Copyright Music as Intellectual Property on the Information Infrastructure 1st Edition, May 1997 Russell E. Glaue, re-glaue@wiu.edu http://www.wiu.edu/users/mureg3/homepage.htm Western Illinois University Under the Guidance of Dr. Claudia, McCain, Director of Music Business, Western Illinois University I dedicate this booklet to my late grand-papa Fred Anema who immigrated from the Netherlands to have the freedom of America but fell into suppression due to the negative attitude towards immigrants at the time. To a great man who bestowed a strong christian work ethic of hard work to his grandson, I honor him with my first public publication produced from his work ethic I diligently follow. About the Author, Russell E. Glaue Russell E. Glaue is a Senior Music Business Major at Western Illinois University, also getting minors in Marketing (emphasis in product development), Studio Art (emphasis in advertising), and Computer Science (emphasis in telecommunications). His major area of study at WIU, under the guidance of the notable Professor Dr. Claudia McCain, is devoted to the Music Industry. This study being emphasized as electronic multi media, specialized advertising and product development, and new music technology resources in telecommunications and electronic music. His principal area of performance is that of Bassoon, and second principal is that of Contra-Bassoon. He has played in local ensembles such as the Galesburg Symphony Orchestra, WIU Chamber Orchestra, WIU Symphonic Wind Ensemble (with which Glaue has cut a CD with) and other miscellaneous professional and non-educational related gigs. Glaue is currently an Associate Systems Engineer for the Infrastructure and Macintosh systems at Barat College, Lake Forest Illinois undertaken as a 15 month internship. He plans to graduate from WIU in May 2000. On a national level, Russell Glaue is a member and the national World Wide Web Site coordinator for both MEIEA (Music and Entertainment Industry Educators Association) and NAMBI (NAMM Affiliated Music Business Institutions). He has presented at the National MEIEA Conference. At Western Illinois University, he participates in the Music Business Association as co-chairperson of the fund raising committee, chairperson of the World Wide Web committee, and coordinator of miscellaneous activities of said student organization. Russell E. Glaue also works with Teachers, Staff, students, and other organizations of the campus community, as well as outside corporations, with WWW and Unix support. Russell E. Glaue expects to finish his bachelors degree in Music Business this year. Then, after completing his minors and even further extensive study in the field of Music Business, he plans on attaining a profession in his one true life passion of the Music Industry. His principle speciality, among others, will be dedicated to Multi Media and Advertising. Chapter I Copyright? Intellectual Property?? Huh??? Chapter II The deal with Intellectual Property in the Information Infrastructure Chapter III Who is liable for the infringement of copyright music? How does the music community deal with copyright music infringers? Chapter IV How can copyright music be preserved on the Internet? Chapter V Governmental measures for protecting copyright APPENDIX A: Bibliography APPENDIX B: Resources Chapter I Copyright? Intellectual Property?? Huh??? Intellectual Property is basically the property developed and/or owned under the copyright law by an individual. Webster's Dictionary defines copyright as the exclusive right to publish a book, etc. or license its publication. Or in other terms, copyright basically means that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make copies of the copyright material. But what does all this mean? And more particularly how does one apply this to the National Information Infrastructure? Intellectual Property that is copyrighted is illegal to copy by anyone other than the copyright owner. Today we see a common violation where a music teacher makes a copy of a sheet of music, or a businessman copies an article out of a magazine and mails it to their coworker who doesn't subscribe to that magazine. How is copyright controlled today in these aspects? Well, other than a copyright notice and maybe a statement indicating that it is illegal to make a copy of the material, there is really nothing stopping you from going to the copy machine, putting the material under the cover and pushing the button. However, you can get into a lot of trouble by trying to make a lot of copies and distributing those copies to a lot of people, because someone might turn you in. This particular instance becomes more relevant with dealings on the Internet, obviously, because of the wider audience base. This paper focuses on copyright management on, as well as the illegal usage of copyright music on the Information Infrastructure (more well known as the Internet). When you start talking to a well developed artist about her/his music and the Internet, you might get a few moans or sighs. The Internet has its advantages as much as it has disadvantages. At the same time that an artist can use this new vastly growing and popular marketing platform, known as the WWW (World Wide Web), to