E)(i), (ii)(IV)(bb), (iii)(I)(dd)). 

186 Id. at 58182. 

187 Id. 

188 Id. 

189SoundExchange NPRM Comment at 7. 

190MLC NPRM Comment at 4. 

191 Id. at 4–5. 

192 Id. at 5. 

193 Id. 

Though raised in the context of data 

collection by DMPs, as opposed to 

populating the public database, the DLC 

supported the MLC obtaining sound 

recording information from a single, 

authoritative source, such as 

SoundExchange, because ‘‘[w]ith record 

labels acting as the primary and 

authoritative source for their own sound 

recording metadata, the MLC could then 

rely on only a single (or limited number 

of) metadata field(s) from licensees’ 

monthly reports of usage to look up the 

sound recordings in the MLC database 

(e.g., an ISRC or digital music provider’s 

unique sound recording identifier that 

would remain constant across all usage 

reporting).’’ 178 The DLC further 

maintained that ‘‘the MLC’s suggestion 

to obtain disparate sound recording data 

from every digital music provider and 

significant non-blanket licensee is far 

less efficient than obtaining it from a 

single source like SoundExchange.’’ 179

By contrast, the MLC stated that while 

it intends to use SoundExchange as one 

source of data about sound recordings, 

it intends to primarily rely on data 

received from DMPs to populate sound 

recording information in the 

database.180 The MLC added that 

receiving unaltered sound recording 

data from DMPs, as it sought to have 

required in a separate proceeding, 

would ‘‘both improve the MLC’s ability 

to match musical works to sound 

recordings’’ and ‘‘better allow the MLC 

to ‘roll up’ sound recording data under 

entries that are more likely to reflect 

more ‘definitive’ versions of that sound 

recording data.’’ 181

The NPRM invited the MLC to 

reassess how it will populate sound 

recording information in the public 

database, noting commenters’ concerns 

about using non-authoritative sources, 

and that adopting a requirement for 

DMPs to report unaltered sound 

recording data fields need not drive 

display considerations with respect to 

the public database.182 The Office stated 

that ‘‘the MMA anticipates a general 

reliability of the sound recording 

information appearing in the public 

database,’’ 183 and that ‘‘[w]hile it may 

be true that reports of usage are the 

better indicators of which sound 

recordings were actually streamed, the 

public database is not necessarily meant 

to serve that same function.’’ 184 The 

statute requires the public database to 

contain information relating to ‘‘the 

sound recordings in which the musical 

works are embodied,’’ which can 

reasonably be read as information to 

identify the sound recordings in which 

musical works are embodied, regardless 

of whether they were streamed pursuant 

to disparate attendant metadata or 

not.185 In the NPRM, the Office also 

noted the potential that by passing 

through inaccurate or confusing sound 

recording information received by DMPs 

in the database, such inaccuracies or 

confusion in the public database could 

translate into inaccuracies in royalty 

statements to musical work copyright 

owners.186 Further, because the statute 

requires the MLC to grant free bulkaccess to digital music providers, such 

access ‘‘seems less meaningful if [it] 

were to mean regurgitating the same 

information from reports of usage back 

to digital music providers.’’ 187 While 

the proposed regulatory language did 

not address the manner in which the 

MLC populates sound recording 

information in the database or the 

deduplication of sound recording 

records (i.e., eliminating duplicate or 

redundant sound recording records), the 

Office invited further comment on these 

issues.188

In response, though commenters did 

not express additional concerns about 

the MLC’s plans to populate sound 

recording information in the database, 

SoundExchange did note that ‘‘the 

MLC’s reluctance to include and 

organize its data around authoritative 

sound recording information . . . 

represents a missed opportunity to 

develop a resource with authoritative 

linkages between sound recordings and 

musical works that would be of 

significantly greater value for 

participants in the ecosystem.’’ 189 The 

MLC stated that because the database is 

‘‘musical works-driven,’’ ‘‘it should be 

populated in such a way to assist 

owners of musical works in identifying 

uses of their works by DMPs so they can 

be paid royalties to which they are 

entitled.’’ 190 The MLC maintains that 

‘‘normalizing’’ sound recording data 

‘‘may be useful to sound recording 

copyright owners, but that neither 

serves the primary purpose of the MMA 

nor necessarily helps musical work 

copyright owners.’’ 191 Rather, the MLC 

asserts, ‘‘there could be hundreds of 

different recorded versions of a popular 

musical work . . . , including cover 

versions, live versions, and remastered 

versions,’’ and the musical work 

copyright owner ‘‘wants to see in the 

database all of those hundreds of 

different recordings associated with its 

musical work when it searches for that 

musical work, and it also wants to see 

all of the uses by the different DMPs of 

each of those different recordings 

because it is to be paid for each such 

use.’’ 192 The MLC added that, given the 

requirement for DMPs to provide data 

unaltered from what they receive from 

labels, ‘‘that means that the data the 

MLC receives from the DMPs will itself 

be ‘authoritative’ because it comes from 

the labels.’’ 193

The Office appreciates comments 

from the various parties on these issues. 

The interim rule adopts the proposed 

flexible approach for the MLC to 

determine the best way to populate the 

database and display sound recording 

information. The Office notes, however, 

that achieving the purpose of the 

database (i.e., reducing the number of 

unmatched musical works by accurately 

identifying musical work copyright 

owners so they can be paid what they 

are owed by DMPs operating under the 

section 115 statutory license) requires 

accurate information to be presented to 

musical work copyright owners (and the 

public) in a user-friendly and 

meaningful manner. Should a copyright 

owner be confronted with thousands of 

entries of the identical sound recording 

in the database (as opposed to 

numerous, but different, sound 

recordings embodying the musical 

work) that are not linked or associated, 

and each entry represents a single use 

of a sound recording instead of its 

identity, the Office questions the 

meaningfulness of such information. 

The Office is thus encouraged that MLC 

will work to use unaltered data ‘‘after it 

begins to receive it in September 2021’’ 

‘‘as ‘keys’ to ‘roll up’ into one set of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86816 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

194MLC NPRM Comment at 6. The MLC asked 

that it be able to defer development on this project 

until at least October 2021, after it has started 

receiving and can review unaltered data, to provide 

it with time to complete development of the 

database’s core functionality. Id. 

195See MLC Letter July 13, 2020 at 7 (stating 

‘‘[a]ll of the metadata fields proposed in 

§ 210.27(e)(1) will be used as part of the MLC’s 

matching efforts’’); see also 85 FR 22518, 22541 

(Apr. 22, 2020) (sound recording information fields 

proposed in § 210.27(e)(1)). 

196 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(vi). 

197 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v). 

198 Id. 

199H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 8; Conf. Rep. at 7. 

200H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 8; Conf. Rep. at 7. 201H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 8; Conf. Rep. at 7. 202 85 FR at 58189; see Muzzey NPRM Comment 

at 1 (‘‘It is crucial that the MLC database be 

searchable and completely public-facing . . .’’). The 

MLC has advised that ‘‘[i]n the initial version [of 

the database], the searchable fields are planned to 

be: (a) Work Title; (b) Work MLC Song Code; (c) 

ISWC; (d) Writer Name; (e) Writer IPI name number; 

(f) Publisher Name; (g) Publisher IPI name number; 

and (h) MLC Publisher Number,’’ and that 

‘‘additional searchable fields may be added in the 

future.’’ MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 3. 

203 85 FR at 58183. 204 Id. at 58184. 205Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 3; 

SONA NPRM Comment at 7–8; SoundExchange 

NPRM Comment at 5; ARM NPRM Comment at 4. 206MLC NPRM Comment at 7. 207 Id. 

208MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 2. 

209 Id. 

210 Id. 

211 85 FR at 58182–83 (citing A2IM & RIAA Reply 

September NOI Comment at 7, FMC Reply 

September NOI Comment at 3, MAC Initial 

September NOI Comment at 2, Recording Academy 

Initial September NOI Comment at 4, 

SoundExchange Reply September NOI Comment at 

9). 

212MAC NPRM Comment at 3. 

213 Id. at 4. The Office notes that to the extent 

such information is provided in royalty statements 

to musical work copyright owners from the MLC, 

as noted above, there are no restrictions on the use 

of those statements by copyright owners. 

metadata different sound recording 

metadata reported by DMPs in usage 

reports for an identical sound 

recording.’’ 194 If, after the MLC starts 

receiving unaltered data from DMPs, it 

proves appropriate to develop more 

specific regulatory guidance, the Office 

is amenable to reconsideration. As even 

the MLC has acknowledged, sound 

recording information may be helpful 

for matching purposes,195 so its 

inclusion does not serve only sound 

recording owners. 

