On July 31 the
U.S. Department of Commerce released "Copyright Policy, Creativity, and
Innovation in the Digital Economy." It's a so-called Green Paper, prepared
by the Commerce Department's Internet Policy Task Force to further discussion
on copyright policy. To that end, the Green Paper set out a number of specific
copyright policy issues for future rounds of discussion.
The Internet
Policy Task Force's Green Paper presented a handful of quick takeaways. Namely,
it touted the critical economic role of copyright and reaffirmed the institutional
legitimacy of copyright. The Green Paper also endorsed the basic principles of
copyright law, while nonetheless recognizing the need for new solutions to
challenges posed by technological changes. In particular, the Green Paper expressed
disapproval of the advantage that broadcast TV enjoys over competing
technologies under current copyright performance rights' laws. And it
questioned the compulsory licensing regime's disparate treatment of different
technological platforms.
At the outset, the
Internet Policy Task Force's Green Paper offered an important assessment of the
role of copyright in our economy:
The industries that rely on copyright are today an integral part of the U.S. economy, accounting for millions of jobs and contributing billions of dollars to the G.D.P. Moreover, the creative content they produce contributes to the development of the broader Internet economy, spurring the creation and adoption of innovative distribution technologies. Not only do these industries make important economic contributions, they are at the core of our cultural expression and heritage.The Green Paper also defended the institution of copyright from assaults on its legitimacy:
Effective and balanced copyright protection need not be antithetical to the free flow of information, nor need encouraging the free flow of information undermine copyright. In fact, as the Supreme Court has recognized, "the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression."The Green Paper similarly reaffirmed the basic soundness of legally-protected rights in creative works: "The Task Force believes that the core principles of U.S. copyright law remain fundamentally sound." With those foundations in place, the Green Paper identified more concrete areas where changing technologies make new law and policy solutions necessary.
The
market for digital transmission of sound recordings is one of the specific
areas of copyright policy where the Green Paper weighed in. As it pointed out,
"questions have been raised as to different obligations for different
types of services using sound recordings, and disparities in rate-setting
standards for those digital services that are subject to the statutory
license."
The Green
Paper elaborated:
Of particular concern in the context of the growing digital audio market is the fact that there is still no public performance right when sound recordings are used by over-the-air FCC-licensed broadcasters. As a result, over- the-air broadcasters enjoy a competitive advantage over emerging digital services.
For over thirty years, the Administration and Copyright Office have made repeated calls to create a public performance right for the broadcasting of sound recordings. Apart from the inability to obtain compensation in the United States, this omission has had a real impact on the balance of payments from abroad. 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.
Relatedly,
the Internet Task Force voiced its support for Congress "[a]ssessing the
appropriateness of different rate-setting standards for the public performance
of sound recordings by different types of digital music services." The
Green Paper doesn't offer any particular policy solutions on this matter. It
merely suggests a broad focus on "the interests of all involved parties."
And it expressly declined to address "the scope of statutory licenses for cable and
satellite retransmissions."
But the Green Paper's identification of the problematic nature of disparate
treatment of competing technologies and services is important enough.
Under the
federal Copyright Act, when a music performance copyright's holder and
providers of music services can't agree on royalty terms for performances, the
statute imposes a compulsory licensing and royalty rate-setting scheme. Not
only that, our current compulsory licensing system subjects different types of
services to different rate standards. For example, webcasting
services are subjected to a different copyright royalty rate standard than
cable and satellite services. And as mentioned above, broadcast TV does
not need to reach agreement with music copyright holders or pay any royalties
for public performances– i.e., for
playing music on over-the-air radio broadcasts.
The
Internet Policy Task Force should get credit for reaffirming the importance of
copyright protection and for raising copyright issues that require new
solutions. The Green Paper made good points about the problems inherent in a
copyright licensing and rate-setting scheme that gives preferential treatment
to certain technologies and services. Those points need to be taken up in
future discussions of copyright policy reform. As I've written about previously, the ultimate task for Congress is "Putting Music Copyright Policy on a Free
Market Footing."