Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 9253 

36Respondent’s admitting ‘‘issues with his 

recordkeeping’’ is not accepting responsibility, let 

alone unequivocally accepting responsibility. Supra 

n.34. 

37CURES only shows that a controlled substance 

prescription was filled. It does not show what then 

happened to the pills in that filled controlled 

substance prescription. 

V. Sanction 

Where, as here, the Government has 

met its prima facie burden of showing 

that Respondent’s continued registration 

is inconsistent with the public interest 

due to its numerous violations 

pertaining to controlled substances, the 

burden shifts to Respondent to show 

why it can be entrusted with a 

registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; 

Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 

F.3d at 830; Garrett Howard Smith, 

M.D., 83 FR 18882 (2018). The issue of 

trust is necessarily a fact-dependent 

determination based on the 

circumstances presented by the 

individual respondent. Jeffrey Stein, 

M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see 

also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 

881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past 

performance is the best predictor of 

future performance, DEA 

Administrators have required that a 

registrant who has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest 

must accept responsibility for those acts 

and demonstrate that it will not engage 

in future misconduct. Jones Total 

Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833 

(citing authority including Alra Labs., 

Inc. v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 

452 (7th Cir. 1995) (‘‘An agency 

rationally may conclude that past 

performance is the best predictor of 

future performance.’’). ‘‘[T]hat 

consideration is vital to whether 

continued registration is in the public 

interest.’’ MacKay v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 

664 F.3d 808, 820 (10th Cir. 2011). A 

registrant’s acceptance of responsibility 

must be unequivocal. Jones Total Health 

Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830–31. In 

addition, a registrant’s candor during 

the investigation and hearing has been 

an important factor in determining 

acceptance of responsibility and the 

appropriate sanction. Id. Further, DEA 

Administrators have found that the 

egregiousness and extent of the 

misconduct are significant factors in 

determining the appropriate sanction. 

Id. at 834 and n.4. DEA Administrators 

have also considered the need to deter 

similar acts by the respondent and by 

the community of registrants. Jeffrey 

Stein, M.D., 84 FR at 46972–73. 

Regarding these matters, Respondent 

did not testify, and there is no 

indication in the record that Respondent 

takes responsibility, let alone 

unequivocal responsibility, for the 

founded, egregious violations involving 

his controlled substance 

prescribing.36 Supra sections II, III.C, 

and IV; cf. Osmin A. Morales, 88 FR 

75,309, 75,311–12. Instead, 

Respondent’s case consists of one 

baseless or irrelevant argument after 

another, often seemingly to deflect 

attention away from his unlawful 

controlled substance prescribing. E.g. 

Tr. 672–73 (Respondent’s closing 

argument statements that he used 

CURES to ‘‘check[ ]’’ whether a patient 

is ‘‘taking medications . . . prescribed 

to him’’ and that the ‘‘dozens, if not 

hundreds of these CURES printouts’’ 

show that Respondent ‘‘was carefully 

monitoring the medication that the 

patients were taking and carefully 

issuing prescriptions and making sure 

patients were taking the drugs at the 

right time and in the correct 

quantities’’); 37 RD, at 37 (‘‘Despite 

Respondent’s efforts at misdirection, the 

evidence is overwhelming that 

Respondent prescribed high-dosage 

opioids . . . and other powerful 

controlled substances, without a 

medical diagnosis to justify the 

prescription—there was, inter alia, no 

meaningful medical or mental health 

history taken, no adequate physical 

examination conducted, and no pain 

management plan recorded.’’). 

The interests of specific and general 

deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. 

Respondent has not convinced the 

Agency that he understands that his 

controlled substance prescribing fell 

short of the applicable standard of care, 

and that substandard controlled 

substance prescribing has serious 

negative ramifications for the health, 

safety, and medical care of individuals 

who come to him for medical treatment. 

See, e.g., Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 

83 FR at 18910 (collecting cases) (‘‘The 

egregiousness and extent of the 

misconduct are significant factors in 

determining the appropriate sanction.’’). 

As such, it is not reasonable to believe 

that Respondent’s future controlled 

substance prescribing will comply with 

legal requirements. Indeed, 

Respondent’s own actions suggest that 

he has no intention of complying fully 

with the CSA and the California 

standard of care in the future. Tr. 537– 

38 (Respondent inexplicably suggesting 

that he ‘‘did nothing wrong’’ after his 

medical records improved). 

Further, given the foundational nature 

and vast number of Respondent’s 

violations, a sanction less than 

revocation would send a message to the 

existing and prospective registrant 

community that compliance with the 

law is not a condition precedent to 

maintaining a registration. 

