[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22568-22579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08376]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 210

[Docket No. 2020-8]


Transparency of the Mechanical Licensing Collective and Its 
Database of Musical Works Information

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notification of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a notification of inquiry 
regarding the Musical Works Modernization Act, title I of the Orrin G. 
Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act. Title I establishes a 
blanket compulsory license, which digital music providers may obtain to 
make and deliver digital phonorecords of musical works. By statute, the 
blanket license, which will be administered by a mechanical licensing 
collective, will become available on January 1, 2021. The MMA 
specifically directs the Copyright Office to adopt a number of 
regulations to govern the new blanket licensing regime, including 
prescribing categories of information to be included in the mechanical 
licensing collective's musical works database, as well as rules related 
to the usability, interoperability, and usage restrictions of the 
database. Congress has indicated that the Office should exercise its 
general regulatory authority to, among other things, help ensure that 
the collective's policies and practices are transparent and 
accountable. The Office seeks public comment regarding the subjects of 
inquiry discussed in this notification, namely, issues related to 
ensuring appropriate transparency of the mechanical licensing 
collective itself, as well as the contents of the collective's public 
musical work database, database access, and database use. This 
notification is being published concurrently with a related notice of 
proposed rulemaking related to confidentiality considerations with 
respect to the operation and records of the collective.

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 Eastern 
Time on June 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 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 website 
at https://copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-transparency. If electronic 
submission of comments is not feasible due to lack of access to a 
computer and/or the internet, please contact the Office using the 
contact information below for special instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 
Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected] or 
Anna Chauvet, Associate General Counsel, by email at 
[email protected]. Each can be contacted by telephone by calling 
(202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 11, 2018, the president signed into law the Orrin G. 
Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, H.R. 1551 (``MMA'').\1\ 
Title I of the MMA, the Musical Works Modernization Act, substantially 
modifies the compulsory ``mechanical'' license for making and 
distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works under 17 U.S.C. 
115.\2\ Prior to the MMA, licensees obtained a section 115 compulsory 
license on a per-work, song-by-song basis, by serving a notice of 
intention to obtain a compulsory license (``NOI'') on the relevant 
copyright owner (or filing it with the Copyright Office if the Office's 
public records did not identify the copyright owner) and then paying 
applicable royalties accompanied by accounting statements.\3\ The MMA 
amends this regime most significantly by establishing a new blanket 
compulsory license that digital music providers may obtain to make 
digital phonorecord deliveries (``DPDs'') of musical works, including 
in the form of permanent downloads, limited downloads, or interactive 
streams (referred to in the statute as ``covered activity,'' where such 
activity qualifies for a compulsory license).\4\ Instead of licensing 
one song

[[Page 22569]]

at a time by serving NOIs on individual copyright owners, the blanket 
license will cover all musical works available for compulsory licensing 
and will be centrally administered by a mechanical licensing collective 
(``MLC''), which has been designated by the Register of Copyrights.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018).
    \2\ See S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 1-2 (2018); Report and Section-
by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the Chairmen and Ranking Members 
of Senate and House Judiciary Committees, at 1 (2018), https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/mma_conference_report.pdf (``Conf. 
Rep.''); see also H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 2 (2018) (detailing the 
House Judiciary Committee's efforts to review music copyright laws).
    \3\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1), (c)(5) (2017); U.S. Copyright 
Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace 28-31 (2015), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf (describing operation of prior section 115 
license).
    \4\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(1), (e)(7); see H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 
4-6 (describing operation of the blanket license and the mechanical 
licensing collective); S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 3-6 (same).
    \5\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(1), (3); 84 FR 32274 (July 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By statute, digital music providers will bear the reasonable costs 
of establishing and operating the MLC through an administrative 
assessment, to be determined, if necessary, by the Copyright Royalty 
Judges (``CRJs'').\6\ As permitted under the MMA, the Office designated 
a digital licensee coordinator (``DLC'') to represent licensees in 
proceedings before the CRJs and the Copyright Office, to serve as a 
non-voting member of the MLC, and to carry out other functions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D).
    \7\ Id. at 115(d)(5)(B); 84 FR at 32274; see also 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(3)(D)(i)(IV), (d)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Regulatory Background and Importance of Transparency


    The MMA enumerates several regulations that the Copyright Office is 
specifically directed to promulgate to govern the new blanket licensing 
regime, and Congress invested the Copyright Office with ``broad 
regulatory authority'' \8\ to ``conduct such proceedings and adopt such 
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the 
provisions of [the MMA pertaining to the blanket license].'' \9\ The 
legislative history contemplates that the Office will ``thoroughly 
review[ ]'' \10\ policies and procedures established by the MLC and its 
three committees, of which the MLC is statutorily bound to ensure are 
``transparent and accountable,'' \11\ and promulgate regulations that 
``balance[ ] the need to protect the public's interest with the need to 
let the new collective operate without over-regulation.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 5-6; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 5; 
Conf. Rep. at 4.
    \9\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(12)(A).
    \10\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 5-6, 14; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 
5, 15; Conf. Rep. at 4, 12. The Conference Report further 
contemplates that the Office's review will be important because the 
MLC must operate in a manner that can gain the trust of the entire 
music community, but can only be held liable under a standard of 
gross negligence when carrying out certain of the policies and 
procedures adopted by its board. Conf. Rep. at 4.
    \11\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa).
    \12\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 5-6, 14; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 
5, 15; Conf. Rep. at 4, 12. See also SoundExchange Initial at 15; 
Future of Music Coalition (``FMC'') Reply at 3 (appreciating 
``SoundExchange's warning against too-detailed regulatory 
language,'' but ``urg[ing] the Office to balance this concern for 
pragmatism and flexibility against the need to provide as much clear 
guidance and oversight as possible to encourage trust''). All 
rulemaking activity, including public comments, as well as 
educational material regarding the Music Modernization Act, can 
currently be accessed via navigation from https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/. Comments received in response to the September 
2019 notification of inquiry are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC-2019-0002&refD=COLC-2019-0002-0001. References to these comments and 
letters are by party name (abbreviated where appropriate), followed 
by either ``Initial,'' ``Reply,'' or ``Ex Parte Letter,'' as 
appropriate. Guidelines for ex parte communications, along with 
records of such communications, are available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-implementation/ex-parte-communications.html. The Office encourages parties to refrain from 
requesting ex parte meetings on this notification of inquiry until 
they have submitted written comments. As stated in the guidelines, 
ex parte meetings with the Office are intended to provide an 
opportunity for participants to clarify evidence and/or arguments 
made in prior written submissions, and to respond to questions from 
the Office on those matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress acknowledged that ``[a]lthough the legislation provides 
specific criteria for the collective to operate, it is to be expected 
that situations will arise that were not contemplated by the 
legislation,'' and that ``[t]he Office is expected to use its best 
judgement in determining the appropriate steps in those situations.'' 
\13\ Legislative history further states that ``[t]he Copyright Office 
has the knowledge and expertise regarding music licensing through its 
past rulemakings and recent assistance to the Committee[s] during the 
drafting of this legislation.'' \14\ Accordingly, in designating the 
MLC, the Office stated that it ``expects ongoing regulatory and other 
implementation efforts to . . . extenuate the risk of self-interest,'' 
and that ``the Register intends to exercise her oversight role as it 
pertains to matters of governance.'' \15\ Additionally, the Office 
stated that it ``intends to work with the MLC to help it achieve the[] 
goals'' of ``engagement with a broad spectrum of musical work copyright 
owners, including from those communities'' and musical genres that some 
commenters in the designation proceeding asserted are 
underrepresented.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 14; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 15; 
Conf. Rep. at 12.
    \14\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 14; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 15; 
Conf. Rep. at 12.
    \15\ 84 FR at 32280.
    \16\ Id. at 32279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notification of inquiry is focused on considerations to ensure 
appropriate transparency and public disclosure of information by the 
mechanical licensing collective. Fostering increased transparency is an 
animating theme of the MMA, which envisions the MLC ``operat[ing] in a 
transparent and accountable manner'' \17\ and ensuring that its 
``policies and practices . . . are transparent and accountable.'' \18\ 
Indeed, some Members of Congress noted that a key aspect of the MMA is 
bringing transparency to the music industry.\19\ The MLC itself has 
expressed its commitment to transparency, both by including 
transparency as one of its four key principles underpinning its 
operations on its current website,\20\ and in written comments to the 
Office.\21\ For example, the MLC noted its ``commitment to working 
with, and under the oversight of, the Office to ensure that issues 
relating to its policies and procedures are transparent and 
appropriate, including with respect to addressing and mitigating 
conflicts of interest, maintaining diversity, representing the entire 
musical works community, and ensuring board and committee member 
service complies will all relevant legal requirements.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 7.
    \18\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa).
    \19\ See 164 Cong. Rec. S6292, 6293 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 2018) 
(statement of Senator Hatch) (``I need to thank Chairman Grassley, 
who shepherded this bill through the committee and made important 
contributions to the bill's oversight and transparency 
provisions.''); 164 Cong. Rec. S 501, 504 (Senator Chris Coons 
stating ``[t]his important piece of legislation will bring much-
needed transparency and efficiency to the music marketplace.''); 64 
Cong. Rec. H 3522, 3541 (Representative Steve Chabot stating 
``[t]his legislation provides much-needed updates to bring music 
licensing into the digital age, particularly improving market 
efficiencies and transparency to reflect the modern music 
marketplace.''); see also Conf. Rep. at 6 (``Music metadata has more 
often been seen as a competitive advantage for the party that 
controls the database, rather than as a resource for building an 
industry on.'').
    \20\ The MLC, Mission and Principles, https://themlc.com/mission-and-principles (last visited Apr. 10, 2020) (``The MLC will 
build trust by operating transparently. The MLC is governed by a 
board of songwriters and music publishers who will help ensure our 
work is conducted with integrity.''). See also The MLC, The MLC 
Process, https://themlc.com/how-it-works (last visited Apr. 10, 
2020) (``The MLC is committed to transparency. The MLC will make 
data on unclaimed works and unmatched uses available to be searched 
by registered users of The MLC Portal and the public at large.'').
    \21\ See, e.g., MLC Reply at 42-43 (``The MLC is committed to 
transparency and submits that, while seeking to enact regulations is 
not an efficient or effective approach, the MLC will implement 
policies and procedures to ensure transparency.'').
    \22\ MLC Initial at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the MMA specifically directs the Copyright Office to 
promulgate certain regulations related to the MLC's creation of a free 
database to publicly disclose musical work ownership information and 
identify the sound recordings in which the musical works are 
embodied.\23\ As discussed more