publicize her/himself and her/his music, an individual can purposely or ignorantly pirate music by transferring the artists songs from a CD to her/his computer and then uploading it onto the Internet allowing everyone to have access. At this point of copyright infringement, this individual is unlawfully distributing the music by the act of allowing others to take a copy which is done when a user downloads the music off the Internet to her/his personal computer. This is also a sticky issue in defining what type of infringement that action is; is it a distribution because a copy of the song is physically, yet electronically, transferred from one computer to another, or if the user listens to the music at the point of downloading the song off the Internet, is it validated as a performance. We'll cover this issue later. Either way the infringement is defined, its still illegal. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant to this fact. In what way are a lot of people ignorant to this issue of copyright infringement of music? A lot of people think that when they buy a CD, the CD and all its contents as well as the songs themselves are then owned by them and they can do what ever they want to it. That is where they are wrong. The purchase of the CD gives you the right of owning the physical CD and that particular copy of the recorded music only for private use. The user does not own the song, and thus cannot make copies of the song or redistribute copies. Some people think the prior, unfortunately, and decide to upload their favorite music to the Internet for everyone to enjoy. The record label that recorded the music owns the exclusive right to copy and distribute the music. They reserve this right as the sole distributer. If someone uploads copyright music onto the Internet, they are infringing on this exclusive right of the label as the sole distributer by themselves taking action as a distributer of the music. The same goes with making a copy on mini-disc or DVD and then giving that copy to a friend. The act of that is called distributing. The end-user only purchased the rights to own that single CD, not to distribute copies of the CD's contents. Of course, however, the end-user can do whatever she/he wanted to their particular copy that they purchased whether it being reselling it, giving it away, or destroying it, but not, however, playing the recorded copyright music in a public place. Playing copyright music (or really any music) in a public place is called a performance. Webster's Dictionary defines perform to enact, play, etc. for an audience. When you purchase a CD, you purchase the right to own a copy of the music and be able to listen to it. You don't, however, purchase the right to give everyone a copy of your copy (or redistribute it as we talked about above), or let everyone listen to the music as a group. I know it may sound a little weird but think about this: when you purchase a CD, you purchase the right to use it under private intentions (no redistributing copies or performing your copy). You can let a friend borrow your copy to listen to, or play it in your house with your family. But you cannot allow a public audience to listen to it. If you do, it is then called a performance. Now, you may be thinking what's the real difference between a few people like a few friends and family compared to a small party (which can be seen as a small audience). Technically there is no difference. The few friends and family is technically a public audience, and thus in the eyes of the perfectionist law-abiding citizen, a performance of the CD to them is illegal. But this is where legal assumptions takes place. According to Bennett Lincoff, legal representative for ASCAP, this type of performance to a small gathering is allowed. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (the three music rights organizations in the US) are not going to storm down every door in America to make sure everyone does things legal. They know small infringements like these are going to happen, and they let it go because it really is out of their control, even though they have accepted it and don't mind it anyway. It is only when the music is performed (or played) within a non-tiny gathering where money is exchanged or profit is to be made that ASCAP, BMI and SESAC want to get their cut. They also want their cut when the gathering gets large enough that it may constitute a good size public performance, and thus exploits the copyright of the music openly to the public. Again, copyright in this means is the right to perform. If you want the right to perform, you have to pay monies to allow your audience to listen. Or in more generic terms, each person of your audience that is listening to the music must have purchased the right to listen to it (which would be the same as purchasing the music on CD in a record store in that you are purchasing the right to listen to the song). This is determined by what is deemed a performance license. A performance license in this context is a contract between you and the copyright owner that gives you permission to perform the music in exchange for monies. The monies is usually determined by the amount to people your audience consists of, how many