Accordingly, the Agency shall order 

the sanction the Government requested, 

as contained in the Order below. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(4), I hereby revoke DEA 

registration No. BB4591839 issued to 

David Bockoff, M.D. Further, pursuant 

to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I 

hereby deny any pending application of 

David Bockoff, M.D., for a DEA 

Registration in California. This Order is 

effective March 12, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on February 3, 2025, by Acting 

Administrator Derek Maltz. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DEA. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DEA Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of DEA. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2025–02421 Filed 2–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2025–1] 

Issues Related to Performing Rights 

Organizations 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

collecting information regarding issues 

related to performance rights 

organizations (‘‘PROs’’) and the 

Copyright Act’s public performance 

right for musical works. It is initiating 

this inquiry at Congress’s request to 

gather information on questions related 

to the increase in the number of PROs 

and the licensing revenue distribution 

practices of PROs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
9254 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 

1Act of Jan. 6, 1897, ch. 4, 29 Stat. 481; see also 

17 U.S.C. 106(4). 

2Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of 

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

400 F. Supp. 737, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), rev’d sub 

nom. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. ASCAP, 562 

F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1977), rev’d sub nom. Broad. 

Music, Inc. (‘‘BMI’’) v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 

441 U.S. 1 (1979); see also Columbia Broad. Sys., 

Inc., 441 U.S. at 5 (describing how ‘‘as a practical 

matter it was impossible for the many individual 

copyright owners to negotiate with and license [the 

public performance right to] users and to detect 

unauthorized uses’’ of musical works). 

3See Donald S. Passman, All You Need to Know 

About the Music Business 230–31 (11th ed. 2023) 

(‘‘Passman’’); see also Makan Delrahim, Ass’t Att’y 

Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Statement 

of the Dep’t of Just. on the Closing of the Antitrust 

Div.’s Rev. of the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees 

1 (Jan. 15, 2021) (‘‘Antitrust 2021 Closing 

Statement’’), http://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/ 

1355391/dl. 

4See U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the 

Music Marketplace 112 (2015) (‘‘Music Marketplace 

Report’’), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/ 

musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-musicmarketplace.pdf. 

5Since 1941, ASCAP and BMI have been subject 

to separate ‘‘consent decrees’’ that restrict their 

licensing practices and related operations. See id. 

at 34–42 (discussing consent decrees). The Office 

notes that the Department of Justice’s Antitrust 

Division evaluates and oversees these consent 

decrees, and antitrust issues are outside the scope 

of this Notice of Inquiry. 

6See Bruce Pollock, A Friend in the Music 

Business: The ASCAP Story 14 (2014) (‘‘Pollock’’); 

BMI, BMI’s Timeline Through History, https://

www.bmi.com/about/history (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); GMR, About Us, https://

globalmusicrights.com/about (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); SESAC, About Us, https://www.sesac.com/ 

about/ (noting that Paul Heinecke founded SESAC 

in February 1931) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); Marc 

Schneider, GMR, About Us, https://

globalmusicrights.com/about (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); InsideRadio, Upstart Music Licensing 

Company Pro Music Rights Goes Public (July 22, 

2022), https://www.insideradio.com/free/upstartmusic-licensing-company-pro-music-rights-goespublic/article_764bb32e-0987-11ed-9d35- 

ebdda2accc56.html; see also Pollock at 40 

(identifying SESAC’s founding as 1930); Jason 

Lipshutz, SESAC at 80, The Hollywood Reporter 

(Apr. 13, 2010), https://

www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/businessnews/sesac-80-22598/ (noting that ‘‘SESAC was 

founded in 1930 as a means of securing American 

royalties for European publishers,’’ but that 

‘‘SESAC quickly expanded to include American 

music and began signing songwriters in 1970’’). 

This is not necessarily an exhaustive list, including 

because other PROs have ceased operations. See, 

e.g., Pollock at 7 (noting that the French PRO, 

SACEM, opened a U.S. branch in 1911, but ‘‘failed 

to generate a spark of interest’’); Robert Israel 

Goodman, Comment, Music Copyright Associations 

and the Antitrust Laws, 25 Ind. L.J. 168, 170 (1950) 

(referencing former PROs, such as the Society of 

Jewish Composers and Israel Composers, Authors, 

and Publishers, Inc.). 

7Nonmonetary ways by which PROs may 

compete include their educational, creative, and 

promotional offerings, such as showcases, 

performance opportunities at festivals and 

conferences, or panels or ‘‘songwriting awards, 

professional workshops, hands-on tutorials, and 

networking events.’’ Pollock at 2; BMI, BMI Member 

FAQs, https://www.bmi.com/faq/category/about 

(last visited Jan. 22, 2025) (discussed under header 

‘‘What extra services does BMI offer to members?’’); 

see also Susan P. Butler, Collective Rights 

Management Practices Around the World 20–21 

(Apr. 2020), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/ 

unclaimed-royalties/cmo-full-report.pdf (‘‘Some 

CMOs [collective rights management organizations, 

a term which includes PROs] perform certain 

educational activities as ways to compete with 

other CMOs for members or to provide a better 

service to their own members. Some CMOs produce 

creative conferences or host songwriter ‘camps’ to 

share information or promote creative 

collaborations.’’). 