D. Access to Information in the Public 

Musical Works Database 

As noted above, the statute directs the 

Office to ‘‘establish requirements by 

regulations to ensure the usability, 

interoperability, and usage restrictions 

of the [public] musical works 

database.’’ 196 The database must ‘‘be 

made available to members of the public 

in a searchable, online format, free of 

charge.’’ 197 The mechanical licensing 

collective must make the data available 

‘‘in a bulk, machine-readable format, 

through a widely available software 

application,’’ to digital music providers 

operating under valid notices of license, 

compliant significant nonblanket 

licensees, authorized vendors of such 

digital music providers or significant 

nonblanket licensees, and the Office, 

free of charge, and to ‘‘[a]ny other 

person or entity for a fee not to exceed 

the marginal cost to the mechanical 

licensing collective of providing the 

database to such person or entity.’’ 198

The legislative history stresses the 

importance of the database and making 

it available to ‘‘the public without 

charge, with the exception of recovery 

of the marginal cost of providing access 

in bulk to the public.’’ 199 It adds that 

‘‘[i]ndividual lookups of works shall be 

free although the collective may 

implement reasonable steps to block 

efforts to bypass the marginal cost 

recovery for bulk access if it appears 

that one or more entities are attempting 

to download the database in bulk 

through repeated queries.’’ 200 And 

‘‘there shall be no requirement that a 

database user must register or otherwise 

turn over personal information in order 

to obtain the free access required by the 

legislation.’’ 201

1. Method of Access 

The proposed rule required the MLC 

to ‘‘make the musical works database 

available to members of the public in a 

searchable, real-time, online format, free 

of charge.’’ 202 The Office agreed that the 

MLC should—especially initially, due to 

its start-up nature—have some 

discretion regarding the precise format 

in which it provides bulk access to the 

public database.203 Given, however, 

‘‘the overwhelming desire for the MLC 

to provide bulk access through APIs 

from a broad swatch of organizations 

representing various corners of the 

music ecosystem,’’ the Office proposed 

that the MLC must begin providing bulk 

access to the public database through 

APIs starting July 1, 2021.204

The proposed rule was applauded by 

commenters.205 The MLC stated its 

intention to provide bulk access through 

an API as proposed, but raised concerns 

regarding implementation by July 1, 

2021.206 It noted in particular that it 

‘‘will not be able to commence the work 

to develop the API until after it has 

begun issuing royalty statements in the 

Spring of 2021’’ and requested that the 

deadline be extended to December 31, 

2021 ‘‘to ensure sufficient development 

time.’’ 207 The MLC asks for the 

extension ‘‘to allow time to conduct 

proper consultation with stakeholders 

throughout the industry regarding their 

requirements, gather their feedback, and 

then design, test and implement, so as 

to provide the most useful API,’’ but did 

indicate that ‘‘it will aim to implement 

API access sooner in 2021 where that is 

reasonably practical.’’ 208 In the 

meantime, the MLC will be ‘‘providing 

access through Secure File Transfer 

Protocol (SFTP) on a weekly basis,’’ 

which is ‘‘expected to be available by 

January 2021.’’ 209 Because the proposed 

rule requires the MLC to provide bulk 

access in a ‘‘real-time’’ format, the MLC 

asks that the rule be adjusted to delete 

the words ‘‘real-time.’’ 210

After carefully considering this issue, 

the Office agrees that having time to 

seek industry feedback while 

developing an API increases the chances 

of developing one that meets the needs 

of industry participants. Accordingly, 

the interim rule provides the MLC until 

December 31, 2021 to implement bulk 

access through an API. The Office 

declines, however, to remove the words 

‘‘real-time’’ from the rule. The Office 

raised the issue of ‘‘real-time’’ access in 

response to the DLC’s initial proposal 

that bulk access be provided through a 

weekly file, and multiple commenters 

objected, asserting that real-time access 

to the public database is necessary to 

meet the goals of the statute and avoid 

industry reliance upon stale data.211

Given the regulation, the Office thus 

encourages the MLC to consider offering 

bulk access via SFTP on a more frequent 

basis until the API is available. 

Next, MAC requests that the 

regulations require the MLC to provide 

songwriters with ‘‘access to the same 

level of certain data as . . . publishers, 

digital music providers, labels, etc., free 

of charge.’’ 212 Specifically, MAC 

proposed that any songwriter who has 

authored or co-authored any musical 

work should have access ‘‘to the 

following information at the same time 

it is provided to the publisher or 

administrator of record’’: (1) The 

amount of revenue each DSP has paid 

to the MLC for the work, (2) the amount 

of revenue the MLC has paid to the 

respective publisher or administrator, 

and (3) the total stream count of each 

work per DSP.213

When asked about songwriter access, 

the MLC made some overtures towards 

ensuring songwriter access for purposes 

of correcting data. The MLC confirmed 

that ‘‘the public musical works database 

will be viewable by the general public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86817 

214MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 5. 

215 Id. 

216 Id.; see SONA NPRM Comment at 3 (‘‘[I]t is 

important that songwriters have access to data 

information available to music publishers and 

musical work administrators, such as the MLC’s 

Data Quality Initiative (‘DQI’).’’). 

217The Office has long rejected the suggestion to 

place a confidentiality requirement on copyright 

owners receiving statements of account under the 

section 115 license due to the inclusion of 

‘‘competitively sensitive’’ information (e.g., 

licensees’ overall revenues, royalty payments to 

record companies and performance rights 

organizations, and overall usage). 79 FR 56190, 

56206 (Sept. 18, 2014). Rather, ‘‘once the statements 

of account have been delivered to the copyright 

owners, there should be no restrictions on the 

copyright owners’ ability to use the statements or 

disclose their contents.’’ Id. In a recent parallel 

rulemaking, the Office again declined to adopt 

confidentiality restrictions on copyright owners 

receiving statements of account. 85 FR at 22561. 

218 85 FR at 58184. 

219 Id. 

220 Id.; see Conf. Rep. at 7 (‘‘Given the importance 

of this database, the legislation makes clear that it 

shall be made available to the Copyright Office and 

the public without charge, with the exception of 

recovery of the marginal cost of providing access in 

bulk to the public.’’). 

221Anonymous NPRM Comment at 1. 

222MLC NPRM Comment at 8. 

223MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 3. 

224 Id. 

225 Id. 

226CISAC & BIEM ‘‘strongly encourage the Office 

to . . . include CMOs as significant copyright 

owners among the entities which will have access 

to the Database and UP files in bulk format free of 

charge, as is currently the proposed rule for 

‘significant licensees.’ ’’ CISAC & BIEM NPRM 

Comment at 3. The Office notes that the regulations 

mirror the statute in granting bulk access free of 

charge to those entities enumerated in the statute 

(i.e., digital music providers, significant nonblanket 

licensees in compliance with their obligations 

under 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(6), and the Office). See 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(v)(I)–(IV). 

227H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 8–9; Conf. Rep. at 7. 

228MLC Initial September NOI Comment at 25; 

MLC April NOI Comment at 15; DLC Reply 

September NOI Comment Add. at A–17; DLC April 

NOI Comment at 5. 

without any need to register for the MLC 

Portal,’’ as the portal ‘‘is the platform for 

copyright owners and administrators of 

musical works used in covered 

activities, where they can register their 

works, claim their shares and provide 

the necessary information so as to 

receive royalty distributions.’’ 214 The 

MLC also noted that ‘‘everyone, 

including songwriters, may participate 

in the DQI.’’ 215 Finally, the MLC said 

that it intends ‘‘to develop user-friendly 

methods for songwriters to access 

information about their musical works 

and to enable songwriters to notify their 

administrators of a possible issue with 

a work’s data or registration.’’ 216

Providing songwriters with the ability 

to review and correct information about 

their works is important, but the Office 

also believes that transparency militates 

in favor of affording songwriters 

(including those who are not selfpublished) easier access to information 

about use of their works. The Office 

appreciates the MLC’s commitment to 

developing user-friendly methods for 

songwriters, specifically, to access 

information about their works. The 

Office further notes that nothing 

prevents the MLC from working with 

publishers and administrators to offer 

non-self-administered songwriters 

permissions-based access to view stream 

count and revenue information for their 

musical works, and encourages the MLC 

to explore such options.217

2. Marginal Cost 

The Office proposed to allow the MLC 

to determine the best pricing 

information in light of its operations, so 

long as the fee does not exceed the 

marginal cost to the mechanical 

licensing collective of providing the 

database to such person or entity, which 

shall not be unreasonable.218 In 

rejecting comments suggesting that the 

cost of gathering data should be factored 

into these costs, the NPRM stated ‘‘it 

[was] difficult for the Office to see how 

Congress intended third parties to offset 

the larger cost of the collective acquiring 

the data and aggregating, verifying, 

deduping and resolving conflicts in the 

data.’’ 219 The Office also noted that the 

legislative history emphasizes the 

importance of accessibility to the public 

database, and that requiring third 

parties to pay more than the ‘‘marginal 

cost’’ could create commercial 

disadvantages that the MMA sought to 

eliminate.220

In response, an anonymous 

commenter stated that the term 

‘‘marginal cost’’ is vague and should be 

defined ‘‘by either establishing a 

monetary limit or a method for the 

mechanical licensing collective to 

determine the amount.’’ 221 The MLC 

expressed concern that the phrase 

‘‘which shall not be unreasonable’’ ‘‘is 

inconsistent with the requirement that 

access be provided at ‘marginal cost’ 

