Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14739 

search_cfm under the searchable listing 

of determinations or by calling the 

Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance 

toll free at 888–365–6822. 

Signed at Washington DC, this 20th day of 

February 2014. 

Hope D. Kinglock, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05760 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Investigations Regarding Eligibility To 

Apply For Worker Adjustment 

Assistance 

Petitions have been filed with the 

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and 

are identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, 

the Director of the Office of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, has 

instituted investigations pursuant to 

Section 221(a) of the Act. 

The purpose of each of the 

investigations is to determine whether 

the workers are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Title II, 

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations 

will further relate, as appropriate, to the 

determination of the date on which total 

or partial separations began or 

threatened to begin and the subdivision 

of the firm involved. 

The petitioners or any other persons 

showing a substantial interest in the 

subject matter of the investigations may 

request a public hearing, provided such 

request is filed in writing with the 

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than March 27, 2014. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments regarding the 

subject matter of the investigations to 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than March 27, 2014. 

The petitions filed in this case are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

February 2014. 

Hope D. Kinglock, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

Appendix—13 TAA Petitions Instituted 

Between 2/10/14 and 2/14/14 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of 

institution 

Date of 

petition 

85059 ................ Avery Dennison (Company) ................................................. Clinton, SC ............................ 02/10/14 02/10/14 

85060 ................ Fresenius Medical Care NA (Workers) ................................ Livingston, CA ....................... 02/11/14 02/10/14 

85061 ................ IBM (State/One-Stop) ........................................................... San Jose, CA ........................ 02/11/14 02/10/14 

85062 ................ Computer Sciences Corporation (State/One-Stop) .............. Oakland, CA .......................... 02/11/14 02/10/14 

85063 ................ EPIC Technologies, LLC (Company) ................................... El Paso, TX ........................... 02/11/14 02/10/14 

85064 ................ Southside Manufacturing (Workers) ..................................... Blairs, VA .............................. 02/11/14 02/04/14 

85065 ................ Woodcraft Industries (Company) .......................................... Belletonte, PA ....................... 02/12/14 02/10/14 

85066 ................ Sun Edison (previously MEMC) (State/One-Stop) ............... St. Peters, MO ...................... 02/12/14 02/12/14 

85067 ................ FLSmidth Spokane Inc (Workers) ........................................ Meridian, ID ........................... 02/12/14 02/11/14 

85068 ................ GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (Company) ............................... Canonsburg, PA .................... 02/12/14 02/11/14 

85069 ................ Allstate Insurance Company (Workers) ............................... Roanoke, VA ......................... 02/12/14 01/28/14 

85070 ................ Time Machine, Inc. (Company) ............................................ Polk, PA ................................ 02/14/14 02/12/14 

85071 ................ General Electric (GE) (Union) .............................................. Ft. Edward, NY ..................... 02/14/14 02/04/14 

[FR Doc. 2014–05758 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2014–03] 

Music Licensing Study: Notice and 

Request for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office announces the initiation of a 

study to evaluate the effectiveness of 

existing methods of licensing music. To 

aid this effort, the Office is seeking 

public input on this topic. The Office 

will use the information it gathers to 

report to Congress. Congress is currently 

conducting a review of the U.S. 

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., to 

evaluate potential revisions of the law 

in light of technological and other 

developments that impact the creation, 

dissemination, and use of copyrighted 

works. 

DATES: Written comments are due on or 

before May 16, 2014. The Office will be 

announcing one or more public 

meetings to address music licensing 

issues, to take place after written 

comments are received, by separate 

notice in the future. 

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/docs/

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 the Office’s 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14740 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

1Under the terms of Section 115, a record 

company or other entity that obtains a statutory 

license for a musical work can, in turn, authorize 

third parties to make DPDs of that work. See 17 

U.S.C. 115(c)(3). In such a ‘‘pass-through’’ situation, 

the statutory licensee is then responsible for 

reporting and paying royalties for such third-party 

uses to the musical work owner. 

