Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42833 

1 In re Pandora Media, Inc., Nos. 12–cv–8035, 41– 

cv–1395, 2013 WL 5211927 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 

2013); Broadcast Music, Inc., v. Pandora Media, 

Inc., Nos. 12–cv–4037, 64–cv–3787, 2013 WL 

6697788 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013). 

2See Ed Christman, Universal Music Publishing 

Plots Exit From ASCAP, BMI, Billboard (Feb. 1, 

2013), http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/ 

publishing/1537554/universal-music-publishingplots-exit-from-ascap-bmi; see also Ed Christman, 

Sony/ATV’s Martin Bandier Repeats Warning to 

ASCAP, BMI, Billboard (July 11, 2014), http:// 

www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/publishing/ 

6157469/sonyatvs-martin-bandier-repeats-warningto-ascap-bmi. 

U.S.C. § 300j–9(i), 33 U.S.C. § 1367, 15 

U.S.C. § 2622, 42 U.S.C. § 6971, 42 

U.S.C. § 7622, 42 U.S.C. § 9610, 42 

U.S.C. § 5851, 49 U.S.C. § 42121, 18 

U.S.C. § 1514A, 49 U.S.C. § 60129, 49 

U.S.C. § 20109, 6 U.S.C. § 1142, 15 

U.S.C. § 2087, 29 U.S.C. § 218c, 12 

U.S.C. § 5567, 46 U.S.C. § 2114, 21 

U.S.C. § 399d, and 49 U.S.C. § 30171. 

Signed at Washington, DC on July 18, 2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17342 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2014–03] 

Music Licensing Study: Second 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office has 

undertaken a study to evaluate the 

effectiveness of current methods for 

licensing musical works and sound 

recordings. At this time, the Office seeks 

additional comments on whether and 

how existing music licensing methods 

serve the music marketplace, including 

new and emerging digital distribution 

platforms. 

DATES: Written comments are due on or 

before August 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: All comments shall be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Office Web site at 

http://www.copyright.gov/200B;docs/ 

200B;musiclicensingstudy. The Web site 

interface requires commenting parties to 

complete a form specifying their name 

and organization, as applicable, and to 

upload comments as an attachment via 

a browser button. To meet accessibility 

standards, commenting parties must 

upload comments in a single file not to 

exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: The Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and organization. The 

Office will post the comments publicly 

on its Web site in the form that they are 

received, along with associated names 

and organizations. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible, 

please contact the Office at 202–707– 

8350 for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General 

Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@

loc.gov or by telephone at 202–707– 

8350; or Sarang V. Damle, Special 

Advisor to the General Counsel, by 

email at sdam@loc.gov or by telephone 

at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The U.S. Copyright Office is 

conducting a study to assess the 

effectiveness of the current methods for 

licensing musical works and sound 

recordings. To aid with this study, the 

Office published an initial Notice of 

Inquiry on March 17, 2014 (‘‘First 

Notice’’) seeking written comments on 

twenty-four subjects concerning the 

current environment in which music is 

licensed. 78 FR 14739 (Mar. 17, 2014). 

The eighty-five written submissions 

received in response to this initial 

notice can be found on the Copyright 

Office Web site at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensing

study/200B;comments/Docket2014_3/. 

In June 2014, the Office conducted three 

two-day public roundtables in 

Nashville, Los Angeles, and New York 

City. The three roundtables provided 

participants with the opportunity to 

share their views on the topics 

identified in the First Notice and other 

issues relating to music licensing. See 

79 FR 25626 (May 5, 2014). Transcripts 

of the proceedings at each of the three 

roundtables will be made available on 

the Copyright Office Web site at 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

200B;musiclicensingstudy/. 

In the initial round of written 

comments and during the roundtable 

sessions, a number of significant issues 

were discussed that the Office believes 

merit additional consideration. 

First, as explained in the First Notice, 

in 2013, the two federal district courts 

overseeing the antitrust consent decrees 

governing the largest performance rights 

organizations (‘‘PROs’’), American 

Society of Composers, Authors and 

Publishers (‘‘ASCAP’’) and Broadcast 

Music, Inc. (‘‘BMI’’), held in separate 

opinions that under those decrees, 

music publishers could not withdraw 

selected rights—such as ‘‘new media’’ 

rights—to be directly licensed outside of 

the PROs; rather, a particular 

publisher’s song catalog must either be 

‘‘all in’’ or ‘‘all out.’’ 1 Following these 

rulings, both in public statements and at 

the recent roundtables, certain major 

music publishers have indicated that, if 

the consent decrees remain in place 

without modification, they intend to 

withdraw their entire catalogs from the 

two PROs and directly license public 

performances.2 Such a move would 

affect not only online services, but more 

traditional areas of public performance 

such as radio, television, restaurants, 

and bars. 