tickets you sell for a concert, or how many seats the venue (place of performance) has that can seat people. This ordeal is the same as the actions taken on the Internet. To perform the music on the Internet, you need something like one of these performance licenses from the music copyright owner (although it is really called something else; but we'll discus this later). And as part of the license deal, you need to know how large your audience is so monies can be paid upon that. We'll touch upon this particular matter a little later when we discuss the licensing of this music on the Internet and how ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are dealing with this issue of copyright music on the Internet. You should now, if you haven't already, have an understanding of the little issue we call copyright and how this term applies in context to the Information Infrastructure. Does it sound a little complicated? That's why we have a lot of lawyers that specialize in this and are getting rich in this aspect of the copyright industry alone. Chapter II The deal with Intellectual Property in the Information Infrastructure Preserving intellectual property on the information infrastructure is one of the biggest issues today. According to Bennett Lincoff, legal representative at ASCAP, R & D (Research and Development) companies small and large are soaking "millions upon untold millions" of dollars into trying to develop a method of preserving copyright on the Internet. And each one of the companies trying to employ methods specifically for preserving music copyright is trying to get ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC to endorse their particular method. Although there are many companies, like Microsoft for one example, working on this issue, there is no current solid way to preserve copyright on the Internet. No one has developed any universal method to track copyright usage and seek out copyright infringers. In this paper we are concerned with copyright music. There is no developed scheme for tracking usage of music on the Internet, or any defined way to seek out copyright infringers. The only way known to seek out copyright infringers is to develop a web enforcement organization maned by at least 100 people surfing the Internet 24 hours a day. Of course no one has taken the liberty to employ this method mainly because it is not cost efficient, nor is it even feasible. But a scheme like this will not even work for tracking copyright usage on the Internet, because keeping track of how many people access a copyrighted material on the web can only currently be done accurately and efficiently at the server level (or the main computer that runs the web site that makes the copyright material available to the Internet community). So the music community is in a bind. How do we keep the Internet secure for our copyright music? And more so, how do we keep the Internet from turning into a black market for selling music illegally? And this is so much more of a concern because the Internet is so universally accessible. The most popular tool used today for surfing the Internet is the WWW (World Wide Web). And when the majority of the music community thinks about the Internet, and copyright music infringers, they think about this Internet platform. Although this is valid thinking to someone well versed on how the Internet works, it may not be as such for those who are not as familiar. When an Internet guru talks about copyright infringements on the Internet, or more so the information infrastructure, they are not limiting their thinking to WWW. The Internet has many possible avenues for allowing people ways to infringe on copyright. Some of these avenues on the Internet include usenet news groups, ftp (file transfer protocol), gopher, and the more notorious BBS (Bulletin Board System). With a small exception to BBS, all these Internet platforms mentioned above can be accessed through the WWW. The WWW is mainly a separate interface to access these platforms through. The benefit of the WWW is that you can access all these resources through one client session (i.e., a web browser) instead of having to open multiple sessions to access each resource like what one had to do before the WWW came along. As well, all these Internet platforms mentioned above can be used to distribute or perform music either legally or illegally. And when one talks about preserving copyright material on the Internet, they mean also to protect copyright material on these other platforms as well. I only wanted to mention usenet news groups, ftp, and gopher, and will not go in depth on those platforms and how they play a role in the information infrastructure. Just know that those of you interested in this issue of preserving copyright music on the Internet should be aware of these parts of the Internet, and that they are additional platforms of the Internet that copyright can be exploited on, and more than often with non-music related copyright material is used, especially usenet news groups. I do want to talk about BBS and BBS related systems because of their recent history in infringing on copyright music. A BBS is a system that is either not directly or not at all attached to the Internet, but