2Concerns about the efficiency of the Section 115 

licensing process are not new. For instance, in 

2005, then-Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters 

testified before Congress that Section 115 had 

become ‘‘outdated,’’ and made several proposals to 

reform the license. See Copyright Office Views on 

Music Licensing Reform: Hearing Before the 

Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 

Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. 4–9 (2005). In 2006, the House Judiciary 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 

and Intellectual Property forwarded the Section 115 

Reform Act (‘‘SIRA’’) to the full Judiciary 

Committee by unanimous voice vote. See H.R. 5553, 

109th Cong. (2006). This bill would have updated 

Section 115 to create a blanket-style license. The 

proposed legislation was not reported out by the 

full Judiciary Committee, however. 

3The Copyright Royalty Board (‘‘CRB’’) is the 

latest in a series of administrative bodies Congress 

has created to adjust the rates and terms for the 

statutory licenses. The first, the Copyright Royalty 

Tribunal (‘‘CRT’’), was created in 1976. See Public 

Law 94–553, sec. 801, 90 Stat. 2541, 2594–96 

(1976). In 1993, Congress replaced the CRT with a 

system of ad-hoc copyright arbitration royalty 

panels (‘‘CARPs’’). See Copyright Royalty Tribunal 

Reform Act of 1993, Public Law 103–198, sec. 2, 

107 Stat. 2304, 2304–2308. Congress replaced the 

CARP system with the CRB in 2004. See Copyright 

Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Public 

Law 108–419, 118 Stat. 2341. 

4See 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1). 

I. Background 

Congress is currently engaged in a 

comprehensive review of the U.S. 

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., to 

evaluate potential revisions to the law 

in light of technological and other 

developments that impact the creation, 

dissemination, and use of copyrighted 

works. The last general revision of the 

Copyright Act took place in 1976 

(‘‘Copyright Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) following a 

lengthy and comprehensive review 

process carried out by Congress, the 

Copyright Office, and interested parties. 

In 1998, Congress significantly amended 

the Act with the passage of the Digital 

Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’) to 

address emerging issues of the digital 

age. Public Law 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 

(1998). While the Copyright Act reflects 

many sound and enduring principles, 

and has enabled the internet to flourish, 

Congress could not have foreseen all of 

today’s technologies and the myriad 

ways consumers and others engage with 

creative works in the digital 

environment. Perhaps nowhere has the 

landscape been as significantly altered 

as in the realm of music. 

Music is more available now than it 

has ever been. Today, music is delivered 

to consumers not only in physical 

formats, such as compact discs and 

vinyl records, but is available on 

demand, both by download and 

streaming, as well as through 

smartphones, computers, and other 

devices. At the same time, the public 

continues to consume music through 

terrestrial and satellite radio, and more 

recently, internet-based radio. Music 

continues to enhance films, television, 

and advertising, and is a key component 

of many apps and video games. 

Such uses of music require licenses 

from copyright owners. The 

mechanisms for obtaining such licenses 

are largely shaped by our copyright law, 

including the statutory licenses under 

Sections 112, 114, and 115 of the 

Copyright Act, which provide 

government-regulated licensing regimes 

for certain uses of sound recordings and 

musical works. 

A musical recording encompasses two 

distinct works of authorship: The 

musical work, which is the underlying 

composition created by the songwriter 

or composer, along with any 

accompanying lyrics; and the sound 

recording, that is, the particular 

performance of the musical work that 

has been fixed in a recording medium 

such as CD or digital file. The methods 

for obtaining licenses differ with respect 

to these two types of works, which can 

be—and frequently are—owned or 

managed by different entities. 

Songwriters and composers often assign 

rights in their musical works to music 

publishers and, in addition, affiliate 

themselves with performing rights 

organizations (‘‘PROs’’). These 

intermediaries, in turn, assume 

responsibility for licensing the works. 

By contrast, the licensing of sound 

recordings is typically handled directly 

by record labels, except in the case of 

certain types of digital uses, as 

described below. 