[[Page 22570]]

below, the statute requires the MLC's public database to include 
various types of information, depending upon whether a musical work has 
been matched to a copyright owner.\24\ For both matched and unmatched 
works, the MLC's database must also include ``such other information'' 
``as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation.'' \25\ The 
database must ``be made available to members of the public in a 
searchable, online format, free of charge,'' \26\ as well as ``in a 
bulk, machine-readable format, through a widely available software 
application,'' to certain parties, including blanket licensees and the 
Copyright Office, free of charge, and to ``[a]ny other person or entity 
for a fee not to exceed the marginal cost to the mechanical licensing 
collective of providing the database to such person or entity.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E), (e)(20).
    \24\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iii).
    \25\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II).
    \26\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Non-Regulatory Requirements and Incentives for Transparency

    While this notice is directed at exploring ways in which the 
Copyright Office may reasonably and prudently exercise regulatory 
authority to facilitate appropriate transparency and public disclosure, 
it is important to note that both the statutory language as well as the 
MLC's structure separately include aspects that promote disclosure 
absent additional regulation. While the Copyright Office does not agree 
with the MLC that regulations regarding issues related to transparency 
``may be premature'' because the MLC's ``policies and procedures are 
still being developed'' \28\--including because the statute directs the 
Office specifically to promulgate regulations concerning contents of 
the public database \29\--the Office does recognize that any regulatory 
language would be additive to this existing scheme, and should be 
considered within the full context of the statutory goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ MLC Initial at 31 (``The MLC believes that the promulgation 
of regulations concerning the Office's role in overseeing and 
regulating the MLC's operations and policies would be more fruitful 
once the MLC has fully developed its policies and procedures and is 
able to provide them to the Office for review.'').
    \29\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II); see also U.S. 
Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Royalty Reporting 
and Distribution Obligations of the Mechanical Licensing Collective, 
Dkt. No. 2020-6, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the statute requires the MLC to make its bylaws publicly 
available,\30\ which the MLC has committed to doing.\31\ As the 
Recording Academy suggested, the publication of these bylaws ``are key 
to establishing trust, and will help assuage any outstanding concerns 
amongst songwriters about the MLC's operations.'' \32\ Indeed, the MLC 
itself recognizes that making its bylaws publicly available ``promotes 
transparency.'' \33\ Second, and as noted below, the MLC must publish 
an annual report detailing its operations; while this notice seeks 
input on whether it would be appropriate to further specify contents of 
that report, this statutory obligation already serves as a mandate for 
the MLC to disclose various categories of information. Third, every 
five years, the MLC will submit itself to periodic public audits to 
ensure it does not ``engage in waste, fraud and abuse,'' \34\ and so 
some concerns about transparency may be addressed through the 
statutorily-mandated exercise of this audit provision.\35\ Fourth, in a 
separate provision, copyright owners may also audit the MLC to verify 
the accuracy of royalty payments paid by the MLC.\36\ Fifth, the MLC 
must ensure that its policies and practices ``are transparent and 
accountable'' \37\; the MLC has suggested that it would be more 
fruitful to allow the MLC room to ``fully develop[] its policies and 
procedures'' and ``provide them to the Office for review'' before 
considering whether regulation in this area is advisable.\38\ Sixth, 
the MLC must ``identify a point of contact for publisher inquiries and 
complaints with timely redress.'' \39\ Seventh, the MLC must 
``establish an anti-comingling policy for funds'' collected and those 
not collected under section 115.\40\ Seventh, the MLC must fulfill a 
statutory mandate to outreach to songwriters and generally ``publicize, 
throughout the music industry'' its work and procedures by which 
copyright owners may claim their accrued royalties.\41\ Finally, the 
five-year designation process established by the statute provides 
another avenue for the Office to periodically review the mechanical 
licensing collective's performance.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ii)(II).
    \31\ MLC Reply at 42-43 (``The publication of the MLC's bylaws 
is directly addressed by the statute, with which the MLC will of 
course comply . . .'').
    \32\ Recording Academy Initial at 4.
    \33\ The MLC, Transparency, https://themlc.com/faqs/categories/transparency (last visited Apr. 10, 2020) (noting that the MLC will 
``promote transparency'' by ``[m]aking The MLC governing bylaws 
public'').
    \34\ Conf. Rep. at 6 (``To ensure that the collective does not 
engage in waste, fraud and abuse, the collective is required to 
submit to periodic audits to examine its operations and 
procedures.''); 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II). Beginning in the 
fourth full calendar year after the MLC's initial designation, and 
in every fifth calendar year thereafter, the MLC is required to 
retain a qualified auditor to ``examine the [MLC's] books, records, 
and operations'' and ``prepare a report for the [MLC's] board of 
directors,'' which must also be provided to the Register of 
Copyrights. Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(aa), (cc).
    \35\ For each audit, the collective must retain a qualified 
auditor to ``examine the books, records, and operations of the 
collective''; ``prepare a report for the board of directors of the 
collective''; and ``deliver the report . . . to the board of 
directors of the collective.'' 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(aa)(AA)-(CC). Each report must address the 
collective's ``implementation and efficacy of procedures'' ``for the 
receipt, handling, and distribution of royalty funds, including any 
amounts held as unclaimed royalties''; ``to guard against fraud, 
abuse, waste, and the unreasonable use of funds''; and ``to protect 
the confidentiality of financial, proprietary, and other sensitive 
information.'' Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(bb)(AA)-(CC). And the 
collective must deliver each report to the Register of Copyrights 
and make it publicly available. Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(cc).
    \36\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(L)(i).
    \37\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(aa). In connection with a 
separate notice of proposed rulemaking concerning reports of usage, 
notices of license, and data collection efforts, among other things, 
the Office is addressing the MLC's obligations under 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(3)(F)(i), and for purposes of transparency, how the MLC 
should confirm or reject notices of license, and terminate blanket 
licenses. Specifically, the rule proposes that the MLC maintain a 
current, free, and searchable public list of all blanket licenses, 
including various details, such as information from notices of 
license, whether a notice of license has been rejected and why, and 
whether a blanket license has been terminated and why. U.S. 
Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Music Modernization 
Act Notices of License, Notices of Nonblanket Activity, Data 
Collection and Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage and Payment, 
Dkt. No. 2020-5, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.
    \38\ MLC Initial at 31.
    \39\ Id. at 115 (d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(bb).
    \40\ Id. at 115 (d)(3)(D)(ix)(I)(cc).
    \41\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II).
    \42\ See id. at 115(d)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some instances, the Office understands that the MLC has already 
begun working to communicate to the public regarding its transparency 
of operations, such as by launching an initial website and 
participating in various industry conferences.\43\ The Office presumes 
these efforts will grow more robust as the license availability date 
approaches, and anticipates continued discussions with both the MLC and 
DLC on ways to cooperate on education and outreach. In other cases, the 
MLC has adopted policies that bear upon issues related to disclosure 
and governance, including by adopting a conflict of interest policy 
``for appropriately managing conflicts of interest in accordance with 
legal requirements and the MLC's goals of accountability and 
transparency.''\44\ The

[[Page 22571]]

MLC advises that it intends to make this policy public.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See The MLC, https://themlc.com (last visited Apr. 10, 
2020).
    \44\ MLC Opening Submission--Part II at 21, U.S. Copyright 
Royalty Board, Determination and Allocation of Initial 
Administrative Assessment to Fund Mechanical Licensing Collective, 
Docket No. 19-CRB-0009-AA, available at https://app.crb.gov/case/viewDocument/7865; id. (``The Conflict of Interest Policy contains 
clear provisions requiring disclosure of actual, potential or 
perceived financial or other conflicts of interest, and lays out 
clear procedures for assessing such conflicts and ensuring the 
integrity and fairness of the MLC's business transactions.''). See 
Songwriters Guild of America, Inc. (``SGA'') Reply at 5 (``[T]he 
mandating of adoption by the MLC of conflict of interest policies in 
coordination with the USCO and the Librarian of Congress would 
likewise be a wise and welcome development.'').
    \45\ MLC Ex Parte Letter Apr. 3, 2020 (``MLC Ex Parte Letter 
#4'') at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, some commenters raised questions about board governance, 
particularly with respect to appointments and succession.\46\ The 
initial designation process for MLC board and committee members, 
including those members' qualifications, was detailed in the Office's 
July 2019 designation of the MLC and DLC, as well as the numerous 
public comments received, including the MLC's detailed submission.\47\ 
In addition to the MLC's bylaws, which necessarily detail its approach 
to board and committee members, the Copyright Office's website 
publicizes MLC and DLC contact information, as well as the procedure by 
which vacancies to the MLC board of directors, statutory committees, or 
nonvoting board seats are filled, including the process by which the 
Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of 
Copyrights, appoints successive voting members to the MLC board.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Recording Academy Initial at 4 (``[T]he Copyright 
Office should articulate clear standards for the MLC board regarding 
board operations and governance, including appointments and 
succession.''); Music Artists Coalition (``MAC'') Initial at 2 
(expressing concern regarding the selection and makeup of the MLC 
board of directors and statutory committees).
    \47\ 84 FR at 32276-95.
    \48\ U.S. Copyright Office, MLC and DLC Contact Information, 
Boards of Directors, and Committees, https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/mlc-dlc-info/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Solicitation of Additional Public Comment