because, if access is provided at 

‘marginal cost,’ such cost can never be 

‘unreasonable,’’’ and that ‘‘the qualifier 

opens the door to a third party argument 

that what is, in fact, marginal cost is 

nevertheless ‘unreasonable’ cost.’’ 222

The MLC does not believe ‘‘marginal 

cost’’ ‘‘authoriz[es] fees to recoup the 

overhead costs of design and 

maintenance of the SFTP or API,’’ but 

rather would ‘‘be set at an amount 

estimated to recoup the actual cost of 

provision of the bulk data to the 

particular person or entity requesting 

it.’’ 223 Currently, it estimates the SFTP 

bulk access to cost approximately $100 

‘‘to cover one-time setup and a single 

copy of the database, and a monthly 

standard fee of $25 which offers access 

to all weekly copies’’ (though ‘‘these 

expected fees may change, as [the MLC] 

has no precedent for this access and 

[associated] costs’’).224 The MLC also 

confirmed that ‘‘it intends to charge the 

same fee to all members of the public 

(who are not entitled to free access) for 

SFTP access,’’ though ‘‘it expects API 

access would be under a different fee 

structure and amounts than SFTP 

access, since the marginal costs will be 

different.’’ 225

After considering the MLC’s 

comments, including its stated plans, 

the Office agrees that the phrase ‘‘which 

shall not be unreasonable’’ can be 

deleted from the rule.226 This aspect of 

the proposed rule is otherwise adopted 

without modification. 

3. Abuse 

The legislative history states that in 

cases of efforts by third parties to bypass 

the marginal cost recovery for bulk 

access (i.e., abuse), the MLC ‘‘may 

implement reasonable steps to block 

efforts to bypass the marginal cost 

recovery for bulk access if it appears 

that one or more entities are attempting 

to download the database in bulk 

through repeated queries.’’ 227 The MLC 

and DLC suggested providing the 

mechanical licensing collective 

discretion to block third parties from 

bulk access to the public database after 

attempts to bypass marginal cost 

recovery.228

In light of these comments, the NPRM 

proposed that the MLC shall establish 

appropriate terms of use or other 

policies governing use of the database 

that allows it to suspend access to any 

individual or entity that appears, in the 

collective’s reasonable determination, to 

be attempting to bypass the MLC’s right 

to charge a fee to recover its marginal 

costs for bulk access through repeated 

queries, or to otherwise be engaging in 

unlawful activity with respect to the 

database (including, without limitation, 

seeking to hack or unlawfully access 

confidential, non-public information 

contained in the database), or 

misappropriating or using information 

from the database for improper 

purposes. To ensure transparency 

regarding which persons or entities have 

had bulk database access suspended, the 

Office also proposed to require the 

mechanical licensing collective to 

identify such persons and entities in its 

annual report and explain the reason(s) 

for suspension. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

229ARM NPRM Comment at 5. 

230MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 5. 

231 Id. 

232 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(vi). 

233 DLC Initial September NOI Comment at 21. 

234 DLC April NOI Comment at 5. 

235Music Reports April NOI Comment at 7. 

236CISAC & BIEM NPRM Comment at 4; see 

CISAC & BIEM Initial September NOI Comment at 

4; CISAC & BIEM April NOI Comment at 3. 

237FMC April NOI Comment at 3. 

238MLC April NOI Comment at 15; see MLC 

Reply September NOI Comment at 37. 

239MLC April NOI Comment at 16. CISAC & 

BIEM contend that ‘‘the Regulations [should] 

include clear language on the MLC’s full 

compliance with data protection laws, and in 

particular with the European General Data 

Protection Regulation, as the MLC will process 

personal data of EU creators.’’ CISAC & BIEM 

NPRM Comment 3. As noted by the Office in the 

September NOI, the MLC has ‘‘committed to 

establishing an information security management 

system that is certified with ISO/IEC 27001 and 

meets the EU General Data Protection Regulation 

requirements, and other applicable laws.’’ 84 FR at 

49972; see Proposal of Mechanical Licensing 

Collective, Inc. at 50, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 

2018–11. 

240MLC April NOI Comment at 16 n.9. 241 85 FR at 58186. 242MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 5. 243The MLC, Terms of Use, https://

www.themlc.com/terms-use (last visited Dec. 18, 

2020). 244 Id. 

In response, while ARM 

‘‘wholeheartedly support[s] giving the 

MLC the authority to suspend database 

access for individuals or entities that 

appear to be engaging in unlawful 

activity,’’ it expresses concern about 

terms of use or restrictions 

‘‘inadvertently disadvantag[ing] bona 

fide users of the database or creat[ing] 

unintended barriers to legitimate uses of 

the data,’’ and encouraged the Office to 

consider an appeals process for those 

whose access the MLC seeks to suspend 

or restrict, or ‘‘some sort of graduated 

sanctions regime, whereby repeat 

offenders are subjected to increasingly 

stringent penalties while inadvertent, or 

one-time, offenders are subjected to less 

stringent penalties.’’ 229 On the other 

hand, the MLC ‘‘strongly opposes any 

change to the rule that would prevent 

the MLC from restricting access to users 

who have violated the terms of use, 

which could impede the MLC’s ability 

to prevent fraud and abuse.’’ 230 The 

MLC stated ‘‘that it will have terms of 

use for the website, the Portal, and the 

bulk access to the musical works 

database,’’ noting that the ‘‘current 

version of the website Terms of Use is 

accessible at https://www.themlc.com/ 

terms-use.’’ 231

After considering this issue, the Office 

has largely adopted this aspect of the 

proposed rule without modification. 

The Office agrees that the MLC should 

have flexibility to block third parties 

where persons have engaged in 

unlawful activity with respect to the 

database and that in the cases of fraud 

the MLC may need to take immediate 

action. The Office encourages the MLC, 

however, in developing its terms of use 

for the database, to create an appeals 

process for those who have had access 

suspended to reduce the likelihood of 

good-faith users being denied access. 

Should the MLC fail to create an appeals 

process and the Office learns of 

individuals or entities being 

unreasonably denied access to the 

database, the Office is willing to 

consider whether further regulatory 

action on this issue is warranted. 

4. Restrictions on Use 

The MMA directs the Office to issue 

regulations regarding ‘‘usage 

restrictions’’ with respect to the 

database.232 Comments have been 

mixed in response to the Office’s 

solicitations on this issue, generally 

centering around whether the Office 

should specify conditions the MLC 

should or should not include in its 

database terms of use. 

The DLC argues that ‘‘licensees 

should be able use the data they receive 

from the MLC for any legal purpose,’’ 233

and that ‘‘abusive access can be 

adequately addressed by empowering 

the MLC to block efforts to bypass 

marginal cost recovery.’’ 234 Music 

Reports agrees that data in the public 

database should be available for any 

legal use.235 By contrast, CISAC & BIEM 

seek ‘‘regulations defining strict terms 

and conditions, including prohibition 

for DMPs to use data for purposes other 

than processing uses and managing 

licenses and collaborating with the MLC 

in data collection,’’ and generally 

‘‘prohibiting commercial uses and 

allowing exclusively lookup 

functions.’’ 236 FMC is ‘‘inclined to want 

to see some reasonable terms and 

conditions’’ regarding use of the public 

database, and suggests that ‘‘[i]t’s 

entirely appropriate for the Office to 

offer a floor.’’ 237

The MLC agrees that ‘‘there should be 

some reasonable limitation on the use of 

the information in the MLC database to 

ensure that it is not misappropriated for 

improper purposes,’’ and intends to 

‘‘include such limitation in its terms of 

use in the database.’’ 238 To avoid abuse 

by bad actors, the MLC ‘‘does not intend 

to include in the public database the 

types of information that have 

traditionally been considered PII, such 

as Social Security Number (SSN), date 

of birth (DOB), and home address or 

personal email (to the extent those are 

not provided as the contact information 

required under 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(III)),’’ and ‘‘further 