Musical Works—Reproduction and 

Distribution. Under the Copyright Act, 

the owner of a musical work has the 

exclusive right to make and distribute 

phonorecords of the work (i.e., copies in 

which the work is embodied, such as 

CDs or digital files), as well as the 

exclusive right to perform the work 

publicly. 17 U.S.C. 106(1), (3). The 

copyright owner can also authorize 

others to engage in these acts. Id. These 

rights, however, are typically licensed 

in different ways. 

The right to make and distribute 

phonorecords of musical works (often 

referred to as the ‘‘mechanical’’ right) is 

subject to a compulsory statutory 

license under Section 115 of the Act. 

See generally 17 U.S.C. 115. That 

license—instituted by Congress over a 

century ago with the passage of the 1909 

Copyright Act—provides that, once a 

phonorecord of a musical work has been 

distributed to the public in the United 

States under the authority of the 

copyright owner, any person can obtain 

a license to make and distribute 

phonorecords of that work by serving a 

statutorily compliant notice and paying 

the applicable royalties. Id. 

In 1995, Congress confirmed that a 

copyright owner’s exclusive right to 

reproduce and distribute phonorecords 

of a musical work, and the Section 115 

license, extend to the making of ‘‘digital 

phonorecord deliveries’’ (‘‘DPDs’’)—that 

is, the transmission of digital files 

embodying musical works. See Digital 

Performance Right in Sound Recordings 

Act of 1995 (‘‘DPRSRA’’), Public Law 

104–39, sec. 4, 109 Stat. 336, 344–48; 17 

U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(A).1 The Copyright 

Office has thus interpreted the Section 

115 license to cover music downloads 

(including ringtones), as well as the 

server and other reproductions 

necessary to engage in streaming 

activities. See In the Matter of 

Mechanical and Digital Phonorecord 

Delivery Rate Adjustment Proceeding, 

Docket No. RF 2006–1 (Oct. 16, 2006), 

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

ringtone-decision.pdf; Compulsory 

License for Making and Distributing 

Phonorecords, Including Digital 

Phonorecord Deliveries, 73 FR 66173 

(Nov. 7, 2008). 

Licenses under Section 115 are 

obtained on a song-by-song basis. 

Because a typical online music service 

needs to offer access to millions of songs 

to compete in the marketplace, 

obtaining the licenses on an individual 

basis can present administrative 

challenges.2 Many music publishers 

have designated the Harry Fox Agency, 

Inc. as an agent to handle such song-bysong mechanical licensing on their 

behalf. 

The royalty rates and terms for the 

Section 115 license are established by 

an administrative tribunal—the 

Copyright Royalty Board (‘‘CRB’’) 3— 

which applies a standard set forth in 

Section 801(b) of the Act that considers 

four different factors. These include: 

The availability of creative works to the 

public; economic return to the owners 

and users of musical works; the 

respective contributions of owners and 

users in making works available; and 

the industry impact of the rates.4

The Section 115 license applies to 

audio-only reproductions that are 

primarily made and distributed for 

private use. See 17 U.S.C. 101, 115. 

Reproductions and distribution of 

musical works that fall outside of the 

Section 115 license—including ‘‘synch’’ 

uses in audiovisual media like 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14741 

5See generally United States v. Broadcast Music, 

Inc., 275 F.3d 168, 171–72 (2d Cir. 2001) 

(describing the history). SESAC, a smaller 

performing rights organization created in 1930 to 

serve European publishers, is not subject to a 

similar consent decree, although it has been 

involved recently in private antitrust litigation. See 

Meredith Corp. v. SESAC LLC, No. 09–cv–9177, 

2014 WL 812795 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2014). 

6United States v. ASCAP, No. 41–cv–1395, 2001– 

2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 73,474, 2001 WL 1589999, *3 

(S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2001). Although BMI has taken 

the position that a strict reading of its consent 

decree does not bar it from offering mechanical 

licenses, it generally has not done so. See Broadcast 

Music, Inc., Comments on Department of Commerce 

Green Paper 4–5 (Nov. 13, 2013), available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/bmi_comments.pdf. 

