[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2014)]
[Pages 14739-14743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05711]



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 
[email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350; or Sarang V. 
Damle, Special Advisor to the General Counsel, by email at [email protected] 
or by telephone at 202-707-8350.


[[Page 14740]]

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 
    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).

    \1\ Under 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.

    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-by-song mechanical licensing on their behalf.

    \2\ Concerns 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.

    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\

    \3\ The 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.
    \4\ See 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1).

    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

[[Page 14741]]

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 song-by-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\

    \5\ See 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).
    \6\ United 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 
    \7\ Significantly, 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).

    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\

    \8\ United 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).
    \9\ United States v. ASCAP, No. 41-cv-1395, 2001-2 Trade Cas. 
(CCH) ] 73,474, 2001 WL 1589999 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2001).
    \10\ See 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).

    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. 

    \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.
    \12\ Thus, 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).

    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 
    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. 

    \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.
    \14\ The Copyright Office has long supported the extension of 
the public performance right in sound 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).


[[Page 14742]]

    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\

    \15\ The 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, 2\1/2\ percent to nonfeatured musicians, 2\1/2\ percent 
to nonfeatured vocalists, and 45 percent to the featured recording 
artists. 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2).

    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 

    \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.
    \18\ See 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).

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

[[Page 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 
    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 
    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]