8Letter from U.S. Copyright Office to the 

Honorable Doug Collins, Vice-Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and 

the internet, United States House of Representatives 

26 (Jan. 29, 2016) (‘‘Fractional Licensing Letter’’), 

https://copyright.gov/policy/pro-licensing.pdf. 

9See Passman at 230, 235–36 (discussing PROs 

bargaining power with licensees); William 

Livingston, General Manager, Gemeny Winery and 

Vineyards LLC, Statement in Response to the Dep’t 

of Just.’s Request for Public Comments Concerning 

the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees 1 (June 21, 

2019), https://media.justice.gov/vod/atr/ 

ascapbmi2019/pc-300.pdf (noting that ‘‘[a]ll three 

companies ‘ASCAP, BMI and SESAC’ give us 

different rates to pay . . . .’’); Ray Waddell, The 

$300 Million Comeback: Irving Azoff Teams With 

MSG’s James Dolan to Create Intriguing Music 

Company, Billboard (Sept. 6, 2013), https://

www.billboard.com/music/music-news/the-300- 

million-comeback-irving-azoff-teams-with-msgsjames-dolan-to-5687155/ (reflecting that SESAC is 

able to charge higher rates than ASCAP and BMI). 

10While both ASCAP and BMI were not-for-profit 

organizations for many decades, ASCAP is now the 

only PRO operating on a not-for-profit basis. 

ASCAP, ASCAP Annual Report 2023 2 (2024), 

https://www.ascap.com/∼/media/site-pages/annualreport/2023/2023-ascap-annual-report.pdf; see also 

Mike O’Neill, Quarterly Distribution Update, BMI 

(Feb. 2023), https://www.bmi.com/distribution/ 

letter/587887 (reflecting BMI’s first distribution as 

a for-profit business). 

Eastern Time on April 11, 2025. Written 

reply comments must be received no 

later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

May 27, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of governmental 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office’s website at https://

copyright.gov/policy/pro-issues/. If 

electronic comment submission is not 

feasible due to lack of access to a 

computer or the internet, please contact 

the Copyright Office using the contact 

information below for special 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

a. Public Performance Right for Musical 

Works and the Formation of PROs 

Musical work copyright owners (e.g., 

songwriters or music publishers) have 

enjoyed the exclusive right to perform 

their works publicly since 1897.1 The 

variety of ways those works are 

performed, however, has created 

practical challenges associated with the 

licensing of the right. As one court 

summarized the issue: 

The users of music, such as theaters, dance 

halls and bars, were so numerous and 

widespread, and each performance so 

fleeting an occurrence, that no individual 

copyright owner could negotiate licenses 

with users of his music, or detect 

unauthorized uses. On the other side of the 

coin, those who wished to perform 

compositions without infringing the 

copyright were, as a practical matter, unable 

to obtain licenses from the owners of the 

works they wished to perform.2

Performing rights organizations 

(‘‘PROs’’) were established to address 

these challenges. Broadly, a PRO 

contracts with songwriters and 

publishers for the authority to license 

the public performance rights in their 

musical works, and then provides 

collective licenses of those rights to 

users, allowing them to publicly 

perform the works in the PRO’s 

repertoire.3 Such licenses are 

significantly more efficient for 

businesses, songwriters, and publishers 

when compared to song-by-song 

licensing and enforcement.4

b. Evolution of the U.S. PRO Market and 

Their Competition for Members 

After a long period of stability, the 

number of PROs in the United States 

has increased in recent years. The first 

U.S. PRO was ASCAP, established in 

1914, followed by SESAC in 1931 and 

BMI in 1939.5 More recently, three new 

PROs have been formed: Global Music 

Rights (or ‘‘GMR’’) in 2013, PRO Music 

Rights in 2018, and AllTrack in 2019.6

These organizations compete with 

each other for songwriter and publisher 

members through the license terms and 

programs they offer.7 As the Office has 

previously recognized, ‘‘[s]ongwriters 

and publishers have highlighted the 

importance of the existence of multiple 

PROs in the music marketplace, 

indicating that they carefully choose the 

PRO with which they affiliate based on 

their perception of which organization 

will bring them the most benefit.’’ 8

PROs offer different royalty rates to their 

members based on several factors, 

including: the number of licensees 

paying royalties; the rates charged to 

those licensees; 9 the administrative fee 

charged for the PRO’s services; the 

PRO’s for-profit or not-for-profit 

status; 10 and the methodologies used for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 9255 

11See Passman at 234–35 (noting that PROs 

‘‘change their distribution rules on a regular basis’’ 

and certain performance bonuses ‘‘also affect the 

results’’ of those distributions); see also, e.g., 

ASCAP, ASCAP’s Survey and Distribution System: 

Rules & Policies (Oct. 2022), https://

www.ascap.com/∼/media/files/pdf/members/ 

governing-documents/ascap-survey--distributionrules--10322.pdf; BMI, How We Pay Royalties: Live 

Concert Royalties, https://www.bmi.com/creators/ 

royalty/live_concert_royalties (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025). 