    Against that backdrop, the Copyright Office seeks additional input 
on issues related to transparency and public disclosure of information 
by the MLC. On September 24, 2019, the Office issued a notification of 
inquiry seeking public input on a variety of aspects related to 
implementation of title I of the MMA, including considerations in 
facilitating an appropriate balance between promoting transparency and 
public access while protecting confidential information, as well as the 
scope and manner of the Office's oversight role.\49\ The September 2019 
notification of inquiry specifically asked for public input on any 
issues that should be considered regarding information to be included 
in the MLC's musical works database (e.g., which specific additional 
categories of information might be appropriate to include by 
regulation), as well as the usability, interoperability, and usage 
restrictions of the MLC's musical works database (e.g., technical or 
other specific language that might be helpful to consider in 
promulgating these regulations, discussion of the pros and cons of 
applicable standards, and whether historical snapshots of the database 
should be maintained to track ownership changes over time).\50\ In 
addition, the notification of inquiry sought public comment on any 
issues that should be considered relating to the general oversight of 
the MLC.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 84 FR 49966, 49973 (Sept. 24, 2019).
    \50\ Id. at 49972.
    \51\ Id. at 49973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, many commenters emphasized the importance of 
transparency of the MLC's operations and its public database,\52\ and 
urged the Office to exercise ``expansive'' \53\ and ``robust'' \54\ 
oversight. Given these public comments, and the MLC's own recognition 
of the importance of transparency, the Office believes clear guidance 
at this time on certain areas, such as those related to annual 
reporting and the public musical works database, may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See MAC Initial at 2 (indicating ``the need for more 
transparency'' regarding the MLC's structure); Music Innovation 
Consumers (``MIC'') Coalition Initial at 3 (``All stakeholders in 
the music marketplace benefit when current and accurate information 
about copyright ownership is easily accessible.''); Screen Composers 
Guild of Canada (``SCGC'') Reply Comments at 2, U.S. Copyright 
Office Dkt. No. 2018-11, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC-2018-0011&refD=COLC-2018-0011-0001 (``We urge you to make the choice that gives us 
transparency in the administration and oversight of our creative 
works, and a fair chance at proper compensation for those works, now 
and in the future.''); Iconic Artists LLC Initial Comments at 2, 
U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2018-11, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC-2018-0011&refD=COLC-2018-0011-0001 (``In the current paradigm there is a 
need for greater transparency and accuracy in reporting.''); DLC 
Reply at 28 (noting that ``transparency will be critical to ensuring 
that the MLC fulfills its duties in a fair and efficient manner'').
    \53\ SGA Initial at 6 (urging the Register ``to exercise the 
expansive oversight authority granted . . . under the MMA'').
    \54\ FMC Reply at 2 (stating ``the Copyright Office's oversight 
of the MLC's activities should be robust''). See also Recording 
Academy Initial at 4 (``the Copyright Office should articulate clear 
standards for the MLC board regarding board operations and 
governance . . .''); DLC Reply at 28 (encouraging ``the Copyright 
Office to vigilantly exercise its ongoing authority under the MMA to 
ensure the success of this enterprise''); Lowery Reply at 2 (stating 
``the Copyright Office shouldn't delay establishing the rules of the 
road'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having reviewed and carefully considered all relevant comments, the 
Office now seeks additional comment on the areas of inquiry below. In 
many areas, the Office has already received valuable information in 
response to the September 2019 notification of inquiry, but is 
providing another opportunity for comment before moving forward with a 
proposed rule. Commenters are reminded that while the Office's 
regulatory authority is relatively broad, it is obviously constrained 
by the law Congress enacted.\55\ After reviewing the comments received 
in response to this notification of inquiry, the Office is likely to 
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. In recognition of the start-up 
nature of the collective and current transition period, as the 
discussion and factual development progresses, the Office will also 
consider whether fashioning an interim rule, rather than a final rule, 
may be best-suited to ensure a sufficiently responsive and flexible 
regulatory structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See, e.g., Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X 
Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) (``[A]mbiguities in 
statutes within an agency's jurisdiction to administer are 
delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in 
reasonable fashion.'') (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. 
Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). See also Conf. Rep. at 4, 
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To aid the Office's review, it is requested that where a submission 
responds to more than one of the below categories, it be divided into 
discrete sections that have clear headings to indicate the category 
being discussed in each section. Comments addressing a single category 
should also have a clear heading to indicate which category it 
discusses. The Office welcomes parties to file joint comments on issues 
of common agreement and consensus. While all public comments are 
welcome, the Office encourages parties to provide specific proposed 
regulatory language for the Office to consider and for others to 
comment upon.
    Concurrent with this notification of inquiry, the Office issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking identifying appropriate procedures to 
ensure that confidential, private, proprietary, or privileged 
information contained in the records of the mechanical licensing 
collective and digital licensee coordinator is not improperly disclosed 
or used.\56\ The Office encourages interested commenters in connection 
with this notification of inquiry to

[[Page 22572]]

review that separate notice carefully and consider commenting on that 
notice as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Treatment of Confidential Information by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective and Digital Licensee Coordinator, Dkt. No. 2020-7, 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Subjects of Inquiry

A. Transparency of MLC Operations; Annual Reporting

    One avenue for transparency with respect to the MLC is through its 
annual report. The MMA requires the MLC to publish an annual report no 
later than June 30 of each year after the license availability date, 
setting forth information regarding: (1) Its operational and licensing 
practices; (2) how royalties are collected and distributed; (3) 
budgeting and expenditures; (4) the collective total costs for the 
preceding calendar year; (5) the MLC's projected annual budget; (6) 
aggregated royalty receipts and payments; (7) expenses that are more 
than ten percent of the MLC's annual budget; and (8) the MLC's efforts 
to locate and identify copyright owners of unmatched musical works (and 
shares of works).\57\ The MLC must deliver a copy of the annual report 
to the Register of Copyrights and make this report publicly 
available.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vii)(I)(aa)-(hh); Conf. Rep. at 7.
    \58\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual report thus functions as a statutorily-prescribed outlet 
for the MLC to provide much of the information requested by parties in 
response to the September 2019 notification of inquiry. Some commenters 
recognized the role that the annual reporting would play in 
facilitating the transparency envisioned by the MMA and the MLC itself. 
The DLC, for example, suggested that although the ``the MMA generally 
specifies that the MLC's annual report must ``set[ ] forth information 
regarding . . . the operational and licensing practices of the 
collective,'' ``how royalties are collected and distributed,'' and 
``the efforts of the collective to locate and identify copyright owners 
of unmatched musical works (and shares of works),'' it ``will be 
crucial for the Office to ensure that the MLC follows not just the 
letter of these requirements but their spirit.'' \59\ Other commenters 
similarly asked for MLC oversight to ensure disclosure of information 
in specific areas the statute envisions the annual report addressing, 
though without directly linking such oversight to the annual report: 
board governance,\60\ the manner in which the MLC will distribute 
unclaimed royalties,\61\ development updates and certifications related 
to its IT systems,\62\ and the MLC's efforts to identify copyright 
owners.\63\ These comments suggest that comprehensive annual reporting 
may be a key means though which visibility into MLC operations occurs, 
and thus certain information (in addition to statutorily required 
information) should be included for full transparency. Indeed, the MLC 
itself recognizes that its annual report is one way in which it intends 
to ``promote transparency.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ DLC Initial at 24.
    \60\ Recording Academy Reply at 2 (encouraging the Copyright 
Office to ``make oversight of the MLC a priority, particularly with 
regard to establishing processes and procedures for board 
governance'').
    \61\ Lowery Reply at 8 (expressing concern about manner in which 
the MLC will distribute unclaimed royalties based on market share); 
Monica Corton Consulting Reply at 3 (same).
    \62\ Lowery Reply at 5 (expressing concern about manner in which 
the MLC will disclose system updates).
    \63\ SGA Initial at 6 (asking for the Office to ``mandate the 
undertaking through the institution of best practices, bona fide and 
easily reviewable efforts by the MLC to identify as great a 
percentage of the proper owners of unmatched royalties and titles as 
possible'').
    \64\ The MLC, Transparency, https://themlc.com/faqs/categories/transparency (last visited Apr. 10, 2020) (noting that the MLC will 
``promote transparency'' by ``[p]roviding an annual report to the 
public and to the Copyright Office detailing the operations of The 
MLC, its licensing practices, collection and distribution of 
royalties, budget and cost information, its efforts to resolve 
unmatched royalties, and total royalties received and paid out'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of analyzing whether it may be beneficial to flesh out the 
level of detail required in the MLC's annual report through a rule, 
commenters may consider specific types of additional information the 
MLC should include. For example, a few commenters expressed a desire 
for more information about the MLC's vendor selection process.\65\ 
While the Office may consider the MLC's capabilities, including through 
its vendors, during the re-designation process as part of its duty to 
confirm whether the collective has ``the administrative and 
technological capabilities to perform the required functions'' of the 
collective,\66\ the statute vests the MLC itself with authority to 
``[i]nvest in relevant resources, and engage for services of outside 
vendors and others, to support the activities of the mechanical 
licensing collective.\67\ The MLC's annual report could thus serve as a 
means for the collective to publicly address issues related to vendor 
selection criteria and performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ National Association of Independent Songwriters (``NOIS'') 
et al. Initial at 16 (``Complete transparency through public 
documents and test results in regards to the selection of the 
vendors must be provided. This should include the methodology used 
for selection along with the results of any Request For Proposals, 
test results, pricing structure, rates and additional criteria.''); 
MAC Initial at 3 (``The need for a fully transparent process is also 
deeply important in the RFI/RFP process to select a vendor.''); 
Lowery Reply at 3, 12; SGA Reply at 4-5.
    \66\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(A)(iii).
    \67\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)((i)(VII). See 84 FR at 32287 
(discussing MLC applicants' proposed approaches to using vendors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in addition to the information provided in the MLC's 
bylaws, which will be made publicly available, the annual report could 
further address issues related to MLC board and committee selection 
criteria. The annual report could thus disclose any actual or potential 
conflicts raised with and/or addressed by its board of directors, if 
any, in accordance with the MLC's policy.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See also Lowery Reply at 8 (asserting that the MLC, 
including board members, officers, and key employees, should 
disclose financial incentives or benefits received ``from any person 
or entity MLC does business with'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office seeks public input on any issues that should be 
considered relating to the substance of the MLC's annual reports, 
including any proposed regulatory language. The Office welcomes views 
regarding any additional considerations or proposed regulatory 
approaches to address issues raised in the public comments beyond the 
annual reporting mechanism. Further, and in light of the MLC's position 
that regulatory language may be premature, the Office invites the MLC 
to publicly share with greater particularity operational and 
communications planning information, such as notional schedules, beta 
wireframes, or other documentation, to provide context to MLC 
stakeholders in the months leading up to the license availability date.