7Significantly, musical work owners are 

precluded from offering evidence concerning the 

licensing fees paid for digital performances of 

sound recordings as a point of comparison in the 

district court ratesetting proceedings. Section 114 of 

the Copyright Act provides that license fees payable 

for the public performance of sound recordings may 

not be taken into account ‘‘in any administrative, 

judicial, or other governmental proceeding to set or 

adjust the rates payable to’’ musical work copyright 

owners. 17 U.S.C. 114(i). 

8United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc., No. 64– 

cv–3787, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 71,941 (S.D.N.Y. 

1966), as amended, 1996 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 

71,378, 1994 WL 901652 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1994). 

9United States v. ASCAP, No. 41–cv–1395, 2001– 

2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 73,474, 2001 WL 1589999 

(S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2001). 

10See 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. 13–cv–4037, 64–cv–3787, 2013 

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

11 In 2009, Congress asked the Copyright Office to 

study the ‘‘desirability and means’’ of extending 

federal copyright protection to pre-February 15, 

1972 sound recordings. Public Law 111–8, 123 Stat. 

524 (2010) (explanatory statement). In 2011, the 

Office completed that study, issuing a report 

recommending that federal copyright protection be 

so extended. United States Copyright Office, 

Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound 

Recordings (2011), available at http://

www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf. 

12Thus, 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. See Determination 

of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription 

Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services, 

78 FR 23054, 23073 (Apr. 17, 2013) (determination 

of the CRB finding that ‘‘[t]he performance right 

granted by the copyright laws for sound recordings 

applies only to those recordings created on or after 

February 15, 1972’’ and adopting provisions 

allowing exclusion of performances of pre-1972 

sound recordings from certain statutory royalties). 

13 In 1998, as part of the DMCA, Congress 

amended Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act 

to clarify that the digital sound recording 

performance right applies to services like 

webcasting. See Public Law 105–304, secs. 402, 

405, 112 Stat. 2860, 2888, 2890. 

14The Copyright Office has long supported the 

extension of the public performance right in sound 

Continued 

television, film, and videos; advertising 

and other types of commercial uses; and 

derivative uses such as ‘‘sampling’’—are 

licensed directly from the copyright 

owner according to negotiated rates and 

terms. 

Musical Works—Public Performance. 

The method for licensing public 

performances of musical works differs 

significantly from the statutory 

mechanical license provided under 

Section 115. Licensing fees for such 

performances are generally collected on 

behalf of music publishers, songwriters, 

and composers by the three major PROs: 

the American Society of Composers, 

Authors and Publishers (‘‘ASCAP’’), 

Broadcast Music, Inc. (‘‘BMI’’), and 

SESAC. Songwriters and composers, as 

well as their publishers, commonly 

affiliate with one of the three for 

purposes of receiving public 

performance income. Rather than songby-song licenses, the PROs typically 

offer ‘‘blanket’’ licenses for the full 

range of music in their repertories. 

These licenses are available for a wide 

variety of uses, including terrestrial, 

satellite, and internet radio, on-demand 

music streaming services, Web site and 

television uses, and performance of 

music in bars, restaurants, and other 

commercial establishments. The PROs 

monitor the use of musical works by 

these various entities and apportion and 

distribute collected royalties to their 

publisher, songwriter, and composer 

members. 

Unlike the mechanical right, the 

public performance of musical works is 

not subject to compulsory licensing 

under the Copyright Act. Since 1941, 

however, ASCAP and BMI’s licensing 

practices have been subject to antitrust 

consent decrees overseen by the 

Department of Justice.5 These consent 

decrees were designed to protect 

licensees from price discrimination or 

other anti-competitive behavior by the 

two PROs. Under the decrees, ASCAP 

and BMI administer the public 

performance right for their members’ 

musical works on a non-exclusive basis. 