intends to protect other types of PII.’’ 239

But the MLC also asks that it ‘‘be 

afforded the flexibility to disclose 

information not specifically identified 

by statute that would still be useful for 

the database but would not have serious 

privacy or identity theft risks to 

individuals or entities.’’ 240

As noted, the Office proposed 

requiring the MLC to establish 

appropriate terms of use or other 

policies governing use of the database 

that allow it to suspend access to any 

individual or entity that appears, in the 

MLC’s reasonable determination, to be 

engaging in unlawful activity with 

respect to the database (including, 

without limitation, seeking to hack or 

unlawfully access confidential, nonpublic information contained in the 

database) or misappropriating or using 

information from the database for 

improper purposes. The MLC must 

identify any persons and entities in its 

annual report that have had database 

access suspended and explain the 

reason(s) for such suspension. In issuing 

the proposed rule, the Office also noted 

that ‘‘database terms of use should not 

be overly broad or impose unnecessary 

restrictions upon good faith users.’’ 241

The MLC states ‘‘that it will have 

terms of use for the website, the Portal, 

and the bulk access to the musical 

works database,’’ and that the ‘‘current 

version of the website Terms of Use is 

accessible at https://www.themlc.com/ 

terms-use.’’ 242 In reviewing the MLC’s 

terms of use for its website, the Office 

notes that multiple provisions would 

not be appropriate to apply to the public 

musical works database, and so the 

Office directs the MLC to develop 

separate terms of use for the database 

and make them publicly available. For 

example, the terms of use for the MLC’s 

website states that that a user may ‘‘not 

download, reproduce, redistribute, 

retransmit, publish, resell, distribute, 

publicly display or otherwise use or 

exploit any portion of the website in any 

medium without The MLC’s prior 

written authorization,’’ and that ‘‘any 

use . . . of any of The MLC Materials 

and website other than for [ ] personal 

use is strictly prohibited.’’ 243 In 

addition, the website’s terms of use state 

that ‘‘[t]he website, including all content 

. . . are owned and/or licensed by The 

MLC and are legally protected.’’ 244 Use 

of information from the musical works 

database for commercial purposes 

would not be misappropriating or using 

that information for an improper 

purpose, and the MLC and its vendors 

do not own the data in the musical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86819 

245S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 7. 

246 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa). 

247The MLC, Mission and Principles, https://

themlc.com/mission-and-principles (last visited 

Dec. 18, 2020) (‘‘The MLC will build trust by 

operating transparently. The MLC is governed by a 

board of songwriters and music publishers who will 

help ensure our work is conducted with integrity.’’). 

See also The MLC, The MLC Process, https://

themlc.com/how-it-works (last visited Dec. 18, 

2020) (‘‘The MLC is committed to transparency. The 

MLC will make data on unclaimed works and 

unmatched uses available to be searched by 

registered users of The MLC Portal and the public 

at large.’’). 

248See, e.g., MLC Reply September NOI Comment 

at 42–43 (‘‘The MLC is committed to transparency 

and submits that, while seeking to enact regulations 

is not an efficient or effective approach, the MLC 

will implement policies and procedures to ensure 

transparency.’’). 

249 85 FR at 58186; 85 FR at 22572. 

250 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vii)(I)(aa)–(hh); Conf. 

Rep. at 7. 

251 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vii)(I), (II). 

252The MLC, Transparency, https://themlc.com/ 

faqs/categories/transparency (last visited Sept. 1, 

2020) (web page no longer available) (noting that 

the MLC will ‘‘promote transparency’’ by 

‘‘[p]roviding an annual report to the public and to 

the Copyright Office detailing the operations of The 

MLC, its licensing practices, collection and 

distribution of royalties, budget and cost 

information, its efforts to resolve unmatched 

royalties, and total royalties received and paid 

out’’). 

253 85 FR at 58187. This information included 

selection of board members, selection of new 

vendors, any application of unclaimed accrued 

royalties on an interim basis to defray MLC costs, 

average processing and distribution times for 

distributing royalties, and any suspension of access 

to an individual or entity attempting to bypass the 

MLC’s right to charge a fee for bulk access to the 

public database. 85 FR at 58187. 

254Castle April NOI Comment at 16 (contending 

the Office should create ‘‘a complaint webform with 

someone to read the complaints as they come in as 

part of the Office’s oversight role’’); Lowery Reply 

September NOI Comment at 11 (stating ‘‘regulations 

should provide for a feedback loop that songwriters 

can avail themselves of that the Copyright Office 

must take into account when determining its redesignation’’). 

255 85 FR at 58187–88 (quoting 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(bb)). 

256 Id. at 58188. 

257 Id. See U.S. Copyright Office, Section 512 of 

title 17 159 (2020), https://www.copyright.gov/ 

policy/section512/section-512-full-report.pdf 

(suggesting that Congress could thus ‘‘modify the 

language of section 512(c)(2) to provide that the 

designated agent’s information be not just ‘on its 

website in a location accessible to the public,’ but 

also ‘prominently displayed’ ’’); 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2). 

258 85 FR at 58188. 

259See, e.g., MLC NRPM Comment at 8; DLC 

NRPM Comment at 1; Recording Academy NRPM 

Comment at 3–4. 

260MLC NRPM Comment at 8. 

261 DLC NRPM Comment at 1. 

262See Castle NRPM Comment at 17; Recording 

Academy NRPM Comment at 3–4; 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(7)(C). 

263MAC NRPM Comment at 2; Recording 

Academy NRPM Comment at 3–4. MAC also made 

some suggestions regarding MLC Board 

membership, including songwriters receiving 

notifications when Board member vacancies 

become available, and having the MLC’s website 

identify any vacant seat(s) and describing the 

application process. MAC NRPM Comment at 2–3. 

The MLC has advised that ‘‘it posts information 

about such vacancies on its website and uses its 

many channels of outreach to push information 

about such vacancies to the industry.’’ MLC Ex 

Parte Letter #11 at 6. The MLC also stated that ‘‘it 

accepts through its website suggestions for 

candidates for board and advisory committee seats, 

to ensure that candidates may be considered for a 

seat when one becomes available,’’ and that the 

‘‘suggestion form is available at[ ] https://

themlc.com/get-involved.’’ Id. 

works database. Accordingly, while the 

Office is adopting its proposed approach 

of providing the MLC flexibility to 

develop reasonable terms of use, the 

interim rule clarifies the Office’s 

expectation that the MLC’s terms of use 

or other policies governing use of the 

database must comply with the Office’s 

regulations. 

E. Transparency of MLC Operations; 

Annual Reporting 

The legislative history and statute 

envision the MLC ‘‘operat[ing] in a 

transparent and accountable 

manner’’ 245 and ensuring that its 

‘‘policies and practices . . . are 

transparent and accountable.’’ 246 The 

MLC has expressed its commitment to 

transparency, both by including 

transparency as one of its four key 

principles underpinning its operations 

on its current website,247 and in 

repeated written comments to the 

Office.248 The Office has noted that one 

main avenue for MLC transparency is 

through its annual report.249 By statute, 

the MLC must publish an annual report 

‘‘[n]ot later than June 30 of each year 

commencing after the license 

availability date,’’ setting forth 

information regarding: (1) Its 

operational and licensing practices; (2) 

how royalties are collected and 

distributed; (3) budgeting and 

expenditures; (4) the collective total 

costs for the preceding calendar year; (5) 

its projected annual budget; (6) 

aggregated royalty receipts and 

payments; (7) expenses that are more 

than ten percent of the annual budget; 

and (8) its efforts to locate and identify 

copyright owners of unmatched musical 

works (and shares of works).250 The 

MLC must deliver a copy of the annual 

report to the Register of Copyrights and 

make this report publicly available.251

The MLC itself has previously 

recognized that its annual report is one 

way in which it intends to ‘‘promote 

transparency.’’ 252 Although the phrase 

‘‘[n]ot later than June 30 of each year 

commencing after the license 

availability date’’ could be read as 

requiring the first annual report to cover 

the first year of operations after the 

license availability date (i.e., issued in 

June 2022 for year 2021), as discussed 

below, a number of reasons compel the 

Office to adjust the interim rule to 

require the MLC to issue a written 

public update in December 2021, albeit 

shortened, regarding its operations. 