12Music Marketplace Report at 150. 

13ASCAP, ASCAP Music License Agreements and 

Reporting Forms, https://www.ascap.com/musicusers/licensefinder (listing twenty-six separate 

license agreements) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

14BMI, Music License Agreements and Reporting 

Forms, https://www.bmi.com/licensing/forms 

(listing fifty separate license agreements) (last 

visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

15BMI, Music Licensing FAQs, https://

www.bmi.com/licensing/faqs (click on ‘‘Q: How 

much is a BMI music license and how is that fee 

determined?’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

16See BMI v. Pandora Media, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 

3d 267, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). 

17Music Marketplace Report at 33. PROs may 

offer other license types, including per-program or 

per-segment licenses. Id. 

18A PRO’s ‘‘repertoire’’ or ‘‘repertory’’ is 

sometimes called its ‘‘catalog.’’ See GMR, Catalog 

Homepage, https://globalmusicrights.com/Catalog 

(last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

19Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. at 5; 

United States v. ASCAP, 627 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 

2010) (‘‘A blanket license is a license that gives the 

licensee the right to perform all of the works in the 

repertory for a single stated fee that does not vary 

depending on how much music from the repertory 

the licensee actually uses.’’). 

20Fractional Licensing Letter at 1–2. 

21As the Office has previously reported, in 

addition to multiple songwriters who may work on 

a single work, a ‘‘song may incorporate samples of, 

or remix, preexisting works’’ owned by additional 

copyright owners. Id. at 8–9. 

22See id. at 4–8. In some circumstances, the work 

may be considered a derivative work or 

compilation. Id. 

23 17 U.S.C. 201(a) (‘‘The authors of a joint work 

are coowners of copyright in the work.’’); see also 

Fractional Licensing Letter at 6–7 (discussing this 

topic further). 

24Fractional Licensing Letter at 9. When signing 

a standard publishing contract, a songwriter will 

‘‘assign[ ] the entirety of his or her copyright interest 

in a composition or catalog of compositions to a 

publisher in exchange for the publisher’s 

administrative services and a share of revenues,’’ 

but the songwriter will retain the ability to collect 

his or her share of royalties directly from their 

chosen PRO. Id. at 11. 

25See, e.g., Brief of Television Music License 

Committee as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellant 

at 28, United States v. BMI, 720 F. App’x 14 (2d 

Cir. 2017) (No. 16–3830) (suggesting that fractional 

licensing would be ‘‘costly’’ and ‘‘time consuming’’ 

for local broadcasters); Brief for Consumer Action 

and Public Knowledge as Amici Curiae Supporting 

Appellant at 3, United States v. BMI, 720 F. App’x 

14 (2d Cir. 2017) (No. 16–3830) (stating that 

fractional licensing makes it ‘‘harder and more 

expensive for music services to license songs’’). 

26See Fractional Licensing Letter at 10–15. 

27United States v. BMI, 207 F. Supp. 3d 374, 375 

(S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d, 720 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 

2017) (summary order) (‘‘a music user, before 

performing any multi-owner work in a PRO’s 

repertory, would need a license to [all] the 

fractional interests held by each of the work’s coowners’’). 

28Fractional Licensing Letter at 9; see also 

Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. at 18 (‘‘Those 

who would use copyrighted music in public 

performances must secure consent from the 

copyright owner or be liable at least for the 

statutory damages for each infringement and, if the 

conduct is willful and for the purpose of financial 

gain, to criminal penalties.’’). 

29Fractional Licensing Letter 19, 23–25. 

30 Id. at 3, 13. 

31See ASCAP, ASCAP Repertory Search, https:// 

www.ascap.com/repertory (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); BMI, SONGVIEW, https://

repertoire.bmi.com/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); 

SESAC, Search Repertory, https://www.sesac.com/ 

repertory/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2025) (including a 

link to download SESAC’s entire repertory); GMR, 

Catalog Homepage, https://globalmusicrights.com/ 

Catalog (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); see also GMR, 

Request Full Catalog, https://

globalmusicrights.com/CatalogRequest (last visited 

Jan. 22, 2025). 

