IP: Copyright Office NOPR, reporting requirements under DMCA

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: 
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:13:21 -0500 (EST)
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Copyright Office NOPR, reporting requirements under DMCA

Dear Dr. Farber,

Although I am not a subscriber to your IP list, I read
it daily in archives at

  http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/

If you see fit to post material from this email, please
omit my name and email address.  Neither appears below.

Thank you in advance for considering publishing this
information. Now, I'll cut to the chase.

Although IP has covered proposed royalty terms, I've
seen nothing on IP about the Copyright Office NOPR for
mandatory reporting requirements under the Digital
Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

The proposed rules would put staggering record
keeping burdens on both netcasters and radio broadcast
operations, especially that already dying breed, small
noncommercial broadcasters.  It is very reasonably arguable
some noncommercial broadcasters would be forced to limit
their broadcast material severely.  For some material the
proposed required information is simply no longer easily
obtainable from the original form in which the material
entered the stream of commerce.

Say goodbye to "Oldies but goodies" shows.

The CO's NOPR is in the Federal Register here:

   http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/2002/67fr5761.html

There is some civilian analysis and commentary here:

http://www.radiohorizon.com/index.php3?fcn=displayarticle&id=2424

To make a long story short, the proposed rules appear to be
nothing more than an RIAA wish list.

The deadline for comments is March 11, 2002.

Here is an excerpt from the RadioHorizon synopsis of the
proposed rules:

> Under the proposed rules radio stations,
> internet stations, and satellite companies would have to report the following
> information about every streamed program:

> A) The name of the service
> B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
> C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
> D) Date of Transmission
> E) Time of Transmission
> F) Time zone of origination of Transmission
> G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
> H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
> I) Sound Recording Title
> J) The ISRC code of the recording
> K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
> compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the
track
> L) Featured recording artist
> M) Retail album title
> N) The recording Label
> O) The UPC code of the retail album
> P) The catalog number
> Q) The copyright owner information
> R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

> And a listener's log listing: 1) The name of the service or entity
> 2) The channel or program
> 3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
> 4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
> 5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
> 6) Unique User identifier
> 7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

Here is the Copyright Office commentary on its proposed
rules from the CO link above:

> On its face, the request for the Intended Playlists, Listener's
> Log, and Ephemeral Phonorecord Log seems reasonably based on the
> premise that the copyright owners need certain specific information to
> monitor compliance and use by the Services. In support of its request
> for the detailed information, RIAA argues that the information it seeks
> from the Services is ``easily provided, [] not burdensome, and in fact,
> is currently provided by a number of licensees who have obtained
> licenses through negotiations with the RIAA and/or Sound Exchange.''
> RIAA Petition at 10-11. RIAA further justifies the need for the
> additional reporting requirements on the basis of differences in
> statutory requirements for the different licenses and on the basis of
> the different business models used within the different categories of
> Services. RIAA petition at 9. Other interested parties, however, may
> find the requirements too stringent and burdensome in spite of RIAA's
> assertions. Such parties should identify any problems they perceive
> with the proposed regulations and explain with specificity the reasons
> why the regulations are unworkable or unduly burdensome, or exceed the
> needs of the copyright owners.

Thank you for considering publishing this information for
IP readers.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/