In response to overwhelming desire 

for increased transparency regarding the 

MLC’s activities expressed by 

commenters, and the ability of the 

annual report to provide such 

transparency, the proposed rule 

required the MLC to disclose certain 

information in its annual report besides 

the statutorily-required categories of 

information.253 In response to 

comments suggesting the creation of a 

‘‘feedback loop’’ to receive 

complaints,254 the Office noted that the 

statute already requires the mechanical 

licensing collective to ‘‘identify a point 

of contact for publisher inquiries and 

complaints with timely redress.’’ 255 The 

proposed rule emphasized this 

responsibility by codifying the 

requirement and expanding it to include 

a point of contact to receive complaints 

regarding the public musical works 

database and/or the collective’s 

activities.256 The name and contact 

information for the point of contact 

must be made prominently available on 

the MLC’s website.257 In addition, the 

Office noted that it ‘‘always welcomes 

feedback relevant to its statutory duties 

or service,’’ and that ‘‘[m]embers of the 

public may communicate with the 

Office through the webform available 

https://www.copyright.gov/help’’ for 

inquiries or comments with respect to 

the MLC or MMA.258

Commenters overall approved of the 

proposed rule.259 The MLC ‘‘generally 

agree[d] with the proposed rules as they 

concern annual reporting, and believes 

that the Office’s additions to what is 

required in the statute . . . will aid in 

providing the transparency that the 

MMA envisions and that the MLC is 

committed to providing.’’ 260 The DLC 

similarly voiced support, adding, ‘‘[i]t 

will be critical, however, for the Office 

to enforce not just the bare letter of the 

regulations, but the spirit of full 

transparency that animates those 

regulations.’’ 261 Two commenters 

commended the Office for requiring 

disclosure of any application of 

unclaimed royalties on an interim basis 

to defray current collective total costs, 

as permitted under the MMA, ‘‘subject 

to future reimbursement of such 

royalties from future collections of the 

assessment.’’ 262 MAC and the 

Recording Academy welcomed 

requirements to disclose the 

appointment and selection criteria of 

new board members,263 and the 

Recording Academy also applauded 

disclosure requirements for average 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86820 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

264Recording Academy NRPM Comment at 4. 

265FMC NRPM Comment at 2; see also id. (‘‘The 

Office can require the MLC to disclose what it is 

doing to prevent any vendor from being too 

operationally enmeshed with the MLC that it either 

enjoys an unfair advantage through that 

relationship, or that it would be practically 

impossible for another vendor to step in.’’). 

266SoundExchange NRPM Comment at 8; see also 

id. (‘‘[I]t is in the public’s interest, including the 

interest of publishers, songwriters, and DMPs, to 

ensure that the operations of the MLC do not 

become so inextricably intertwined with its vendors 

that DMPs believe that they must turn to the MLC’s 

vendors for extrastatutory licensing requirements or 

that it becomes difficult if not impossible for the 

MLC to switch vendors in the future.’’). 

267SoundExchange NRPM Comment at 9. 

268 DLC NPRM Comment at 2. 

269MAC NRPM Comment at 3. 

270MLC NRPM Comment at 9. 

271 Id. 

272 85 FR at 22565. The definition of ‘‘confidential 

information’’ in the proposed rule would cover 

financial information disclosed to the mechanical 

licensing collective by copyright owners, including 

publishers. Id. at 22566–67. 

273See The MLC, Mission and Principles, https:// 

themlc.com/mission-and-principles (last visited 

Dec. 18, 2020) (‘‘The MLC will build trust by 

operating transparently.’’). 

274CISAC & BIEM NPRM Comment at 4. 

275 Id. at 5 

276Castle NRPM Comment at 21. 

277SoundExchange NRPM Comment at 9. 

278SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 10; see also 

Castle NRPM Comment at 20. 

SGA & SCL also suggests the MLC’s bylaws 

‘‘indicate an enormous bias in favor of near-total 

control by the music publisher board majority over 

—among other things— the selection of songwriter 

members of the board’s advisory committees, and 

the election of songwriter board members 

themselves.’’ SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 10. 

Under the MLC’s existing bylaws, songwriter 

members of the MLC’s board of directors are 

recommended for appointment by a vote of the 

‘‘Songwriter Directors of the Board’’ and 

recommendations for MLC Board appointments 

‘‘shall be sent to the Register of Copyrights’’ and are 

appointed ‘‘[i]f the Register of Copyrights approves 

and the Librarian of Congress appoints . . .’’ The 

MLC, The MLC Bylaws, https://themlc.com/sites/ 

default/files/2020-05/Bylaws

%20of%20The%20MLC.pdf (last visited Dec. 18, 

2020). 

In addition, SGA, SCL & Music Creators North 

America, Inc. (‘‘MCNA’’) ‘‘formally petition and 

processing and distribution times for 

distributing royalties, stating it ‘will 

promote accountability and hopefully 

give songwriters confidence in the new 

system.’’ 264

A number of commenters sought 

broader disclosure requirements 

regarding the MLC’s vendors hired to 

help administer the statutory license, 

expressing concern about their potential 

commercial advantage. For example, 

FMC stated that ‘‘Congress intended to 

encourage a healthy competitive 

marketplace for other kinds of licensing 

businesses and intermediaries,’’ and so 

‘‘it’s important that MLC’s chosen 

vendors not be able to leverage their 

status with the MLC to advantage 

themselves in other business activities 

not covered under the MMA.’’ 265

SoundExchange similarly expressed 

concern about potential commercial 

advantage of MLC vendors, noting that 

Congress ‘‘intended to preserve a 

vibrant and competitive marketplace for 

intermediaries [besides the MLC] who 

provide other license administration 

services,’’ and this intent would be 

frustrated ‘‘[i]f the MLC’s vendors were 

to receive an unfair advantage in the 

music licensing marketplace through 

means such as preferred access to digital 

music providers or referrals by the MLC 

for extrastatutory business opportunities 

in a manner not available to their 

competitors.’’ 266 SoundExchange 

proposes requiring the MLC to disclose 

additional vendor information, 

including ‘‘[a] description of all work 

performed by the existing vendors for 

the MLC in the previous year and the 

current year; [s]teps the MLC has taken 

and will take to ensure separation 

between the MLC and its vendors; and 

[s]teps the MLC has taken to ensure 

transferability of functions from one 

vendor to another, and an assessment of 

any risks to transferability that the MLC 

foresees.’’ 267 The DLC expresses similar 

concern about MLC vendors ‘‘gain[ing] 

a special competitive advantage in 

related marketplaces—such as the 

administration of voluntary licenses— 

merely by dint of their association with 

the collective responsible for licensing 

all mechanical rights in the United 

States.’’ 268 Finally, MAC recommends 

that ‘‘information regarding the 

selection of vendors should be made 

available prior to vendors being 

selected’’ to provide opportunity for 

interested parties to weigh in on 

potential vendors.269

While not opposing general disclosure 

requirements relating to vendors, the 

MLC balks at disclosing ‘‘any 

performance reviews’’ of the MLC’s 

vendors that are ‘‘performing materially 

significant technology or operational 

services related to the [MLC’s] matching 

and royalty accounting activities.’’ 270

The MLC contends that ‘‘performance 

reviews might include sensitive or 

confidential information, including 

about individuals who work for any 

such vendor,’’ and requests that the rule 

instead ‘‘permit the MLC to summarize 

or extract the key findings of any 

reviews, and to include such summaries 

or extracts in the annual report rather 

than the full performance reviews 

themselves.’’ 271

The Office appreciates the 

overwhelming desire from commenters 

to have the MLC’s annual report include 

information about the performance and 

selection of its vendors. The Office 

accepts the MLC’s representation that 

vendor performance reviews may 

include sensitive or confidential 

information. The interim rule thus 

retains the requirement that the MLC 

disclose the criteria used in deciding to 

select its vendors to perform materially 

significant technology or operational 

services, but adjusts the language so as 

to require summaries and key findings 

from any vendor performance reviews 

rather than the verbatim reviews. To 

address concerns of MLC vendors 

gaining an unfair competitive advantage 

by virtue of being MLC vendors, in a 

parallel rulemaking, the Office has 

proposed a rule prohibiting vendors of 

the MLC (as well as its agents, 

consultants, and independent 

contractors) from using confidential 

information for any purpose other than 

the ordinary course of their work for the 

MLC.272 In addition, the interim rule in 

this proceeding clarifies that agents, 

consultants, vendors, and independent 

contractors of the MLC must pay the 

marginal cost to acquire bulk access to 

the information in the musical works 

database for purposes other than the 

ordinary course of their work for the 

MLC. Beyond the requirements codified 

in this interim rule, the Office 

encourages the MLC to consider the 

commenters’ requests for additional 

disclosure, including information about 

soliciting and choosing vendors in 

advance of any vendor selection, and 

engaging in the highest level of 

transparency consistent with 

operational realities and protection of 

confidential information.273

Commenters recommended certain 

additional disclosures. CISAC & BIEM 

suggest requiring publication of the 

MLC Dispute Resolution Committee’s 

rules and procedures,274 as well as 

disclosure of the amount of unclaimed 

royalties received by the MLC275 and 

any audits and their results of the MLC 

or blanket licensees.276 SoundExchange 

proposes that the annual report 

‘‘include a certification by the MLC that 

it is in compliance with the statute’s 

limitation that the collective may only 

administer blanket mechanical licenses 

and other mechanical licenses for digital 

distribution.’’ 277 SGA & SCL express 

concern that the proposed rule did not 

reflect its request for the MLC annual 

report to include ‘‘an independent 

report by the board’s music creator 

representatives on their activities in 

support of songwriter and composer 

interests, the handling of conflictrelated problems by the board and its 

various controlled committees, and the 

issues of conflict that remain to be 

addressed and resolved.’’ 278 The DLC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86821 