32Ed Christman, Who Owns That Song? ASCAP 

& BMI’s New Joint Data Platform Will Tell You, 

Billboard (Dec. 21, 2020), https://

www.billboard.com/pro/ascap-bmi-joint-databasesongview/. 

royalty calculations, which may provide 

higher payments based on the relative 

commercial value of a musical work.11

c. PROs’ Licensing Practices 

PROs provide licenses for a wide 

variety of performances, including 

‘‘terrestrial, satellite, and internet radio, 

on-demand music streaming services, 

website and television uses, . . . bars, 

restaurants, and other commercial 

establishments, and live 

performances,’’ 12 as well as uses by 

more niche businesses, such as roller 

rinks 13 and laser shows.14 They 

generally offer different license rates 

depending on the type of business or 

use being licensed. ‘‘For example, rates 

for restaurants, nightclubs, bars and 

similar establishments depend on 

whether the music is live or recorded, 

[is] audio only or audio visual, the 

number of nights per week music is 

offered, whether admission is charged 

and several other factors.’’ 15

A standard practice for PROs is to 

offer licenses on a non-exclusive basis, 

which means that businesses have the 

option of obtaining performance 

licenses directly from publisher or 

songwriter copyright owners, although 

it appears that instances of such direct 

licensing has been infrequent.16 Most 

licensees that contract with PROs obtain 

a blanket license 17 to all works, or 

shares of works, in the PRO’s 

repertoire.18 The royalty fee charged is 

‘‘ordinarily a percentage of . . . [the 

licensee’s] revenues or a flat dollar 

amount.’’ 19

As previously described by the Office, 

‘‘the practice of licensing only partial 

interests in co-owned works’’ is called 

‘‘fractional’’ licensing and stands in 

contrast to ‘‘100-percent’’ licensing, 

which entails ‘‘granting full rights to use 

a co-owned work based upon a partial 

interest in the work.’’ 20 Because 

musical works are frequently created by 

multiple authors (i.e., songwriters, 

including composers and lyricists),21

co-ownership issues can play an 

important role when licensing musical 

works. Depending on the circumstances 

of their creation, musical works with 

multiple authors may be considered 

joint works.22 While the default rule is 

that joint authors own equal and 

undivided interests in a copyrightprotected work,23 musical work joint 

authors often agree to alter that rule, 

including to instead divide the 

ownership shares unequally and to 

permit separate licensing of those 

shares.24

Fractional licensing is often cited by 

licensees as a cause of administrative 

frustration and increased costs.25 For 

example, if a musical work has multiple 

songwriters and publishers who have 

authorized different PROs to license 

their separate fractional interests, then 

any PRO’s ability to offer a license is 

limited to the fractional interests that 

the PRO has obtained.26 In that case, the 

entity that intends to publicly perform 

a particular musical work must confirm 

that it has obtained a license for all of 

the fractional interests in the work, 

which may require licenses from 

multiple PROs.27 Otherwise, that user 

‘‘may face infringement liability’’ for 

publicly performing the work.28

While the practice of fractional 

licensing has caused frustrations for 

some licensees, it has encouraged 

competition among the different PROs 

for songwriters and publishers.29 The 

Office previously noted that if PROs 

were forced to offer 100-percent 

licenses, doing so ‘‘would seemingly 

vitiate important principles of copyright 

law, interfere with creative 

collaborations among songwriters, 

negate private contracts, . . . 

impermissibly expand the reach of the 

consent decrees,’’ and ‘‘could also 

severely undermine the efficacy of 

[PROs]’’ and their ability to ‘‘grant 

blanket licenses.’’ 30

Information regarding what works are 

covered by a PRO’s blanket license is 

not always publicly available. The 

largest U.S. PROs do publicly disclose 

the works in their respective 

repertoires.31 For example, in 2020, 

ASCAP and BMI debuted 

‘‘SONGVIEW,’’ an online ‘‘joint song 

data platform,’’ that ‘‘reconcile[s] 

songwriter and publisher information’’ 

between those two PROs.32 If a musical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
9256 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 

33See Inside Radio, ASCAP, BMI Launch Music 

Data Platform With Copyright Info For Millions of 

Songs (Dec. 21, 2020), https://

www.insideradio.com/free/ascap-bmi-launchmusic-data-platform-with-copyright-info-formillions-of-songs/article_b3e0b200-43ab-11eb-ba27- 

13dee78eb249.html (‘‘[I]f a song is reconciled in 

Songview between ASCAP and BMI and there are 

shares from another PRO involved in the work, 

such as SESAC or GMR, then the system will list 

those shares as ‘Other’ or will reflect that the 

ASCAP and BMI shares don’t add up to 100%. In 

addition, writer affiliations are displayed and there 

is also an indication that there are non-ASCAP and 

BMI publishers involved with that work.’’). 

34SESAC, Search Repertory, https://

www.sesac.com/repertory/ (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025) (including a link to download SESAC’s entire 

repertory); GMR, Catalog Homepage, https://

globalmusicrights.com/Catalog (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); GMR, Request Full Catalog, https://

globalmusicrights.com/CatalogRequest (last visited 

Jan. 22, 2025). 

35Songwriters can leave ASCAP and BMI every 

two years. ASCAP, Compendium of ASCAP Rules 

and Regulations, and Policies Supplemental to the 

Articles of Association sec. 1.11.1 (Aug. 14, 2023), 

https://www.ascap.com/∼/media/files/pdf/ 

members/governing-documents/ascapcompendium.pdf; BMI, Affiliation Agreement Info, 

https://www.bmi.com/creators/agreement (last 

visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

36See, e.g., ASCAP, ASCAP Repertory Search— 

Terms of Use Agreement, https://www.ascap.com/ 

help/legal/ace-terms-of-use (noting that 

‘‘information contained in ASCAP Repertory Search 

has been supplied to ASCAP, and is aggregated 

from, a variety of third party sources’’) (last visited 

Jan. 22, 2025). 

37 Id. (noting that information in ASCAP’s 

database ‘‘changes on a continual basis, and as with 

any information database, there may be 

inaccuracies or delays in updating the information’’ 

and including a disclaimer related to use of its 

database); BMI, Disclaimer, https://

repertoire.bmi.com/Main/DisclaimerOnly (‘‘BMI has 

high confidence in the accuracy of the data we 

provide, which is obtained from rights holders who, 

as royalty recipients, have every incentive to 

provide reliable data,’’ though ‘‘BMI cannot give a 

blanket guarantee regarding the accuracy of the data 

. . . .’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); BMI, Terms and 

Conditions of Use, https://www.bmi.com/legal/ 

entry/terms_and_conditions_of_use (noting that 

‘‘[t]he information contained in the BMI Searchable 

Song Title Databases have been provided to BMI 

from a variety of sources, and BMI makes no 

warranties or representations whatsoever with 

respect to the accuracy or completeness of the 

information in the BMI Searchable Song Title 

Databases other than to determine what musical 

compositions are licensed by BMI through the last 

update’’ and ‘‘BMI does not warrant or represent 

that any BMI content that you may access at or 

through a BMI site or service is current, accurate or 

complete’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); SESAC, 

Search Repertory, https://www.sesac.com/ 

repertory/ (‘‘As search results will contain 

information provided to SESAC by the songwriters 

and publishers that SESAC represents, SESAC 

makes no representations and/or warranties with 

respect to the accuracy or completeness of the 

information found within the search results, though 

SESAC has no reason to believe that the 

information found within the search results is 

inaccurate or incomplete.’’ (text displayed in a popup window)) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); GMR, 

Terms of Use, https://globalmusicrights.com/ 

TermsOfUse (‘‘The information contained in the 

[GMR] Database changes on a continual basis, and 

as with any information database, there may be 

inaccuracies or delays in updating the information. 

Although [GMR] uses reasonable efforts to update 

the [GMR] Database and improve the accuracy of 

the information contained therein, [GMR] makes no 

guarantees, warranties or representations of any 

kind with regard to and cannot ensure the accuracy, 

completeness, timeliness, quality or reliability of 

any information made available on and through the 

[GMR] Database.’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

38BMI, Disclaimer, https://repertoire.bmi.com/ 

Main/DisclaimerOnly (‘‘Businesses that take out a 

BMI license can be assured that BMI will not bring 

an infringement action against a licensee that relies 

on the information contained in the data 

platform. . . . Additionally, BMI will not sue an 

individual or business for infringement for the 

performance of music in which BMI has an interest 

if, when that music is performed, it was not listed 

in the data platform.’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025); 

GMR, Request Full Catalog, https://

globalmusicrights.com/CatalogRequest (‘‘Global 

Music Rights will not sue anyone for copyright 

infringement for performances of these 

compositions unless they appear in this catalog at 

the time of performance.’’) (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025); SESAC, Search Repertory, https://

www.sesac.com/repertory/ (‘‘SESAC uses 

reasonable efforts to keep the information contained 

in its repertory database current and will grant 

Users of this Repertory Search a forty-five (45) day 

grace period beginning upon the date that a musical 

work is first posted to SESAC’s repertory database 

to obtain from SESAC a license covering the use of 

that musical work, during which forty-five (45) day 

period SESAC will make no claims of copyright 

infringement against the User; provided, however, 

that the User has acted in good faith and was 

unaware that the musical work is contained within 

SESAC’s repertory.’’) (text displayed in a pop-up 

window)) (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

39See, e.g., Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing 

1241–42 (5th ed. 2019); Passman at 232–34; 

ASCAP, ASCAP Payment System: Identifying 

Performances, https://www.ascap.com/help/ 

royalties-and-payment/payment/identifying (last 

visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

40See Passman at 233–34. 

41 Id. at 233; BMI, How We Pay Royalties, https:// 

www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/general_information 

(‘‘[I]n cases where performance data is not available 

or is incomplete for any of the sources from which 

BMI collects fees, BMI may distribute those fees 

against performances from a source or sources 

where sufficient data is available.) (last visited Jan. 

22, 2025). 

42ASCAP, Royalties and Payment: Frequently 

Asked Questions, https://www.ascap.com/help/ 

royalties-and-payment (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

43See generally, ASCAP, ASCAP’s Survey and 

Distribution System: Rules & Policies (Oct. 2022), 

https://www.ascap.com/∼/media/files/pdf/ 

members/governing-documents/ascap-survey-- 

distribution-rules--10322.pdf. 