They are required to provide a license 

to any person who seeks to perform 

copyrighted musical works publicly, 

and must offer the same terms to 

similarly situated licensees. In addition, 

ASCAP’s consent decree expressly bars 

it from offering mechanical licenses.6

Since 1950, prospective licensees that 

are unable to agree to a royalty rate with 

ASCAP or BMI have been able to seek 

a determination of a reasonable license 

fee in the federal district court for the 

Southern District of New York.7

The two PRO consent decrees were 

last amended well before the 

proliferation of digital music: The BMI 

decree in 1994,8 and the ASCAP decree 

in 2001.9 The consent decrees have been 

the subject of much litigation over the 

years, including, most recently, suits 

over whether music publishers can 

withdraw digital licensing rights from 

the PROs and negotiate public 

performance licenses directly with 

digital music services.10

Sound Recordings—Reproduction 

and Distribution. Congress extended 

federal copyright protection to sound 

recordings in 1972. That law, however, 

did not provide retroactive protection 

for sound recordings fixed prior to 

February 15, 1972, and such works 

therefore have no federal copyright 

status.11 They are, however, subject to 

the protection of applicable state laws 

until 2067. See 17 U.S.C. 301(c).12

The owner of a copyright in a sound 

recording fixed on or after February 15, 

1972, like the owner of a musical work 

copyright, enjoys the exclusive right to 

reproduce and distribute phonorecords 

embodying the sound recording, 

including by means of digital 

transmission, and to authorize others to 

do the same. 17 U.S.C. 106(1), (3), 

301(c). Except in the limited 

circumstances where statutory licensing 

applies, as described below, licenses to 

reproduce and distribute sound 

recordings—such as those necessary to 

make and distribute CDs, transmit 

DPDs, and operate online music 

services, as well as to use sound 

recordings in a television shows, films, 

video games, etc.—are negotiated 

directly between the licensee and sound 

recording owner (typically a record 

label). Thus, while in the case of 

musical works, the royalty rates and 

terms applicable to the making and 

distribution of CDs, DPDs, and the 

operation of interactive music services 

are subject to government oversight, 

with respect to sound recordings, 

licensing for those same uses takes place 

without government supervision. 

Sound Recordings—Public 

Performance. Unlike musical works, a 

sound recording owner’s public 

performance right does not extend to all 

manner of public performances. 

Traditionally, the public performance of 

sound recordings was not subject to 

protection at all under the Copyright 

Act. In 1995, however, Congress enacted 

the DPRSRA, which provided for a 

limited right when sound recordings are 

publicly performed ‘‘by means of a 

digital audio transmission.’’ Public Law 

104–39, 109 Stat. 336; 17 U.S.C. 106(6), 

114(a). This right extends, for example, 

to satellite radio and internet-based 

music services.13 Significantly, 

however, the public performance of 

sound recordings by broadcast radio 

stations remains exempt under the Act. 

17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1).14


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14742 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

recordings to broadcast radio. See Internet 

Streaming of Radio Broadcasts: Balancing the 

Interests of Sound Recording Copyright Owners 

With Those of Broadcasters: Hearing Before the 

Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 

Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th 

Cong. 6–7 (2004) (statement of David Carson, 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office), available 

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

carson071504.pdf. Only a handful of countries lack 

such a right; in addition to the United States, the 

list includes China, North Korea, and Iran. This gap 

in copyright protection has the effect of depriving 

American performers and labels of foreign royalties 

to which they would otherwise be entitled, because 

even countries that recognize a public performance 

right in sound recordings impose a reciprocity 

requirement. According to one estimate, U.S. rights 

holders lose approximately $70 million each year 

in royalties for performances in foreign broadcasts. 

See generally Mary LaFrance, From Whether to 

How: The Challenge of Implementing a Full Public 

Performance Right in Sound Recordings, 2 Harv. J. 

of Sports & Ent. L 221, 226 (2011). 

15The Act requires that receipts under the 

Section 114 statutory license be divided in the 

following manner: 50 percent to the owner of the 

digital public performance right in the sound 

recording, 21⁄2 percent to nonfeatured musicians, 

21⁄2 percent to nonfeatured vocalists, and 45 percent 

to the featured recording artists. 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2). 16 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(10), (11). Today, Sirius/XM is 

the only preexisting satellite service that seeks 

statutory licenses under Section 114. See 

Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting 

Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio 

Radio Services, 78 FR 23054, 23055 (Apr. 17, 2013). 