request that the [Office] consider recommending to 

Congress that the board of the MLC be expanded by 

six songwriter members, selected for service in a 

fair and open manner by the music creator 

community under the oversight of the USCO and 

the Librarian of Congress, to ensure at least the 

possibility of equity and fairness in the conduct of 

MLC activities that only a balanced board can 

provide.’’ SGA & SCL NPRM Comment at 13. For 

such statutory proposals, the Office encourages 

SGA, SCL & MCNA to participate in future 

roundtables for the Office’s congressionallymandated policy study that will recommend best 

practices that the MLC may implement to 

effectively identify and locate copyright owners 

with unclaimed royalties of musical works, 

encourage copyright owners to claim accrued 

royalties, and ultimately reduce the incidence of 

unclaimed royalties. See 85 FR 33735 (June 2, 

2020). 

279 DLC NRPM Comment at 2. 

280 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(aa), (cc). The 

Office also declines to require publication of audit 

results of blanket licensees, and notes such a 

requirement may implicate confidentiality 

obligations. 

281 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa). 

282 85 FR at 58186 n.266. 

283MLC NRPM Comment at 8. 

284MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 6. 

285MLC NRPM Comment at 8. 

286MLC Ex Parte Letter #11 at 6. 

287See, e.g., U.S. Copyright Office, Registration 

Processing Times, https://www.copyright.gov/ 

registration/docs/processing-times-faqs/april-1- 

2020-september-30-2020.pd (last visited Dec. 20, 

2020); see also ASCAP, My ASCAP Membership, 

https://www.ascap.com/help/my-ascapmembership (last visited Dec. 20, 2020) (‘‘For 

writers, there is a time lag of approximately seven 

(7) to eight (8) months between performances and 

royalty processing. . . . For publishers, there is a 

time lag of approximately six (6) months between 

performance and royalty processing.’’). 

288See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(C) (authorities and 

functions of mechanical licensing collective); 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(B)(ii) (establishing five-year 

designation process for the Office to periodically 

review the mechanical licensing collective’s 

performance). 

289 84 FR at 32274. 

290See, e.g., DLC September NOI Reply Comment 

at 28; MAC Initial September NOI Comment at 2; 

Music Innovation Consumers (‘‘MIC’’) Coalition 

Initial September NOI Comment at 3; Screen 

Composers Guild of Canada (‘‘SCGC’’) Reply 

Comments at 2, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 

2018–11, available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC2018-0011&refD=COLC-2018-0011-0001; Iconic 

Artists LLC Initial Comments at 2, U.S. Copyright 

Office Dkt. No. 2018–11, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/ 

docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC2018-0011&refD=COLC-2018-0011-0001; see also 

The MLC, Mission and Principles, https://

themlc.com/mission-and-principles (last visited 

Dec. 18, 2020) (‘‘The MLC will build trust by 

operating transparently.’’). 

291 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(B)(ii). 

suggests that the Office ‘‘invit[e] 

comments on the MLC’s annual reports, 

to get insight from a broad range of 

stakeholders both about whether the 

report fulfills the MLC’s transparency 

obligations and whether it raises (or 

fails to raise) any issues related to the 

sound functioning of the mechanical 

licensing system.’’ 279

After carefully considering these 

comments, the Office concludes that 

some suggestions are already addressed 

by the statute, and some may not need 

to be addressed by regulation. For 

example, the statute already requires the 

MLC to submit to periodic audits, which 

must be made publicly available.280

Likewise, the MLC’s database will 

provide insight into the amount of 

unmatched usages reported to the MLC, 

as well as a mechanism for claiming 

such works. Similarly, as the statute 

prohibits the MLC from administering 

licenses apart from the mechanical 

license, requiring the MLC to certify that 

it is in compliance with the law appears 

unnecessary. The Office agrees it could 

be beneficial for the rules and 

procedures for the MLC’s Dispute 

Resolution Committee to be made 

publicly available, and encourages their 

publication as soon as practicable given 

the MLC’s obligation to have 

‘‘transparent and accountable’’ policies 

and procedures.281 Though the interim 

rule, like the proposed rule, does not 

require an independent report from the 

board’s music creator representatives, 

the Office reiterates its expectation that 

‘‘the MLC . . . give voice to its board’s 

songwriter representatives as well as its 

statutory committees, whether through 

its annual reporting or other public 

announcements.’’ 282 Songwriters on the 

MLC’s board of directors are not a 

separate entity and should participate 

with other members of the board to 

represent and collectively address 

songwriter concerns and interests. 

For its part, the MLC seeks 

modification of the proposed 

requirement to disclose ‘‘the average 

processing and distribution times for 

distributing royalties to copyright 

owners,’’ calling it ‘‘somewhat 

confusing.’’ 283 The MLC argues that 

‘‘there are many different types of 

averages and methods of calculating 

averages, leaving room for 

misunderstanding,’’ and that ‘‘the rule 

should accommodate the inclusion in 

the annual report of the actual [ ] dates 

on which distributions were made to 

copyright owners during the preceding 

calendar year, as such information will 

inform copyright owners and other 

interest[ed] parties of the timeliness of 

payment.’’ 284 The MLC ‘‘intends to and 

will include in the annual report the 

dates on which distributions were made 

to copyright owners during the 

preceding calendar year, which will 

inform copyright owners and other 

interest parties of the timeliness of 

payment’’ and requests that the rule be 

modified to permit that information 

instead of ‘‘average processing and 

distribution times.’’ 285 The MLC 

suggests removing the word ‘‘average’’ 

as one possible solution.286

The Office believes that the proposed 

rule would allow the MLC to determine 

and explain the metrics it relies upon 

when reporting processing and 

distribution times. Indeed, the Office 

itself reports a variety of average 

processing times for copyright 

registration, with accompanying 

explanatory methodology material.287

The MLC’s core function is to collect 

and distribute royalties for covered 

activities; simply reporting the months 

in which the MLC distributes 

royalties—without disclosing how long 

the process of matching and distribution 

of royalties takes—provides limited 

meaningful insight into how the blanket 

license is functioning under the MLC’s 

administration (including for example, 

by identifying external dependencies 

that may be contributing to delays in the 

MLC’s ability to identify musical works 

embodied in particular sound 

recordings and identify and locate 

corresponding musical work copyright 

owners).288 Accordingly, this aspect of 

the interim rule retains the general 

requirement, but in order to avoid any 

confusion, clarifies that the MLC has 

discretion as to the metrics it measures 

when reporting average times by stating 

that the MLC must disclose the manner 

in which it calculates processing and 

distribution times. 

Finally, as noted above, while the 

phrase ‘‘[n]ot later than June 30 of each 

year commencing after the license 

availability date’’ could be read as not 

requiring the first annual report until 

June 2022 (to cover year 2021), a 

number of reasons compel the Office to 

adjust the interim rule to require the 

MLC to issue a written public update 

regarding its operations in December 

2021, in a potentially abbreviated 

version. Because the MLC was 

designated in July 2019,289 if the first 

annual report is issued in June 2022, 

that could mean three years without a 

formal written update on the MLC’s 

operations. This may frustrate the noted 

desire from commenters for 

transparency regarding the MLC’s 

operations.290 The Office is also mindful 

of the statutory five-year designation 

process for periodic review of the 

mechanical licensing collective’s 

performance.291 Additional written 

information from the MLC may help 

inform both the Office’s and the public’s 

understanding with respect to that 

period of the MLC’s performance. 

Finally, for musical works for which 

royalties have accrued but the copyright 

owner is unknown or not located, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

292 85 FR at 33738; 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H)(i), 

(J)(i)(I). 

293 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II)(dd). 