Stakeholders at the roundtables 

expressed significant concerns regarding 

the impact of major publishers’ 

complete withdrawal from the PROs. 

Notably, traditional songwriter contracts 

typically include provisions that assume 

that a songwriter’s performance 

royalties will be collected by and paid 

directly to the songwriter through a 

PRO, without contemplating alternative 

arrangements. Songwriters and 

composers raised questions as to how 

withdrawing publishers would fulfill 

this responsibility in the future, 

including whether they would be in a 

position to track and provide adequate 

usage and payment data under a direct 

licensing system. Another concern is 

how such withdrawals would affect the 

PROs’ cost structures and the 

commission rates for smaller entities 

and individual creators who continued 

to rely upon these organizations to 

license and administer their public 

performance rights. At the same time, 

some stakeholders questioned the 

existing distribution methodologies of 

the PROs, suggesting that the PROs 

should rely more on census-based 

reporting (as is typically supplied by 

digital services) and less on sampling or 

non-census-based approaches to allocate 

royalty fees among members. 

Next, many stakeholders appear to be 

of the view that the Section 115 

statutory license for the reproduction 

and distribution of musical works 

should either be eliminated or 

significantly modified to reflect the 

realities of the digital marketplace. 

While music owners and music users 

have expressed a range of views as to 

the particulars of how this might be 

accomplished, much of the commentary 

and discussion has centered on two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

3Based upon written comments and discussion at 

the roundtables, it appears that certain language in 

the First Notice concerning the lack of availability 

of licenses for pre-1972 recordings under Sections 

112 and 114 may have been misinterpreted by 

some. In a footnote, the First Notice observed that 

‘‘a person wishing to digitally perform a pre-1972 

sound recording cannot rely on the Section 112 and 

114 statutory licenses and must instead obtain a 

license directly from the owner of the sound 

recording copyright.’’ 78 FR 14739, 14741 n.12. In 

making this statement, the Office was not opining 

on the necessity of obtaining such a license under 

state law, but merely observing that licenses for the 

digital performance of pre-1972 sound recordings, 

and for the reproductions to enable such 

performances, are not available under Section 112 

or 114. A licensee seeking such a license would 

thus need to obtain it directly from the sound 

recording owner (as the Office understands to be 

the current practice of some licensees with respect 

to performances of pre-1972 recordings). 

On the other side of the coin, it appears that 

others have misread the Office’s observation in its 

report on pre-1972 sound recordings that ‘‘[i]n 

general, state law does not appear to recognize a 

performance right in sound recordings’’ as an 

official statement that no such protection is (or 

should be) available under state law. See U.S. 

Copyright Office, Federal Copyright Protection for 

Pre-1972 Sound Recordings 44 (2011). This, too, is 

a misinterpretation. While, as a factual matter, a 

state may not have affirmatively acknowledged a 

public performance right in pre-1972 recordings as 

of the Office’s 2011 report, the language in the 

report should not be read to suggest that a state 

could not properly interpret its law to recognize 

such a right. As the Office explained, ‘‘common law 

protection is amorphous, and courts often perceive 

themselves to have broad discretion.’’ Id. at 48. 

possible approaches. The first would be 

to sunset the Section 115 license with 

the goal of enabling musical work 

owners to negotiate licenses directly 

with music users at unregulated, 

marketplace rates (as the 

synchronization market for musical 

works currently operates). Some 

stakeholders have acknowledged, 

however, that such a market-based 

system might still have to allow for the 

possibility of collective licensing to 

accommodate individuals and smaller 

copyright owners who might lack the 

capacity or leverage to negotiate directly 

with online service providers and 

others. 

A second model, advocated by the 

record labels, would be to eliminate 

Section 115 and instead allow music 

publishers and sound recording owners 

collectively to negotiate an 

industrywide revenue-sharing 

arrangement as between them. For the 

uses falling under this approach, a fixed 

percentage of licensing fees for use of a 

recorded song would be allocated to the 

musical work and the remainder would 

go to the sound recording owner. Record 

labels would be permitted to bundle 

musical work licenses with their sound 

recording licenses, with third-party 

licensees to pay the overall license fees 

to publishers and labels according to the 

agreed industry percentages. While 

musical work owners would retain 

control over the first recordings of their 

works, such an arrangement would 

cover not only audio-only uses but 

would extend to certain audiovisual 

uses not currently covered by the 

Section 115 license, such as music 

videos and lyric display. 