There are two preexisting subscription services, 

Music Choice and Muzak. Id. 

17

18See 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(1), 801(b)(1). 

19 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2)(B) instructs the CRB to 

‘‘establish rates and terms that most clearly 

represent the rates and terms that would have been 

negotiated in the marketplace between a willing 

buyer and willing seller.’’ The provision further 

requires the CRB to consider ‘‘whether use of the 

service may substitute for or may promote the sales 

of phonorecords or otherwise may interfere with or 

may enhance the sound recording copyright 

owner’s other streams of revenue from its sound 

recordings,’’ and ‘‘the relative roles of the copyright 

owner and the transmitting entity in the 

copyrighted work and the service made available to 

the public with respect to relative creative 

contribution, technological contribution, capital 

investment, cost, and risk.’’ Id. 

For all types of services eligible for a Section 114 

statutory license, the rates for the phonorecords 

(ephemeral recordings) used to operate the service 

are to be established by the CRB under Section 112 

according to a ‘‘willing buyer/willing seller’’ 

standard. 17 U.S.C. 112(e). In general, the Section 

112 rates have been a relatively insignificant part 

of the CRB’s ratesetting proceedings, and have been 

established as a subset of the 114 rate. See, e.g., 

Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting 

Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio 

Radio Services, 78 FR 23054, 23055–56 (Apr. 17, 

2013). 

For certain uses, including those by 

satellite and internet radio, the digital 

public performance right for sound 

recordings is subject to statutory 

licensing in accordance with Sections 

112 and 114 of the Act. Section 112 

provides for a license to reproduce the 

phonorecords (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘ephemeral recordings’’) necessary to 

facilitate a service’s transmissions to 

subscribers, while Section 114 licenses 

the public performances of sound 

recordings resulting from those 

transmissions. This statutory licensing 

framework applies only to 

noninteractive (i.e., radio-style) services 

as defined under Section 114; 

interactive (or on-demand services) are 

not covered. See 17 U.S.C. 112(e); 17 

U.S.C. 114(d)(2), (f). For interactive 

services, sound recording owners 

negotiate licenses directly with users. 

The rates and terms applicable to the 

public performance of sound recordings 

under the Section 112 and 114 licenses 

are established by the CRB. See 17 

U.S.C. 801 et seq. The royalties due 

under these licenses are paid to an 

entity designated by the CRB—currently 

SoundExchange, Inc.—which collects, 

processes, and distributes payments on 

behalf of rights holders.15

Notably, under Section 114, the rate 

standard applicable to those satellite 

radio and music subscription services 

that existed as of July 31, 1998 (i.e., 

‘‘preexisting’’ services 16) differs from 

that for other services such as internet 

radio.17 Royalty rates for pre-existing 

satellite radio and subscription services 

are governed by the four-factor standard 

in Section 801(b) of the Act—that is, the 

standard that applies to the Section 115 

license for musical works.18 By contrast, 

under the terms of Section 114, rates 

and terms for noninteractive public 

performances via internet radio and 

other newer digital music services are to 

be determined by the CRB based on 

what a ‘‘willing buyer’’ and ‘‘willing 

seller’’ would have agreed to in the 

marketplace.19

Subjects of Inquiry 

The Copyright Office seeks public 

input on the effectiveness of the current 

methods for licensing musical works 

and sound recordings. Accordingly, the 

Office invites written comments on the 

specific subjects above. A party 

choosing to respond to this Notice of 

Inquiry need not address every subject, 

but the Office requests that responding 

parties clearly identify and separately 

address each subject for which a 

response is submitted. 

Musical Works 

1. Please assess the current need for 

and effectiveness of the Section 115 

statutory license for the reproduction 

and distribution of musical works. 

2. Please assess the effectiveness of 

the royalty ratesetting process and 

standards under Section 115. 

3. Would the music marketplace 

benefit if the Section 115 license were 

updated to permit licensing of musical 

works on a blanket basis by one or more 

collective licensing entities, rather than 

on a song-by-song basis? If so, what 

would be the key elements of any such 

system? 