MLC must hold such royalties until at 

least January 1, 2023.292 If the first 

written report were received in June 

2022, that may provide a short runway 

for public disclosure and feedback prior 

to the MLC potentially ‘‘engag[ing] in 

diligent, good-faith efforts to publicize’’ 

‘‘any pending distribution of unclaimed 

accrued royalties and accrued interest, 

not less than 90 days before the date on 

which the distribution is made.’’ 293

Accordingly, the interim rule requires 

the MLC to issue by no later than 

December 31, 2021 and make available 

online for a period of not less than three 

years, a one-time report that contains, at 

a minimum, many of the categories of 

information required to be disclosed in 

the MLC’s annual report. 

The Office recognizes that certain 

categories of information for the annual 

report may not be applicable for the first 

six months after the license availability 

date, as the MLC would not have 

engaged in certain activities (e.g., 

aggregated royalty receipts and 

payments). Accordingly, the interim 

rule states that if it is not practicable for 

the MLC to provide a certain category of 

information that is required for the 

MLC’s annual report, the MLC may so 

state but shall explain the reason(s) for 

such impracticability and, as 

appropriate, may address such 

categories in an abbreviated fashion. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 210 

Copyright, Phonorecords, Recordings. 

Interim Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office amends 

37 CFR part 210 as follows: 

PART 210—COMPULSORY LICENSE 

FOR MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING 

PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL 

PHONORECORDS OF NONDRAMATIC 

MUSICAL WORKS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 210 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 115, 702. 

■ 2. Add §§ 210.31 through 201.33 to 

read as follows: 

§ 210.31 Musical works database 

information. 

(a) General. This section prescribes 

the rules under which the mechanical 

licensing collective will provide 

information relating to musical works 

(and shares of such works), and sound 

recordings in which the musical works 

are embodied, in the public musical 

works database prescribed by 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E), and to increase usability of 

the database. 

(b) Matched musical works. With 

respect to musical works (or shares 

thereof) where the copyright owners 

have been identified and located, the 

musical works database shall contain, at 

a minimum, the following: 

(1) Information regarding the musical 

work: 

(i) Musical work title(s); 

(ii) The copyright owner of the 

musical work (or share thereof), and the 

ownership percentage of that owner. 

The copyright owner of the musical 

work owns any one of the exclusive 

rights comprised in the copyright for 

that work. A copyright owner includes 

entities, including foreign collective 

management organizations (CMOs), to 

which copyright ownership has been 

transferred through an assignment, 

mortgage, exclusive license, or any other 

conveyance, alienation, or 

hypothecation of a copyright or of any 

of the exclusive rights comprised in a 

copyright, whether or not it is limited in 

time or place of effect, but not including 

a nonexclusive license; 

(iii) Contact information for the 

copyright owner of the musical work (or 

share thereof), which can be a post 

office box or similar designation, or a 

‘‘care of’’ address (e.g., publisher); 

(iv) The mechanical licensing 

collective’s standard identifier for the 

musical work; and 

(v) To the extent reasonably available 

to the mechanical licensing collective: 

(A) Any alternative or parenthetical 

titles for the musical work; 

(B) ISWC; 

(C) Songwriter(s), with the 

mechanical licensing collective having 

the discretion to allow songwriters, or 

their authorized representatives, to have 

songwriter information listed 

anonymously or pseudonymously. The 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

develop and make publicly available a 

policy on how the collective will 

consider requests by copyright owners 

or administrators to change songwriter 

names to be listed anonymously or 

pseudonymously for matched musical 

works; 

(D) Administrator(s) or other 

authorized entity(ies) who license the 

musical work (or share thereof) and/or 

collect mechanical royalties for use of 

such musical work (or share thereof) in 

the United States; 

(E) ISNI(s) and/or IPI(s) for each 

musical work copyright owner, and, if 

different, songwriter, and administrator; 

(F) Unique identifier(s) assigned by 

the blanket licensee, if reported by the 

blanket licensee; and 

(G) For classical compositions, opus 

and catalog numbers. 

(2) Information regarding the sound 

recording(s) in which the musical work 

is embodied, to the extent reasonably 

available to the mechanical licensing 

collective: 

(i) ISRC; 

(ii) Sound recording name(s), 

including all known alternative and 

parenthetical titles for the sound 

recording; 

(iii) Information related to the sound 

recording copyright owner, including 

LabelName and PLine. Should the 

mechanical licensing collective decide 

to include DDEX Party Identifier (DPID) 

in the public database, the DPID party’s 

name may be included, but not the 

numerical identifier; 

(iv) Featured artist(s); 

(v) Playing time; 

(vi) Version; 

(vii) Release date(s); 

(viii) Producer; 

(ix) UPC; and 

(x) Other non-confidential 

information that the MLC reasonably 

believes, based on common usage, 

would be useful to assist in associating 

sound recordings with musical works. 

(c) Unmatched musical works. With 

respect to musical works (or shares 

thereof) where the copyright owners 

have not been identified or located, the 

musical works database shall include, to 

the extent reasonably available to the 

mechanical licensing collective: 

(1) Information regarding the musical 

work: 

(i) Musical work title(s), including 

any alternative or parenthetical titles for 

the musical work; 

(ii) The ownership percentage of the 

musical work for which an owner has 

not been identified; 

(iii) If a musical work copyright 

owner has been identified but not 

located, the identity of such owner and 

the ownership percentage of that owner. 

The copyright owner of the musical 

work owns any one of the exclusive 

rights comprised in the copyright for 

that work. A copyright owner includes 

entities, including foreign collective 

management organizations (CMOs), to 

which copyright ownership has been 

transferred through an assignment, 

mortgage, exclusive license, or any other 

conveyance, alienation, or 

hypothecation of a copyright or of any 

of the exclusive rights comprised in a 

copyright, whether or not it is limited in 

time or place of effect, but not including 

a nonexclusive license; 

(iv) The mechanical licensing 

collective’s standard identifier for the 

musical work; 

(v) ISWC; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 86823 

(vi) Songwriter(s), with the 

mechanical licensing collective having 

the discretion to allow songwriters, or 

their authorized representatives, to have 

songwriter information listed 

anonymously or pseudonymously. The 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

develop and make publicly available a 

policy on how the collective will 

consider requests by copyright owners 

or administrators to change songwriter 

names to be listed anonymously or 

pseudonymously for unmatched 

musical works; 

(vii) Administrator(s) or other 

authorized entity(ies) who license the 

musical work (or share thereof) and/or 

collect mechanical royalties for use of 

such musical work (or share thereof) in 

the United States; 

(viii) ISNI(s) and/or IPI(s) for each 

musical work copyright owner, and, if 

different, songwriter and administrator; 

(ix) Unique identifier(s) assigned by 

the blanket licensee, if reported by the 

blanket licensee; and 

(x) For classical compositions, opus 

and catalog numbers. 

(2) Information regarding the sound 

recording(s) in which the musical work 

is embodied: 

(i) ISRC; 

(ii) Sound recording name(s), 

including all known alternative and 

parenthetical titles for the sound 

recording; 

(iii) Information related to the sound 

recording copyright owner, including 

LabelName and PLine. Should the 

mechanical licensing collective decide 

to include DDEX Party Identifier (DPID) 

in the public database, the DPID party’s 

name may be included, but not the 

numerical identifier; 

(iv) Featured artist(s); 

(v) Playing time; 

(vi) Version; 

(vii) Release date(s); 

(viii) Producer; 

(ix) UPC; and 

(x) Other non-confidential 

information that the MLC reasonably 

believes, based on common usage, 

would be useful to assist in associating 

sound recordings with musical works, 

and any additional non-confidential 

information reported to the mechanical 

licensing collective that may assist in 

identifying musical works. 

(d) Field labeling. The mechanical 

licensing collective shall consider 

industry practices when labeling fields 

in the public database to reduce the 

likelihood of user confusion, 

particularly regarding information 

relating to sound recording copyright 

owner. Fields displaying PLine, 

LabelName, or, if applicable, DPID, 

information may not on their own be 

labeled ‘‘sound recording copyright 

owner.’’ 

(e) Data provenance. For information 

relating to sound recordings, the 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

identify the source of such information 

in the public musical works database. 

For sound recording information 

received from a digital music provider, 

the MLC shall include the name of the 

digital music provider. 

(f) Historical data. The mechanical 

licensing collective shall maintain at 

regular intervals historical records of the 

information contained in the public 

musical works database, including a 

record of changes to such database 

information and changes to the source 

of information in database fields, in 

order to allow tracking of changes to the 

ownership of musical works in the 

database over time. The mechanical 

licensing collective shall determine, in 

its reasonable discretion, the most 

appropriate method for archiving and 

maintaining such historical data to track 

ownership and other information 

changes in the database. 