B. Categories of Information in the MLC's Musical Works Public Database

    The MLC must establish and maintain a free public database of 
musical work ownership information that also identifies the sound 
recordings in which the musical works are embodied,\69\ a function 
expected to provide transparency across the music industry.\70\ For 
musical works that have

[[Page 22573]]

been matched, the statute requires the MLC's database to include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E), (e)(20).
    \70\ See 164 Cong. Rec. H3522 at 3542 (daily ed. Apr. 25, 2018) 
(statement of Rep. Norma Torres) (``Information regarding music owed 
royalties would be easily accessible through the database created by 
the Music Modernization Act. This transparency will surely improve 
the working relationship between creators and music platforms and 
aid the music industry's innovation process.''). See also The MLC, 
Transparency, https://themlc.com/faqs/categories/transparency (last 
visited Apr. 10, 2020) (noting that the MLC will ``promote 
transparency'' by ``[p]roviding unprecedented access to musical 
works ownership information through a public database'').

    1. The title of the musical work;
    2. The copyright owner of the musical work (or share thereof), 
and the ownership percentage of that owner;
    3. Contact information for such copyright owner; and
    4. To the extent reasonably available to the MLC, (a) the ISWC 
for the work, and (b) identifying information for sound recordings 
in which the musical work is embodied, including the name of the 
sound recording, featured artist, sound recording copyright owner, 
producer, ISRC, and other information commonly used to assist in 
associating sound recordings with musical works.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii).

For unmatched musical works, the statute requires the database to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
include, to the extent reasonably available to the MLC:

    1. The title of the musical work;
    2. The ownership percentage for which an owner has not been 
identified;
    3. If a copyright owner has been identified but not located, the 
identity of such owner and the ownership percentage of that owner;
    4. Identifying information for sound recordings in which the 
work is embodied, including sound recording name, featured artist, 
sound recording copyright owner, producer, ISRC, and other 
information commonly used to assist in associating sound recordings 
with musical works; and
    5. Any additional information reported to the MLC that may 
assist in identifying the work.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(iii).

For both matched and unmatched works, the MLC's database must also 
include ``such other information'' ``as the Register of Copyrights may 
prescribe by regulation.'' \73\ The ``Register shall use its judgement 
to determine what is an appropriate expansion of the required fields, 
but shall not adopt new fields that have not become reasonably 
accessible and used within the industry unless there is widespread 
support for the inclusion of such fields.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II).
    \74\ Conf. Rep. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering whether to prescribe the inclusion of additional 
fields beyond those statutorily required, the Office will focus on 
fields that would advance the goal of the MLC's database: Reducing the 
number of unmatched works by accurately identifying musical work 
copyright owners so they can be paid what they are owed by digital 
music providers operating under the section 115 statutory license.\75\ 
At the same time, the Office is mindful of the MLC's corresponding 
duties to keep confidential business and personal information secure 
and inaccessible; for example, data related to computation of market 
share is contemplated by the statue as sensitive and confidential, 
despite some comments suggesting that this information should be 
publicly shared.\76\ Recognizing that a robust musical works database 
may contain many fields of information, the Office tentatively 
concludes that this rulemaking may be most valuable in establishing a 
floor of required information, that copyright owners and other 
stakeholders can reliably expect to access in the public database, 
while providing the MLC with flexibility to include additional data 
fields that it finds helpful.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See id. (noting that the ``highest responsibility'' of the 
MLC's includes ``efforts to identify the musical works embodied in 
particular sound recordings,'' ``identify[ing] and locat[ing] the 
copyright owners of such works so that [the MLC] can update the 
database as appropriate.'' and ``efficient and accurate collection 
and distribution of royalties'').
    \76\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(II)(bb) (``the mechanical 
licensing collective shall take appropriate steps to safeguard the 
confidentiality and security of usage, financial, and other 
sensitive data used to compute market shares in accordance with the 
confidentiality provisions prescribed by the Register of 
Copyrights''). See MLC Initial at 24 (contending that not all 
information contained in its database ``would be appropriate for 
public disclosure,'' and that it ``should be permitted to exercise 
reasonable judgment in determining what information beyond what is 
statutorily required should be made available to the public''); MAC 
Reply at 2-3 (suggesting ``data relating to market share 
determinations and voluntary licenses'' should be publicly shared).
    \77\ Compare U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Royalty Reporting and Distribution Obligations of the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective, Dkt. No. 2020-6, published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (proposing a floor 
of categories of information to be required in periodic reporting to 
copyright owners, but noting that the MLC expects to include 
additional information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 2019 notification of inquiry asked which specific 
additional categories of information, if any, should be required for 
inclusion in the MLC's database, and stakeholder comments, generally 
furthering mandating inclusion of additional information, are discussed 
by category below.\78\ To the extent additional categories of 
information should be made publicly available in the MLC's database, 
but are not discussed below, the Office invites public comments 
regarding those additional categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 84 FR at 49972. See, e.g., SoundExchange Initial at 6 
(``[T]he data fields recited in the statute should be viewed as a 
minimal and vaguely described set of data for understanding rights 
with respect to a musical work in a crowded field where there are 
many millions of relevant works with similar titles in different 
languages and complicated ownership structures to understand and 
communicate.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Songwriter or Composer
    Multiple commenters noted the importance of the database including 
and making publicly available songwriter and composer information, with 
SGA for example noting, ``[w]hile the names of copyright owners and 
administrators associated with a musical work may change on a constant 
basis, and other variables and data points are subject to frequent 
adjustment, the title and the names of the creators never vary from the 
date of a work's creation forward.'' \79\ Others echoed the strong need 
for the database to include songwriter/composer information, and the 
MLC and DLC both proposed regulatory language including this field.\80\ 
The Office finds these comments persuasive in light of the statute, and 
is inclined to require that songwriter and composer information be 
publicly available in the MLC's database, to the extent known to the 
MLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See SGA Initial at 2.
    \80\ See Barker Initial at 2 (urging inclusion of ``data fields 
for songwriters for each musical work,'' for matched and unmatched 
works); FMC Reply at 2 (``We agree that it's of utmost importance 
that the MLC database contain songwriter/composer names.''); The 
International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers 
(``CISAC'') & the International Organisation representing Mechanical 
Rights Societies (``BIEM'') Reply at 6 (``CISAC and BIEM strongly 
support the need for the inclusion of creators' names in the MLC 
Database since it is the safest information to identify a work 
(publishers may change, creators never change . . .''); MLC Reply at 
32 (agreeing with inclusion of songwriter information for musical 
works); DLC Reply at 26 (agreeing ``with several commenters that 
songwriter and composer information should be collected and included 
in the database'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Studio Producer
    The statute requires the database to include ``producer,'' to the 
extent reasonably available to the MLC.\81\ Initially, there appeared 
to be confusion about the meaning of this term, with the MLC originally 
believing that ``producer'' referred to ``the record label or 
individual or entity that commissioned the sound recording.'' \82\ 
Following comments and discussion with Recording Academy and the 
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (``RIAA''), who 
compellingly suggest that the legislative intent was that the term mean 
refer to the studio producer, the MLC updated its understanding.\83\ 
The MLC contends, however, that ``the studio producer of a sound 
recording is not a data item that

[[Page 22574]]

is needed operationally by the MLC,'' and that the ``producer'' field 
is not included in the Common Works Registration (``CWR'') format or 
the DDEX DSRF format(s) that the MLC plans to use.\84\ Should the MLC 
be provided ``a single feed of authoritative sound recording data,'' 
the MLC ``proposes that the `studio producer' information be included 
to the extent available.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(IV), (iii)(I)(dd).
    \82\ MLC Initial at 13 n.6.
    \83\ Recording Academy Initial at 3 (urging Office to ``clarify 
that a producer is someone who was part of the creative process that 
created a sound recording''); RIAA Initial at 11 (stating 
``producer'' should be defined as ``the primary person(s) contracted 
by and accountable to the content owner for the task of delivering 
the recording as a finished product''); MLC Reply at 35.
    \84\ MLC Reply at 35.
    \85\ Id. at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``producer'' relates not only to the public database, but 
also to other open rulemakings, including information provided by 
digital music providers in reports of usage. In connection with its 
separate NPRM concerning reports of usage, notices of license, and data 
collection efforts, among other things, the Office is currently 
proposing an overarching definition that applies throughout its section 
115 regulations to clarify that ``producer'' refers to the studio 
producer.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Music 
Modernization Act Notices of License, Notices of Nonblanket 
Activity, Data Collection and Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage 
and Payment, Dkt. No. 2020-5, published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Unique Identifiers
    As noted, the statute requires that ISRC and ISWC codes, when 
available, be included in the MLC database.\87\ According to the 
legislative history, ``[u]sing standardized metadata such as ISRC and 
ISWC codes, is a major step forward in reducing the number of unmatched 
works.'' \88\ The legislative history also notes that ``the Register 
may at some point wish to consider after an appropriate rulemaking 
whether standardized identifiers for individuals would be appropriate, 
or even audio fingerprints.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)-(iii).
    \88\ Conf. Rep. at 7.
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DLC proposes that the MLC's database should include ``any 
standard identifiers . . . used for creators and copyright owners 
themselves,'' such as Interested Parties Information (IPI) \90\ or 
International Standard Name Identifier (``ISNI''),\91\ to the extent 
reasonably available to the MLC.\92\ For its part, SoundExchange 
asserts that the ``CWR standard contemplates a much richer set of 
information about `interested parties' linked to CISAC's Interested 
Party Information (`IPI') system, including information about 
songwriters and publishers at various levels,'' and so the database 
should include and make available a full set of information about 
interested parties involved in the creation and administration of the 
musical work, including shares and identifiers.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ IPI is ``[a] unique identifier assigned to rights holders 
with an interest in an artistic work, including natural persons or 
legal entities, made known to the IPI Centre. The IPI System is an 
international registry used by CISAC and BIEM societies.'' U.S. 
Copyright Office, Glossary, https://www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/glossary.pdf.
    \91\ ISNI is ``[a] unique identifier for identifying the public 
identities of contributors to creative works, regardless their legal 
or natural status, and those active in their distribution. These may 
include researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual creators, 
performers, producers, publishers, aggregators, and more. A 
different ISNI is assigned for each name used. ISNI is not widely in 
use across the music industry.'' U.S. Copyright Office, Glossary, 
https://www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/glossary.pdf.
    \92\ DLC Initial at 21; DLC Reply Add. at A-16.
    \93\ SoundExchange Initial at 8; see id. at 7-8 (``Reflecting 
all applicable unique identifiers in the MLC Database will allow 
users of the MLC Database readily to match records in the database 
to other databases when ISWC is not included in one or the other of 
the databases.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLC plans to include the IPI number and ISNI in the public 
database, but does not believe it should be required to do so through 
regulation.\94\ The MLC also plans to create its own proprietary 
identifier for each musical work in the database, and while it does not 
identify which, the MLC ``is giving careful consideration to the virtue 
of also including third party proprietary musical work identifiers to 
aid interoperability of its database.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ MLC Reply at 33.
    \95\ Id. at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office seeks public input on issues relating to the inclusion 
of unique identifiers for musical works in the MLC's database, 
including whether regulations should require including IPI or ISNI, the 
MLC's own standard identifier, or any other specific additional 
standard identifiers reasonably available to the MLC, along with 
supporting rationale.
4. Information Related to Ownership and Control of Musical Works
    By statute, the MMA database must include information related to 
the ownership of the musical work as well as the underlying sound 
recording, including ``the copyright owner of the work (or share 
thereof), and the ownership percentage of that owner,'' or, if 
unmatched, ``the ownership percentage for which an owner has not been 
identified.'' \96\ The statute also requires a field called ``sound 
recording copyright owner,'' the meaning of which is discussed further 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(C)(E)(ii)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DLC proposed that the MLC database should include, to the 
extent available to the MLC, ``all additional entities involved with 
the licensing or ownership of the musical work, including publishing 
administrators and aggregators, publishers and sub-publishers, and any 
entities designated to receive license notices, reporting, and/or 
royalty payment on the copyright owners' behalf.'' \97\ Similarly, 
SoundExchange observes that ``[c]ommercialization of musical works 
often involves chains of publishing, sub-publishing and administration 
agreements that determine who is entitled to be paid for use of a 
work,'' and that the CWR standard contemplates gathering this 
information, such that the MLC database should also collect and make 
available this information.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ DLC Reply Add. at A-16.
    \98\ SoundExchange Initial at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MMA does not specifically call out music publishing 
administrators, that is, entities responsible for managing copyrights 
on behalf of songwriters, including administering, licensing, and 
collecting publishing royalties without receiving an ownership interest 
in such copyrights. One music publishing administrator noted that 
because ``the copyright owner may not necessarily be the entity 
authorized to control, license, or collect royalties for the musical 
work,'' the MLC's database should include information identifying the 
administrators or authorized entities who license or collect on the 
behalf of musical work copyright owners.\99\ He also proposes that 
because ``a copyright owner's `ownership' percentage may differ from 
that same owner's `control' percentage,'' the MLC's database should 
include separate fields for ``control'' versus ``ownership'' 
percentage.\100\ The MLC agrees with this approach.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Barker Initial at 2.
    \100\ Id. at 3.
    \101\ MLC Reply at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, with respect to specific ownership percentages, which 
are required by statute to be made publicly available, SoundExchange 
raises the question of how the database should best address ``the 
frequent situation (particularly with new works) where the various co-
authors and their publishers have, at a particular moment in time, 
collectively claimed more or less than 100% of a work.'' \102\ Noting 
that it may be difficult for the MLC to withhold information regarding 
the musical work until shares equal 100% (the practice of other 
systems), it suggests the MLC ``make available information concerning 
the shares claimed even when they total more than 100% (frequently 
referred to

[[Page 22575]]

as an `overclaim') or less than 100% (frequently referred to as an 
`overclaim').'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ SoundExchange Initial at 8-9.
    \103\ Id.; see id. at 15 (``[U]sers of the MLC Database should 
be able to access information about situations in which there are 
conflicting claims to a work, including an overclaim (i.e., a 
situation where putative copyright owners have claimed shares that 
collectively amount to more than 100% of the work), so as to be able 
to understand the extent of the overlap and the rightsholders whose 
claims are involved.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office tentatively concludes that it will be beneficial for the 
database to include information related to all persons or entities that 
own or control the right to license and collect royalties related to 
musical works in the United States, including that music publishing 
administrator and control information would be valuable additions. With 
respect to the question SoundExchange raises regarding works that may 
reflect underclaiming and overclaiming of shares, the Office suggests 
that the MLC's dispute resolution committee may be an appropriate forum 
to consider this issue, as part of the committee's charge to establish 
policies and procedures related to resolution of disputes related to 
ownership interests in musical works.\104\ In general, the Office seeks 
public input on any further issues related to inclusion of this 
information in the public musical works database, including proposed 
regulatory approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional Information Related to Identifying Musical Works and 
Sound Recordings
    Commenters proposed that the public database include various other 
fields to identify the musical work at issue or the sound recording in 
which it is embodied. With respect to musical works, some commenters 
pointed to fields included in the existing Common Works Registration 
(CWR) format, and supported inclusion of information relating to 
alternate titles for musical works,\105\ whether the work utilizes 
samples and medleys of preexisting works,\106\ and opus and catalogue 
numbers and instrumentation of classical compositions.\107\ With 
respect to sound recordings, commenters suggested inclusion of 
information relating to track duration, version, and release date of 
sound recording.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See RIAA Initial at 8 (``Sometimes the official title of a 
song includes an alternate title, or a primary title followed by a 
second, parenthetical title.''); MLC Reply at 32 (agreeing with 
inclusion of alternate titles for musical works).
    \106\ SoundExchange Initial at 9 (noting that the CWR standard 
contemplates provision of such information).
    \107\ Id. (noting that the CWR standard contemplates provision 
of such information).
    \108\ See MLC Reply at 33, App. E (agreeing with inclusion of 
duration, version, and release year of the sound recording, to the 
extent available to the MLC); Recording Academy Initial at 3 (noting 
such information would ``help distinguish between songs that have 
been recorded and released under different titles or by different 
artists multiple times''); RIAA Initial at 6-7 (same);. RIAA 
recommends revising the ``sound recording name'' field to ``sound 
recording track title,'' or in the alternative, ``sound recording 
name/sound recording track title.'' Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLC acknowledges the merits of including such information, 
noting it ``recognizes CWR as the de facto industry standard used for 
registration of claims in musical works, and intends to use CWR as its 
primary mechanism for the bulk electronic registration of musical works 
data.'' \109\ While cautioning that it ``continues to believe that 
overregulation is unnecessary and may be detrimental to the MLC's 
ability to adapt its musical works database as necessary to ensure its 
usefulness in identifying musical works,'' \110\ it amended its 
proposed regulatory language to clarify that the database would include 
``alternative titles of the musical work, and to the extent available 
to the mechanical licensing collective, the track duration, version 
title and release date of any sound recordings embodying a particular 
musical work.'' \111\ The MLC's proposal would also require the 
database to include additional fields ``reported to the mechanical 
licensing collective as may be useful for the identification of musical 
works that the mechanical licensing collective deems appropriate to 
publicly disclose.'' \112\ In a separate concurrent notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Office has proposed requiring that the MLC report 
certain data fields in royalty statements provided to copyright owners 
to the extent such information is ``known'' to the MLC as a regulatory 
floor, while encouraging the MLC to report additional information.\113\ 
And the Office has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the 
circumstances under which digital music providers must provide these 
and other fields to the MLC in reports of usage.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ MLC Reply at 38.
    \110\ Id. at 32.
    \111\ Id. at App. E.
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Royalty Reporting and Distribution Obligations of the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective, Dkt. No. 2020-6, published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register.
    \114\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Music Modernization Act Notices of License, Notices of Nonblanket 
Activity, Data Collection and Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage 
and Payment, Dkt. No. 2020-5, published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, too, the Office would like to avoid a regulatory approach 
that discourages the MLC from including additional fields that it 
determines may be useful to include in the public database. The Office 
invites further public comment on these issues, including whether a 
regulatory structure similar to that proposed for the MLC's provision 
of data in royalty statements to copyright owners is appropriate 
regarding information to be made publicly available in the MLC's 
database, including what, if any, additional fields should be required 
as part of a regulatory floor.
6. Performing Rights Organization Affiliation
    A few commenters contend that the MLC's database should include 
performing rights organization (``PRO'') affiliation, with MIC 
Coalition for example asserting that ``[a]ny data solution must not 
only encompass mechanical rights, but also provide information 
regarding public performance rights, including PRO affiliation and 
splits of performance rights.'' \115\ The MLC points out that its 
``primary responsibility is to engage in the administration of 
mechanical rights and to develop and maintain a mechanical rights 
database,'' and that ``gather[ing], maintain[ing], updat[ing] and 
includ[ing] . . . performance rights information--which rights it is 
not permitted to license--would require significant effort which could 
imperil [its] ability to meet its statutory obligations with respect to 
mechanical rights licensing and administration by the [license 
availability date].'' \116\ FMC agrees, and further notes the challenge 
in keeping PRO affiliation information accurate and up-to-date.\117\ 
The largest PROs, The American Society of Composers, Authors, and 
Publishers (``ASCAP'') and Broadcast Music, Inc. (``BMI''), similarly 
object that because ``music performing rights organizations such as BMI 
and ASCAP all have comprehensive databases on musical

[[Page 22576]]

works ownership rights, and these databases are publicly available,'' 
``administration of data with respect to the licensing of public 
performing rights does not require government intervention.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ MIC Coalition Initial at 2. See DLC Initial at 20 
(suggesting that including PRO affiliation ``will ensure that the 
MLC's database is fully usable, including as a resource for direct 
licensing activities); see Barker Initial at 8-9.
    \116\ MLC Reply at 36.
    \117\ FMC Reply at 3 (``[I]t's difficult to see how including 
PRO information in the MLC database could work--as the MLC won't be 
paying PROs, it's hard to envision what would incentivize keeping 
this data accurate and authoritatively up to date. Repertoire 
transparency is important, but it is not the Copyright Office's job 
to facilitate MIC's members' efforts to bypass Performing Rights 
Organizations that offer songwriters collective representation.'').
    \118\ ASCAP & BMI Reply at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the MMA explicitly restricts the MLC from licensing 
performance rights, it seems unlikely to be prudent or frugal to 
require the MLC to expend resources to maintain PRO affiliations for 
rights it is not permitted to license.\119\ Having considered these 
comments, the statutory text, and legislative history, the Office 
tentatively concludes against requiring the MLC to include PRO 
affiliation in its database. This conclusion does not inhibit PRO 
access or use of the database for their own efforts, and explicitly 
permits bulk access for a fee that does not exceed the MLC's marginal 
cost to provide such access; nor does it restrict the MLC from 
optionally including such information.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(C)(iii) (limiting administration of 
voluntary licenses to ``only [the] reproduction or distribution 
rights in musical works for covered activities.'').
    \120\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v). See Barker Initial at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Terminations
    Title 17 allows, under certain circumstances, authors or their 
heirs to terminate an agreement that previously granted one or more of 
the author's exclusive rights to a third party.\121\ One commenter 
suggests that to the extent terminations of musical work grants have 
occurred, the MLC's database should include ``separate iterations of 
musical works with their respective copyright owners and other related 
information, as well as the appropriately matched recording uses for 
each iteration of the musical work, and to make clear to the public and 
users of the database the appropriate version eligible for future 
licenses.'' \122\ Separately, as addressed in a parallel rulemaking, 
the MLC has asked that the Office require digital music providers to 
include server fixation dates for sound recordings, contending that 
this information will be helpful to its determination whether 
particular usage of musical works is affected by the termination of 
grants under this statutory provision.\123\ The DLC has objected to 
this request.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 17 U.S.C. 203, 304(c), 304(d).
    \122\ Barker Initial at 4.
    \123\ MLC Reply at 19, 55. See also U.S. Copyright Office, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Music Modernization Act Notices of 
License, Notices of Nonblanket Activity, Data Collection and 
Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage and Payment, Dkt. No. 2020-5, 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    \124\ DLC Ex Parte Letter Feb. 14, 2020 (``DLC Ex Parte Letter 
#1'') at 3; DLC Ex Parte Letter #1 Presentation at 15; DLC Ex Parte 
Letter Feb. 24, 2020 (``DLC Ex Parte Letter #2'') at 4; DLC Ex Parte 
Letter Mar. 4, 2020 (``DLC Ex Parte Letter #3'') at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding that termination issues can be complex, the Copyright 
Office notes that presumably, any requirement to denote whether 
termination rights are relevant should be conditioned upon information 
provided to the MLC, and/or otherwise reasonably available to it. The 
Copyright Office seeks public input on issues that should be considered 
relating to whether the proposed rule should address the inclusion of 
termination information in the MLC's database.
8. Data Provenance
    The DLC contends that if the MLC's database includes third-party 
data, ``it should be labeled as such.'' \125\ The DLC's proposed 
language suggests that for musical work copyright owner information, 
the MLC's database should indicate ``whether the ownership information 
was received directly from the copyright owner or from a third party.'' 
\126\ SoundExchange agrees, stating that ``the MLC Database should 
identify the submitters of the information in it, because preserving 
that provenance will allow the MLC and users of the MLC to make 
judgments about how authoritative the information is.'' \127\ Others 
commenters noted that for sound recordings, first-hand data is more 
likely to be accurate.\128\ Separately, the Copyright Office is 
addressing certain sourcing issues with respect to data collection 
efforts and information provided by digital music providers in a 
parallel rulemaking proceeding.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ DLC Initial at 20.
    \126\ DLC Reply Add. A-15-16.
    \127\ SoundExchange Initial at 10-11.
    \128\ The American Association of Independent Music (``A2IM'') & 
RIAA Reply at 2 (asserting MLC should be required to obtain its 
sound recording data from a single authoritative source); Jessop 
Initial at 3 (``The MLC should obtain sound recording information 
from as close to the source as possible. In practice this means from 
the record label or someone directly or indirectly authorized to 
manage this information for them.'').
    \129\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Music Modernization Act Notices of License, Notices of Nonblanket 
Activity, Data Collection and Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage 
and Payment, Dkt. No. 2020-5, published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office appreciates that issues related to data sourcing, 
confidence in data quality, accurate copyright ownership information, 
and agency or licensing arrangements, can be nuanced. The Office 
tentatively believes that the MLC may be better-suited to explore the 
best way to promote accuracy and transparency in issues related to data 
provenance without such regulatory language, including through the 
policies and practices adopted by its dispute resolution and operations 
committees, and by establishing digital accounts through which 
copyright owners can view, verify, or adjust information.
    The Office seeks further public input on any issues that should be 
considered relating to the identification of data sourcing in the MLC's 
database, including whether (and how) third-party data should be 
labeled.
9. Historical Data
    Again pointing to the CWR standard, SoundExchange asserts that the 
MLC database should ``maintain and make available historical interested 
party information so it is possible to know who is entitled to collect 
payments for shares of a work both currently and at any point in the 
past.'' \130\ As noted above, the DLC has also proposed that the MLC 
database include ``information regarding each entity in the chain of 
copyright owners and their agents for a particular musical work'' as 
well as ``relational connections between each of these entities for a 
particular musical work.'' \131\ The MLC sought clarity about the DLC's 
specific proposal, suggesting ``[i]t is unclear whether the DLC . . . 
is referring to the entire historical chain of title for each musical 
work. If so, the MLC objects that ``such information is voluminous, 
burdensome to provide and maintain, and in this context unnecessary and 
must not be required.'' \132\ The MLC intends, however, to maintain 
information in its database about ``each and every entity that, at any 
given point in time, owns a share of the right to receive mechanical 
royalties for the use of a musical work in covered activities.'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ SoundExchange Initial at 10.
    \131\ DLC Initial at 20.
    \132\ MLC Reply at 34.
    \133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Office tentatively agrees with the MLC's approach to 
focus on current relationships with respect to this rulemaking, but 
welcomes further public input.\134\ The Office notes that separately, 
the MLC must maintain all material records of the operations of the 
mechanical licensing collective in a secure and reliable manner, and 
such information will also be subject to audit.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The Office does not envision language prohibiting the MLC 
from providing such historical information.
    \135\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(M)(i); id. at 
115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(aa).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22577]]

C. Sound Recording Copyright Owner Information and Disclaimers or 
Disclosures in MLC Public Database

    RIAA, and individual record labels, expressed concern about which 
information will populate and be displayed to satisfy the statutory 
requirement to include ``sound recording copyright owner'' (SRCO) in 
the MLC's database. Specifically, RIAA explained that under current 
industry practice, digital music providers send royalties pursuant to 
information received from record companies or others releasing 
recordings to DMPs ``via a specialized DDEX message known as the ERN 
(or Electronic Release Notification),'' which is ``typically populated 
with information about the party that is entitled to receive royalties 
(who may or may not be the actual legal copyright owner), because that 
is the information that is relevant to the business relationship 
between record labels and DMPs.'' \136\ In short, information in ``the 
ERN message is not meant to be used to make legal determinations of 
ownership.'' \137\ RIAA notes the potential for confusion stemming from 
the SRCO field in the MLC database being populated from the labels' ERN 
messages--for both the MLC (i.e., the MLC could ``inadvertently 
misinterpret or misapply SRCO data''), and users of the free, public 
database (i.e., they could mistakenly assume that the sound recording 
copyright owner information is authoritative with respect to ownership 
of the sound recording).\138\ Separate but relatedly, SoundExchange 
notes that it ``devotes substantial resources'' to tracking changes in 
sound recording rights ownership, suggesting that inclusion of this 
field ``creates a potential trap for the unwary.'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ RIAA Initial at 2. Although the RIAA's initial comments 
suggested that the ERN feed included a field labeled sound recording 
copyright owner (SRCO), upon reply, it clarified that there is no 
such specific field. See A2IM & RIAA Reply at 8 n.5.
    \137\ RIAA Initial at 2.
    \138\ Id. at 3; see id. (``If database users seek out and enter 
into sound recording licenses with the wrong parties and/or make 
payments to the wrong parties--because they misunderstand what the 
data in the SRCO column of the MLC database actually represents--
that would negatively impact our member companies and the artists 
whose recordings they own and/or exclusively license.'').
    \139\ SoundExchange Initial at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those concerns were echoed in ex parte meetings with individual 
record labels. Universal Music Group (``UMG'') explained that ``actual 
copyright ownership is irrelevant'' in the digital supply chain, as 
``DMPs only need to know who to pay and, maybe, who to call,'' whereas 
record companies separately track copyright ownership information.\140\ 
UMG suggested that the MLC's inclusion of a field labeled ``sound 
recording copyright owner'' might confuse relations between the actual 
copyright owner and the record label conveying information to the DMP, 
where the label is functioning as a non-copyright owner distributor 
through a licensing or press and distribution (P&D) arrangement.\141\ 
Sony Music (``Sony'') expressed similar concerns, suggesting that the 
Office's regulations specify how the ``sound recording copyright 
owner'' line in the MLC's database should be labeled or defined to 
minimize confusion.\142\ Specifically, Sony suggested that three 
fields--DDEX Party Identifier (DPID), LabelName, and PLine--may provide 
indicia relevant to determining sound recording copyright ownership, 
noting that ``DIY artists and aggregators serving that community'' may 
be most likely to populate the DPID field.\143\ In reply comments, A2IM 
& RIAA also identified these same three fields.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ UMG & RIAA Ex Parte Letter at 2.
    \141\ Id. at 2-3.
    \142\ Sony & RIAA Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
    \143\ Id.
    \144\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Office received no comments disputing the labels' 
description of industry practice. As the MMA also requires ``sound 
recording copyright owner'' to be reported by DMPs to the MLC in 
monthly reports of usage, the Office has separately proposed a rule 
regarding which information should be included in such reports to 
satisfy this requirement. That rule proposes that DMPs can satisfy this 
obligation by reporting information in each of the fields identified by 
the labels: DDEX Party Identifier (DPID), LabelName, and PLine.\145\ 
The Office seeks public comment regarding which data the proposed rule 
should require including in the MLC database to satisfy the statutory 
requirement, including whether to require inclusion of multiple fields 
to lessen the perception that a single field contains definitive data 
regarding sound recording copyright ownership information.\146\ The 
Office also welcomes comments related to the labelling of such 
field(s). For example, contending that in many cases, the PLine names 
an individual who may wish not to be listed in a public database, A2IM 
& RIAA suggest that the MLC database include the DPID name, publicly 
listed as ``Party Delivering the Sound Recording to the DMP'' and the 
LabelName, listed as ``Releasing Party (if provided).\147\ Finally, 
since these concerns connect directly to the ERN standard, the Office 
welcomes any information regarding whether it is likely that the ERN 
standard may evolve in a relevant manner, and again reiterates its 
commitment to ensuring appropriate regulatory flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ U.S. Copyright Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Music Modernization Act Notices of License, Notices of Nonblanket 
Activity, Data Collection and Delivery Efforts, and Reports of Usage 
and Payment, Dkt. No. 2020-5, published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register.
    \146\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iii).
    \147\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, the Office also notes that it has received persuasive 
comments requesting that the MLC be required to include a conspicuous 
disclaimer regarding sound recording copyright ownership information in 
its database. For example, RIAA suggests that the MLC should be 
required to ``include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on the home 
screen of the public database that it does not purport to provide 
authoritative information regarding sound recording copyright owner 
information.'' \148\ A2IM & RIAA, CISAC & BIEM, and SoundExchange agree 
that the MLC's database should display such a disclaimer.\149\ And the 
MLC itself has agreed to display a disclaimer that its database should 
not be considered an authoritative source for sound recording 
information.\150\ Similarly, given the current record regarding these 
issues, the Office is not presently inclined to require that the MLC 
include information relating to sound recording copyright owner with 
the same prominence as other information related to matched and 
unmatched musical works. The Office invites comment on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ RIAA Initial at 10.
    \149\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 9 (urging Office to require ``a 
strong, prominent disclaimer'' to ``make[ ] it explicitly clear that 
the database does not purport to provide authoritative information 
about sound recording copyright ownership''); CISAC & BIEM Reply at 
8 (``CISAC and BIEM also encourage the use of appropriate 
disclaiming language in regard to the content of the database, where 
necessary.''); SoundExchange Initial at 12 (``At a minimum, the MLC 
Database should at least include a disclaimer that the MLC Database 
is not an authoritative source of sound recording rights owner 
information.'').
    \150\ MLC Reply at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Access to Public Information in the MLC's Database

    As noted above, the statute directs the Copyright Office to 
``establish requirements by regulations to ensure the usability, 
interoperability, and usage restrictions of the [MLC's] musical works 
database.'' \151\ The database must ``be made available to members of 
the public in a searchable, online format,

[[Page 22578]]

