.

Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution,
Reproduction, and Public Performance

Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
April 15, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33631
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Summary
This report provides an overview of the complexities of the Copyright Act’s provisions
concerning music licensing. It also discusses several issues involving copyrights in musical works
and sound recordings that have been the subject of recent congressional and judicial
consideration.
Copyright law provides protection for original works of authorship by conferring certain
exclusive rights upon their creators. Music is an example of a kind of literary and artistic work
that falls squarely within the scope of copyright law. Federal law recognizes copyright protection
for two separate and distinct types of music-related creations: “musical works” and “sound
recordings.” A musical work refers to a songwriter’s musical composition and accompanying
lyrics, while a sound recording is a particular version of a musician singing or playing a musical
work, as that rendition is captured in a recording medium such as a compact disc, cassette tape,
vinyl album, or MP3 file.
If a third party wants to use a copyrighted work in a particular way, he or she must ordinarily seek
permission from the copyright holder; in the music industry, such permission is often referred to
as “licensing.” A license permits a third party to do something with a copyrighted work that
implicates a copyright holder’s exclusive right, possibly in exchange for monetary compensation
known as a royalty fee, without concern of infringing the copyright holder’s rights. Some licenses
are negotiated instruments between a copyright holder and a third party (referred to as “voluntary
licenses”). Other licenses are provided by the Copyright Act. These statutory licenses are
instruments that compel copyright holders to allow others to exercise a holder’s rights without
negotiated permission. In copyright law, they are commonly referred to as “compulsory” licenses.
When statutory requirements are satisfied by the party interested in using the copyrighted work, a
compulsory license is available if the party complies with the terms of the statutory license as
well as pays the statutory royalty fees.
The licensing system behind the use of musical works and sound recordings differs depending on
(1) whether the music is transmitted digitally or through analog means, (2) who the user is, and
(3) the particular “exclusive right” of the copyright holder that is implicated by the use. Whenever
a user reproduces or distributes a non-digital or digital sound recording, the sound recording
copyright holder and musical work copyright holder are both entitled to payment. Whenever a
user publicly performs a sound recording via non-digital transmission, authorization from only
the musical work copyright holder is needed. However, if the sound recording is publicly
performed through digital audio transmission, both the musical work copyright holder and the
sound recording copyright holder have a right to receive royalties.
A more comprehensive understanding of music licensing requires a familiarity with the Digital
Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRSRA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA). This report explains how these laws amend the Copyright Act to, among other
things, refine the scope of licensing for both types of copyright holders.
The Copyright Act also sets forth several exemptions from infringement liability for certain
unauthorized uses, including the fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) and limitations on the public
performance right under specific situations (17 U.S.C. § 110).

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Copyright Law Fundamentals .......................................................................................................... 1
The Music Copyrights ..................................................................................................................... 2
The Musical Work ..................................................................................................................... 2
The Sound Recording ................................................................................................................ 3
The Traditional Licensing System ................................................................................................... 3
Permission and the License ....................................................................................................... 3
The Core Rights of Music Copyright Holders ........................................................................... 4
The Licensing of Reproduction and Distribution Rights ........................................................... 5
The Licensing of Public Performances ...................................................................................... 7
The Licensing of Jukeboxes ...................................................................................................... 8
The Digital Music Licensing System ............................................................................................... 9
Digital vs. Analog ...................................................................................................................... 9
Amending the Licensing System: The DPRSRA ...................................................................... 9
The Licensing of Digital Reproduction and Distribution ........................................................ 10
The Licensing of Digital Public Performances ........................................................................ 11
Amending the Licensing System: The DMCA ........................................................................ 13
The Licensing of Ephemeral Recordings ................................................................................ 14
Exceptions to Licensing Requirements .......................................................................................... 14
Fair Use ................................................................................................................................... 15
The Teaching Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 16
Public Performance Without Commercial Advantage ............................................................. 16
The Home Receiving Apparatus .............................................................................................. 17
Eligible Establishment Transmissions ..................................................................................... 17
Music Licensing Issues of Recent Congressional and Judicial Consideration .............................. 18
Federal Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings ................................................................ 19
Litigation and Legislation ................................................................................................. 20
Extending the Performance Right in Sound Recordings to AM/FM Radio Broadcasts .......... 21
Legislation ......................................................................................................................... 23
Standards for Setting Royalty Rates for Public Performance of Sound Recordings ............... 25
The Willing Buyer/Willing Seller Standard ...................................................................... 25
The 801(b) Factors ............................................................................................................ 26
Legislation ......................................................................................................................... 27
Modification of Consent Decrees Governing Songwriter Performance Royalties .................. 29
Legislation ......................................................................................................................... 30

Appendixes
Appendix A. Types of Licenses Required For Copyright Holders in Non-Digital and
Digital Music Contexts ............................................................................................................... 32
Appendix B. Glossary .................................................................................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Introduction
In 2013, Congress initiated a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law1 in order to determine
whether legislative reforms are needed to address technological developments in modes of
communication, social interaction, and entertainment. Innovative businesses that rely on the use
of vast amounts of digital media, such as Facebook, YouTube, Pandora, and Instagram, offer the
potential to help copyright holders promote their creative material (such as photos, music, and
videos) for artistic, educational, and commercial reasons. However, these digital services may
also increase the risk of infringing copyright holders’ rights because they often provide faster,
cheaper, and easier means of engaging in unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public
performance of copyrighted works than previous technologies.
Copyright holders in the music industry have experienced challenges in adapting to the pace of
technological advances that continually offer the public many new ways of listening to music. In
the last 20 years, how consumers purchase and enjoy music has changed dramatically with the
advent of the Internet, Amazon and iTunes, digital music streaming services, and smartphones.
The existing music licensing system by which copyright holders are paid for the use of their
music has struggled to adjust to new music delivery methods and consequently, may be unable to
provide music copyright holders with adequate compensation for their creative efforts.
The first part of this report provides an overview of copyright law that relates to music licensing.
The second half discusses issues involving copyrights in musical works and sound recordings that
have been the subject of recent congressional and judicial consideration.
Copyright Law Fundamentals
The source of federal copyright law originates with the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, which authorizes Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.”2 Copyright refers to the exclusive rights granted by law to authors for
the protection of original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.3
Original works must be captured in some form beyond a transitory duration. The types of creative
works eligible for copyright protection include literary, musical, dramatic, and pictorial works;
motion pictures; and sound recordings.4 Copyright is based on authorship and exists separate and
apart from its physical embodiment. For example, if a person purchases a collection of books or
records, the purchaser owns those particular material objects but not the rights afforded to the
copyright holder.

1 See House Judiciary Committee, Press Release, Chairman Goodlatte Announces Comprehensive Review of Copyright
Law,
April 24, 2013, at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2013/4/
chairmangoodlatteannouncescomprehensivereviewofcopyrightlaw.
2 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
3 17 U.S.C. § 102.
4 Id.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The rights conferred on copyright holders do not last forever. Copyrights are limited in the
number of years that copyright holders may exercise their exclusive rights. In general, an author
of a work may enjoy copyright protection for the term of his or her life plus 70 additional years.5
At the expiration of a term, the copyrighted work becomes part of the public domain. Works in
the public domain are available for anyone to use without fear of infringement. The unauthorized
use of a copyrighted work constitutes infringement of the particular exclusive right at issue,
unless the action is permitted by a statutory exception, such as “fair use” for limited purposes.6
The copyright holder may file a lawsuit against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the
exclusive rights conferred by copyright. The Copyright Act provides several civil remedies to the
copyright holder that is harmed by infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive
relief,7 actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement,8 statutory
damages,9 and costs and attorney fees.10
The Music Copyrights
In the realm of music, federal law recognizes copyright protection for two separate subject matter
categories: “musical works” and “sound recordings.”11 Each of these copyrights confers a
particular set of rights—some exclusive to one of the two different music copyright holders.
The Musical Work
A “musical work” is a lyrical and/or notational composition of a song, transcribed on a material
object such as a sheet of paper. A holder of a musical work copyright is typically a composer, who
authors the work, or a music publisher, who purchases copyrights from composers and exercises
the rights of those composers.
Holders of copyright in musical works have the right to engage in, authorize others to exercise, or
prevent third parties from exercising, the following rights:12
reproduction of the copyrighted musical work;
preparation of derivative works based on the copyrighted musical work;
distribution of the musical work to the public by sale, rental, lease or lending;
performance of the musical work publicly; and
display of the musical work publicly.

5 17 U.S.C. § 302. Other terms have been established for different works and different periods of time. For a concise
chart explaining the different terms, see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.
6 17 U.S.C. § 107. This and other exceptions to infringement liability will be discussed infra.
7 17 U.S.C. § 502.
8 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).
9 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).
10 17 U.S.C. § 505.
11 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), (7).
12 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)-(5).
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The Sound Recording
The sound recording is the recorded version of a musician singing or playing a musical work. The
Copyright Act distinguishes the terms “sound recording” and “phonorecord.” A sound recording
is an original work of authorship that “result[s] from the fixation13 of a series of musical, spoken,
or other sounds” in a tangible medium of expression.14 The sound recording copyright protects
the elements of original authorship expressed in a particular recorded rendition. A phonorecord is
the actual physical object from which the sound recording can be perceived, reproduced, or
communicated directly or with a machine’s aid.15 Examples of phonorecords include compact
discs, vinyl albums, and MP3-format digital music files. The sound recording copyright holder
may include the recording artist, background musicians, and the record label that helps to produce
the recording.16
Holders of rights in sound recordings have exclusive right to control the
reproduction of the copyrighted sound recording;
preparation of derivative works based on the copyrighted sound recording;
distribution of phonorecords of the sound recording to the public by sale, rental,
lease, or lending.
In addition, holders of sound recording copyrights have a qualified and limited public
performance right. The Copyright Act covers the performance of the sound recording publicly by
means of a digital audio transmission only.17
The Traditional Licensing System
Permission and the License
At the core of a copyright holder’s bundle of rights is the concept of exclusivity. This exclusivity
allows a copyright holder to exercise particular rights for the sole benefit of the holder. However,
the copyright holder may license third parties to exercise one of the exclusive rights with respect
to the protected work. Each exclusive right of a copyright holder is subject to licensing; for
example, a third party wishing to reproduce a copyrighted work as well as publicly perform the

