Source: http://iprcn.com/IL_Lwxc_Show.aspx?News_PI=2404
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:07:32+00:00

Document:
Al Kohn & Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing (4th ed.)，New York: Wolters Kluwer (2010)，pp.5-6.
Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (Revised Edition)， California: Stanford University Press (2003)，p.52.
在此之前，音乐作品出版者曾起诉自动钢琴生产者，请求法院肯定“机械复制权”，但并未取得成功。随后出版者转而游说国会，终于在立法上取得了进展。这也是美国“三权分立”政体下产业争取法律保护的惯用策略。相关判例参见 White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v. Apollo Co.，209 U. S.1(1908).
Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox(Revised Edition)，California: Stanford University Press (2003)，p.54.
〕Herbert v. Shanley, 242 U. S.591(1917).
M. WitmarkSc Sons v. L. Bamberger & Co.，291 F.776(D. N. J.1923).
Al Kohn & Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing (4th ed.)，New York: Wolters Kluwer (2010)，pp.10-11.
〕United States v. ASCAP, Equity Bd.78-388(S. D. N. Y.1934).
United States v. ASCAP, 1940-1943 Trade Cas. H 56，104(S. D. N. Y.1941)； United States v. BMI, 1940-1943 Trade Cas. H 56，096(S. D. N. Y.1941).
Act of Oct.15，1971，Pub. L. No.92-140，85 Stat.391.
M. William Krasilovsky et al.，This Business of Music: The Definitive Guide to the Business and Legal Issues of the Music Industry (9th ed.)，New York: Watson-Guptill Publications(2003)，pp.69-70.
UMG Recordingsv. MP3.com, 92 F. Supp.2d 349(S. D. N. Y.2000).
〕Bonneville Int'l Corp.v. Peters, 347 F.3d 485(3d Cir.2003)，p.488.
具体说明参见2005年时任美国版权局负责人的Marybeth Peters在美国国会听证会上所作的发言。Music Licensing Reform: Hearing before the Subcomm.on Courts,，the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm.on the Judiciary, 109th Cong.15(2005).(Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, U. S. Office).
根据《录音制品数字表演权法案》的定义，数字录音传输是指“以数字方式传输一个独立的录音制品，且每一次传输行为都导致了对该录音制品独立可辨识的复制，无论上述数字传输是否同时构成对录音制品内所包含之音乐作品的公开表演”。Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995，Pub. L. No.104-39，109 Stat.336，§4.
17 U. S. C.§114(j)(7)；关于交互式数字音频播放行为的界定，具体参见Steven M. Marks, Entering the Sound Recording Performance Right Labyrinth: Defining Interactive Services and the Broadcast Exemption, 20 Loy. L. A. Ent. L. Rev.309(2000)，p.313.
Skyla Mitchell, Reforming Section 115： Escape from the Byzantine World of Mechanical Licensing, 24 Cardozo arts &Ent.(2007)，p.1256.
A&M Records, Inc.v. Napster, Inc.，114 F. Supp.2d 896(N. D. Cal.2000)，pp.918-922.期间纳普斯特上诉至第九巡回法院，第九巡回法院曾驳回禁令，并将初审判决发回重审，但最终地方法院新的诉前禁令和重审结果并未有实质改变。第九巡回法院的意见参见Inc.v. Napster, Inc.，239 F.3d 1004(9th Cir.2000).
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.v. Grokster, 125 S. Ct.2764(2005)，p.2770.
Digital Media Project Team, iTunes: How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media―A Case Study, Boston: Berkman Center for Internet and Society Publication (2004)，pp.6-12.
Al Kohn & Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing (4th ed.)，New York: Wolters Kluwer (2010)，p.46.
美国国会自2004年开始每年都会召开针对音乐版权改革的听证会，但因各方分歧过大而至今尚无实质性进展。2013年美国商务部发布的《数字经济时代的版权政策与创新绿皮书》中，再次专章分析网络环境下数字音乐传播的立法问题，参见 The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (July 2013)，p.80；同时，美国新任版权局负责人Pallante在2013年的演讲中，也专门提到下一步版权立法重点包含音乐版权制度完善。参见Maria A. Pallante, The Next Great Copyright Act (26th Horace S. Manges Lecture)，37 Colum. J. L.& Arts.1(2013).
Richard E. Caves, Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce, Boston: Harvard University Press (2000)， p.310.
美国联邦最高法院在一系列具有代表性意义的判决中都反复声明了这一观点，Mazer v .Stein,347 U. S.201(1954)； Twentieth Century Music Corp.v. Aiken, 422 U. S.151(1975)； Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.v. Nation Enters.，471 U.S.539(1985)； Eidred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S.569(2003).
Jane C. Ginsburg, How Copyright Got a Bad Name for Itself, 26 Colum. J. L & Arts 61(2002)，p.65.
在录音制品出现之前，复制体现在作品载体增加或变化上，因此美国联邦最高法院曾在判决中否定了音乐作品出版者扩大解释复制权的请求，理由正是制作录音制品的行为没有形成新的载体(copies)，但出版者在败诉的情况下，仍然游说立法者在1909年的版权法中实现了这一目标。判决理由参见White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v. Apollo Co.，209 U. S.1(1908)，p.18.
Brian Day, The Super Brawl: The History and Future of The Sound Recording Performance Right, 16 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev.(2009)，p.184.在录音制品制作者的坚持下，本已在草案中得到承认录音制品公开表演权，终因出版者和广播组织的反对而在正式通过的美国1976年版权法中被撤销。William H.O’Dowd, The Need for a Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings, 31 Harv. J.on Legis.(1994)，p.253.
Finkeistein, ASCAP as an Example of the Clearing House System in Operation, 14 Bull. Copyright Soc'y 2(1966)，p.2.
Skyla Mitchell, Reforming Section 115： Escape from the Byzantine World of Mechanical Licensing, 24 Cardozo arts & Ent.(2007)，p.1256.
Lydia Pallas Loren, Untangling the Web of Music Copyrights, 53 Case W. L. Rev.(2003)，p.681.
Skyla Mitchell, Reforming Section 115： Escape from the Byzantine World of Mechanical Licensing, 24 Cardozo arts &Ent.(2007)， p.1262.
Julie E. Cohen, et al.，Copyright in a Global Information Economy (2nd ed.)，Aspen Publishers (2006)，pp.447-448.
Senate Report No.104-128(1995)， reprinted in 1995 U. S. C. C. A. N.356，p.360.
有官方数据显示，音乐版权体系的复杂性，已导致美国从事数字音乐服务的互联网公司数量远低于其他国家。具体数据比较参见 The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (July 2013)，pp.84-85.
Erich Carey, We Interrupt This Broadcast: Will the Copyright Royalty Board's March 2007 Rate Determination Proceedings Pull the Plug on Internet Radio, 19 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media &Ent. L. J.257(2008)，p.268.
United States v. Am. Soc, y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 485 F. Supp.2d 438(S. D. N. Y.2007)，p.446.
W. Jonathan Cardi, über-Middleman, Reshaping the Broken Landscape of Music Copyright, Iowa L. Rev.(2007)，pp.866-869.
Discussion Draft of the Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006： Hearing Before the Subcomm.on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm.on the Judiciary, 109th Cong.30(2006)，p.32.(Statement of Cary Sherman, President andGeneral Counsel, RIAA).
Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 Cal. L. Rev.(1996)，p.1319.
Broadcast Music, Inc.v. CBS, Inc.，441 U. S.1(1979)，p.40.
Jefferey W.Natke, Collapsing Copyright Divisibility: A Proposal for Situational or Medium Specificlndivisibility, 2007 Mich. St. L. Rev.(2007)，pp.491-508.
Music Licensing Reform: Hearing before the Subcomm.on Intellectual Property of the S. Comm.on the Judiciary, 109th Cong.(2005).(Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, U. S. Copyright Office).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.