4. For uses under the Section 115 

statutory license that also require a 

public performance license, could the 

licensing process be facilitated by 

enabling the licensing of performance 

rights along with reproduction and 

distribution rights in a unified manner? 

How might such a unified process be 

effectuated? 

5. Please assess the effectiveness of 

the current process for licensing the 

public performances of musical works. 

6. Please assess the effectiveness of 

the royalty ratesetting process and 

standards applicable under the consent 

decrees governing ASCAP and BMI, as 

well as the impact, if any, of 17 U.S.C. 

114(i), which provides that ‘‘[l]icense 

fees payable for the public performance 

of sound recordings under Section 

106(6) shall not be taken into account in 

any administrative, judicial, or other 

governmental proceeding to set or adjust 

the royalties payable to copyright 

owners of musical works for the public 

performance of their works.’’ 

7. Are the consent decrees serving 

their intended purpose? Are the 

concerns that motivated the entry of 

these decrees still present given modern 

market conditions and legal 

developments? Are there alternatives 

that might be adopted? 

Sound Recordings 

8. Please assess the current need for 

and effectiveness of the Section 112 and 

Section 114 statutory licensing process. 

9. Please assess the effectiveness of 

the royalty ratesetting process and 

standards applicable to the various 

types of services subject to statutory 

licensing under Section 114. 

10. Do any recent developments 

suggest that the music marketplace 

might benefit by extending federal 

copyright protection to pre-1972 sound 

recordings? Are there reasons to 

continue to withhold such protection? 

Should pre-1972 sound recordings be 

included within the Section 112 and 

114 statutory licenses? 

11. Is the distinction between 

interactive and noninteractive services 

adequately defined for purposes of 

eligibility for the Section 114 license? 

Platform Parity 

12. What is the impact of the varying 

ratesetting standards applicable to the 

Section 112, 114, and 115 statutory 

licenses, including across different 

music delivery platforms. Do these 

differences make sense? 

13. How do differences in the 

applicability of the sound recording 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14743 

public performance right impact music 

licensing? 

Changes in Music Licensing Practices 

14. How prevalent is direct licensing 

by musical work owners in lieu of 

licensing through a common agent or 

PRO? How does direct licensing impact 

the music marketplace, including the 

major record labels and music 

publishers, smaller entities, individual 

creators, and licensees? 

15. Could the government play a role 

in encouraging the development of 

alternative licensing models, such as 

micro-licensing platforms? If so, how 

and for what types of uses? 

16. In general, what innovations have 

been or are being developed by 

copyright owners and users to make the 

process of music licensing more 

effective? 

17. Would the music marketplace 

benefit from modifying the scope of the 

existing statutory licenses? 

Revenues and Investment 

18. How have developments in the 

music marketplace affected the income 

of songwriters, composers, and 

recording artists? 

19. Are revenues attributable to the 

performance and sale of music fairly 

divided between creators and 

distributors of musical works and sound 

recordings? 

20. In what ways are investment 

decisions by creators, music publishers, 

and record labels, including the 

investment in the development of new 

projects and talent, impacted by music 

licensing issues? 

21. How do licensing concerns impact 

the ability to invest in new distribution 

models? 

Data Standards 

22. Are there ways the federal 

government could encourage the 

adoption of universal standards for the 

identification of musical works and 

sound recordings to facilitate the music 

licensing process? 

Other Issues 

23. Please supply or identify data or 

economic studies that measure or 

quantify the effect of technological or 

other developments on the music 

licensing marketplace, including the 

revenues attributable to the 

consumption of music in different 

formats and through different 

distribution channels, and the income 

earned by copyright owners. 

24. Please identify any pertinent 

issues not referenced above that the 

Copyright Office should consider in 

conducting its study. 

Dated: March 11, 2014. 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, 

General Counsel and Associate, Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05711 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2014–020] 

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 April 

16, 2014. Once the appraisal of the 

records is completed, NARA will send 

a copy of the schedule. NARA staff 

usually prepares appraisal memoranda 

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 on 

the schedule. 

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 

specifically 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES