Abstract With the advent of the digital age, the music copyright collective management problems in the system design and operational aspects of the new challenges facing the United States in this field for a long time in the world's advanced level, but there are many challenges. This article aims to introduce the evolution of American collective management system and development, and its reform program were discussed.
Paper Keywords music copyright collective management
A United States copyright collective management system introduced
Today, digital music licensing works the way it can be said both dysfunctional, but also quite complex. With illegal music online music sharing, and electronic dissemination of the diversity of phenomena such as the prevalence of this problem worse. In a world marked podcasts, Internet podcasts and streaming music world, traditional for musical performances, reproduction and dissemination of understanding is facing new challenges. From a global perspective, recordings since 2000, sales plunged 20 percent, especially in recent years, expanding the loss is particularly evident. Since 1997, sales of sound recordings in the United States more than 40% decline. While copyright holders to combat illegal music distribution has taken a series of legal actions, but the entire music industry is still in a state of confusion. Bi Therefore, the majority of industry are aware of the need to take effective measures to combat the illicit spread of technology, rather than simply to ban these technologies. However, to obtain the necessary rights to broadcast legally on the Internet or dissemination of music quite difficult. Some people think that the current music licensing model inefficient, it needs to be reformed.
Second, the development of American music copyright
Currently, the music you want to get a license must be several different rights to get different licensing agency. Reformers believe that there is a bottleneck at each stage, the negotiations will be greatly reduced licensing rate, increasing the difficulty and time permits consumption. However, just because the problems in the market segment does not mean that the existing joint or remove the licensing model is the right solution. Licensing departments in an organization to meet the economic purpose, which lasted into the establishment of a balanced century.
With the development of different rights in musical works on behalf of the collective interests of artists and publishers are also engaged in the development of an organization. Founded in 1914, American composers, writers and publishers association (ASCAP) plays a license for the music performing rights role. Subsequently developed Broadcast Music Association (BMI) and the European Association of Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) are two other important influence in the United States performing rights organization (PRO). PRO usually issued a 'blank license' granted to the user in a given period all of the songs using the music library. Common facilities such as restaurants or bars blank license cost depends on its number of seats, the frequency of musical performances, performing the type of admission and other factors. Television and radio stations based on the same income to pay a large sum of PRO Royalty. Royalty subsequently re-allocated between the singer and publishers. Licensing negotiations with consumers to accept inter-district court review, ASCAP and BMI are subject to the constraints of the Act.
In 1927, the National Music Publishers' Association created the Harry Fox agency (HFA) to manage its affiliated publishers the right to copy and disseminate. HFA as an intermediary organization, the direct talks with record companies, music reproduction and dissemination of specific matters. Although HFA represents over 28,000 music publishers, but does not exclusively musical reproduction and communication rights. For example, a publisher is not affiliated with HFA can still get retained the right to license their works machinery. As part of the 1909 Copyright Act, Congress enacted the statutory mechanical license reward ratio by HFA and non-affiliated publishers release. In this Act, once the copyright owner to grant copies of musical works to spread the right, then any member of the community can replicate and spread this work thereafter. The purpose of this compulsory license prohibits the issuance of mechanical permits copyright holders who continue to occupy the music. However, due to the cumbersome legislative process, the version of the rate usually HFA private decision. Therefore, the rate of compulsory licensing as a capped rate for mechanical licensing negotiation reference.
1971, congressional resolution giving recordings federal copyright protection. Therefore, usually have recorded works right the first time, record companies under federal law permits their work. Reproduction and dissemination of recordings of the right to be called 'professional use.' With different musical works, federal copyright law does not confer recordings performing rights. 'Record company's economic success is largely dependent on the broadcaster's efforts in the propaganda.' vertical PRO and broadcasters rejected an alliance to any final success over 20 years of recordings performance right decision impose additional costs.
With streaming music on the Internet, record companies rush before Congress made a judgment, which means that the traditional method does not permit protection and compensation can be a good artist's interests. To alleviate this concern, Congress in 1995 promulgated the 'digital recordings Performing Rights Act' (DPRSRA), an increase of 'public performance via digital audio transmission work,' this one right. With the further development of streaming media technology, record companies urged Congress to expand the scope of the bill, which eventually led Congress Section 114 of the Copyright Act to modify, incorporate it into the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' (DMCA). This amendment distinguishes between 'interactive' and 'non-interactive' streaming media transmission. Their difference is that theory: if a streaming music interactive higher degree, then it is more likely to behave in the physical carrier sales, thereby generating more copying and dissemination of royalty.
With the spread of digital music the way has increased, the current music copyright licensing model for reform of the growing need. Academia, management organization and even the Copyright Office are on how to reconstruct the digital music licensing system put forward their own proposals. These recommendations can be grouped into two categories: First attempt to legislate reform; two is to try to merge the music licensing in some way. These reform proposals might be able to figure defects permitted some improvements, but most do not take into account the obstacles or the implementation process to ensure the long-term implementation.
(A) legislative reform proposals History has proved that no matter how the licensing model change from the national point of view, from a single person to manage their rights of copyright near-impossible. While widening the scope of exclusive rights to produce more licensing model, it will lead to more serious consequences. In a single system of rights, whether exclusive right of copyright holders to be defined, historical transaction cost problem still exists. If there is no auxiliary PRO, singers and publishers will have to protect their own rights, which would lead to confusion, but also difficult to apply in practice. Instead, they can be in the hands of the commercial exploitation of resources together, united into a collective organization.
Another legislative proposal that copyright law needs to be modified Article 115 of the existing 115 pairs rights of musical works machinery mandatory licensing requirement. Reformers support mandatory rate and try to apply it to a wider range of music licensing, because the rate of compulsory licensing model can be eliminated by the separation brought about many problems. Simply put, in a purely compulsory licensing system, there is no need to identify and negotiate with copyright holders. To obtain the same permit, a person only needs to use content Copyright Office published a notice in writing. If there are records of the copyright holder, then you must to pay statutory royalties. On the contrary, the written notice will provide users with a safe haven. Reformers envisioned such a model: Consumers only need to specify the Copyright Office or the governing body of written notice and pay the statutory royalty, then he would be able to get what you want all of the license, and the right to collective Royalty will be in people's between the rational allocation.
However, the law is not a panacea for purge, because this will lead to new difficulties. When the 2005 attempt to reform copyright registration system of compulsory licensing musical works, some scholars have mentioned that: 'there are significant differences between licensing organizations, leading to modifications in the law can not generate consensus.' Want a licensing organizations voluntarily give up without a fight license power is basically not possible. In the past, the industry lobbying interests, so that the recording performance rights legislation implementing delayed more than two decades.
(Two) the proposed merger of music copyright reform legislation taking into account the difficulty that some reformers proposed grant of an organization to manage all the music rights. In this mode, the intermediary (usually refers to music rights organizations) will provide a musical work includes performances and recordings, copy, distribute a separate license rights. The middleman would then be responsible for distribution Royalty matters.
Copyright Bureau presented a not so radical suggestion: musical performances, reproduction and dissemination of rights from music rights organizations. Existing organizations such as ASCAP and BMI PRO will automatically become a member of MRO. However, the newly established MRO will own up and compete. The Copyright Office's suggestion, once MRO is granted a license issued by the performing rights, it also received the right to grant the right of reproduction and dissemination of licensing rights. Done to achieve this goal, the proposed repeal Section 115 provisions on compulsory licensing. Therefore, today's biggest online music PRO will control all rights to work, while HFA either become MRO, either in the music licensing market to compete with others.
The proposed merger, there are many shortcomings. First, the Copyright Office's proposed merger does not completely solve the problems arising from separate licensing system. For example, MRO can be freely established and competition. Further, recording license still have to record company or the artist was able to achieve. Therefore, in the Copyright Office's program, 'one-stop shopping' scenario failed to achieve, but consumers can get permission from a more institutional. Secondly, such a license had to consider the proposed merger antitrust issues. If the costs involved antitrust exemption, it is difficult to imagine this licensing model will not be subject to trade controls.
Although in different ways, but reformers generally considered to reduce transaction costs for achieving vital when online music licensing. While copyright reform is an important step, but radical change is unlikely to existing practices and industry among happen. Similarly, the merger control industry's organization this proposal deserves careful consideration. Discrete licensing model allows talented authors get paid for their efforts, and to ensure that licensees are able to pay the fee. Although the Internet can increase the speed and manner of transfer music, digital license does not exceed the scope of the current system. Reformers fail to realize is that the new technology is not a necessity for Reform, but many managers in the emerging markets permit the game only. Improved music copyright requires a 'focus only on overlapping network environment without affecting the rights of the real world works Diversity' system.