is none the less a part of the information infrastructure. With a BBS, you will dial up the phone number for a particular system to access data on its server. A BBS is a system that usually has information that you are seeking, like the government publication system, or the IITF Bulletin Board which happens to be accessible through the Internet via gopher as well as by dial up, or a system that has software for you to download. For the later, you would download freeware or shareware or demo versions of software, however in some cases the BBS has infringed upon copyright and has allowed users to download the full versions of software, and in other cases the opportunity to download copyright music. One particular BBS that the music community has had its run in with concerning infringements of copyright music is CompuServe. Now although not usually referred to as one, CompuServe is technically a BBS, just a very large BBS. With CompuServe, a user can dial up the CompuServe number and access information from the CompuServe server. And although CompuServe is indirectly attached to the Internet in that users can set up web pages and send e-mail, with this exception someone cannot access information from the CompuServe system unless they dial into CompuServe directly. In other words, what is available through dial up is not accessible through the WWW. And because one has to dial into CompuServe to access the information, that makes CompuServe a BBS related system, but also a BBS that is indirectly attached to the Internet. A while back the music industry had that run in with CompuServe infringing on copyright music. CompuServe was allowing users to upload and download MIDI files for performance and other purposes. A CompuServe user could dial in to access the CompuServe BBS, and one of the options allowed to them was to listen to MIDI files or upload their own. A user could click on a button and listen to music of their choice. Although the actions of the CompuServe users were confined in a more restrictive environment, this was a clear case of music performance, and as uploading files, a case of music distribution as we defined in chapter 1. CompuServe was making money from payments of their subscribers to their services, but CompuServe was not paying monies to allow a public performance or distribution of the music that was available. Thus, indirectly, CompuServe was making a profit from the service of providing music to its subscribers, but CompuServe did not license the permission to use that music. This instance ended with a heated battle between CompuServe and the music publishing industry in court. Needless to say, the music publishing industry won a very large lawsuit. This public exploitation of copyright music by individuals and companies will be discussed more in the next chapter. Chapter III Who is liable for the infringement of copyright music? How does the music community deal with copyright music infringers? There was a case in 1996 in which a man named Max Butler had illegally uploaded software onto an ISP (Internet service provider) for distribution on the Internet via ftp. The ISP actually noticed the illegal action and contacted the SPA (Software Publishers Association). Legally, the SPA could have sued the ISP for the copyright infringements, but in this case since the ISP was actually those who turned in the culprit, they decided to pursue other means of action. They wanted to encourage this action of ISPs policing their servers and catching copyright infringers. In this case, the SPA decided to make an example to warn other Internet users who believe they can get away with infringing on copyrights of intellectual property, and thus they filed a law suite against Mr. Butler. In the above case we see that the individual was held responsible for the illegal contents even though SPA could have legally sued the ISP. The illegal contents were located on a platform owned by the ISP, so the ISP was responsible for the consequences. In the same manner, if a by standard were to perform music at a public party that was not licensed by the party hosts, the party hosts are responsible, not the by standard. It doesn't matter if the by standard paid monies to get into the party or not, the party is still hosted by the party hosts who are the ones who are held responsible. This association between an ISP and its users work in the same fashion. The ISP is legally held responsible for all actions taken on their system. The ISPs do not exactly like this liability that rests at their feet, and a lot of people find it a little unfair. The House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, when faced with these conflicting views and significant opposition to the legislation, set up a series of negotiation sessions in which to discuss this matter and possibly reach a solution everyone can agree upon. The negotiation sessions were comprised of three basic groups, each group made up of major business players. These three groups were Service Providers represented by America Online, Bell, Atlantic, CCIA, CIX, MCI, Netscape, USTA; Hybrid Group represented by BSA IIA, IBM, Microsoft, Time Warner; and Content Providers represented by AAP, ASCAP, Disney, NMPA, MPAA, RIAA