13 A fixed work is one “in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under
the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Fixation is an example of the many
terms of art that the Copyright Act frequently employs; these terms often have meanings that differ from ordinary usage
in everyday language. The copyright law-specific terms of art that are pertinent to the topics discussed in this report are
defined in various footnotes or in the body text; for easier reference, they are also arranged in a glossary at the end of
this report.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 A sound recording copyright holder (e.g., a recording artist or a record label) could also hold a copyright in the
musical work as well. For clarity and convenience, this report addresses these music copyright holders as separate
entities.
17 17 U.S.C. § 106(6). This right was added pursuant to the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of
1995, which is discussed infra.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

work must negotiate separate licenses from the copyright holder to engage in the different
activities. Copyright holders may transfer or waive one or more of these exclusive rights through
written contract.18
Some licenses are negotiated instruments between a copyright holder and a third party (referred to
as “voluntary licenses”). Other licenses are created by statute. Statutory licenses are instruments
that compel copyright holders to allow others to exercise a holder’s rights without negotiated
permission. In copyright law, these are commonly referred to as “compulsory” licenses. When
statutory requirements are satisfied by the party interested in using the copyrighted work, a
compulsory license is available if the party complies with the terms of the statutory license as
well as pays the statutory royalty fees.
Three Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) that comprise the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB)
establish these statutory licenses and rates.19 The Copyright Act provides a specific process for
statutory license ratemaking.20 First, the Act encourages interested parties (for example, copyright
holders and the users of sound recordings) to voluntarily negotiate a settlement agreement
regarding the public performance royalty rate during an initial three-month period. In the absence
of a voluntary agreement, written statements and testimony are gathered by the CRB, discovery
takes place, hearings are held, and then the CRB issues a ruling that announces the royalty rate
for the particular type of digital audio service at issue (Internet radio companies, cable/satellite
radio providers, etc.). The CRB’s royalty rates are effective for a five-year period; thus, the CRB
repeats its ratemaking proceedings every five years.
Although the music licensing system is a complex area of overlapping and sometimes competing
interests and responsibilities, the essence of licensing remains in the context of permission—
whether voluntarily negotiated or statutorily compelled.
The Core Rights of Music Copyright Holders
Among the rights granted to copyright holders, three rights are essential in the music licensing
context: the reproduction right, the distribution right, and the public performance right.
The right of reproduction is the right to duplicate, transcribe, imitate, or simulate a work in a
fixed form. In the context of music copyrights, the right of reproduction authorizes the copying of
musical works (e.g., duplicating sheet music) or sound recordings. Infringement of these rights
would be the unlawful copying of the copyrighted work.
The right of distribution establishes the right to distribute copies or phonorecords of a copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.21 In the
context of music copyrights, the right of distribution permits the sale of copies (sheet music) or

18 17 U.S.C. §§ 201(d), 204(a).
19 With the enactment of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-419) on Nov. 30, 2004,
the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) system that had been part of the U.S. Copyright Office since 1993
was replaced with a board of three Copyright Royalty Judges. The CRJs are full-time employees of the Library of
Congress who are appointed for six-year terms with an opportunity for reappointment.
20 17 U.S.C. §§ 803, 804.
21 17 U.S.C. § 106(3).
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

phonorecords (sound recordings) to the public. Infringement of this right would be any
unauthorized public distribution of a copy or phonorecord.
The right of public22 performance means the exhibition, rendition, or playing of a copyrighted
work, either directly or by means of any device or process.23 Public performance not only covers
the initial rendition, but also any further act by which the rendition is transmitted or
communicated to the public. In the context of music copyrights, the public performance right
allows promotion and performance of the music. Infringement of this right would be the public
performance of a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder.
The Licensing of Reproduction and Distribution Rights
The legal landscape concerning music copyrights and licensing originates in the 1908 Supreme
Court case of White Smith v. Apollo Music.24 In White Smith, a composer challenged piano roll
technology25 as a violation of a musical work copyright holder’s right to make copies of a work.26
The Court ruled that the rolls were not copies of musical compositions, but rather component
parts of a player piano machine.27 Hence, there was no infringement of the composer’s
copyright.28
Through legislation, Congress overturned White Smith in 1909 by granting to musical work
copyright holders the right to control the “mechanical29 reproduction” of their works.30 As a
consequence, piano rolls would be infringements of the musical composition copyright. However,
piano roll companies could still acquire the rights to make the rolls from musical work holders.
To prevent monopolization by a large manufacturer of piano rolls, Congress subjected the
mechanical reproduction right to a compulsory license, allowing any manufacturer of piano rolls
to mechanically reproduce a musical work in exchange for a payment of a royalty fee, without
negotiating with the copyright holder for permission. Thus, the compulsory license for the
reproduction of musical works is commonly referred to as a “mechanical license.”
Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, is the current authority for a compulsory
license (or a statutory mechanical license) for reproduction and distribution of musical works.31

22 To perform a work “publicly” means (1) to perform a work at a place open to the public, or at any place where a
substantial number of persons outside a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to
transmit or otherwise communicate a performance of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public by
means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance receive it in
the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
23 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(4), 101.
24 209 U.S. 1 (1908).
25 Piano rolls are cylinder rolls with perforations that mechanically cause notes to be played on self-playing pianos. Id.
at 9-10.
26 Id. at 9.
27 Id. at 12.
28 Id.
29 The term “mechanical” was derived from a determination that the reproduction is heard with the aid of a machine. AL
KOHN & BOB KOHN, KOHN ON MUSIC LICENSING 677 (3rd ed. 2002).
30 Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, § 1(b), 35 Stat.1075.
31 17 U.S.C. § 115. In 1995, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRSRA) amended the
compulsory license to include the reproduction and distribution of digital phonorecord deliveries (DPDs) over the
Internet. DPDs will be discussed infra.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The license protects the musical work copyright holder’s right to control certain reproductions of
the work (e.g., copying the sheet music) but permits the recording of a song by a third party on
“mechanical” media such as a piano roll or record.32 In its present form, it essentially allows
reproduction of musical compositions that may be heard with the aid of a mechanical device.33
The mechanical license is validly obtained only after a musical work has been initially distributed
publicly under the authority of the copyright holder. The license is authorized when the licensee’s
(recipient or user) primary purpose is to distribute the work publicly for private use. Currently,
the mechanical license rate is 9.1 cents for songs five minutes or less, or 1.75 cents per minute or
fraction thereof for songs over five minutes, whichever is greater.34
Although the §115 mechanical license compensates the musical work copyright holder for
reproduction and distribution rights, it does not authorize the duplication of a sound recording.35
Permission to duplicate a sound recording must be obtained from whoever owns the sound
recording copyright—likely either the recording artist or record studio.
Most phonorecord creators do not use the compulsory license system to obtain permission to use
musical works.36 In 1927, the National Music Publishers Company (NMPC)37 created the Harry
Fox Agency (HFA) to issue and administer mechanical licenses. Currently, most mechanical
licenses are obtained through HFA because there is a reduction in the transaction costs offered by
HFA. Although HFA has the right to authorize licenses only for musical works it represents, HFA
represents 27,000 music publishers, which represent more than 160,000 songwriters.38

32 2 MELVILLE B.NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.04[A] (2006).
33 KOHN ON MUSIC LICENSING, supra footnote 29, at 677.
34 U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Royalty Rates, Section 115, the Mechanical License, available at
http://copyright.gov/licensing/m200a.pdf. However, the Harry Fox Agency, a wholly owned subsidiary of the National
Music Publisher’s Association, typically negotiates and issues these licenses on behalf of songwriters, and the
mechanical license is seldom used for the permission to make or distribute copyrighted musical compositions; such rate
rarely exceeds that set by the U.S. Copyright Office. See http://www.harryfox.com/public/FAQ.jsp.
35 17 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1) (“A person may not obtain a compulsory license for the use of the work in the making of
phonorecords duplicating a sound recording fixed by another, unless (i) such sound recording was fixed lawfully; and
(ii) the making of the phonorecords was authorized by the owner of copyright in the sound recording.... ”).
36 Indeed, the Copyright Royalty Judges have acknowledged this anomaly: “[V]irtually no one uses Section 115 to
license reproductions of musical works ... The Judges are, therefore, seemingly tasked with setting rates and terms of a
useless license. The testimony in this proceeding makes clear, however, that despite its disuse, the Section 115 license
exerts a ghost-in-the-attic like effect on all those who live below it. ... Thus, the rates and terms that we set today will
have considerable impact on the private agreements that enable copyright users to clear the rights for reproduction and
distribution of musical works.” Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, In the Matter of Mechanical and
Digital Phonorecord Delivery Rate Determination Proceeding: Final Determination of Rates and Terms,
at 13,
available at http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2006-3/dpra-public-final-rate-terms.pdf.
37 The NMPC is now known as the NMPA, or National Music Publishers’ Association.
38 Oversight Hearing on the Discussion Draft of H.R. 5553, the “Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006”: Hearing
Before the House Judiciary Comm., Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(2006) (Statement of David Israelite, President and CEO of NMPA), at 4 (“However, even though HFA represents
most commercially relevant musical works, it does not currently represent all music publishers or all musical works,
and, therefore, digital music services cannot receive all the licenses they need from HFA.”).
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The Licensing of Public Performances
Prior to the 1909 Copyright Act, Congress granted musical works copyright holders the right to
control the public performance of their works.39 The 1909 Act further recognized a public
performance right but limited the right only to performances engaged in for profit.40 Not until
1976 was the for-profit limitation removed.
Despite possessing the right to control public performance, musical work copyright holders had
difficulty in collecting licensing fees for performances. This problem was alleviated by the
creation of performing rights organizations (PROs).41 In 1914, a group of nine music business
leaders established the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP).42
ASCAP licenses thousands of musical compositions for public performances under blanket
license agreements.43 A holder of a blanket license may publicly perform any and all of the songs
in the PRO’s repertory, in return for paying either a flat fee or a percentage of total revenue.44 For
business owners, these blanket licenses significantly reduce the transaction costs involved in
complying with the requirements of the Copyright Act. For musical work copyright holders, these
licenses allow receipt of a share of the royalties that were previously not of much value.
Due to ASCAP’s attempt to raise the royalty rates charged to radio stations, Broadcast Music, Inc.
(BMI) became a new PRO in 1939.45 The Society for European Stage Authors and Composers
(SESAC), another PRO, was formed in 1930.46 Each PRO can only license public performances
of musical works under contract with that PRO.
For the public performance of musical works by various users, the royalty fees are established by
voluntary license agreements that are the product of private negotiations between the PROs and
the music user. In 1941, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought antitrust suits against
ASCAP and BMI on the basis that they were unlawfully monopolizing the licensing of
performing rights. Both suits were settled by court-approved consent decrees, which now regulate
ASCAP and BMI’s licensing activities.47 (The DOJ’s Antirust Division oversees the consent
decrees and “periodically review[s] the[ir] operation and effectiveness;”48 the DOJ can modify the
terms and conditions of the consent decrees if it is necessary to protect competition.) When
voluntary licensing agreements are reached between the PROs and the particular music user, they
are submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for approval as

39 Act of Jan. 6, 1897, ch. 4, 29 Stat. 481-82, amended by Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, § 25, 35 Stat. 1081.
40 Act. of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, § 1(e), 35 Stat. 1075.
41 17 U.S.C. § 101 (definition of a “performing rights society,” which is another term for a PRO).
42 For a chronological history of ASCAP’s development, see http://www.ascap.com/about/history/.
43 A blanket license is a single license that covers multiple works or all works permitted to be licensed.
44 2-8 MELVILLE B.NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.19[A] (2009). The U.S. Supreme Court has
held that this kind of licensing practice does not constitute a violation of federal antitrust laws. Broadcast Music, Inc. v.
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979).
45 For a historical background of BMI and its development, see http://www.bmi.com/about/75_years.
46 For more information on SESAC, see http://www.sesac.com/aboutsesac/about.aspx.
47 See United States v. ASCAP, 1940-43 Trade Cas. para. 56,104 (S.D.N.Y. 1941), as amended, United States v.
ASCAP, 1950-51 Trade Cas. para. 62,595 (S.D.N.Y. 1950); United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 1966 Trade Cas.
para. 71,941 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), modified by 1996-1 Trade Cas. para. 71,378 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
48 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Consent Decree Review, at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ascap-bmi-decree-
review.html.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

being reasonable and non-discriminatory.49 The consent decrees also empower this particular
federal district court to act as a “rate-setting court;” in the event that the PRO and a music user
cannot agree on a fee, the court is required to determine a reasonable fee.50 In setting the fee,
“[t]he rate court is responsible for establishing the fair market value of the music rights, in other
words, the price that a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree to in an arm’s length
transaction.”51 The PROs collect the royalty fees from the music users and then distribute them
50-50 between songwriters and music publishers.52
Under current law, a third party’s public performance of copyrighted sound recordings does not
give rise to any license or royalty fee obligation, unless such performance involves a digital audio
transmission. The limited circumstances in which sound recording copyright holders may be
entitled to performance royalties are discussed in the section of this report that describes the
digital music licensing system.
The Licensing of Jukeboxes
The licensing structure for the public performance of music using jukeboxes has a unique history.
Under the Copyright Act, a “jukebox” is called a “coin-operated phonorecord player.”53 To
qualify, a player must perform only non-dramatic musical works activated by the insertion of a
coin or token, must be located in an establishment making no charge for admission, must have an
accompanying list of titles available to the public, and must allow for a choice of works to be
made by patrons.54
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, owners of jukeboxes were exempted from paying public
performance fees unless a fee was charged for admission to a place where such jukebox
performances occurred.55 Over the course of 67 years, jukeboxes made substantial profits through
popularity and widespread growth. As a result, § 116 of the Copyright Act of 1976 established a
compulsory license for operators of “coin operated phonorecord players” to compensate musical
work copyright holders for the loss of substantial profits.
In 1993, Congress repealed § 116 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and replaced it with a voluntary
licensing scheme between copyright holders and jukebox operators.56 The intent of the provision
is to grant PROs (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) the right to negotiate licenses for music played
through jukeboxes with the trade group representing jukebox owners (the Amusement and Music
Operators of America [AMOA]).57

49 Collins Court Music, Inc. v. Pulley, 704 F. Supp. 963, 966 (W.D. Mo. 1988).
50 See United States v. Broad. Music, Inc., 426 F.3d 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2005).
51 Id. at 95 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
52 See Future of Music Coalition, Fact Sheet: ASCAP - BMI Consent Decrees, Oct. 3, 2014, at
https://www.futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees (explaining that “PRO member agreements
under the consent decrees allow for payment to songwriters under a 50-50 split in which the composer(s) half is paid to
them directly and is not subject to “recoupment” or creative accounting by their publisher(s).”).
53 17 U.S.C. § 116(d)(1).
54 17 U.S.C. §§ 116(d)(1)(A)-(D).
55 17 U.S.C. § 1(e) (1909 Act).
56 17 U.S.C. § 116(b)(1).
57 Although § 116 refers only to the copyright holder’s ability to negotiate, common agents, such as PROs, may
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The Digital Music Licensing System
Digital vs. Analog
To understand the nature of digital music, it is helpful to have a general understanding of how
analog and digital technology differ. Analog technology is characterized by an output system
where the signal output is always proportional to the signal input. Because the outputs are
analogous, the word “analog” is used. Basically, an analog mechanism is one where data is
represented by continuously variable physical quantities like sound waves or electricity. In the
context of music, analog technologies refer to traditional radio, cassettes, and vinyl, among
others. These technologies may deliver imprecise signals and background noise. Thus, the
duplication of analog music often erodes in quality over time.
The term “digital” derives from the word “digit,” as in a counting device. Digital services
represent data in a binary (using 1s and 0s) fashion. Rather than a physical quantity, a digital
signal is an informational stream of code that tells a computer to compile a perfect replica of the
original code stream. This means the digital code can be duplicated nearly infinitely and without
any degradation of quality. In the context of music, compact discs and MP3-format song files are
examples of digital music.
Amending the Licensing System: The DPRSRA
The Copyright Act did not offer any legal protection to sound recordings until 1971, when
Congress enacted a law that granted exclusive rights to reproduction and distribution to sound
recording copyright holders as a response to the increased amount of unauthorized duplication of
records and tapes.58 However, at that time, Congress decided not to grant sound recording
copyright holders the right to control public performance, partly due to opposition by television
and radio broadcasters and jukebox operators who resisted any changes to the Copyright Act that
would require any additional royalty payments beyond those already mandated for songwriters
and music publishers, and also because Congress considered the rights to control reproduction
and distribution to be sufficient enough to address the immediate problem of record piracy.59
Technological advances in music transmission methods in the early 1990s helped persuade
Congress to reexamine the issue of public performance rights for sound recording copyright
holders. Record companies were concerned that consumers would use certain new technologies
such as on-demand digital cable music services and other interactive services to listen to music
and potentially record the digital audio transmissions, thereby eliminating their need to purchase
physical sound recording media.60

(...continued)
negotiate on behalf of owners for the voluntary license.
58 Sound Recording Amendment, P.L. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971). By its terms, the law was effective on February 15,
1972, and applies to sound recordings made on or after that date.
59 Internet Streaming of Radio Broadcasts: Balancing the Interests of Sound Recording Copyright Owners with Those
of Broadcasters: Hearings Before the House Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property,
108th Cong.,
2d sess. (2004) (Statement of David Carson, then-General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office), at 3.
60 William H. O’Dowd, The Need for a Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings, 31 HARV. J. LEGIS. 249, 254-59
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

In 1995, Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act61 (DPRSRA)
to fill the void in legislation for the protection of copyrighted works that are digitally transmitted
over the Internet. The DPRSRA addresses the licensing of digital reproduction and distribution of
music works and the digital performance and distribution of sound recordings.
Traditionally, only public performances of musical works were eligible for performance royalties.
The DPRSRA created a public performance right for sound recordings performed through digital
audio transmissions, thereby establishing a mechanism for controlling digital deliveries that posed
a threat to the sales of CDs. Because sound recording copyright holders do not have a general
public performance right, the DPRSRA established an actionable right in “digital audio
transmissions” for sound recorders.62
The Licensing of Digital Reproduction and Distribution
Under the language of § 115 prior to the DPRSRA, each distributed “mechanical” copy of a
musical work entitled the musical work copyright holder to a royalty payment.63 The DPRSRA
amended the statute to encompass digital downloads under the mechanical license.
The Copyright Act refers to digital downloads as “digital phonorecord deliveries,” or DPDs. A
DPD is “each individual delivery of a phonorecord by a digital transmission of a sound recording
which results in a specifically identifiable reproduction.”64 Thus, a downloaded digital file of a
“phonorecord” is a DPD. In addition to DPDs, the § 115 mechanical license distinguishes a
different royalty rate for DPDs “where the reproduction or distribution of a phonorecord is
incidental to the transmission which constitutes a [DPD].”65 However, real-time transmissions,
where no reproduction of a sound recording is made for the purposes of the transmission, does
not constitute a DPD.66 Because of this exclusion, a streamed transmission is not considered a
DPD. Notwithstanding this statutory distinction, however, in May 2008 musicians, publishers,
record labels and high-tech companies reached an agreement that proposed, for the first time ever,
to establish royalty rates and terms covering limited downloads (such as those offered by online
music subscription services), interactive streaming, and “all known incidental DPDs.”67 Under the
settlement agreement that was submitted to the Copyright Royalty Judges in the form of draft
regulations, limited download and interactive streaming service providers would pay a
mechanical royalty of 10.5% of revenue, minus any amounts owed for performance royalties.68 In

(...continued)
(1993).
61 P.L. 104-39, 109 Stat. 336 (1995).
62 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines “to ‘transmit’ a performance” as “to communicate [a performance] by any device or process
whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.” A “digital transmission” is a
“transmission in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format.”
63 17 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1).
64 17 U.S.C. § 115(d).
65 17 U.S.C. §§ 115(c)(3)(C), (D).
66 17 U.S.C. § 115(d).
67 This settlement agreement was published in the Federal Register, Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress,
Mechanical and Digital Phonorecord Delivery Rate Determination Proceeding, 73 Fed. Reg. 57,033 (Oct. 1, 2008).
68 Andrew Noyes, Royalty Agreement Might Smooth Talks In 111th Congress, CONGRESSDAILYAM, Sept. 24, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

November 2008, the Copyright Royalty Judges adopted these rates and terms as final regulations,
pursuant to its statutory authority under Section 801(b)(7) of the Copyright Act.69
Also in the same rate determination proceeding, the Copyright Royalty Judges announced that the
mechanical license is available not only for physical music products (such as CDs and records)
and DPDs (such as from iTunes or Amazon.com), but also for ringtones.70 The decision to include
ringtones came after the Register of Copyright had issued a memorandum opinion to the Judges
declaring that ringtones qualify as DPDs.71 The Register cautioned, however,
[W]hether a particular ringtone falls within the scope of the statutory license will depend
primarily upon whether what is performed is simply the original musical work (or a portion
thereof), or a derivative work (i.e., a musical work based on the original musical work but
which is recast, transformed, or adapted in such a way that it becomes an original work of
authorship and would be entitled to copyright protection as a derivative work).72
Although the § 115 mechanical license applies to DPDs for musical work copyright holders, the
license does not authorize the reproduction or distribution of a sound recording because that right
belongs to another holder—the sound recorder.73 The sound recording copyright holder’s
authorization acts as a condition for the mechanical licensing of a DPD.
Engaging in an authorized DPD requires payment to the musical work copyright holder (pursuant
to the mechanical license) and the sound recording copyright holder (through a voluntary license)
for the distribution or reproduction of the DPD. However, if the DPD constitutes a performance,74
permission must separately be obtained from the musical work copyright holder (a royalty paid to
a PRO) and the sound recording copyright holder (through a compulsory or voluntary license).
The Licensing of Digital Public Performances
In addition to amendments made to § 115, the DPRSRA grants sound recording copyright holders
a limited public performance right in digital transmissions.75 Among the limitations on a sound
recording owner’s exclusive right to digital public performance under 106(6) are
• a non-subscription broadcast transmission (i.e., traditional over-the-air radio and
television broadcasts and qualified retransmission)76 and

69 Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, In the Matter of Mechanical and Digital Phonorecord Delivery Rate
Determination Proceeding: Final Determination of Rates and Terms,
available on Jan. 22, 2010, at http://www.loc.gov/
crb/proceedings/2006-3/dpra-public-final-rate-terms.pdf.
70 In this proceeding, the Copyright Royalty Board left unchanged the Section 115 rate of the larger of 9.1 cents or 1.75
cents per minute of playing time for both physical music products and digital downloads, but established a new royalty
rate of 24 cents for each ringtone subject to a Section 115 license. Id.
71 Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Memorandum Opinion, In the Matter of Mechanical and Digital
Phonorecord Delivery Rate Adjustment Proceeding,
71 Fed. Reg. 64,303 (Nov. 1, 2006).
72 Id. at 1.
73 17 U.S.C. § 115(c)(3)(H)(i)(I).
74 17 U.S.C. §§ 115(d), 115(c)(3)(A), and 115(c)(3)(K). For a discussion of how performances are classified digitally,
see infra.
75 17 U.S.C. § 106(6).
76 17 U.S.C. §§ 114(1)(A), (B).
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

• internal transmissions by a business on or around its premises, including “on-
hold music” transmissions via telephone to a caller waiting for a response.77
These services are exempt from the sound recording digital performance right and thus the
transmitting entity need not obtain a license or pay royalties for digital transmissions that fall
within the two categories above.
For licensed uses, the performance right for sound recorders is laid out in a three-tier system,
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 114:
• Statutorily exempt performances of sound recordings by means of digital audio.
• Compulsory licensed performances of sound recordings by means of digital
audio transmissions.
• Voluntarily licensed performances of sound recordings by means of digital audio
transmissions within the confines of statutory limits on such licenses.
Generally, these digital transmissions are classified according to whether they are interactive,
non-interactive, or subscription services:
• Interactive services78 transmit digital sound recordings at a user’s request. These
services are within the voluntary licensing tier; they do not qualify for the § 114
statutory license.
• Non-interactive, subscription services79 transmit digital sound recordings through
streaming the audio, but for a fee. These non-interactive, subscription
transmissions are subject to a statutory (compulsory) licensing fee.80 A complex
system of statutory rates for new subscription services and eligible non-
subscription, non-interactive services are set by the Copyright Royalty Board.

77 17 U.S.C. §§ 114(d)(1)(C)(ii), (iv). Usages included within this exception are background music played in offices,
retail stores, and restaurants; this activity is sometimes called “storecasting.” 2 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.22[B][3]. As
the Senate Report reveals, the drafters of the DPRSRA were aware of the Copyright Act’s § 110(5) performance right
limitations, which relate to circumstances under which certain businesses may be eligible for publicly performing
music without obtaining permission from copyright holders. The new § 106(6) right provided to sound recorders was
not intended by the law’s drafters to alter the performance right limitations in § 110(5); thus, establishments desiring to
storecast music to their patrons may qualify for the § 110(5) exemption, regardless of whether the music is performed
by digital or non-digital means. S.Rept. 104-128, 104th Congress, 1st Sess. 22-23 (1995).
78 An “interactive service” is one that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially
created for the recipient, or on his or her request, a transmission of a particular sound recording, whether or not as part
of a program, that is selected by or on behalf of the recipient. The ability of individuals to request that a particular
sound recording be performed for reception by the public at large, or in the case of a subscription service, by all
subscribers of the service, does not make a service interactive, if the programming on each channel of the service does
not substantially consist of sound recordings that are performed within one hour of the request or at a time designated
by either the transmitting entity or the individual making such request. If an entity offers both interactive and non-
interactive services (either concurrently or at different times), the non-interactive component shall not be treated as part
of an interactive service. 17 U.S.C. § 114(j)(7).
79 Among the requirements for a subscription service’s statutory license is adherence to the “sound recording
performance complement,” pursuant to § 114(d)(2)(B)(i). The sound recording performance complement is a complex
protocol, adapted from traditional radio broadcast practice, which limits the number of selections a subscription service
can play from any one phonorecord by the same featured artist. The goal of the protocol is to prevent a pre-announced
play schedule that facilitates copying of albums, or the work of individual performers, in their entirety.
80 See Library of Congress, Copyright Royalty Board, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
Recordings,
72 Fed. Reg. 24084 (May 1, 2007).
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

• Non-interactive, non-subscription services are audio transmissions often
delivered via streaming that are free to the consumer recipient and the
transmitting entity.81 Like non-digital broadcast services (AM and FM radio),
these services are exempt from a licensing fee for using the sound recording.
The royalties from statutory and voluntarily negotiated licenses under the DPRSRA and the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)82 to make digital transmissions of sound recordings
are administered on behalf of sound recording copyright holders by SoundExchange.83
SoundExchange is an independent, nonprofit entity created by the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA)84 that collects and makes distributions to sound recording copyright holders,
artists, the American Federation of Musicians (non-featured musicians),85 and the American
Federation of Television and Radio Artists (non-featured vocalists).86 The payments are based on
actual performance data furnished by subscription service providers, webcasters, and other
licensees.
Amending the Licensing System: The DMCA
In 1998, in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),87 Congress amended several statutory
licensing statutes to provide for and clarify the treatment of different types of digital audio
transmissions. The DMCA allowed two categories of digital audio services to qualify for a
Section 114 compulsory license: (1) certain specified “preexisting” subscription services (which
were existing at the time of the DMCA’s enactment) and (2) a service that provides an “eligible
nonsubscription transmission.” A subscription service is one that is limited to paying customers.
The DMCA defines a qualifying “preexisting” subscription service as follows:
1. A “preexisting satellite digital audio radio service” is a subscription satellite
digital audio radio service provided pursuant to a satellite digital audio radio
service license issued by the Federal Communications Commission on or before
July 31, 1998, and any renewal of such license to the extent of the scope of the
original license, and may include a limited number of sample channels
representative of the subscription service that are made available on a
nonsubscription basis in order to promote the subscription service.
2. A “preexisting subscription service” is a service that performs sound recordings
by means of noninteractive audio-only subscription digital audio transmissions,
which was in existence and was making such transmissions to the public for a fee
on or before July 31, 1998, and may include a limited number of sample channels
representative of the subscription service that are made available on a
nonsubscription basis in order to promote the subscription service. 88

81 Pursuant to § 115, these non-subscription services are not DPDs.
82 The DMCA will be discussed infra.
83 SoundExchange can be found at http://www.soundexchange.com.
84 See http://www.riaa.com.
85 See http://www.afm.org.
86 See http://www.aftra.org.
87 P.L. 105-304 (October 28, 1998).
88 17 U.S.C. § 114(j)(10), (11); see also 37 C.F.R. Part 260.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The DMCA defines an “eligible nonsubscription transmission” to mean: “a noninteractive
nonsubscription digital audio transmission ... that is made as part of a service that provides audio
programming consisting, in whole or in part, of performances of sound recordings, including
retransmissions of broadcast transmissions, if the primary purpose of the service is to provide to
the public such audio or other entertainment programming, and the primary purpose of the service
is not to sell, advertise, or promote particular products or services other than sound recordings,
live concerts, or other music-related events.”89
Thus, the DMCA permits the two satellite digital audio radio services that were existing at the
time of the Act’s enactment, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio (which later merged
into one company in 2008),90 to use a Section 114 compulsory license for their digital audio radio
transmissions. In addition, the only “preexisting subscription services” that are allowed to use a
Section 114 license are Muzak (provided over the DiSH Network), Music Choice, and DMX
(both offer digital audio through cable television’s “music channels”).91 As for services that
provide “eligible nonsubscription transmission[s],” these are typically Internet radio broadcasters
(“webcasters”) that do not charge fees to their listeners and provide the music only for its
entertainment value.
The Licensing of Ephemeral Recordings
Ephemeral recordings are reproductions of a work produced solely for the purpose of its
transmission by an entity legally entitled to publicly perform the work. Section 112 authorizes a
compulsory license to enable those who webcast a sound recording to make a temporary or
“ephemeral” reproduction or copy of the recording, which is generally stored in the hard drive of
computers (i.e., servers that facilitate the performance). Section 114 is concerned with the public
performance right for digitally transmitted sound recordings. Thus, a statutory license under § 114
applies to a public performance, whereas the statutory license under § 112(e) applies to a
reproduction. The latter covers only those ephemeral recordings of phonorecords used for
transmissions in connection with a statutory license under § 114(d) or (f).92
Exceptions to Licensing Requirements
Although most uses of copyrighted materials require permission from the copyright holder (or
compliance with a “compulsory license”), the Copyright Act provides several exceptions for the
use of copyrighted material, regardless of the holder’s permission. There are five particular
exceptions93 that could apply to certain uses of musical works and sound recordings: fair use,94

89 17 U.S.C. § 114(j)(6).
90 Olga Kharif, The FCC Approves the XM-Sirius Merger, BUSINESSWEEK, July 25, 2008, at
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-07-25/the-fcc-approves-the-xm-sirius-mergerbusinessweek-business-news-
stock-market-and-financial-advice.
91 U.S. Copyright Office, Designation as a Preexisting Subscription Service, 71 Fed. Reg. 64639 (Nov. 3, 2006),
available at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr64639.html.
92 “In any particular case, acts implicating the reproduction or performances rights must be considered separately under
sections 112[e] or 114, as applicable, and any other relevant provisions under the Copyright Act.” H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 105th Cong., SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2281 AS PASSED BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON AUG. 4, 1998, 52 (Comm. Print 1998).
93 This list is not exclusive. There are numerous other narrow exceptions to a copyright holder’s exclusive rights. Other
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

teaching exemptions,95 public performances without commercial advantage,96 public reception of
a transmission using a home receiving apparatus,97 and eligible establishment transmissions.98
Fair Use
The doctrine of “fair use” recognizes the right of the public to make reasonable use of
copyrighted material, in special instances, without the copyright holder’s consent. For many years
prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, fair use was a judicially created exception to the exclusive
rights of a copyright holder to print, publish, copy, and sell a copyrighted work. The 1976 Act
first codified the doctrine consistent with the treatment under case law prior to the Act.
Because the language of the fair use statute is illustrative, determinations of fair use are often
difficult to make in advance. However, the statute recognizes fair use “for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.”99 A determination of fair
use considers four factors:
• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
• The nature of the copyrighted work.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole.
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.100
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously explained that this four-factor test cannot be simplified
by “bright-line rules,” but rather that the doctrine of fair use calls for “case-by-case” analysis.101
In the context of digital music downloads and transmissions, some alleged copyright infringers
have attempted to use the doctrine of fair use to avoid liability for activities such as sampling,102

(...continued)
notable exemptions to the copyright holder’s public performance right include, among others, 17 U.S.C. § 110(3)
(performance of works done in the course of religious assembly); § 110(6) (performances at agricultural or horticultural
exhibitions); § 110(7) (performance of a work done by a vending establishment for the purposes of selling a
phonorecord or work); and § 110(10) (performances done in the course of social functions of applicable organizations,
such as veterans’ organizations).
94 17 U.S.C. § 107. Fair use applies in both non-digital and digital music contexts.
95 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(1)-(2). Sections 110(1) and 110(2) apply to both non-digital and digital music.
96 17 U.S.C. § 110(4). Section 110(4) applies to both non-digital and digital music.
97 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(A). Section 110(5)(A) applies only to non-digital music. While the text of the statute does not
explicitly exempt only non-digital music, a commonly used apparatus would likely be a traditional home stereo, which
receives an analog signal.
98 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B). Section 110(5)(B) applies only to non-digital music. The text of the statute exempts those
transmissions by entities licensed by the FCC, thus including terrestrial radio and implicitly excluding satellite and
Internet radio.
99 17 U.S.C. § 107.
100 17 U.S.C. §§ 107(1)-(4).
101 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994).
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

“space shifting,”103 and peer-to-peer file sharing.104 These attempts have not been very successful:
several federal appellate courts have ruled against the applicability of the fair use doctrine for
these purposes.105 The difficulty behind any fair use determination, however, is the irresolute
nature of the exception—one court’s determination of fair use may be another’s determination of
infringement. Even to the extent of home audio recording of a broadcast or phonorecord, no
litigation has settled the propriety of the issue as a fair use. However, where there is doubt
regarding the applicability of the exception, the most prudent choice is always the application of a
license from the copyright holder. (The fair use exception may strengthen the bargaining power of
the applicant.)
The Teaching Exemptions
Under the Copyright Act, teachers are exempt from infringement for performing copyrighted
works in certain contexts. Performance of a work done in the course of face-to-face instruction in
a classroom (or a similar place devoted to instruction), or performances done as part of
instructional activities of a nonprofit institution, may not be an infringement of copyright.106
Another teaching exemption removes particular works from infringement of the performance
right in the context of distance education.107
Public Performance Without Commercial Advantage
Although fair use provides a statutory exception to any of a copyright holder’s exclusive rights, §
110(4) provides an exception to only the performance right of a copyright holder.108 The § 110(4)
exception in the Copyright Act allows public performances to take place without payment so long
as the performance is done without the intent of making commercial gain.109 In addition, the
performers, promoters, and organizers must not be compensated beyond expenses. The statute
does not require the performance to be free if the proceeds are used exclusively for educational,
religious, or charitable purposes. If none of these purposes are available, the performance must be
free for the audience. Examples of these public performances include eligible benefit concerts,
school performances, and religious festivities.

(...continued)
102 Sampling of this type does not refer to the dubbing of portions of previously recorded music into a new recording. In
the digital music context, “sampling” is a term that refers to the supposed ability of a user to make copies of
copyrighted materials prior to purchase. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp. 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000),
aff’d in relevant part, 239 F.3d at 1018 (9th Cir. 2001).
103 Id. Space shifting is the process in which users access CD sound recordings for personal computer use.
104 For more information on legal decisions regarding file sharing and peer-to-peer networks, see CRS Report R41415,
Statutory Damage Awards in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Cases Involving Copyrighted Sound Recordings: Recent Legal
Developments
, by Brian T. Yeh.
105 See, e.g., A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), aff’d, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.
2001); In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107 (2004).
106 17 U.S.C. § 110(1).
107 17 U.S.C. § 110(2). This provision is known as the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act
(TEACH Act). For more information, see CRS Report RL33516, Copyright Exemptions for Distance Education: 17
U.S.C., Section 110(2), the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002
, by Brian T. Yeh and
Robin Jeweler.
108 17 U.S.C. § 110(4).
109 Id.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The Home Receiving Apparatus
Another performance licensing exception is the communication to the public of a transmission
embodying a performance using a “single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private
homes.”110 This is known as the “home-style” radio exception to performance licensing
requirements. The single apparatus exception is subject to two statutory conditions that (1) there
be no charge to hear the transmission and (2) the transmission is not further performed to the
public.111
Eligible Establishment Transmissions
In 1998, Congress passed the Fairness in Music Licensing Act (FMLA) to clarify the performance
right exemptions for eligible establishments.112 The scope of the exemption is limited to
performances “intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television
broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an
audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier.”113 The Act covers transmissions
embodying performances by food and drink establishments and by non-food and drink
establishments.
To be eligible for a performance exemption under the FMLA, three criteria must be satisfied. The
first two criteria mirror those under the home receiving apparatus exemption: there must be no
direct charge to hear the transmission, and the transmission must not be further transmitted
beyond the establishment where it is received.114 The third criterion states that the transmission
must be “licensed by the copyright owner of the work so publicly performed or displayed.”115 The
latter criterion thus potentially creates liability if the transmitting entity (the radio station) itself
broadcasts infringing content. In such a scenario, the music copyright holder would likely bring
suit against the infringing radio station, rather than the establishment that played the radio.116
After the prior three criteria, however, the FMLA provides even further specifications for the
types and sizes of establishments that are eligible for the performance right exemption. Table 1
on the following page illustrates the specific qualifications.

110 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(A). A small radio, stereo receiver, or portable boom box may fit within this definition. It is
uncertain, however, whether a satellite radio would gain the benefit of this exception.
111 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(5)(A)(i-ii).
112 P.L. 105-298.
113 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B). This statute does not cover webcasters, satellite radio, or other digital music services that fall
outside the scope of FCC regulation. Because television programming can include musical works (e.g., movie
soundtracks), an establishment may publicly perform the music on a soundtrack accompanying a motion picture that is
broadcast by an FCC-licensed television station, without concern for copyright infringement liability.
114 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(5)(B)(iii)-(iv).
115 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B)(v).
116 2 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.18[C][2][b][iv] (2006).
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Table 1. Eligibility for Performance Exemptions Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B)
Type of Establishment
Size of Establishment
Food Service/Drinking
If less than 3,750 square feet (excluding
parking), the exemption applies.118
“[A] restaurant, inn, bar, tavern, or any other similar place of
business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary
If more than 3,750 square feet (excluding
purpose of being served food or drink, in which the majority of the
parking), the exemption applies only if there
gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that
are no more than six loudspeakers, of which
purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed
not more than four are located in any one
publicly.”117
room or adjoining outdoor space.119
Other
If less than 2,000 square feet (excluding
parking), the exemption applies.121
“[A] store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the
general public for the primary purpose of selling goods or services
If more than 2,000 square feet (excluding
in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is
parking), the exemption only applies if there
nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic
are no more than six loudspeakers, of which
musical works are performed publicly.”
not more than four are located in any one
120
room or adjoining outdoor space.122
Music Licensing Issues of Recent Congressional and
Judicial Consideration

In recent years, Congress has shown significant interest in issues concerning music licensing, as
demonstrated by several congressional hearings held in the 114th and 113th Congresses,123 and a
variety of legislative proposals that have been introduced. In addition, in February 2015, the U.S.
Copyright Office released a comprehensive study entitled “Copyright and the Music
Marketplace,”124 which contains an “exhaustive review” of the existing music licensing system
and also recommends legislative action “that would bring both clarity and relief to songwriters,
artists, publishers, record labels, and digital delivery services.” 125 According to the Copyright
Office report, the music licensing system is in need of reform because
[t]here is a widespread perception that our licensing system is broken. Songwriters and
recording artists are concerned that they cannot make a living under the existing structure,

117 17 U.S.C. § 101.
118 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B)(ii).
119 Id.
120 Id.
121 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B)(I).
122 Id.
123 How Much For a Song?: The Antitrust Decrees that Govern the Market for Music: Hearing Before the Senate
Judiciary Comm., Subcomm. on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights,
114th Cong., 1st Sess. (2015);
Music Licensing Under Title 17, Part One: Hearing Before the House Judiciary Comm., Subcomm. on Courts,
Intellectual Property and Internet,
113th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014); Music Licensing Under Title 17, Part Two: Hearing
Before the House Judiciary Comm., Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Property and Internet,
113th Cong. 2nd Sess.
(2014); Music Licensing Part One: Legislation in the 112th Congress: Hearing Before the House Judiciary Comm.,
Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Property and Internet,
112th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2012).
124 Available at http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf.
125 U.S. Copyright Office, Music Licensing Study, at http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

which raises serious and systemic concerns for the future. Music publishers and performance
rights organizations are frustrated that so much of their licensing activity is subject to
government control, so they are constrained in the marketplace. Record labels and digital
services complain that the licensing process is burdensome and inefficient, making it
difficult to innovate.126
What follows is a description and analysis of four music licensing topics that have garnered
legislative (and in some cases, judicial) attention in recent years.
Federal Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
As discussed earlier in this report, digital radio providers, such as satellite radio broadcaster
SiriusXM and Internet radio “webcaster” Pandora, are legally obliged to pay royalty fees to both
songwriters and recording artists whenever they transmit copyrighted music to their listeners.
However, these digital music services apparently interpret the Copyright Act as permitting them
to use popular songs that were originally recorded prior to 1972 (by bands and musicians such as
the Beatles, Aretha Franklin, and the Rolling Stones) without having to pay copyright royalties to
the recording artists or record labels (though they do pay royalties to music publishers and
songwriters).127 Such pre-1972 sound recordings constitute approximately 15% of all digital radio
transmissions and would have provided about $60 billion in music royalties for recording artists
in 2013, according to one industry estimate.128 The reason that digital radio providers have not
obtained licenses or paid compensation to sound recording copyright holders for their use of such
“golden oldies” recordings is that songs recorded before 1972 lack federal copyright protection.
Musical compositions have enjoyed federal copyright protection since 1831. However, the
Copyright Act did not offer sound recordings any form of protection until 1971. In that year,
Congress passed a law129 that granted exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution to sound
recording copyright holders as a response to the increased amount of unauthorized copying of
records and tapes due to the popularity of the audiotape recorder. By its terms, the law was
prospective only and provided limited federal copyright protection to sound recordings made on
or after the effective date of the law, February 15, 1972. For sound recordings made prior to that
date, their creators must seek legal relief in state courts for an unlawful use of their works.
Many states have enacted laws to protect pre-1972 sound recordings in an effort to combat sound
recording piracy. These state laws generally fall within one of three categories—(1) criminal
record piracy statutes, (2) common law rights involving unfair competition and misappropriation,
and (3) civil laws that grant ownership rights. The state laws vary in their scope of protection and
therefore lack the nationwide uniformity that is provided by the federal copyright law. In
Goldstein v. California,130 the defendant, convicted of criminal record piracy under California
state law, challenged the constitutionality of the state’s penal statute on the grounds that it
conflicted with the Copyright Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the

126 U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT AND THE MUSIC MARKETPLACE (Feb. 2015), at 1.
127 See U.S. Music Labels Sue Pandora Over Royalties for Golden Oldies, REUTERS, April 17, 2014, available at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/pandora-lawsuit-idUSL2N0N923320140417.
128 Laura Ryan, Congress Has Entered the Fight Between Pandora and Old-School Artists, NATIONAL JOURNAL, May
29, 2014.
129 P.L. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391.
130 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

federal copyright act. The U.S. Supreme Court held that California’s protection for pre-1972
sound recordings was not preempted by federal copyright law or the Constitution.
Section 301(c) of the Copyright Act131 provides that state common law protection for sound
recordings, if available under state statute or state common law (rights derived from state judicial
decisions), will end on February 15, 2067, after which time they will enter the public domain. The
Register of Copyrights issued a report in December 2011132 recommending that Congress extend
federal copyright protection to all sound recordings created before February 15, 1972. The
Copyright Office repeated this recommendation in its 2015 music licensing report.133 (To date,
Congress has not considered any legislation that would grant such retroactive copyright
protection.)
Litigation and Legislation
Frustrated with what they believe is an unfair “free” use of their creative works, recording artists
and record companies filed lawsuits against SiriusXM and Pandora (in 2013134 and 2014,135
respectively) in an effort to recover damages and injunctive relief. In early 2015, sound recording
copyright holders filed several lawsuits against Apple, Google, and Sony, for their use of pre-
1972 sound recordings in the online radio services that they operate.136 These lawsuits are
currently working their way through the courts, but sound recording copyright holders have so far
enjoyed some early success at the federal district court level.137
Introduced on April 13, 2015, the Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 (H.R. 1733) would require any
entity, including AM/FM radio, satellite radio, cable radio, and Internet radio, to pay royalties to
recording artists and record labels for the transmission of sound recordings made prior to
February 15, 1972.138 The legislation would impose an obligation on any “transmitting entity” to
pay royalties for such older recordings, but it does not confer federal copyright protection on the
pre-1972 recordings.139 Thus, while the legislation would provide creators of pre-1972 sound
recordings the right to bring a federal civil action to obtain royalties for the public transmission of
their recordings,140 the legislation does not give them a right to sue for copyright infringement. 141

131 17 U.S.C. § 301(c).
132 U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, FEDERAL COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 SOUND RECORDINGS (Dec. 2011),
available at http://copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf.
133 U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT AND THE MUSIC MARKETPLACE (Feb. 2015), at 140.
134 Hannah Karp, Sirius Is Sued Over Music Royalties for Pre-1972 Recordings, WALL ST. JOURNAL, Aug. 26, 2013.
135 Ben Sisario, Big Labels Take Aim at Pandora on Royalties, NEW YORK TIMES, April 17, 2014.
136 Kory Grow, Apple, Sony, Google Named in Lawsuits for Playing Pre-1972 Music, ROLLINGSTONE, Jan. 23, 2015.
137 Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Case No. CV 13-5693 PSG (CD Cal, Sept 22, 2014), available at
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/
Flo__Eddie_Inc_v_Sirius_XM_Radio_Inc_et_al_No_CV_135693_PSG_2014_ (district court finding that Sirius XM
Radio must pay royalties to the Turtles, a 1960s band, for playing songs without compensation or authorization in
violation of California’s copyright statute); Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-05784-CM
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2014), available at http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/
Flo__Eddie_Inc_v_Sirius_XM_Radio_Inc_et_al_Docket_No_113cv05784_S (finding similiar liability of Sirius XM
under New York common law).
138 H.R. 1733, § 7(a), adding new 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(3)(D)(i).
139 Id., adding new 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(3)(D)(iv).
140 Id., adding new 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(3)(D)(ii).
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

In the 113th Congress, legislation was introduced (but not enacted), the Respecting Senior
Performers as Essential Cultural Treasures, or RESPECT, Act (H.R. 4772) that would have
required companies transmitting pre-1972 sound recordings via satellite, Internet, and digital
cable television to pay performance royalties to recording artists. (Note that, unlike the Fair Play,
Fair Pay Act of 2015, the RESPECT Act would NOT have applied to traditional AM/FM radio
broadcasts of such older recordings). Similar to the Fair Play, Fair Pay Act, the RESPECT Act
would have created an obligation to pay royalties, but would not have provided copyright
protection to pre-1972 sound recordings.
Though legislation such as the Fair Play, Fair Pay Act and the RESPECT Act is intended to
provide royalty income to older recording artists, it could also have the effect of dissuading
digital music services from including the “golden oldies” in their music catalogs. In a filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,142 Pandora warned that it might be forced to
remove all pre-1972 sound recordings from its service143 if it is required (through legislation or by
the courts) to pay royalties for the reproduction and performance of such music.
Extending the Performance Right in Sound Recordings to AM/FM
Radio Broadcasts

As described earlier in this report, Congress in 1995 passed the Digital Performance Right in
Sound Recordings Act,144 which for the first time ever granted copyright owners of sound
recordings an exclusive right to perform their works publicly—although the right was limited
only to digital audio transmission of their sound recordings. However, the law specifically
exempted traditional over-the-air radio broadcasts from the newly created right to control digital
public performances of sound recordings.145 Thus, public performance of sound recordings
through non-digital audio transmissions does not trigger any obligation on the part of the radio
broadcaster to pay royalties to the sound recording copyright holder. Performers or recording
artists have no legal entitlement to receive any compensation from terrestrial (AM/FM) radio
stations that broadcast their sound recordings.
The Register of Copyrights, testifying in March 2013 before the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, urged Congress to provide a
“full” public performance right for sound recordings.146 (The Copyright Office’s 2015 music

(...continued)
141 Id., adding new 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(3)(D)(iii).
142 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10-K (for fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2014), Commission File #
001-35198, Registrant: Pandora Media, Inc., available at http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/
SecCapsule.aspx?c=227956&fid=9910400.
143 Dustin Voltz, Here Are 1,400 Songs You Might Never Hear Again on Your Pandora Station, NATIONAL JOURNAL,
April 21, 2014.
144 P.L. 104-39, 109 Stat. 336 (1995).
145 Section 3 of P.L. 104-39.
146 The Register’s Call for Updates to U.S. Copyright Law: Hearings Before the House Subcomm. on Courts,
Intellectual Property, and the Internet,
113th Cong., 1st sess. (2013) (testimony of Maria A. Pallante, Register of
Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80067/html/CHRG-
113hhrg80067.htm (“[W]e do not have a full public performance [right] for sound recordings. We are quite alone in the
world in that regard. And from a copyright policy perspective, it is indefensible. It is really indefensible.”).
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

licensing report repeated that recommendation.147) In July 2013, the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force issued a report in which it recommended that Congress
“extend[] the public performance right for sound recordings to cover broadcasting.”148
Sound recording copyright holders have advanced several arguments in support of expanding
their performance right. First, they argue that recording artists deserve to be compensated for
public performance of their works by broadcast radio just as songwriters and music publishers are
currently being paid for such activity.149 Second, they claim that the promotional value offered by
terrestrial radio for the performance of their sound recordings has been diminished by listeners
seeking out alternative sources of music distribution such as satellite radio and Internet music
services.150 Third, they observe that all developed countries in the world except the United States
require their radio broadcasters to compensate performers and record labels.151 However, because
the United States does not require U.S. radio broadcasters to compensate foreign performers
when they play their sound recordings, reciprocity allows foreign broadcasters to deny paying
royalties to U.S. performers when they play their works in their countries.152 Industry estimates
suggest that the loss to U.S. artists in potential foreign performance royalties is about $100
million.153
The broadcast radio industry has defended its existing statutory exemption from paying sound
recording copyright holders by arguing that radio broadcasts serve as free publicity and
promotion of the music,154 and that performers and producers of sound recordings are
compensated through sales of compact discs or MP3 music download files, concert tickets, and
merchandise.155 Furthermore, radio broadcasters observe that the broadcaster exemption reflects a

147 U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT AND THE MUSIC MARKETPLACE (Feb. 2015), at 138.
148 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital
Economy
(July 2013), at 100, available at http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf (“While
broad public performance rights are enjoyed by owners of sound recordings in most other countries, U.S. sound
recording owners and performers have been unable to collect remuneration for the broadcasting of their works in those
countries, due to the lack of reciprocal protection here.”).
149 Exploring the Scope of Public Performance Rights: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th
Cong., 1st sess. (2007)(Statement of Lyle Lovett) (“[T]he songwriter who created the song deserves to be compensated
when that work generates value for another business, as it does for radio. I’m proud to be an ASCAP member, and
grateful for the performance royalties that have helped me to earn my living as a songwriter. But the musicians and
singers who perform the song are also creators and deserve to be compensated as well.”).
150 Future of Music Coalition, Public Performance Right for Sound Recordings: Fact Sheet, Nov. 5, 2013, available at
http://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/public-performance-right-sound-recordings; see also Hannah Karp, Radio’s
Answer to Spotify? Less Variety,
WALL ST. JOURNAL, Jan. 16, 2014 (“Faced with growing competition from digital
alternatives, traditional broadcasters have managed to expand their listenership with an unlikely tactic: offering less
variety than ever. ... [R]adio stations [are] more reluctant than ever to pull well-known hits from their rotations,
extending the time artists must wait to introduce new songs.”).
151 H.R. 848, the “Performance Rights Act:” Hearings Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong., 1st sess.
(2009) (Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America), at 1.
152 Id.
153 Jennifer Bendall, Commentary: Musicians Deserve to Be Paid for Use of Their Work, WASH. POST, April 26, 2010,
available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042305059.html.
154 A 2013 Nielsen study found that, despite many available alternate sources online and via satellite, traditional over-
the-air radio is still the way that most Americans listen to music. Nielsen, A Look Across Media: The Cross-Platform
Report Q3 2013,
Dec. 3, 2013, available at http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2013/a-look-across-media-the-cross-
platform-report-q3-2013.html (“The average American radio listener tunes in to radio over two hours per day (or 14
hours per week), making it the second-most consumed form of media after TV.”).
155 Ensuring Artists Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance Right and Platform Parity for the 21st Century:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

balanced, symbiotic economic relationship between the broadcasting, music, and sound recording
industries, which Congress has chosen not to disturb for over 80 years despite repeated appeals by
the recording industry to alter the existing performance royalty system.156 The broadcasters are
also concerned that any new royalty fees will adversely impact financially strapped radio stations’
ability to provide non-music services such as local news reporting, weather information, and
public service announcements, or even force them to cease operations entirely.157
In response to a congressional request, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report in August 2010 that, among other things, examined the benefits received by the recording
and broadcast radio industries from their current relationship.158 One of the GAO findings is that
The broadcast radio industry benefits from its relationship with the recording industry by
using sound recordings to attract listeners which, in turn, generates advertising revenue for
commercial radio stations. Advertising is the primary source of revenue for commercial radio
stations, and the average annual revenues of music stations are $225,000 higher than the
average annual revenues of nonmusic stations. The recording industry may benefit by
receiving broadcast radio airplay, which can promote music sales.159
However, the GAO noted that it was unable to quantify the promotional benefit to the recording
industry from broadcast radio airplay, in part due to “the complex and changing nature of the
relationship between the recording and broadcast radio industries.”160 The report explained this
relationship as follows:
Broadcast radio remains the most common place to discover new music. However, this
reliance is decreasing and younger audiences now rely primarily on the Internet to learn
about new music. Thus, the Internet and other platforms, such as television, are contributing
to the promotion of sound recordings. However, due to the complexities of the industries, it
is not clear to what degree, if any, these other promotional outlets impact sales in
conjunction with one another, in conjunction with broadcast radio airplay, or
independently.161
Legislation
The Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 (H.R. 1733) would eliminate the Copyright Act’s existing
distinctions between the different types of radio services—Internet, satellite, cable, and AM/FM

(...continued)
Hearings Before the House Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, 110th Cong., 1st sess. (2007)
(Statement of Charles M. Warfield, Jr., President, ICBC Broadcast Holdings, Inc.), at 2.
156 National Association of Broadcasters, A Performance Tax Puts Local Jobs at Risk, at http://www.nab.org/advocacy/
issue.asp?id=1889 (“For more than 80 years, record labels and performers have thrived from radio airplay - which is
essentially free advertising - from local radio broadcasters. Free, broadcast radio touches more than 240 million
listeners a week, a number that dwarfs the reach of Internet and satellite radio.”).
157 National Association of Broadcasters, Stop the Performance Tax: The Impact, at http://www.noperformancetax.org/
impact.asp.
158 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-10-862, Telecommunications: The Proposed Performance Rights Act
Would Result in Additional Costs for Broadcast Radio Stations and Additional Revenue for Record Companies,
Musicians, and Performers
(2010).
159 Id. at 12.
160 Id. at 20.
161 Id. at 20-21 (internal citations omitted).
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

radio—with regard to their legal obligations to obtain public performance licenses and pay
royalties to sound recording copyright holders.162 Thus, the legislation would establish a more
robust, general public performance right for sound recordings such that any entity that publicly
transmits a sound recording, whether in a digital, analog, or other format, must pay recording
artists and record labels for such an action. H.R. 1733 would also amend Section 114 of the
Copyright Act to allow terrestrial (AM/FM) broadcasters to rely on the statutory license to
transmit sound recordings (the Section 114 license is currently used by many digital radio
providers).163 The bill also would require that the Copyright Royalty Board initiate ratemaking
proceedings “as soon as practicable after” the enactment of H.R. 1733, to determine (using the
“willing buyer/willing seller” standard) royalty rates and terms for nonsubscription broadcast
transmissions of sound recordings.164 In addition, H.R. 1733 provides special royalty rates for the
transmission of certain radio broadcasts using the Section 114 license:
1. “Small” commercial broadcasters, defined by the bill as a terrestrial broadcasting
entity that has annual revenues of less than $1 million, shall be allowed to pay
$500 per year.
2. A public broadcasting station (that has been licensed as such by the Federal
Communications Commission) shall pay $100 in annual royalties.
3. Nonsubscription broadcast transmissions of services at a place of worship or
other religious assembly have no royalty obligation for performing sound
recordings.
4. An incidental use of a sound recording also incurs no royalty obligation.165
An opposing legislative measure has been introduced, the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom
Act (H.Con.Res. 17, S.Con.Res. 4), which expresses that Congress should not impose any new
performance fees or royalties for over-the-air broadcasts of sound recordings by local radio
stations. This concurrent resolution has been supported by the National Association of
Broadcasters, which has characterized any legislation that would impose new performance
royalty obligations on radio stations as a “performance tax.”166
In the 113th Congress, the Free Market Royalty Act (H.R. 3219, 113th Cong.) would have, among
other things, eliminated the performance royalty exemption that applies to traditional radio
stations that broadcast copyrighted sound recordings.167 The legislation was not enacted into law.

162 H.R. 1733, § 2(a), amending 17 U.S.C. § 106(6) by deleting the qualifying word “digital” before “transmission.”
163 Id., § 2(b), amending 17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(2).
164 Id., § 3, adding new 17 U.S.C. § 804(b)(3)(D).
165 Id., §5.
166 National Association of Broadcasters, A Performance Tax Puts Local Jobs at Risk, at http://nab.org/advocacy/
issue.asp?id=1889&issueid=1002.
167 See Ben Sisario, Congressman Proposes New Rules for Music Royalties, NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 30, 2013. Other
legislation introduced in previous Congresses, including the Performance Rights Act (S. 379 and H.R. 848, 111th
Congress), to eliminate the disparity in royalty obligation between traditional radio stations and entities that transmit
music digitally, are discussed in CRS Report RL34411, Expanding the Scope of the Public Performance Right for
Sound Recordings: A Legal Analysis of the Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848 and S. 379)
, by Brian T. Yeh.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Standards for Setting Royalty Rates for Public Performance of
Sound Recordings

As discussed earlier in this report, the public performance of sound recordings through certain
qualified digital transmission is subject to a compulsory license found in Section 114 of the
Copyright Act. Webcasters, satellite radio companies, and cable television providers need not
negotiate with recording artists for permission to digitally transmit their sound recordings; they
only have to comply with the terms of the Section 114 compulsory license and pay the royalty
rate prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Board. (Entities that do not meet the statutory
qualifications for using the Section 114 license—such as those that offer “interactive” services
like allowing the listener to select and play certain songs—must instead negotiate permission to
use the sound recordings directly with the copyright holder). Similarly, terrestrial radio stations
that “simulcast” their broadcast signals over the Internet may use the Section 114 compulsory
license to pay performers royalties. Collection of royalty payments under the compulsory license
for digital transmissions of sound recordings is handled on behalf of sound recording copyright
holders by SoundExchange.
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) calculates the royalty rate applicable to the Section 114
license by applying a standard that is specified in the Copyright Act. The DMCA established
different standards for the Section 114 license depending on the type of digital audio service and
whether such service existed at the time of the DMCA’s enactment. As a direct consequence of
these different standards, Internet radio companies generally are required to pay considerably
more in royalty fees to copyright holders than satellite radio and cable television providers.
The Willing Buyer/Willing Seller Standard
For a service that provides an “eligible nonsubscription transmission,” as well as any new
subscription digital audio transmission services that are launched after the DMCA’s enactment
(e.g., Internet radio broadcasters such as Pandora), the DMCA requires that the CRB apply a
market–based standard for setting royalty rates for the Section 114 statutory license: that is, the
rates and terms are to be set to reflect those that “would have been negotiated in the marketplace
between a willing buyer and a willing seller”168 in an arm’s length transaction. In determining
such rates and terms, the CRB is required to base its decision on economic, competitive and
programming information presented by the copyright holders and copyright users, including
(A) whether use of the service may substitute for or may promote the sales of sound
recordings or otherwise may interfere with or may enhance the sound recording copyright
owner’s other streams of revenue from its sound recordings; and
(B) the relative roles of the copyright owner and the transmitting entity in the copyrighted
work and the service made available to the public with respect to relative creative
contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, and risk.169

168 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2)(B).
169 Id.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

The 801(b) Factors
For the subscription services that were preexisting at the time the DMCA was enacted in 1998
(e.g., XM, Sirius, and the specified cable television digital music channel providers), the CRB is
required to set the performance royalty rate by taking into account four statutory elements that are
listed in 17 U.S.C. § 801(b)(1).170 This provision requires that the rates for the Section 114 license
that is used by preexisting subscription services and preexisting satellite digital audio radio
services shall be calculated by the CRB to achieve the following objectives, which are
colloquially referred to as the “801(b) factors”:
(A) To maximize the availability of creative works to the public.
(B) To afford the copyright owner a fair return for his or her creative work and the copyright
user a fair income under existing economic conditions.
(C) To reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product
made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological
contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets
for creative expression and media for their communication.
(D) To minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on
generally prevailing industry practices.
Generally, the 801(b) standard as applied by the CRB has resulted in significantly lower rates for
performance royalties paid by satellite radio and digital cable radio services, compared to the
higher royalty fees that have been established by the CRB for Internet radio broadcasters under
the “willing buyer/willing seller” standard.171 The conference report accompanying H.R. 2281,
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, explained that the legislative purpose for “grandfathering”
existing satellite radio companies under the 801(b) royalty standard was to minimize disruption of
their existing operations and to account for their substantial capital investments and operating
costs:
The purpose of distinguishing preexisting subscription services making transmissions in the
same medium as on July 31, 1998, was to prevent disruption of the existing operations by
such services. There was [sic] only three such services that exist: DMX (operated by TCI
Music), Music Choice (operated by Digital Cable Radio Associates), and the DiSH Network
(operated by Muzak). As of July 31, 1998, DMX and Music Choice made transmissions via

170 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(1)(B).
171 For satellite radio companies, see Library of Congress, Copyright Royalty Board, Determination of Rates and Terms
for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services
, 78 Fed. Reg. 23053 (April 17, 2013)
(establishing an escalating rate for the 2013-2017 licensing period, starting at 9% of the satellite radio company’s gross
revenues in 2013 and rising to 11% by 2017); for Internet radio broadcasters, see Library of Congress, Copyright
Royalty Board, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings, 76 Fed. Reg. 13025
(March 9, 2011) (setting an escalating rate for the 2012-2015 license period, starting at $0.0021 per performance in
2012 and rising to $0.0023 by 2014. In this context, a “performance” means one song played to one listener. These “per
performance” royalty rates for Internet broadcasters may not be easily compared to the percentage of revenue rate that
is applicable to satellite radio services because a webcaster’s royalty rate depends on the number of songs transmitted
and the number of listeners. However, as an example, the large webcaster Pandora reported that in its fiscal year ending
January 31, 2013, it spent 55.9% of its total revenue on “SoundExchange related content acquisition costs.” Pandora
Media, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 22 (March 13, 2013), available at http://investor.pandora.com/
phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=proxy.).
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

both cable and satellite media; the DiSH Network was available only via satellite. The
purpose of distinguishing the preexisting satellite digital audio radio services is similar. The
two preexisting satellite digital audio radio services, CD Radio and American Mobile Radio
Corporation, have purchased licenses at auction from the FCC and have begun developing
their satellite systems.172
In addition, in a satellite digital audio radio services (SDARS) rate-setting proceeding in 2008,
the Copyright Royalty Board explained that “the primary type of expenditure incurred by the
SDARS that does distinguish them from other digital distributors of music is their expenditure for
satellite technology.”173 In addition, the CRB found that SDARS demonstrated the “need to
continue to make substantial new investments to support the satellite technology necessary to
continue to provide” satellite radio services, and that “new satellite investment, unlike other costs,
cannot be postponed without a serious threat of disruption to the service the SDARS provide.”174
The CRB decided that, with respect to the SDARS royalty rate at issue, it was “appropriate to
adopt a rate from the zone of reasonableness for potential marketplace benchmarks that is lower
than the upper boundary most strongly indicated by marketplace data.”175 The CRB justified this
adoption by citing two reasons:176
1. “[A]n immediate increase to the upper boundary of the zone of reasonableness (i.e., 13%)
would be disruptive inasmuch as the SDARS have not yet attained a sufficient subscriber
base nor generated sufficient revenues to reach consistent Earnings Before Interest,
Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) profitability or positive free cash
flow.”
2. “[W]e are persuaded that still another factor that requires attention is any undue
constraint on the SDARS’ ability to successfully undertake satellite investments planned
for the license period. A failure to complete these investments as scheduled clearly raises
the potential for disruption of the current consumer service.”
Legislation
The Fair Play Fair Pay Act of 2015 (H.R. 1733) would require the Copyright Royalty Board to set
performance royalty rates for satellite radio and cable music providers by applying the same
“willing buyer/willing seller” standard that the CRB currently uses in determining Internet radio
webcasters’ royalty rates, instead of using the 801(b) standard.177 The sponsors of the legislation
believe that by requiring the CRB to use the same royalty rate standard, the bill would “[b]ring
true platform parity to radio—so that all forms of radio, regardless of the technology they use—
pay fair market value for music performances.”178 However, by substituting the existing 801(b)

172 Joint Explanatory Statement of the Comm. of Conference, H.R. Rep. No. 105-796 (105th Cong., 2d Sess., 1998), at
80-81. Note that CD Radio and American Mobile Radio Corporation later changed their names to XM and Sirius
satellite radio. See Matt Jackson, From Broadcast to Webcast: Copyright Law and Streaming Media, 11 TEX. INTELL.
PROP. L.J. 447, 457 (2003).
173 Copyright Royalty Board, Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite
Digital Audio Radio Services
, 73 Fed. Reg. 4080, 4096 (Jan. 24, 2008).
174 Id. at 4096.
175 Id. at 4097.
176 Id.
177 H.R. 1733, § 4(a)(1), amending 17 U.S.C. § 114(f) (1)(B).
178 Press Release, Reps. Nadler and Blackburn Introduce the Fair Play Fair Pay Act of 2015, Apr. 13, 2015, available at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

standard with the “willing buyer/willing seller” standard, H.R. 1733 wouldlikely have the effect
of the CRB establishing royalty rates that are significantly higher than what satellite and cable
radio providers currently pay, possibly approaching the rates paid by Internet radio webcasters.
In the 113th Congress, the Free Market Royalty Act (H.R. 3219, 113th Cong.) would have repealed
the Section 114 license. Without the statutory license, broadcast radio stations and certain digital
music services would need to privately negotiate royalty rates and licensing terms with
SoundExchange.
Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress would have, among other things, changed the
standard that the CRB uses in determining the royalty fees applicable to the Section 114
performance license upon which many Internet webcasters rely to transmit sound recordings. The
Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) of 2012 (H.R. 6480, S. 3609, 112th Cong.) was introduced in
order to “level[] the playing field for Internet radio services” and reform the current royalty rate
calculation system.179 The IRFA would have taken the opposite approach of the Fair Play, Fair
Pay Act of 2015, by amending Section 114(f) of the Copyright Act to eliminatethe current
standard for webcasting performance royalty rates (willing buyer/willing seller) and inserting a
new standard—the same 801(b) factors that are currently used by the CRB to determine the
royalty rates for satellite and cable music providers. According to one of the sponsors of the
legislation:
While Internet radio services compete directly with all audio platforms for listeners in every
place you find music – at home, in the car, at the office, and on the go – they are subject to a
surprisingly disproportionate royalty burden compared to these other formats. These rules
discriminate against Internet radio, hamper innovation, and frustrate the goals of the
Copyright system. As a result Internet radio companies today pay more than 55% of revenue
in royalty rates when other forms of digital radio such as cable and satellite pay between 7
and 16% of revenue for performance royalties.180
On the other hand, SoundExchange opposed the legislation, by arguing that:
At its core, this bill is an attempt by Pandora and other webcasters to reduce the royalty fees
that you are paid for their use of your sound recordings on digital radio. Right now, the law
requires the webcasting rates to be set under a “willing buyer, willing seller” standard – that
is, the fair market value of your recording. Pandora, however, wants the law to be changed so
that the rate could be set at less than fair market value, potentially much less. We believe in
digital radio and its future, but we do not believe there is any reason that webcasters and
broadcasters should pay less than fair market value when the music that we all enjoy, your
creative contributions, are the main content of a digital radio service.
And while these services complain about a supposed lack of “parity” among different
platforms, the bill utterly fails to address the most glaring inequity of all—the fact that
AM/FM broadcasters still pay nothing in performance royalties to recording artists and
record labels.181

(...continued)
http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/reps-nadler-and-blackburn-introduce-fair-play-fair-pay-act-2015.
179 Press Release, Reps. Chaffetz and Polis Introduce Bi-Partisan Internet Radio Act, Sept. 21, 2012, available at
http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/reps-chaffetz-and-polis-introduce-bi-partisan-internet-radio-act.
180 Id.
181 SoundExchange, Internet Radio Fairness Act: Not So Fair, Sept. 28, 2012, at http://www.soundexchange.com/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Modification of Consent Decrees Governing Songwriter
Performance Royalties

As explained earlier in this report, broadcast radio station, webcaster, or satellite radio company
must pay license fees to the performing rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP, BMI, and/or
SESAC, for the right to broadcast or transmit to the public copyrighted musical works made by
composers, songwriters, and music publishers who are represented by those organizations. Other
businesses that play “background” music to their customers (such as restaurants, bars, hotels, and
retail stores) or allow live music to be performed on their premises, must obtain licenses from the
PROs in order to compensate songwriters for such public performance of their musical works.
Royalty fees for public performance of musical works are established by license agreements that
are the product of voluntary, private negotiations between the PROs and the entities that desire to
perform the music. A volunteer organization of broadcasters known as the Radio Music License
Committee (RMLC) represents radio stations in these negotiations with the PROs,182 while other
entities (such as webcasters) negotiate directly with the PROs.
ASCAP is subject to an antitrust consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice,183 last
modified on June 11, 2001, that constrains its behavior when licensing music users. Under the
consent decree, among other terms,
• ASCAP must admit to membership any songwriter and any music publisher;
• ASCAP cannot obtain exclusive rights from its writer and publisher members, so
music users may obtain licenses directly from the copyright owners and need not
deal with ASCAP;
• ASCAP must make available to any music user a blanket license that covers all
the works in its repertory, and also must make available per-program and per-
segment licenses, subject to being able to track and monitor usage of the latter;
• ASCAP may not discriminate in license fees, terms, or conditions among
similarly situated users;
• If a user requests an ASCAP license in writing, ASCAP must grant the request –
if, for example, there is an impasse over the rate for the license fee, the requester
has access to the music while the impasse is being resolved rather than being
denied access as a copyright infringer;
• If the user and ASCAP cannot agree on a license fee, the user may apply to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which has jurisdiction
over the consent decree, for a determination of a reasonable license fee, with the
burden on ASCAP to prove the reasonableness of its fee proposal;

(...continued)
internet-radio-fairness-act-not-so-fair/.
182 See http://www.radiomlc.org/.
183 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States of America v. American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers,
Civ. Action No. 41-1395 (WCC), Second Amended Final Judgment, June 11,
2001.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

• ASCAP is required to provide users full information—both in traditional and
online form – about the works in the ASCAP repertory;
• ASCAP is prohibited from licensing rights other than the public performance of
musical works; thus, it may not issue mechanical licenses for the reproduction or
distribution of musical works;
The consent decree governing BMI184 contains many of the same provisions as the ASCAP
consent decree.
In June 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced that it would initiate
a review process to examine the operation and effectiveness of these consent decrees, after
ASCAP, BMI and other parties in the music industry raised concerns that the consent decrees
have been unable “to account for changes in how music is delivered to and experienced by
listeners.”185 In testimony presented before Congress, the president of ASCAP explained that the
consent decrees require modification in order to “keep pace” with new digital music services:
ASCAP traditionally negotiated licenses with industry committees or associations
representing entire classes of licensees. For example, ASCAP negotiates with the Television
Music Licensing Committee ... to reach license agreements for the entire local broadcast
television industry. ...
In today’s marketplace, however, digital services without a history of negotiating licenses
and paying fees, and often without any proven business model, utilize the Decree license
process to their benefit. As ASCAP licenses are compulsory and fees can be set retroactively,
certain music users have strategically delayed or extended the negotiating process, choosing
to remain applicants or interim licensees indefinitely—in some cases a decade or longer—
without paying fees to ASCAP or providing ASCAP with the information necessary to
determine a reasonable final fee.186
Legislation
The Songwriter Equity Act (SEA) of 2015 (H.R. 1283, S. 662) has been introduced in the 114th
Congress to help increase performance royalty income for songwriters. One provision of the SEA
would allow the rate court (the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) to take
into account the licensing fees that are currently payable for the digital public performance of
sound recordings, during the court’s proceedings that set the rate for public performance of
musical works. Section 114(i) of the Copyright Act prohibits the rate court from considering such
evidence; consequently, according to supporters of this legislation, license fees for musical works
are lower because the court cannot consider evidence of the higher performance fees paid for the
digital performance of sound recordings.187 The other major provision of the SEA would require

184 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States of America v. Broadcast Music
Inc.,
64 Civ. 3787, Order Modifying the 1966 Consent Decree, November 18, 1994.
185 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Consent Decree Review, at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ascap-bmi-decree-
review.html.
186 Music Licensing Under Title 17, Part Two: Hearing Before the House Judiciary Comm., Subcomm. on Courts,
Intellectual Property and Internet,
113th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014) (Statement of Paul Williams, President and Chairman
of the Board, ASCAP), at 8-9.
187 See Ed Christman, Songwriter Equity Act Re-Introduced to Congress, BILLBOARD, Mar. 3, 2015 (quoting BMI
president Michael O’Neill: “Through the Songwriter Equity Act, songwriters will no longer be disadvantaged by the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

the Copyright Royalty Judges, in establishing the royalty rates for Section 115 mechanical
licenses, to use a “willing buyer, willing seller” standard instead of the current statutory
“801(b)(1)” factors, in order to increase royalties for songwriters whenever their works are
reproduced or distributed (such as when their musical works are recorded by artists, streamed
online through Pandora, or sold through iTunes).
The Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 (H.R. 1733) has a section, entitled “No harmful effects on
songwriters,” that prohibits the lowering of songwriter royalties due to the bill’s establishment of
new performance royalties for sound recordings:
License fees payable for the public performance of sound recordings .... shall not be cited,
taken into account, or otherwise used in any administrative, judicial, or other governmental
forum or proceeding, .. to set or adjust the license fees payable to copyright owners of
musical works ... for the public performance of their works, for the purpose of reducing or
adversely affecting such license fees.
”188
It would appear, however, that evidence of license fees paid for public performance of sound
recordings could be introduced and considered in a ratemaking proceeding to set or adjust
performance fees for musical works, if the purpose of using such evidence is to increase or
otherwise positively affect the license fees.

(...continued)
fact that courts cannot legally consider all relevant benchmark deals – key evidence in determining fair market rates. ...
[T]his bill will also help address ongoing concerns about the impact of a rate disparity that values the performances of
sound recordings at a level approximately 12 times greater than the actual musical compositions from which they are
created.”).
188 H.R. 1733, § 8(a), amending 17 U.S.C. § 114(i) (emphasis added).
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Appendix A. Types of Licenses Required For
Copyright Holders in Non-Digital and Digital
Music Contexts


Non-Digital Music
Digital Music
Music
License for
License for
License for
Copyright
Reproduction and
Public
Reproduction and
License for Public
Holder
Distribution
Performance
Distribution
Performance
Musical work
Mechanical
Voluntary Mechanical Voluntary
holder
(compulsory)
(compulsory)
Sound
Voluntary No
performance
Voluntary
For interactive services,
recording
right
voluntary licenses apply.
holder
For non-interactive
subscription services,
compulsory licenses apply.
For eligible non-interactive,
non-subscription services,
compulsory licenses apply.
For non-subscription, non-
interactive broadcasts,
statutory exemptions apply.

Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

Appendix B. Glossary
Note: This glossary uses definitions supplied in 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 114, 115.
A broadcast transmission is a transmission made by a terrestrial broadcast station licensed as
such by the Federal Communications Commission.
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method
now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term
“copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
A digital audio transmission is a digital transmission as defined in section 101 that embodies the
transmission of a sound recording. This term does not include the transmission of any audiovisual
work.
A digital phonorecord delivery (DPD) is each individual delivery of a phonorecord by digital
transmission of a sound recording that results in a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for
any transmission recipient of a phonorecord of that sound recording, regardless of whether the
digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording or any non-dramatic
musical work embodied therein. A digital phonorecord delivery does not result from a real-time,
non-interactive subscription transmission of a sound recording where no reproduction of the
sound recording or the musical work embodied therein is made from the inception of the
transmission through to its receipt by the transmission recipient in order to make the sound
recording audible.
To display a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide,
television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to show individual images consequentially.
An eligible non-subscription transmission is a non-interactive, non-subscription digital audio
transmission not exempt under subsection 114(d)(1) that is made as part of a service that provides
audio programming consisting, in whole or in part, of performances of sound recordings,
including retransmission of broadcast transmissions, if the primary purpose of the service is to
provide to the public such audio or other entertainment programming, and the primary purpose of
the service is not to sell, advertise, or promote particular products or services other than sound
recordings, live concerts, or other music-related events.
An establishment is a store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the general public for
the primary purpose of selling goods or services in which the majority of the gross square feet of
space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which non-dramatic musical works are
performed publicly.
A work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or
phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit
it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory
duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both being transmitted is “fixed” for purposes
of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

A food service or drinking establishment is a restaurant, inn, bar, tavern, or any other similar
place of business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served
food or drink, in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used
for that purpose, and in which non-dramatic musical works are performed publicly.
An interactive service is one that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a
program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound
recording, whether or not as part of a program, which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient.
The ability of individuals to request that particular sound recordings be performed for reception
by the public at large, or in the case of a subscription service, by all subscribers of the service,
does not make a service interactive, if the programming on each channel of the service does not
substantially consist of sound recordings that are performed within one hour of the request or at a
time designated by either the transmitting entity or the individual making such request. If an
entity offers both interactive and non-interactive services (either concurrently or at different
times), the non-interactive component shall not be treated as part of an interactive service.
To perform a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of
any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its
images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.
A performing rights society is an association, corporation, or other entity that licenses the public
performance of non-dramatic musical works on behalf of copyright owners of such works, such
as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc.
(BAI), and SEASICK, Inc.
Phonorecords are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and
from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly
or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in
which the sounds are first fixed.
To perform or display a work publicly means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial
number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;
or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place
specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members
of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in
separate places and at the same time or at different times.
A retransmission is a further transmission of an initial transmission, and includes any further
retransmission of the same transmission. Except as provided in this section, a transmission
qualifies as a “retransmission” only if it is simultaneous with the initial transmission. Nothing in
this definition shall be construed to exempt a transmission that fails to satisfy a separate element
required to qualify for an exemption under section 114(d)(1).
Sound recordings are works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other
sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008

.
Copyright Licensing in Music Distribution, Reproduction, and Public Performance

regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes, or other phonorecords, in
which they are embodied.
A subscription transmission is a transmission that is controlled and limited to particular
recipients, and for which consideration is required to be paid or otherwise given by or on behalf
of the recipient to receive the transmission or a package of transmissions including the
transmission.
A transmission is either an initial transmission or a retransmission.
To transmit a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby
images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.

Author Contact Information

Brian T. Yeh

Legislative Attorney
byeh@crs.loc.gov, 7-5182


Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008