44 Jeffery Brabec & Todd Brabec, Music, Money, 

and Success: The Insider’s Guide to Making Money 

in the Music Business 388–91, 397–400 (8th ed. 

2018) (‘‘Brabec’’) (providing an overview of 

television royalty payment formulas for ASCAP and 

BMI). 

45 Id. at 357; see also Passman at 234 (reflecting 

that PROs may pay bonuses for popular songs). 

46Brabec at 394 (noting that ‘‘ASCAP conducts a 

census survey (100% pickup) of all songs 

performed in the 300 largest concert tours and 

festivals in the United States, as well as all songs 

at a dozen or so selected venues . . . .’’); Passman 

at 234 (‘‘The societies pay based on domestic 

concert performances, but it’s only for the top three 

work’s rights are not fully licensed by 

ASCAP and BMI, SONGVIEW will 

indicate what percentage of rights are 

outside the control of these two PROs 

and may also indicate which other PROs 

control the remaining rights.33 Two 

other PROs, SESAC and GMR, provide 

web pages dedicated to their respective 

repertoires along with the option to 

acquire their repertoire information in 

bulk.34

Nevertheless, the information in these 

databases and websites may include 

inaccuracies as a result of changes in the 

PRO’s membership 35 and the fact that 

some data is provided by third parties, 

including songwriters and publishers.36

The largest U.S. PROs disclose this fact, 

disclaiming any guarantees or 

warranties.37 At the same time, some 

PROs represent that they will not bring 

litigation against those relying in good 

faith on their publicly available 

repertoire data.38

d. PROs’ Usage Tracking and Royalty 

Distribution Practices 

To accurately distribute royalties, 

PROs must track the musical works 

performed by their licensees. This may 

be based on licensee- or artist-based 

reporting (including by providing 

playlists, program guides, cue sheets, or 

setlists).39 It also may involve the PRO’s 

monitoring of performances on certain 

mediums, such as on broadcast or cable 

television or terrestrial or satellite 

radio.40

In certain circumstances, accurate 

usage data may be unavailable or 

economically inefficient to obtain. PROs 

may then rely on proxy data to estimate 

usage.41 This proxy data may come from 

a census (where a ‘‘complete count[ ] of 

performances in a medium’’ has been 

made) or sample surveys (where the 

PRO ‘‘tak[es] a representative crosssection of the performances on [a] 

medium’’).42

In addition to the number of times a 

musical work has been performed, other 

factors affect the royalties that a PRO 

distributes to its members. As noted 

above, a PRO may charge different rates 

based on the category of use (e.g., 

terrestrial and satellite radio, television, 

cable, audiovisual streaming services, 

audio streaming services, concert 

venues, etc.).43 Additional distinctions 

may be made within any of these 

categories of uses, e.g., the royalty for 

musical works performed on a 

television program may depend on 

whether the use was on local or network 

television or used as a featured 

performance, theme song, or 

background music (or underscore).44 In 

some circumstances, PROs may also 

distribute royalty bonuses for hit songs 

or popular standards.45

With respect to live performances at 

larger venues, some PROs have 

historically only paid royalties for those 

musical works performed at the topgrossing tours and festivals.46 For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 9257 

hundred grossing tours and festivals . . . .’’); see 

also Jeffery Brabec & Todd Brabec, Music, Money, 

and Success: The Insider’s Guide to Making Money 

in the Music Business 339 (7th ed. 2011) (noting 

that the census survey was formerly of the ‘‘top 

200’’ tours and ‘‘eleven major venues’’). 

47Brabec at 394 (referencing ASCAP’s OnStage 

program); see also BMI, Get Paid for Live 

Performances with BMI Live, https://www.bmi.com/ 

special/bmi_live (last visited Jan. 22, 2025). 

48See, e.g., ASCAP, ASCAP’s Survey and 

Distribution System: Rules & Policies (Oct. 2022), 

https://www.ascap.com/∼/media/files/pdf/ 

members/governing-documents/ascap-survey-- 

distribution-rules--10322.pdf; BMI, Royalty 

Information, https://www.bmi.com/ 

creators#royaltyinformation (providing higher-level 

royalty calculation information) (last visited Jan. 22, 

2025). 

49Letter from Reps. Jordan, Issa, and Fitzgerald to 

Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, U.S. 

Copyright Office at 1–2 (Sept. 11, 2024) 

(‘‘Congressional Request’’), https://

www.copyright.gov/policy/pro-issues/letter-to-uscopro-issues.pdf. 

50ASCAP, Why ASCAP Licenses Bars, 

Restaurants & Music Venues, https://

www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing/why-ascaplicenses-bars-restaurants-music-venues (last visited 

Jan. 22, 2025). 

51Congressional Request at 1–2. 