(g) Personally identifiable 

information. The mechanical licensing 

collective shall not include in the public 

musical works database any individual’s 

Social Security Number (SSN), taxpayer 

identification number, financial account 

number(s), date of birth (DOB), or home 

address or personal email to the extent 

it is not musical work copyright owner 

contact information required under 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(III). The 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

also engage in reasonable, good-faith 

efforts to ensure that other personally 

identifying information (i.e., 

information that can be used to 

distinguish or trace an individual’s 

identity, either alone or when combined 

with other information that is linked or 

linkable to such specific individual), is 

not available in the public musical 

works database, other than to the extent 

it is required by law. 

(h) Disclaimer. The mechanical 

licensing collective shall include in the 

public-facing version of the musical 

works database a conspicuous 

disclaimer that states that the database 

is not an authoritative source for sound 

recording information, and explains the 

labeling of information related to sound 

recording copyright owner, including 

the ‘‘LabelName’’ and ‘‘PLine’’ fields. 

(i) Ownership. The data in the public 

musical works database prescribed by 

17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E) is public data not 

owned by the mechanical licensing 

collective or any of the collective’s 

employees, agents, consultants, vendors, 

or independent contractors. 

§ 210.32 Musical works database usability, 

interoperability, and usage restrictions. 

This section prescribes rules under 

which the mechanical licensing 

collective shall ensure the usability, 

interoperability, and proper usage of the 

public musical works database created 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E). 

(a) Database access. (1)(i) The 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

make the musical works database 

available to members of the public in a 

searchable, real-time, online format, free 

of charge. In addition, the mechanical 

licensing collective shall make the 

musical works database available in a 

bulk, real-time, machine-readable 

format through a process for bulk data 

management widely adopted among 

music rights administrators to: 

(A) Digital music providers operating 

under the authority of valid notices of 

license, and their authorized vendors, 

free of charge; 

(B) Significant nonblanket licensees 

in compliance with their obligations 

under 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(6), and their 

authorized vendors, free of charge; 

(C) The Register of Copyrights, free of 

charge; and 

(D) Any other person or entity, 

including agents, consultants, vendors, 

and independent contractors of the 

mechanical licensing collective for any 

purpose other than the ordinary course 

of their work for the mechanical 

licensing collective, for a fee not to 

exceed the marginal cost to the 

mechanical licensing collective of 

providing the database to such person or 

entity. 

(ii) Starting December 31, 2021, the 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

make the musical works database 

available at least in a bulk, real-time, 

machine-readable format under this 

paragraph (a)(1) through application 

programming interfaces (APIs). 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section, the mechanical licensing 

collective shall establish appropriate 

terms of use or other policies governing 

use of the database that allows the 

mechanical licensing collective to 

suspend access to any individual or 

entity that appears, in the mechanical 

licensing collective’s reasonable 

determination, to be attempting to 

bypass the mechanical licensing 

collective’s right to charge a fee to 

recover its marginal costs for bulk 

access outlined in 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E)(v)(V) through repeated 

queries, or to otherwise be engaging in 

unlawful activity with respect to the 

database (including, without limitation, 

seeking to hack or unlawfully access 

confidential, non-public information 

contained in the database) or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
86824 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

misappropriating or using information 

from the database for improper 

purposes. The mechanical licensing 

collective’s terms of use or other 

policies governing use of the database 

shall comply with this section. 

(b) Point of contact for inquiries and 

complaints. In accordance with its 

obligations under 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(bb), the mechanical 

licensing collective shall designate a 

point of contact for inquiries and 

complaints with timely redress, 

including complaints regarding the 

public musical works database and/or 

the mechanical licensing collective’s 

activities. The mechanical licensing 

collective must make publicly available, 

including prominently on its website, 

the following information: 

(1) The name of the designated point 

of contact for inquiries and complaints. 

The designated point of contact may be 

an individual (e.g., ‘‘Jane Doe’’) or a 

specific position or title held by an 

individual at the mechanical licensing 

collective (e.g., ‘‘Customer Relations 

Manager’’). Only a single point of 

contact may be designated. 

(2) The physical mail address (street 

address or post office box), telephone 

number, and email address of the 

designated point of contact. 

§ 210.33 Annual reporting by the 

mechanical licensing collective. 

(a) General. This section prescribes 

the rules under which the mechanical 

licensing collective will provide certain 

information in its annual report 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vii), 

and a one-time written update regarding 

the collective’s operations in 2021. 

(b) Contents. Each of the mechanical 

licensing collective’s annual reports 

shall contain, at a minimum, the 

following information: 

(1) The operational and licensing 

practices of the mechanical licensing 

collective; 

(2) How the mechanical licensing 

collective collects and distributes 

royalties, including the average 

processing and distribution times for 

distributing royalties for the preceding 

calendar year. The mechanical licensing 

collective shall disclose how it 

calculated processing and distribution 

times for distributing royalties for the 

preceding calendar year; 

(3) Budgeting and expenditures for 

the mechanical licensing collective; 

(4) The mechanical licensing 

collective’s total costs for the preceding 

calendar year; 

(5) The projected annual mechanical 

licensing collective budget; 

(6) Aggregated royalty receipts and 

payments; 

(7) Expenses that are more than 10 

percent of the annual mechanical 

licensing collective budget; 

(8) The efforts of the mechanical 

licensing collective to locate and 

identify copyright owners of unmatched 

musical works (and shares of works); 

(9) The mechanical licensing 

collective’s selection of board members 

and criteria used in selecting any new 

board members during the preceding 

calendar year; 

(10) The mechanical licensing 

collective’s selection of new vendors 

during the preceding calendar year, 

including the criteria used in deciding 

to select such vendors, and key findings 

from any performance reviews of the 

mechanical licensing collective’s 

current vendors. Such description shall 

include a general description of any 

new request for information (RFI) and/ 

or request for proposals (RFP) process, 

either copies of the relevant RFI and/or 

RFP or a list of the functional 

requirements covered in the RFI or RFP, 

the names of the parties responding to 

the RFI and/or RFP. In connection with 

the disclosure described in this 

paragraph (b)(10), the mechanical 

licensing collective shall not be required 

to disclose any confidential or sensitive 

business information. For the purposes 

of this paragraph (b)(10), ‘‘vendor’’ 

means any vendor performing 

materially significant technology or 

operational services related to the 

mechanical licensing collective’s 

matching and royalty accounting 

activities; 

(11) Whether during the preceding 

calendar year the mechanical licensing 

collective, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(7)(C), applied any unclaimed 

accrued royalties on an interim basis to 

defray costs in the event that the 

administrative assessment is inadequate 

to cover collective total costs, including 

the amount of unclaimed accrued 

royalties applied and plans for future 

reimbursement of such royalties from 

future collection of the assessment; and 

(12) Whether during the preceding 

calendar year the mechanical licensing 

collective suspended access to the 

public database to any individual or 

entity attempting to bypass the 

collective’s right to charge a fee to 

recover its marginal costs for bulk 

access outlined in 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(E)(v)(V) through repeated 

queries, or to otherwise be engaging in 

unlawful activity with respect to the 

database (including, without limitation, 

seeking to hack or unlawfully access 

confidential, non-public information 

contained in the database) or 

misappropriating or using information 

from the database for improper 

purposes. If the mechanical licensing 

collective so suspended access to the 

public database to any individual or 

entity, the annual report must identify 

such individual(s) and entity(ies) and 

provide the reason(s) for suspension. 

(c) December 31, 2021 Update. No 

later than December 31, 2021, the 

mechanical licensing collective shall 

post, and make available online for a 

period of not less than three years, a 

one-time written report that contains, at 

a minimum, the categories of 

information required in paragraph (b) of 

this section, addressing activities 

following the license availability date. If 

it is not practicable for the mechanical 

licensing collective to provide 

information in this one-time report 

regarding a certain category of 

information required under paragraph 

(b) of this section, the MLC may so state 

but shall explain the reason(s) for such 

impracticability and, as appropriate, 

may address such categories in an 

abbreviated fashion. 

Dated: December 21, 2020. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28958 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 423 

[CMS–4189–F] 

RIN 0938–AT94 

Medicare Program; Secure Electronic 

Prior Authorization For Medicare Part 

D 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule names a new 

transaction standard for the Medicare 

Prescription Drug Benefit program’s 

(Part D) e-prescribing program as 

required by the ‘‘Substance UseDisorder Prevention that Promotes 

Opioid Recovery and Treatment for 

Patients and Communities Act’’ or the 

‘‘SUPPORT Act.’’ Under the SUPPORT 

Act, the Secretary is required to adopt 

standards for the Part D e-prescribing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES