COPYCENSE

"At its inception, the compulsory license facilitated the availability of music to the listening public. However, the evolution of technology and business practices has eroded the effectiveness of this provision. Despite several attempts to amend the compulsory license and the Copyright Office’s regulations, the use of the section 115 compulsory license, other than as a de facto ceiling on privately negotiated rates, has remained at an almost non-existent level.

"There is no debate that section 115 needs to be reformed to ensure that the United States’ vibrant music industry can continue to flourish in the digital age. Because section 115 and its predecessor have rarely been used as functioning compulsory licenses and have served simply as a ceiling on the royalty rate in privately negotiated licenses, it has placed artificial limits on the free marketplace."

Marybeth Peters. Statement of Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Music Licensing Reform. U.S. Copyright Office. July 12, 2005.

See also:

Marybeth Peters. Statement of Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. U.S. Copyright Office. June 21, 2005.

Marybeth Peters. Register’s Testimony on Music Licensing Reform before the House Committee on the Judiciary: Music Licensing Reform. (Real Audio) U.S. Copyright Office. June 21, 2005.

“U.S. music downloaders paid for 158 million songs during the first six months of 2005, almost three times the number acquired legally in the first half of 2004.

“However, the figures, from Nielsen SoundScan, reveal that the growth in legal downloads has yet to compensate the music industry for falling CD sales. Sales of albums were down seven per cent year on year, to 282.6m units, said Nielsen.”

Tony Smith. U.S. Legal Music Downloads Up 187%. The Register. July 14, 2005.

"The Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The decision clarified to some degree the Court’s approach to balancing the competing values of supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection and promoting innovation in new technologies by limiting secondary liability for copyright infringement.

"But the decision leaves undefined the precise contours of a critical ‘safe harbor’ for developers and distributors of new products and services, defers many difficult issues for resolution in future cases, may lead to increased litigation, and will likely make it more complex to litigate cases involving allegations of secondary liability."

Cooley Godward. The Supreme Court Decision in MGM v. Grokster. July 12, 2005.

See also:

EFF Deep Links. Grokster = More Fair Use Cases? June 28, 2005.

Larry Lessig asked me for a pointer to the Hollywood movie studios’ response to my request to use a few seconds of their films for a home movie project I was making with my 5-year-old — not for posting on the Web, just for showing off to family or friends.

Four of the studios refused outright, two refused to respond, and the seventh wobbled.

Darknet. When The Studios Won’t Give Permission. July 8, 2005.

“At a recent private book reading by Siva Vaidhyanathan and Larry Lessig at Stanford, both spoke at length about the future of fair use, revealing a schism in perspective. Siva is generally more hopeful, Larry characteristically pessimistic. Siva suggested that society and the court system might eventually have more promising answers to the current conflicts over copyright; Larry, meanwhile, argued that “fair use is the right to hire a lawyer.”

“Today, Siva has a sad tale suggesting that most people have begun to agree with Larry — and worse, that society’s gatekeepers of fair use — librarians, educators, school administrators — are letting it happen.”

Corante. Fair Use It or Lose It. July 7, 2005.