and Viacom. The Association of American Universities and a collation of library organizations were also asked to participate in the proceedings. Two key points were reached and agreed upon during the negotiations which recognized concerns of all business players. These two key points are: 1) an exemption from liability for "mere conduits," i.e., basic network services including Internet backbone and trunk services, 2) a "notice and takedown" concept which provided for actual notice by content providers to service providers followed by an expeditious removal or blocking of access to allegedly infringing works. However a completed detailed agreement in which to construct a legislative draft for proposed amendments was not reached during these negotiations of January 1996. It is expected that these negotiations will resume in 1997. Although the music community is still in its primitive stage in its dealings with the Internet, it is making a stand for itself. The three PROs as well as other national organizations which include RIAA among others are working at solidifying a standard for protecting copyright music on the Internet. Currently illegal actions that are performed on the Internet that deal with copyright music infringement can be reported to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC and the appropriate actions will be taken to rectify matters. No solid measures are being taken at this point to track down copyright infringers on the Internet, mainly because the man power to police such an activity is not attainable. However, both Ms. Emily Aston, legal representative for BMI, and Bennett Lincoff, legal representative for ASCAP assure me that each organization is actively involved in this issue. As well, each organization is actively involved in legal proceedings on capitol hill towards measures of enacting bills that support copyright music on the Internet. Chapter IV How can copyright music be preserved on the Internet? In the previous chapter we took a look at the issue of copyright music infringement on the information infrastructure. This chapter we are going to peer into methods currently being used by the music community for tracking and licensing music on the Internet. As discussed earlier, there is no current solidified way of keeping track of the usage of copyright music on the Internet. But the music industry has employed methods to obtain first steps towards a solution. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have each developed licenses for dealing with copyright music on the Internet. And just like the competitors they are, if you visit the web site for each company, all three have developed the "first license" for issuing to copyright music users on the Internet, and which is better than any other license from the other two performing rights organizations. But who is to say one is better than another when a method for tracking usage of the material by online users cannot be rectified. ASCAP provides a blanket license for online music usage that covers four ways of calculating fees that accommodate more accurately what the licensee's needs are. ASCAP refers to this method in their license as a four rate schedule. When I requested information from BMI, they sent me a generic letter, that didn't tell me what I requested, and that included a copy of its Internet Computer Services Agreement. I was at least, however, able to contact Ms. Emily Aston, legal representative for BMI, about four months before that to get some information that I needed at the beginning of my research, but my main research questions that had developed over those next four months of research were left unanswered by BMI. SESAC didn't even reply to my request. Information about a license for Internet usage was skimpy on their web site, although SESAC did make that famous claim, like the other two, to being first to offer such a license. BMI's generic letter that they sent me stated, "BMI created what we believe was the first license for the performance of music over the Internet over a year and a half ago." I'd like to make a point that ASCAP did the same over a year and a half ago in June 1995. Figure 1 gives a visual look at these licenses offered by ASCAP and BMI. ASCAP claims a more superior performance license for the licensee. After talking with Bennett Lincoff, the individual who developed the license, I know that a lot of work was put into its development. Mr. Lincoff stated that the license is still developing and a revision will be issued sometime in the future of when he is not sure. He assures me though that after the license's two years in existence, he has developed a thick notebook full of notes and additions he plans to use in the development of the license's revision. My talks with BMI on the other hand were not as defined in BMI's development of its license. The Internet is growing at a rapid speed, and thus must insert that I contacted BMI about four months earlier than when I contacted ASCAP. At the time I contacted BMI for a phone interview, their license was in play. Their main concern was to develop a license that was easy to understand and figure a cost for. BMI advertises a user-friendly license which is simple to understand and implement. But ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are not the only players in Internet licensing of music. The PROs only cover the performance license. You may also need a mechanical license in addition to a performance license. We'll discuss a little about the mechanical license for Internet usage below. One must also be aware of the issues of what type of infringement is constituted in a copyright music transaction on the Internet. According to Bennett Lincoff, in all cases it is an exploitation of performance rights but only in some cases, those not including streamline technology, is it an exploitation of mechanical rights. When dealing with licensing on the Internet people need to be aware of what licenses are needed for using music in this fashion of data transmission. Just because you are given mechanical rights by a publisher to record a song for distribution, does mean that you were given mechanical rights to put that recording on the Internet. In this manner, one may want to think of an Internet server as one giant CD. When you get the mechanical rights to record a song on CD or cassette, that doesn't include DVD or DAT and in this case Harddisk (the element of an Internet server that stores the data). So you may need a mechanical license to put the music on the Internet. However, you need to contact the publisher to verify, because the mechanical license that they issued you just may very well include these other means. As well, if you have a blanket performance license for your organization from each of the three PROs, that doesn't necessarily cover your performance of the music on the radio, or television station of you organization. As well it doesn't cover your web site. So if you have a blanket performance license for your college campus, you need a separate license for the radio and television stations as well as the Internet system. This applies to ASCAP blanket license according to Bennett Lincoff. BMI's blanket license, however, includes this performance on radio and television, but they have a separate license for Internet performance. So any copyright exploiter must be aware that two separate licenses may need to be obtained to put music on the Internet. Please note that I am not aware of ASCAPs concerns to the Internet due to them not responding to my request for information, so I have left them out in fear that unclarified information on my part may misrepresent their claims. Under these terms, how is copyright music preserved on the Internet? Not very well. Rate schedule B and C of the ASCAP license requires the tracking of music usage on the web site. ASCAP has this done at the server level of the web site. Bennett Lincoff states that it is a bit of a trust factor that the web site administrator will not edit the electronic book that contains the tracking information in which the cost of the license is based on. Although ASCAP reserves the right to audit the electronic data book at anytime, they have no way of keeping the electronic data book from being edited to reflect false information. BMI on the other hand issues a license with a single option similar to option A of ASCAP's license. Option A of ASCAP's license as well as BMI's license are easy to calculate since they are based on revenue taken in by the web site instead of the usage of the music. The previous, which entails tracking music usage and paying a fee based upon that usage, is an ideal method for calculating payment for some, but the chances of fraud is greater. Until a standard can be implemented to control and track copyright that will not entice fraudulent behavior, copyright owners will be reluctant to use this new media. The Government is trying to change this attitude, however. Measures taken by the Government towards this issue will be discussed in the next chapter. Chapter V Governmental measures for protecting copyright Now the important part. What is the government doing to preserve copyright on the Internet? Especially what are they doing to preserve copyright music on our National Information Infrastructure. If it wasn't for the efforts of ASCAP, BMI, and NMPA (National Music Publishers Association), among other music companies, not too much would be done. The ball started rolling in Washington D.C. on July 7, 1994 when the Clinton Administration released the green paper prepared by the Intellectual Property Working Group of the Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force. CIC (Creative Incentive Coalition) co-director Joe Waz said "The Administration's green paper reaches important conclusions and asks essential questions. It represents the starting point of a policy-making process that will determine whether the NII will achieve its full potential as an engine of economic and social progress." The next year measures were being taken to gain support for two newer bills HR 2441 and S. 1284 entitled the NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995 which amend the current copyright law to make provisions for the digital networked environment of which the Internet exists in. The NII Copyright Protection Act has four basic parts: (1) It clarifies current copyright law by assuring copyright owners that they have the exclusive