free of charge.'' \152\ The MLC must make the data available ``in a 
bulk, machine-readable format, through a widely available software 
application,'' to digital music providers operating under valid notices 
of license, compliant significant nonblanket licensees, authorized 
vendors of such digital music providers or significant nonblanket 
licensees, and the Copyright Office, free of charge, and to ``[a]ny 
other person or entity for a fee not to exceed the marginal cost to the 
mechanical licensing collective of providing the database to such 
person or entity.'' \153\ The legislative history stresses the 
importance of the MLC's database and making it available to ``the 
public without charge, with the exception of recovery of the marginal 
cost of providing access in bulk to the public.'' \154\ It adds that 
``[i]ndividual lookups of works shall be free although the collective 
may implement reasonable steps to block efforts to bypass the marginal 
cost recovery for bulk access if it appears that one or more entities 
are attempting to download the database in bulk through repeated 
queries.'' \155\ And it further states that ``there shall be no 
requirement that a database user must register or otherwise turn over 
personal information in order to obtain the free access required by the 
legislation.'' \156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(vi).
    \152\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v).
    \153\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(v).
    \154\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 8; 
Conf. Rep. at 7.
    \155\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 8-9; 
Conf. Rep. at 7.
    \156\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 9; 
Conf. Rep. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Method of Access
    The DLC maintains that the MLC should not be required to provide 
more than ``[b]ulk downloads (either of the entire database, or of some 
subset thereof) in a flat file format, once per week per user,'' and 
``[o]nline song-by-song searches to query the database, e.g., through a 
website.'' \157\ The DLC also contends that ``it would be unreasonable 
for digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees to 
foot the bill for database features that would only benefit entities or 
individuals who are not paying a fair share of the MLC's costs,'' \158\ 
and that APIs are ``not needed by digital music providers and 
significant nonblanket licensees.'' \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ DLC Initial at 21.
    \158\ Id.
    \159\ DLC Reply at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, multiple commenters assert that real-time access to 
the MLC's database--not merely a weekly file--is necessary to meet the 
goals of the statute. For example, SoundExchange replied that 
``[w]eekly downloads of a copy of the database are distinctly different 
and less useful than real-time access to current data,'' noting that 
the MLC will be making constant updates and thus a weekly download 
would quickly become out of date.\160\ SoundExchange asserts that 
failure to provide real-time access ``could unfairly distort 
competition for musical work license administration services by giving 
the MLC and its vendors preferred access to current data,'' and that 
the Office should ``maintain[ ] a level playing field in the market for 
musical work license administration services.'' \161\ A2IM & RIAA also 
note that it would be ``damaging to the entire music ecosystem for 
third parties to utilize stale data, especially if they use it in 
connection with some sort of public-facing, data-related business or to 
drive licensing or payment decisions.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ SoundExchange Reply at 4-5, 7 (noting that its Rights 
Management Department is ``devoted to ensuring that our rights 
management database is always populated with the most current 
information about who is entitled to be paid for use of the sound 
recordings in our repertoire database,'' and that they ``make 
changes to our rights management database all day every day''); see 
SoundExchange Initial at 13-14 (``no third party maintaining a local 
musical work repertoire database will ever be able to obtain and 
maintain ownership information as current and accurate as the MLC's. 
Providing robust API access to the MLC Database will discourage the 
creation and maintenance of less accurate local alternatives, 
promoting accurate licensing of and payment for musical works.'').
    \161\ SoundExchange Reply at 9. See also id. at 5 (``Making only 
last week's data available to bulk users would also result in a 
curious situation where members of the public with free access to 
the MLC Database to search for information on individual works would 
seem to have access to more current data than commercial users with 
bulk access, who in some cases would have to pay for such 
access.'').
    \162\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, RIAA, SoundExchange, FMC, MAC, and the Recording Academy 
all stress the importance of real-time access to the MLC's database 
through APIs.\163\ MAC asserts that having API access and ensuring 
interoperability ``with other systems is the best way to make certain 
the MLC database becomes part of the overall music licensing 
ecosystem.'' \164\ SoundExchange challenges the DLC's assertion that 
providing APIs would be financially burdensome, stating that ``it is 
not obvious that there would be a significant cost difference between 
providing full API access and the diminished access the DLC 
describes.'' \165\ Sound Exchange also notes that in the designation of 
the mechanical licensing collection, the Office stated that both 
applicants intended to develop APIs.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ RIAA Initial at 11 (``To facilitate efficient business-to-
business use of the MLC database, the regulations should require the 
MLC to offer free API access to registered users of the database who 
request bulk access.''); SoundExchange Reply at 4-5; FMC Reply at 3 
(concurring with SoundExchange's recommendations about API access, 
``including the recommendations that API access include unique 
identifiers, catalog lookup, and fuzzy searching''); Recording 
Academy Initial at 4 (``ensuring that the database has a user-
friendly API and `machine-to-machine' accessibility is important to 
its practical usability'').
    \164\ MAC Initial at 2.
    \165\ SoundExchange Reply at 8.
    \166\ Id. at 3 (citing 84 FR at 32289). In its September 2019 
notification of inquiry, the Office noted that ``[MLC] stated that 
it strongly support[s] the adoption of standards, formats, and 
frameworks that allow information to be easily and accurately shared 
throughout the industry, and that good systems functioning and 
architectural practices instruct that components should have proper 
APIs.'' 84 FR at 49972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Office is tentatively disinclined to regulate the 
precise format in which the MLC provides bulk access to its database 
(e.g., APIs), so as to provide the MLC flexibility as technology 
develops in providing database access. The Office notes, however, that 
Congress clearly envisioned use of the MLC's database by entities other 
than digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees.\167\ 
Moreover, the MLC's database is meant to serve as an authoritative 
source of information regarding musical work ownership 
information,\168\ and provide transparency. These goals support real-
time access to the MLC's database, either via bulk access or online 
song-by-song searches.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(v) (granting bulk access to the 
MLC's database to ``[a]ny other person or entity for a fee not to 
exceed the marginal cost to the mechanical licensing collective of 
providing the database to such person or entity''). See also RIAA 
Initial at 11 (asserting that record labels ``anticipate making 
frequent use of the MLC database'').
    \168\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E), (e)(20).
    \169\ See MIC Coalition Initial at 3 (``The opaqueness of the 
current music marketplace creates uncertainty that 
disproportionately harms small artists and independent publishers 
and stifles innovation. All stakeholders in the music marketplace 
benefit when current and accurate information about copyright 
ownership is easily accessible. We believe this transparency is a 
necessary baseline in creating a more sustainable and equitable 
system, and a good step toward supporting greater fairness in the 
music marketplace.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office seeks public input on any issues that should be 
considered relating to access to the MLC's database, including proposed 
regulatory language that would facilitate the MLC's provision of real-
time access to the database (bulk and online song-by-song).
2. Marginal Cost
    Despite the statute and legislative history stating third parties 
may be

[[Page 22579]]

charged the ``marginal cost'' of being provided bulk access, A2IM & 
RIAA express concern about making the MLC's database available to third 
parties ``unless the fee those third parties are required to pay takes 
into account the cost for the MLC to acquire that data and all of the 
costs and hard work that goes into creating, compiling, verifying, 
deduping, etc. the sound recording data that will reside within the MLC 
database and the potential opportunity costs to [record labels] of 
having that data available to third parties via the MLC.'' \170\ RIAA 
contends that otherwise third-party businesses ``would be able to 
access that data at a highly subsidized, below-market price.'' \171\ 
RIAA asks the Office to define ``marginal cost'' to ``include not just 
the cost of creating and maintaining the bulk access, but also the cost 
to the MLC of acquiring the data, including payment to the data source, 
for the hard work of aggregating, verifying, deduping and resolving 
conflicts in the data.'' \172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 7.
    \171\ Id.
    \172\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office tentatively declines this request. It is not clear that 
``marginal cost'' is a vague term, and at this point, the Office 
believes the MLC should be able to determine the best pricing 
information in light of its operations, based on the statutory and 
legislative history language.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See Conf. Rep. at 7 (``Given the importance of this 
database, the legislation makes clear that it shall be made 
available to the Copyright Office and the public without charge, 
with the exception of recovery of the marginal cost of providing 
access in bulk to the public.''). See also Music Reports Initial at 
5 (``Music Reports notes that the marginal cost of automated daily 
data delivery protocols is relatively trivial, and calls upon the 
Office to ensure that such automated delivery be made available upon 
the first availability of the MLC's database, and that the fee 
schedule scrupulously adhere to the `marginal cost' standard.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Abuse
    The Office does welcome comments regarding proposed regulatory 
language to deter abusive third-party access to the database. The 
legislative history states that in cases of block efforts by third 
parties to bypass the marginal cost recovery for bulk access (i.e., 
abuse), the MLC ``may implement reasonable steps to block efforts to 
bypass the marginal cost recovery for bulk access if it appears that 
one or more entities are attempting to download the database in bulk 
through repeated queries.'' \174\ Both the MLC and DLC propose 
regulatory language that would provide the MLC discretion to block 
efforts to bypass the marginal cost recovery.\175\ A2IM & RIAA also 
suggest that the MLC be required to implement technological protection 
measures (``TPMs'') to reduce the likelihood of third parties 
``scraping'' data without paying any fee.\176\ The Office agrees that, 
in principle, the MLC should at a minimum have such discretion. The 
Office seeks public input on any issues that should be considered 
relating to regulatory language concerning the MLC's ability to block 
efforts to bypass the marginal cost recovery, particularly how to avoid 
penalizing legitimate users while providing the MLC flexibility to 
police abuse, and whether regulatory language should address 
application of TPMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 8; S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 8-9; 
Conf. Rep. at 7.
    \175\ MLC Initial at 25; DLC Reply Add. at A-17.
    \176\ A2IM & RIAA Reply at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Restrictions on Use
    CISAC & BIEM ask the Copyright Office to issue regulations defining 
``strict terms and conditions'' for use of data from the MLC's database 
by digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees (and 
their authorized vendors), ``including prohibition for DSPs to use data 
for purposes other than processing uses and managing licenses and 
collaborating with the MLC in data collection.'' \177\ By contrast, the 
DLC maintains that ``licensees should be able use the data they receive 
from the MLC for any legal purpose.'' \178\ While the MLC ``agrees that 
there should be some reasonable limitation on the use of the 
information to ensure that it is not misappropriated for improper 
purposes'' and ``intends to include such limitation in its terms of use 
in the database,'' the MLC believes appropriate terms of use should 
address potential misuse of information from the MLC's database (rather 
than regulations).\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ CISAC & BIEM Initial at 4.
    \178\ DLC Initial at 21.
    \179\ MLC Reply at 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Office agrees that it will be important for the MLC to 
develop reasonable terms of use to address potential misuse of 
information in its database and appreciates the role that contractual 
remedies may play to deter abuse, the MMA directs the Office to issue 
regulations regarding ``usage restrictions,'' in addition to usability 
and interoperability of the database.\180\ The Office is mindful of the 
risk of misuse. For example, bad actors could acquire and misrepresent 
information, or exploit personally identifiable information (``PII'') 
that must be publicly available under the statute (e.g., copyright 
owner of the musical work (or share thereof), and the ownership 
percentage of that owner). At the same time, the Office recognizes that 
potential regulations and any terms of use issued by the MLC should not 
be overly broad or impose unnecessary restrictions upon good faith 
users.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(vi).
    \181\ See Conf. Rep. at 6 (``Music metadata has more often been 
seen as a competitive advantage for the party that controls the 
database, rather than as a resource for building an industry on . . 
. .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office seeks public input on any issues that should be 
considered relating to restrictions on usage of information in the 
MLC's database, including whether regulatory language should address 
remedies for misuse (and if so, how and why), or otherwise provide a 
potential regulatory floor for the MLC's terms of use. The Office 
invites parties to provide specific proposed regulatory language for 
the Office to consider and for others to comment upon.

    Dated: April 15, 2020.
Regan A. Smith,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2020-08376 Filed 4-17-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P