Another theme that emerged from the 

first round of written comments and the 

public roundtables relates to the Section 

112 and 114 statutory licenses for the 

digital performance of sound 

recordings.3 Although there appeared to 

be substantial agreement that these 

licenses are largely effective, there was 

also a general consensus that 

improvements could be made to the 

Copyright Royalty Judges’ (‘‘CRJs’’) 

statutorily mandated ratesetting 

procedures. For instance, under 17 

U.S.C. 803(b)(6), parties in proceedings 

before the CRJs must submit written 

direct statements before any discovery is 

conducted. A number of commenters 

believed that the ratesetting process 

could be significantly streamlined by 

allowing for discovery before 

presentation of the parties’ direct cases, 

as in ordinary civil litigation. 

Stakeholders were also of the view that 

it would be more efficient to combine 

what are now two separate direct and 

rebuttal phases of ratesetting hearings, 

as contemplated by 17 U.S.C. 

803(b)(6)(C), into a single integrated 

trial—again as is more typical of civil 

litigation. There was also general 

agreement that more could be done to 

encourage settlement of rate disputes, 

such as adoption of settlements earlier 

in the process and allowing such 

settlements to be treated as nonprecedential with respect to non-settling 

participants. 

Finally, many commenting parties 

pointed to the lack of standardized and 

reliable data related to the identity and 

ownership of musical works and sound 

recordings as a significant obstacle to 

more efficient music licensing 

mechanisms. Stakeholders observed that 

digital music files are often distributed 

to online providers without identifiers 

such as the International Standard 

Recording Code (‘‘ISRC’’) and/or 

International Standard Musical Work 

Code (‘‘ISWC’’), and that the lack of 

these identifiers (or other unique or 

universal identifiers) makes it difficult 

for licensees or others to link particular 

music files with the copyrighted works 

they embody. In addition to problems 

identifying the musical works and 

sound recordings themselves, 

commenters noted the difficulties of 

ascertaining ownership information, 

especially in the case of musical works, 

which frequently have multiple owners 

representing varying percentages of 

particular songs. These issues, in turn, 

relate to a more general ‘‘transparency’’ 

concern of music creators that usage and 

payment information—including 

information about advances and equity 

provided by licensees to publishers and 

labels—may not be fully and readily 

accessible to songwriters, composers 

and artists. 

At this time, the Office is soliciting 

additional comments on these subjects, 

as set forth in the specific questions 

below. Parties may also take this 

opportunity to respond to the positions 

taken by others in the first round of 

comments and/or at the roundtables. 

Those who plan to submit additional 

comments should be aware that the 

Office has studied and will take into 

consideration the comments already 

received, so there is no need to restate 

previously submitted material. While a 

party choosing to respond to this Notice 

of Inquiry need not address every 

subject below, the Office requests that 

responding parties clearly identify and 

separately address each subject for 

which a response is submitted. 

Subjects of Inquiry 

Data and Transparency 

1. Please address possible methods for 

ensuring the development and 

dissemination of comprehensive and 

authoritative public data related to the 

identity and ownership of musical 

works and sound recordings, including 

how best to incentivize private actors to 

gather, assimilate and share reliable 

data. 

2. What are the most widely embraced 

identifiers used in connection with 

musical works, sound recordings, 

songwriters, composers, and artists? 

How and by whom are they issued and 

managed? How might the government 

incentivize more universal availability 

and adoption? 

3. Please address possible methods for 

enhancing transparency in the reporting 

of usage, payment, and distribution data 

by licensees, record labels, music 

publishers, and collective licensing 

entities, including disclosure of nonusage-based forms of compensation 

(e.g., advances against future royalty 

payments and equity shares). 

Musical Works 

4. Please provide your views on the 

logistics and consequences of potential 

publisher withdrawals from ASCAP 

and/or BMI, including how such 

withdrawals would be governed by the 

PROs; whether such withdrawals are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42835 

compatible with existing publisher 

agreements with songwriters and 

composers; whether the PROs might 

still play a role in administering 

licenses issued directly by the 

publishers, and if so, how; the effect of 

any such withdrawals on PRO cost 

structures and commissions; licensees’ 

access to definitive data concerning 

individual works subject to withdrawal; 

and related issues. 

5. Are there ways in which the 

current PRO distribution methodologies 

could or should be improved? 

6. In recent years, PROs have 

announced record-high revenues and 

distributions. At the same time, many 

songwriters report significant declines 

in income. What marketplace 

developments have led to this result, 

and what implications does it have for 

the music licensing system? 