right to distribute copies of works by transmission over computer networks -- even if no physical copy of a book, CD, video or diskette change hands. (2) It broadens existing exceptions to copyright protection to allow some digital copying by libraries, and preparation of certain editions for the blind, without the permission of the copyright owner. (3) It outlaws devices and services intended to break encryption or circumvent other technologies that copyright owners choose to protect their works, and (4) forbids tampering with or falsifying digital tags or other information identifying the ownership of copyrighted materials. Support for these two bills grew, and with the official release of the white paper on the NII prepared by the Intellectual Property Working Group of the Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force, action was finally being taken on capitol hill towards securing the issue of protecting intellectual property on the National Information Infrastructure. The main goals for the publicity of these two items was to show support of the intellectual property owners. The Government wants the intellectual property owners to feel safe and make transitions towards the Internet. The bills define and clarify rights and laws on the information infrastructure. The Government's hope was to make it known that the Internet, although still in its primitive stage, is shaping up. Measures are being developed and enacted upon to ensure the safety and validity of efforts performed by copyright owners. The NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995 is still in negotiation on capitol hill. It is the hope of the music industry that the best will avail in our favor to protect copyright music on the internet. All we can do now is fight for our rights, and show our support for what should be. APPENDIX A: Bibliography Cosola, Mary. "New Frontiers in Copyright". Electronic Musician. February 1997, p126-128 & 201. Public Domain. "Stakeholder Positions Concerning Digital Copyright Proposals". http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/yaszi2.html, 03/10/97. Larson, Megan. "COPYRIGHT IN CYBERSPACE". http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~meganl/copy.html, 12/15/95. Larson, Megan. " piracy' is such a bad word: is strict software copyright enforcement the only alternative". http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~meganl/pirate.html, 03/05/97. Gleick, James. "I'll take the Money, Thanks". http://www.around.com/copyright.html, 03/04/97. Alt: New York Times Magazine, August 4, 1996. BDSonline. "ABCs of BDS: How we track the Music Industry". http://www.bdsonline.com/abc/index.htm, 03/04/97. BMI.com. "News Briefs". http://bmi.com/MusicWorld/fall96/newsf96.html, 03/03/97. Alt: BMI Music World, fall 1996. BMI.com. "Government Relations". http://bmi.com/legislation/lgsltn.html, 03/03/97. BMI.com. "BMI's Interface With Cyberspace". http://bmi.com/MusicWorld/winter95/internet.html, 03/03/97. Alt: BMI Music World, winter 1995. Zimmerman, Kevin. "Music on the Internet: Getting and Earful On-line". http://bmi.com/MusicWorld/mwsum95/internet.html, 03/03/97. Alt: BMI Music World, summer 1995. BMI.com. "New Legislation Addresses Copyright Protection In Cyberspace". http://bmi.com/MusicWorld/summer96/nwlegis.html, 03/03/97. Alt: BMI Music World, summer 1996. BMI.com. "CISAC: Perspectives For The Year 2000". http://bmi.com/MusicWorld/fall96/cisac.html, 03/03/97. Alt: BMI Music World, fall 1996. Lincoff, Bennett M. "Everyone Covered by Blanket Licenses". http://www.ascap.com:80/press/lincoff-121695.html, 03/02/97. Alt: Billboard, December 16, 1995. Steinblatt, Jim. "ASCAP Issues Its First Performance License for Computer Transmissions of Music". http://www.ascap.com:80/press/computer-transmissions-062695.html, 03/02/97. Steinblatt, Jim. "ASCAP Initiates Department of New Media & Technology Strategy". http://www.ascap.com:80/press/nmts-041095.html, 03/02/97. Marcus, Bobbi. "ASCAP Issues Performance License to Online Music Previews Company, MP Music Previews". http://www.ascap.com:80/press/mp-music-080495.html, 03/02/97. Marcus, Bobbi. "ASCAP Issues Performance License to Xing Technology, Developer of New Breakthrough in Internet Delivery of Audio and Video". http://www.ascap.com:80/press/xing-technology-081795.html, 03/02/97. ASCAP.com. "ASCAP Signs Web Music Licensing Deal with net.radio". Http://www.ascap.com:80/press/nmts-112195.html, 03/02/97. CIC.org. "Administration's Superhighway Copyright Plan On Right Track". http://www.cic.org/press1.html, 11/23/96. SPA.org. "SPA Testifies Before Congress on the National Information Infrastructure Copyright Act". http://spa.org/gvmnt/releases/niijh.htm, 11/23/96. CIC.org. "Coalition Supports Digital Update of Copyright Laws". http://www.cic.org/hears.html, 11/23/96. CIC.org. "Internet Piracy of Copyrighted Works Signals Need for Legislation". http://www.cic.org/press5.html, 11/23/96. SPA.org. "SPA Moves Against Internet Pirate; Lawsuit is Software Industry First". http://www.spa.org/piracy/releases/butler3.htm, 11/23/96. Cutting.Edge@latimes.com. "Internet Not Immune to Copyright Law". http://www.cic.org/timeslet.html, 11/23/96. Alt: Los Angeles Times, May 27, 1996. Doler, Kathleen. "Does