Copyright Makes Strange Bedfellows

It’s probably fair to say that Donald Trump was not the first choice for president among the majority of those within the media and entertainment industries. Since his election last month, however, their official industry representatives have wasted little time trying to ingratiate themselves with the incoming administration and to press the industries’ policy agenda.

“So much of what you wrote in your platform this summer about intellectual property and private property rights resonated with many of us, including: ‘Intellectual property is a driving force in today’s global economy of constant innovation,'” a consortium of music industry trade associations wrote to Trump this week. “‘It is the wellspring of American economic growth and job creation. With the rise of the digital economy, it has become even more critical that we protect intellectual property rights and preserve freedom of contract rather than create regulatory barriers to creativity, growth, and innovation.’

“As partners, many in the technology and corporate community should be commended for doing their part to help value creators and their content,” the groups added. “Some have developed systems to promote a healthy market for music and deter theft. However, much more needs to be done…[T]here is a massive ‘value grab’ as some of these corporations weaken intellectual property rights for America’s creators by exploiting legal loopholes never intended for them – perversely abusing U.S. law to underpay music creators, thus harming one of America’s economic and job engines.” Read More »

Why MVPDs, Studios Won’t Take Yes For An Answer on STBs

When Federal Communications Chairman Tom Wheeler unveiled his initial proposal to “unlock” the pay-TV set-top box back in January, pay-TV service providers and programmers howled in protest. Operators complained that the proposal, which called for multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to make their video feeds, channel listings, and subscriber entitlement data available to third-party device makers as discreet “information flows,” would require a major and expensive re-architecting of their systems. Programmers complained that making their content available directly to device makers with whom the programmers had no contractual arrangement amounted to a de facto compulsory copyright license, which the FCC had no authority to create or enforce.

FCC_buildingBoth threatened to sue.

The two arguments were, in fact, reinforcing. The current carriage agreements TV programmers and distributors have with pay-TV operators are premised in part on pay-TV systems operating in certain ways and not in other ways. Changing how those systems function could cause part of the premise of those licensing agreements to crumble. Read More »

Remastering Copyright

It’s not often that a copyright owner denies owning a copyright in order to press a case for copyright infringement. But that’s essentially the position ABS Entertainment found itself in its legal fight with CBS Radio over the broadcaster’s on-air use of sound recordings made prior to 1972, when recordings came under federal copyright protection. And now a federal judge in California has ruled that ABS is stuck with the consequences of the copyright it never claimed (h/t THR, Esq.)

His_Master's_VoiceThe ruling, if it stands up on the expected appeal, is fairly dripping with implications for music and broadcasting industries (both over-the-air and digital), but also for the film and video industry that makes use of sound recordings in audiovisual works.

Pre-1972 sound recordings have been the focus of considerable controversy in recent years. Prior to 1972, sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law; only the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were protected. But in 1971 congress updated the law to extend federal copyright protection to sound recordings made after February 15, 1972.

The law continued to exempt over-the-air broadcasters from having to pay public performance royalties to the owners of sound recordings, however (publishers and songwriters get paid), to the dismay of the record labels, on the ostensible grounds that airplay helped promote the sale of records and therefore record companies didn’t need performance royalties. (The real reasons had more to do with the power that broadcasters once wielded in Washington, DC, and in some measure still do.) Read More »

Apple-Dubset Deal Marks A Rights-Tech Milestone

Apple Music this week tapped rights-tech developer Dubset Media to manage clearances and royalty payments for DJ mixes and other mashups, opening the way for thousands of hours of user-generated content to be made available legally on the streaming service.

The deal, which relies on Dubset’s proprietary technology for identifying the individual tracks used in extended mixes and making payments to the appropriate rights owners, marks a milestone for electronic dance music (EDM) and other types of derivative work, such as DJ mixes and remixes, which have become hugely popular with music fans but until now have largely been kept off the major streaming services due to the difficulty and Andy_Moor_DJ_2010complexity of clearing the rights for the dozens of tracks they typically include. Instead, most EDM and DJ mixes wound up on platforms like SoundCloud , which until recently had no licensing deals in place with music labels or publishers, or on underground streaming services that are less particular about copyrights.

“Our genre has grown hand in hand with the rapid growth of streaming and digital services yet, despite billions of online plays, most of our creators and rights-holders earn very little for their efforts compared to their ‘pop’ peers,” Association of Electronic Music CEO Mark Lawrence told Music Business Worldwide in response to the Dubset announcement. “This is the first move to correct the imbalance.”

But the deal also represents a milestone in a growing effort, both in the music business and in other media industries, to bring technology to bear on complex rights-management problems to try to open up new, more efficient and transparent channels for exploiting and monetizing media content rights. Those rights-tech efforts could eventually prove as disruptive to the business of owning, using and licensing media rights as technology has already proved to the distribution side of the business. Read More »