52 Id. at 2. 

53 Id. 

smaller venues, some PROs allow 

performers to self-report performance 

data, which is used by the PROs to 

calculate royalty distributions.47

PROs have created royalty calculation 

and distribution policies to account for 

all the elements they consider when 

paying their members.48 While some 

may publish aspects of these policies, 

information regarding any individual 

PRO’s financial operations, including 

license and royalty distribution terms, 

may not be publicly available for 

competitive reasons. 

II. Congressional Request and Subjects 

of Inquiry 

In September 2024, the Copyright 

Office received a letter from three 

members of the House Judiciary 

Committee relaying concerns over (1) 

the increase of PROs and (2) difficulties 

regarding how to ‘‘assess how efficiently 

PROs are distributing general licensing 

revenue, based on publicly available 

data.’’ 49 The term ‘‘‘[g]eneral licensee’ is 

an umbrella term referring to the 

hundreds of thousands of bars, 

restaurants, hotels, ice and roller skating 

rinks, theme parks and other ‘brick and 

mortar’ businesses . . . that are not TV, 

radio or audio and audio-visual 

streaming platforms.’’ 50 The letter asked 

the Office to gather information 

regarding these issues. With this notice, 

the Office is soliciting input to aid 

Congress’s consideration of these issues 

and invites written comments on the 

subjects of inquiry below. 

A. The Increase in PROs 

The Congressional Request states that 

bars, restaurants, stores, hotels, and 

music venues engaged in the public 

performance of musical works ‘‘have 

reported receiving demands for royalties 

from new entities claiming to represent 

songwriters, and threatening litigation if 

the demands are not met.’’ 51 It adds 

that, ‘‘[c]onsidering that the possibility 

of substantial statutory copyright 

damages poses an existential risk for 

most bars, restaurants, and other small 

businesses, many feel compelled to pay 

these entities on top of what they 

already pay for blanket licenses from the 

traditional PROs.’’ 52

The Office is requesting public 

comment on the following topics: 

1. To what extent, if any, have there 

been increased financial and 

administrative costs imposed on 

licensees associated with paying 

royalties to additional PROs; 

2. Factors that may be contributing to 

the formation of new PROs; and 

3. Recommendations on how to 

improve clarity and certainty for entities 

seeking to obtain licenses from PROs to 

publicly perform musical works. 

B. General Licensing Revenue 

Distribution Methods 

With respect to concerns regarding 

revenue distribution, the Congressional 

Request states that ‘‘it is difficult to 

assess how efficiently PROs are 

distributing general licensing revenue 

based on publicly available data,’’ 

including ‘‘how accurately lesser known 

and independent artists as well as 

smaller publishers are being 

compensated compared to widely 

popular artists and major publishers.’’ 53

The Office is requesting public 

comment on the following topics: 

4. How PROs currently gather 

information concerning musical works 

publicly performed at live music 

venues, on music services (e.g., digital 

music providers), and by other general 

licensees (including bars, restaurants, 

stores, hotels, and similar venues); 

5. Whether the manner in which the 

PROs gather information regarding 

public performances adversely impacts 

lesser-known artists and smaller 

publishers; 

6. What information PROs currently 

provide to the public, including with 

respect to: 

(a) repertoire information and 

metadata (e.g., song titles, songwriter 

and publisher information, ownership 

shares, and unique identifiers); and 

(b) royalty distribution practices and 

policies; 

7. Whether any gaps or discrepancies 

occur in royalty distributions, including 

circumstances where it is likely for 

performance data to be unavailable or 

incomplete and where PROs must rely 

on proxy or survey data for royalty 

distributions; 

8. What technological and business 

practices exist or could be developed to 

improve the current systems for usage 

tracking and royalty distribution; 

9. The extent to which current PRO 

royalty distribution practices are the 

result of existing legal and regulatory 

constraints; and 

10. Additional recommendations for 

Congress to address these issues. 

Dated: February 5, 2025. 

Suzanne V. Wilson, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2025–02418 Filed 2–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The National Science Board (NSB) 

hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 

meetings for the transaction of National 

Science Board business pursuant to the 

National Science Foundation Act and 

the Government in the Sunshine Act. 

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 

2025, from 11:00 a.m.–1:15 p.m. 

Eastern. 

PLACE: The meetings will be held at NSF 

headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, 

Alexandria, VA 22314, and by 

videoconference. 

STATUS: The meetings will be closed to 

the public. See the full description 

below. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Tuesday, February 11, 2025 

Plenary Board Meeting 

Closed Session: 11:00 a.m.–11:40 a.m. 

• Chair’s Opening Remarks 

• Committee/Commission Reports 

Æ Committee on Awards and 

Facilities 

Æ National Radio Astronomy 

Observatory Discussion and Vote 

Æ Context Item: Mid-scale Research 

Infrastructure Track 1 Portfolio 

Æ Context Item: National Geophysical 

Facility Operations and 

Maintenance award 

Æ NSB–NSF Commission on Merit 

Review 

Æ Overview of Revised Commission 

Report and Discussion 

• Vote to Enter Executive Closed 

Session 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1