Internet Need New Law On Copyrights?". http://www.cic.org/clip2.html, 11/23/96. Alt: Investor's Business Daily, February 13, 1996. Truitt, Rosalind C. "On Line, Who Owns What?". http://www.cic.org/clip3.html, 11/23/96. Alt: Presstime, 1996. CNN.com. "Legislation aims to extend copyright protection to cyberspace". http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9605/11/cyber.pirates/index.html, 11/23/96. Alt: CNN, May 11, 1996. Aston, Emily. Legal Representative for BMI. Phone interview. November 1996. Lincoff, Bennett. Legal Representative for ASCAP. Phone interview. March 7, 1997. Government. "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure". A report from the working group, September 1995. [ reference (B1) ] Government. "Proposed rulemaking: Notice and Recordkeeping for Subscription Digital Transmissions". 37 CFR Chapter II: Document No. RM 96-3. gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/00/.ftppub/copyright/frdreg/96.3, 11/07/96. Government. Title 17 of the US Code - Copyright. Government. Senate bill 227: Introduced, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. Senate bill 227: Reported, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. Senate bill 227: Passed, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. Senate bill 227: Enrolled Bill, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. House of Representatives bill 1506: Introduced, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. House of Representatives bill 1506: Reported, "Provide and exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicity by means of digital transmissions, and for other purposes". Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Government. Senate bill 1284: Introduced, "Adapt the copyright law to the digital, networked environment of the national information infrastructue, and for other purposes". NII Copyright Protection Act of 1996. Government. House of Representatives bill 2441: Introduced, "Adapt the copyright law to the digital, networked environment of the national information infrastructue, and for other purposes". NII Copyright Protection Act of 1996. Government. Senate bill 1619: Introduced. "Provide for an exemption of copyright infringement for the performance of nondramatic musical works in small commercial establishments, and for other purposes". Government. Senate bill 1628: Introduced. "Relating to the copyright interests of certain musical performances, and for other purposes". Government. Circular 56. "Sound Recording". http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ56, 11/07/96. Government. Circular 1. "Copyright Basics". APPENDIX B: Resources (A) PRINT ONLY LITERATURE (1) TYPE: MAGAZINE Electronic Musician February 1997 (B) PRINT - ELECTRONIC LITERATURE (1) TYPE: GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure The Report of the Working Group on the Intellectual Property Rights Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, CHAIR Information Infrastructure Task Force Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce, CHAIR September 1995 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on the Intellectual Property Rights / Bruce A. Lehman, Chair. 1. Intellectual property -- United States, 2. Copyright -- United States 3. Information superhighway -- United States. 4. Information technology -- United States. I. Lehman, Bruce A. II. Title. KF2979.U55 1995 346.7304'8--dc20 [347.30648] ISBN 0-9648716-0-1 NOTE: Single copies of this report may be obtained, free of charge, by sending a written request to: "Intellectual Property and the NII" c/o Terri A. Southwick, Attorney-Advisor Office of Legislative and International Affairs U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Box 4 Washington, D.C. 20231 Copies will also be available from the IITF Bulletin Board. The Bulletin Board can be accessed through the Internet by pointing the Gopher Client to iitf.doc.gov or by telnet to iitf.doc.gov (log in as gopher). The Bulletin Board is also accessible at 202-501-1920 using a personal computer and a modem. (C) WORLD WIDE WEB SITES USED (1) SESAC http://www.sesac.com (2) ASCAP (American Society of Composers and Authors) http://www.ascap.com (3) BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.) http://bmi.com (4) CIC (Creative Incentive Coalition) http://www.cic.org (5) |access.gpo| GPO Access (Superintendent of Documents) http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ (6) |access.gpo| U.S. Government Printing Office http://www.access.gpo.gov (7) |access.gpo| The Code of Federal Regulations http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ (8) |access.gpo| Office of Technology Assessment http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota/ (9) U.S. House of Representatives Internet Law Library - U.S. Code http://law.house.gov/105.htm (10) U.S. House of Representatives Internet Law Library http://law.house.gov (11) U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science http://www.nclis.gov (12) The Federal Web Locator http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Agency/fedwebloc.html (13) Kuester Law - The Technology Law Resources http://www.kuesterlaw.com (14) Software Publishers Association http://www.spa.org