7. If the Section 115 license were to 

be eliminated, how would the transition 

work? In the absence of a statutory 

regime, how would digital service 

providers obtain licenses for the 

millions of songs they seem to believe 

are required to meet consumer 

expectations? What percentage of these 

works could be directly licensed 

without undue transaction costs and 

would some type of collective licensing 

remain necessary to facilitate licensing 

of the remainder? If so, would such 

collective(s) require government 

oversight? How might uses now outside 

of Section 115, such as music videos 

and lyric displays, be accommodated? 

Sound Recordings 

8. Are there ways in which Section 

112 and 114 (or other) CRB ratesetting 

proceedings could be streamlined or 

otherwise improved from a procedural 

standpoint? 

International Music Licensing Models 

9. International licensing models for 

the reproduction, distribution, and 

public performance of musical works 

differ from the current regimes for 

licensing musical works in the United 

States. Are there international music 

licensing models the Office should look 

to as it continues to review the U.S. 

system? 

Other Issues 

10. Please identify any other pertinent 

issues that the Copyright Office may 

wish to consider in evaluating the music 

licensing landscape. 

Dated: July 18, 2014. 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, 

General Counsel and Associate, Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17354 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2014–044] 

Records Schedules; Availability and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed records schedules; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) 

publishes notice at least once monthly 

of certain Federal agency requests for 

records disposition authority (records 

schedules). Once approved by NARA, 

records schedules provide mandatory 

instructions on what happens to records 

when no longer needed for current 

Government business. They authorize 

the preservation of records of 

continuing value in the National 

Archives of the United States and the 

destruction, after a specified period, of 

records lacking administrative, legal, 

research, or other value. Notice is 

published for records schedules in 

which agencies propose to destroy 

records not previously authorized for 

disposal or reduce the retention period 

of records already authorized for 

disposal. NARA invites public 

comments on such records schedules, as 

required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). 

DATES: Requests for copies must be 

received in writing on or before August 

22, 2014. Once the appraisal of the 

records is completed, NARA will send 

a copy of the schedule. NARA staff 

usually prepare appraisal 

memorandums that contain additional 

information concerning the records 

covered by a proposed schedule. These, 

too, may be requested and will be 

provided once the appraisal is 

completed. Requesters will be given 30 

days to submit comments. 

ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of 

any records schedule identified in this 

notice by contacting Records 

Management Services (ACNR) using one 

of the following means: 

Mail: NARA (ACNR), 8601 Adelphi 

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001. 

Email: request.schedule@nara.gov. 

Fax: 301–837–3698. 

Requesters must cite the control 

number, which appears in parentheses 

after the name of the agency which 

submitted the schedule, and must 

provide a mailing address. Those who 

desire appraisal reports should so 

indicate in their request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Hawkins, Director, Records 

Management Services (ACNR), National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 

20740–6001. Telephone: 301–837–1799. 

Email: request.schedule@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year 

Federal agencies create billions of 

records on paper, film, magnetic tape, 

and other media. To control this 

accumulation, agency records managers 

prepare schedules proposing retention 

periods for records and submit these 

schedules for NARA’s approval. These 

schedules provide for the timely transfer 

into the National Archives of 

historically valuable records and 

authorize the disposal of all other 

records after the agency no longer needs 

them to conduct its business. Some 

schedules are comprehensive and cover 

all the records of an agency or one of its 

major subdivisions. Most schedules, 

however, cover records of only one 

office or program or a few series of 

records. Many of these update 

previously approved schedules, and 

some include records proposed as 

permanent. 

The schedules listed in this notice are 

media neutral unless specified 

otherwise. An item in a schedule is 

media neutral when the disposition 

instructions may be applied to records 

regardless of the medium in which the 

records are created and maintained. 

Items included in schedules submitted 

to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, 

are media neutral unless the item is 

limited to a specific medium. (See 36 

CFR 1225.12(e).) 

No Federal records are authorized for 

destruction without the approval of the 

Archivist of the United States. This 

approval is granted only after a 

thorough consideration of their 

administrative use by the agency of 

origin, the rights of the Government and 

of private persons directly affected by 

the Government’s activities, and 

whether or not they have historical or 

other value. 

Besides identifying the Federal 

agencies and any subdivisions 

requesting disposition authority, this 

public notice lists the organizational 

unit(s) accumulating the records or 

indicates agency-wide applicability in 

the case of schedules that cover records 

that may be accumulated throughout an 

agency. This notice provides the control 

number assigned to each schedule, the 

total number of schedule items, and the 

number of temporary items (the records 

proposed for destruction). It also 

includes a brief description of the 

temporary records. The records 

schedule itself contains a full 

description of the records at the file unit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES