Thoughts

(Update, 17 December 2002) The struggle continues in the war of nerves that the RIAA wages on the public. The MOCA was not passed, and it's more than evident that Congressional input to this situation is more based in ignorance than collusion. mp3.com never changed their stance on all of this, and of course this is natural given their ownership by Vivendi-Universal. The Big Five all continue to claim without substantiation that piracy is the cause of all our woes, and that the public-at-large are complicit in some world conspiracy against them. They're producing staged raids on piracy centres and showing the world - but what's really being seen by the public here? They've even quoted numbers to attempt to support their cases, but unfortunately for them, these ring as "true" as the old claims about CD sales being down 20% (you may recall that it was eventually revealed that the actual reduction of 20% in sales was in CD singles only, and not CDs). The war continues. Here's an excellent article from The Register by Andrew Orlowski about the latest lies from the RIAA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html.

Merry Christmas anyway, whether the RIAA allows it or not! Eye patches are optional. Arrr!

(Update, 16 August 2001) As of 16 August the RIAA officially voiced their opposition to this bill, if that's what it is. mp3.com was in support of this bill, which is interesting given a finding by a member of the Looper's Delight newsletter that that mp3.com is stripping the ID Tag data on MP3 files submitted to its system, including the copyright data, year, genre and URL, the last of which being replaced with mp3.com's main page address, instead of the actual page the MP3 file comes from. The Artist Name and Track Title fields are being re-filled in (I assume) from the field fill-ins one does when the MP3 file is uploaded to mp3.com. In combination with the "notice of intention" as stated in the pending bill, this could prove interesting indeed, and would certainly indicate that perhaps mp3.com knew about the bill before it was introduced.

According to the article above, the RIAA is now against this pending legislation, though the statement they've made was dated today, 16 August. Given the speed of statements from RIAA's Hilary Rosen in the past, it's a trifle odd that it wouldn't be until nearly a week after the bill was introduced that an official statement was made. As it is Hilary Rosen's statement was brief, and not too precise, and before his departure from the RIAA it could be found online. I quote it here:

So was this a change-around for RIAA after the already-revealed contact with the Copyright Office, concerning fees paid to composers/artists specifically for online play? Or was it just an unusually-delayed statement? One wonders indeed, but Rosen's statement is no guarantee that the bill will be struck down.

What does this pending legislation mean to you as a composer or content creator?

This legislation is being introduced by Chris Cannon, a Republican from the 3rd district of Utah - http://www.house.gov/cannon/ - and by Rick Boucher, a Democrat from the 9th district of Virginia - http://www.house.gov/boucher/ - The source is in boldface, my translation is not.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Music Online Competition Act of 2001"

Not only does this have very little to say about Competitions it's not even a very short title!

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PERFORMANCES IN ONLINE AND PHYSICAL RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS.
(a) EXEMPTION. ---Section 110(7) of title 17, United States Code, is amended --

(2) by striking "by a vending establishment" and inserting "or of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or in a physical vending establishment"; and

Instead of activity on the part of a simple "vending establishment" online or off that strictly SELLS something, the proposed legislation substitutes the text redefining this to be ANYWHERE on or offline that offers a sound recording by "digital audio transmission", targeting both physical locations and virtual ones. So this means that the proposed legislation affects any place where music or any other digital content is posted.

(B) performance of a sample of a nondramatic musical work or a sample of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or through a digital online service open to the public at large without any direct or indirect admission charge, if --
(i) the purpose of the performance is to promote the retail sale, distribution or license, by or through the service, of copies or phonorecords of the work, including by digital phonorecord delivery as defined in section 115(d)(1);
(ii) the transmitting entity transmits the sample solely to the particular recipient requesting the transmission; and,
(iii) the length of the sample does not exceed 30 seconds or, in the case of a sound recording of more than 5 minutes in duration, 10 percent of that sound recording not to exceed 60 seconds;".

Performance of samples of nondramatic musical work or any other sample of the result of digital audio transmission, which comes through any digital device, and either charges or does not charge for access. This means anyplace, and somehow every kind of digital audio live or recorded, so long as it's not a "dramatic musical work", which I believe is defined someplace in Copyright Law under Mechanical Royalties. This applies in the case of i, ii, and iii have to do with (i) If the performance in anyway promotes for sale, distribution or license your work in the form of broadcast, file-directed copy, or CD/tape; (ii) if the transmission is from provider directly to the listener, or customer of an online service; (iii) the length of the sample is 30 seconds or shorter, or, if the total work is greater than 5:00, 10% of the total length up until 60 seconds.

This would appear not to immediately affect full-length works, but since many online services have low-res samples of pieces to hear before you try to go the entire length, it might easily apply.

(b) DEFINITION OF PERFORMANCE. --
Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "For purposes of paragraph (7), a 'performance' includes a transmission made by a transmitting organization to or on behalf of a vending establishment or a digital online service.".

A 'performance' is now redefined as including any transmission done to or through a vending establishment, or an online service, in short, at your home or office, or WAP.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS AND FOR MULTIPLE EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS.
(a) EXEMPTION. ---Section 112(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking "made it, and" and inserting "made it and, except to facilitate transmission of the performance,"...

In short this intends to allow for the mirroring of sites with the intent to provide gap-free performance of the piece, and other obvious (to server admins) reasons. If mp3.com decides to operate multiple mirror servers for your one song, they only pay for that one song.

(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking "public." and inserting the following: "public, except that a transmission program as set forth in section 114(d)(2)(B) or section 114(d)(2)(C)(iii) is not required to be destroyed by a transmitting organization entitled to a statutory license under section
114(f).".

Could mean that, if you produce music work for broadcast online, the people who throughput it for you, say, mp3.com or Live365, are not required to not keep an archive of the result after its need is finished. So mp3.com etc. could keep a copy of something you played online even after you've removed it from availability.

(b) MULTIPLE EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS EXEMPTION. --
Section 112 of title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(1) by striking subparagraph (C) of subsection (e)(1) and re-designating subparagraph (D) as sub paragraph (C);
(2) by re-designating subsection (f) as subsection (g);
(3) by adding after subsection (e) the following:

(that is, inserting a clause - jeez!)

(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, and except in the case of a motion picture or other audio visual work, it is not an infringement of copyright for a transmitting organization entitled to transmit to the public a performance or display of a work, under a license, including a statutory license under section 114(f), or transfer of the copyright or under the limitations on exclusive rights in sound recordings specified by section 114(a) or for a transmitting organization that is a broadcast radio or television station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission and that makes a broadcast transmission of a performance of a sound recording in a digital format on a non-subscription basis, to make one or more copies or phonorecords of a work included in a sound recording, if --

This apparently only applies to audio works. It is not an infringement of copyright for a provider to transmit or display as available your audio work under an agreement, or transfer the copyright under an exclusive agreement, or for any FCC-licensed facility, to broadcast an audio work or performance in digital format on a non-subscription basis, as well as make one or more copies, recordings, CDs, tapes etc. of your audio work (or a sample from it) if...

(1) each copy or phonorecord is retained and used solely by the transmitting organization that made it; and "(2) each copy or phonorecord is used solely for the transmitting organization's own transmissions within its local service area, or for purposes of archival preservation or security.

1. Each copy / recording is kept and used ONLY by that transmitting organization, say, mp3.com; and 2. Each copy is used only for the company's transmissions or for archiving. This again covers mirrors and backups, but potentially limits artists from having pieces posted on more than one site, since violation could be produced by both mp3.com and iuma.com having a copy - and backups/mirrors - of your audio piece.

SEC. 4. LICENSING FOR TRANSMISSION.
(a) STATUTORY PERFORMANCE LICENSE PAYMENTS. --
Subsection (g) of section 114 of title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(1) by striking paragraph (2), and
(2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:

(another insert)

(2) Receipts from the statutory licensing of public performances of sound recordings by digital audio transmission in accordance with subsection (f) shall be allocated and paid in the following manner:

(A) 45 percent of the receipts shall be paid, on a per sound recording basis, to the recording artist or artists featured on such sound recording or to a designated collection and distribution organization on behalf of such featured recording artist or artists.

45% will be paid to the artist or artists featured on the recording, or to a designated firm on behalf of which fees are collected.

(B) 2. 5 percent of the receipts shall be deposited in an escrow account managed by an independent administrator jointly appointed by copyright owners of sound recordings and the American Federation of Musicians (or any successor entity) to be distributed to non-featured musicians (whether or not such musicians are members of the American Federation of Musicians) who have performed on sound recordings.

2. 5% of those receipts must be kept in an escrow account by an independent administrator "jointly appointed by copyright owners of sound recordings and the American Federation of Musicians" (or whomever bumps them off for the business), in order to give these funds to musicians NOT INVOLVED IN THE WORK, but who have performed on SOME sound recording in the past, whether they're members of the AFM or not, and whether or not they actually did work on your audio piece.

(C) 2. 5 percent of the receipts shall be deposited in an escrow account managed by an independent administrator jointly appointed by copyright owners of sound recordings and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (or any successor entity) to be distributed to non-featured vocalists (whether or not such vocalists are members of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) who have performed on sound recordings.

An ADDITIONAL 2. 5% of receipts will be required to be kept in an escrow account by an independent administrator "jointly appointed by copyright owners of sound recordings and the American Federation of TV and Radio Artists" (or whomever THEY bump off for the business) to be given to vocalists NOT INVOLVED IN THE WORK (whether they're members of the AFTRA or not) but who have performed on SOME recording in the past, whether or not you own the entire copyright to the piece.

(D) 50 percent of the receipts shall be paid to a designated collection and distribution organization on behalf of the copyright owner of the exclusive right under section 106(6) of this title to perform publicly the sound recording by means of digital audio transmission under the statutory license of subsection (f) of this section.

50% of receipts shall be paid to an organization on behalf of the copyright owner of the exclusive right to broadcast your audio piece - this could just be the broadcaster (mp3.com etc. ) and NOT the artist.

Got that? As a Rule of Law...

45%	goes to the composer, and artist(s) on the recording, or your publishing company;
2.5%	goes to the American Federation of Musicians, whether you're a member or not, and regardless of whether you produced the work as a solo act;
2.5%	goes to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, regardless of whether you produced the music with members' help or not, even if it's an instrumental work;
50%	goes to the broadcaster, who isn't required to pay you a fee for letting them use your work

(b) LICENSING AFFILIATES. --
(1) IN GENERAL. --
Subsection (h) of section 114, title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:

(another insert)

(1) If the copyright owner of a sound recording licenses an affiliated entity the right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to distribute the copyrighted work to the public by means of a digital phonorecord delivery or to perform the copyrighted work publicly, the copyright owner shall make the licensed sound recording available on no less favorable terms and conditions to all bona fide entities that offer similar services, except that, if there are material differences in the scope of the requested license with respect to the type of service, the particular sound recordings licensed, the frequency of use, the number of subscribers served, or the duration, then the copyright owner may establish different terms and conditions for such other services, that such different terms and conditions --

(A) shall be limited to, and shall accurately reflect any such material differences in the scope of the requested license; and
(B) permitted under this paragraph, shall be made available to all bona
fide entities that offer similar services.

If you license any firm to make copies of your audio piece, distribute it to the public via CD / tape /etc. or public broadcast, you must also make the recording available on duplicate terms to anyone who offers similar services - unless there are limitations in the scope of the license you've signed the piece on for specifically limiting the use of the piece to that firm, whether it's inclusion in a collection (like mp3.com does occasionally) or a limited broadcast for subscribers only. If there ARE differences in the licensing it must be reflected in the agreement (this is redundant potentially), and again must also be made available to other similar service providers. Does this mean that if you're happy running your stuff on IUMA and mp3.com wants a piece, you have to let them use it?

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a copyright owner that licenses a sound recording pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not mandate as part of the terms and conditions of the license that the licensee use any particular digital rights management technology.

The copyright owner may not dictate what method of digital rights management is used. If you differ with Microsoft's methodology for instance and your service provider uses it, then so do you have to use it, whether you want to or not.

(B) A copyright owner described in subparagraph (A) shall not be prevented from including in the license a requirement that the licensee implement digital rights management technology that meets reasonable and nondiscriminatory performance criteria the copyright owner has established to protect a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

The copyright owner has the right to have a clause in his license agreement that requires that whatever digital rights management technology is used, it must not degrade the quality of the performance in the owner's opinion, but only if they've established a methodology of their own already.

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a copyright owner that licenses a sound recording pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not mandate as part of the terms and conditions of the license that the licensee use any particular digital music player.

If you don't like Real Player you can't keep mp3.com /etc from encoding your work in it; similarly you can't enforce that only Real Player be used to play encoded material. (This might be a weird bit of business for Real/AOL!)

(B) A copyright owner described in subparagraph (A) shall not be prevented from including in the license a requirement that the licensee use a digital music player that meets reasonable and non discriminatory performance criteria the copyright owner has established.

If you want you can include in your license agreement that the licensee uses a player or program that does not cause the quality of your performance to suffer - if you've put a clause in your license to this effect.

(4) ENFORCEMENT. ---
(A) The Attorney General may investigate an alleged violation of this subsection if an investigation begins not later than 2 years after an alleged violation occurred.

Sounds as if a violation may have already happened, and this is being set up to go after it, or prevent it from happening again by the sheer threat of enforcement. A caveat I suppose - the Attorney General has 2 years to begin investigation of an alleged violation (if of course you even know that it occurred, and if the Attorney General decides your complaint is worthy of attention).

(B) If the date of an alleged violation is unknown, the Attorney General may investigate to determine the date of the alleged violation.

If the Government can't find out when the "violation" happened, they can spend all the money and resources they want, and harass everyone in a quest to determine the date of "violation."

(C) If the Attorney General determines that a violation of this subsection has occurred, the Attorney General has the power to seek to enforce the requirements of this subsection through all appropriate means.

"... all appropriate means" has been heard before, and could come short of "with extreme prejudice", or "at all costs". This is dangerous language to use in such a situation, and indicates the level of paranoia that the RIAA has exhibited for over 30 years in keeping technology for home recording out of the hands of American consumers, and in the hands of RIAA members.

(D) Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General under any other provision of law.

There is no limit in this paragraph to the authority of the Attorney General in any way.

(2) DEFINITIONS. ---
Subsection (j) of section 114 of title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
"(1) The term 'affiliated entity' means an entity, other than an entity that wholly owns or is wholly owned by the licensor, engaging in digital audio transmissions covered by section 106(6) or digital phonorecord deliveries in which the licensor has any direct or indirect partnership or any ownership interest amounting to 5 percent or more of the out standing voting or nonvoting stock.";

Join ASCAP or another affiliate, or die financially. If you own your own label, you obviously own more than 5% of the process, and are therefore taking the place of that "entity" with respect to this legislation.

(B) by re-designating paragraphs (6) through (15) as paragraphs (9) through (18), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
"(6) The term 'digital music player' means a technology that renders audible the sounds in a sound recording embodied in a digital audio transmission or a digital phonorecord delivery."

The "digital music player" defined as something that either receives a signal, or plays a disk / recording.

"(7) The term 'digital phonorecord delivery' shall have the meaning given such term in section 115(d)(1)."

Delivery is both the delivery of broadcast in digital form, or the delivery of a recording in digital form. In short, EVERYTHING recorded digitally.

"(8) The term 'digital rights management technology' means a technological measure used to limit the uses of copyrighted work to those authorized by the copyright owner or the law."

Yet to be completely troubleshooted as we know. There may be elements of the case against Microsoft involving their Media Player's "digital rights management" routines involved with this. As said previously the copyright owner doesn't have a say in which DRM technology is used, unless it degrades performance quality. The part "or the law" leaves it open to yank that one away from you if the Government wants to.

SEC. 5. ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPULSORY LICENSE FOR MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING SOUND RECORDINGS.
(a) NOTICE OF INTENTION. ---
Section 115(b) of title 17, United States Code, is amended --
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

(another insert)

"(1)NOTICE. ---
(A) Any person who wishes to obtain a compulsory license under this section shall do so by serving a notice of intention to make and distribute phonorecords of the work."

So we're supposed to now serve a notice of intention if we want to make and distribute CDs of our own? It's not said as to whether or not it's required that the "notice" be agreed to by the copyright owner. Also, it's not said where or how - or what form this "notice of intention" should take. This is a hole through which elephants (or music company behemoths) could walk without a care; it also could set up a legalistic methodology similar to the patent process, that increases the cost of producing CDs, recordings, and other media ten-fold at least. And (surprise!) gets the little guys out of the business. But wait, there's more…

(B) Such notice may be given by direct notice served upon the copyright owner or by constructive notice that does not identify the copyright owner and that is to be served upon the Copyright Office.

This no doubt is one of the changes to Copyright law that RIAA was trying to get through a month ago; any day then one of us could receive a compulsory notice from someone stating that they're distributing and copying our work - and if we didn't register it with the Copyright office, song by song, or have our expensive lawyers do it, they can do anything they want, so long as they tell the Copyright office that they're doing it. The original owner, in some cases, is just screwed, and potentially not even told when it occurs.

(C) Notice shall be served before or within 30 days after making, and before distributing, any phonorecords of the work, except that a notice of intention to make digital phonorecord deliveries shall be made within 30 days after enactment of this Act or before the making of a digital phonorecord delivery of the work, whichever is later.

Deadlines for those who wish to legally steal the use of your work, with the help of the "notice of intention", within 30 days of this becoming law, or before the recording is originally produced, whichever is later.

(D) Any notice of intention may identify more than one work and a constructive notice also may identify a work by one or more copyright owners.

This, I believe, encompasses the Medley rule, so that if your work is a compilation of pieces about the Grand Canyon, the "notice of intention" would only have to be filed once to steal the entire suite.

(E) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.";

If the Registrar of Copyrights doesn't like the notice it doesn't apply. But you the copyright owner need not be necessarily told, as outlined above.

(2) by re-designating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and,
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

(inserts again via reshuffling)

(2) ROYALTY FEES. --
Any person who obtains a compulsory license under this section shall --
"(A) pay royalty fees in accordance with subsection (c); or "(B) if such royalty fees have not been determined, agree to pay such royalty fees as shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).";

See the percentages above. If they've not been determined - this allows for those not registering the material with the Copyright office - the fees will be decided, most probably at additional legal cost to you, the owner/artist.

(b) LIMITED DIGITAL PHONORECORD DELIVERY. --
Section 115(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended --

(1) in paragraph (3) --
(A) in subparagraph (C) by striking "and (ii)" and inserting "(ii) limited digital phonorecord deliveries, and (iii)"

redefines "recordings" to include all digital delivery.

"In setting royalty rates and terms for limited digital phonorecord deliveries under this section, the copyright arbitration royalty panel also shall consider the limitations imposed upon the use of the limited digital phonorecord delivery by a transmission recipient in proportion to digital phonorecord deliveries in general, the extent to which limited digital phonorecord deliveries may promote or may substitute for the sales of phonorecords or otherwise may enhance or may interfere with the copyright owner's other streams of revenue from its nondramatic musical works, and the proportion of the revenue received by the compulsory licensee from every such act of distribution of the phonorecord under this clause equal to the proportion of the revenue received by the compulsory licensee from distribution of a general digital phonorecord delivery that is payable by a compulsory licensee under clause (2) and under chapter 8.";

The copyright arbitration (that word spells "more lawyers") royalty panel - is this a newly defined arm of the Government? - shall decide whether you are right or not in not wanting mp3.com to freely broadcast your work, and may decide whether or not any freebies substituted for sales figures, or for that matter legal expenses involved in getting a recording to the digital market, apply to what the IRS thinks you make, whether this adds or subtracts from your bottom line or not.

(4) by inserting in paragraph (5) after "next preceding." the following: "Payments for digital phonorecord deliveries shall be made to the copyright owner or, if the notice of intention has been served upon the Copyright Office, to either the copyright owner or the Copyright Office."

Potentially vague - back to the bit about whether the "notice of intention" has been served to the Copyright Office, payments will be made either to the copyright owner or the Copyright Office. This doesn't say whether a mechanism will be set up inside the Copyright Office to handle your money while you're waiting - how long? - to get paid for something you created and legally own.

(2) A 'limited digital phonorecord delivery' is a digital phonorecord delivery that uses a technology that restricts the time or manner in which the transmission recipient may render such sound recording audible.

If it's finite, it's "limited". But this only applies to the recording and its delivery, and not fees.

(d) ELECTRONIC FILING AND NOTICE TO COPY RIGHT OWNERS. --
(1) DUTIES OF REGISTER. --
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall --

(A) establish procedures by which the notice of intention may be served electronically upon the Copyright Office, and by which reasonable notice of the filing of a notice of intention may be given to the owner of copyright in the nondramatic musical work;

Four months after this becomes law, the Copyright Office must provide an electronic means of the "notice of intention" being accepted. This could take the form of a simple email message saying mp3.com is broadcasting your work, and remember, if you didn't register it with the Office, you'll never know this notice happened. Accordingly, who gets paid then?

(B) prescribe by regulation the requirements for the form, content, and manner of electronic service of the notice, including notices that identify one or more works of a particular copyright owner and notices that identify one or more works of numerous copyright owners;

This cannot be done in 120 days, folks. I've worked on mainframe apps that handle royalties and publishing / copyrights, and the accounting for all the little bits take quite a bit of time. Perhaps the whole of India will get hired to write this app. Or perhaps a company with friends in Congress has already sold their way into the process, despite not having finished the application as yet. In essence this provides for years and years of work for SOMEBODY, working on this Copyright Tracking Application. And then there's the online part! Save us!

(C) prescribe regulations for the appointment of a designated agent to receive royalty fees and statements of account, to distribute royalty fees to the copyright owner, and to administer royalty fees that have been submitted for unknown copyright owners.

This will make it mandatory for copyright owners to designate an agent or other entity to receive the money, and the accounting, and in turn pay the copyright owner what otherwise the copyright owner would just get PAID. More legalistic superstructure to provide work for lawyers, and keep the little guys out of the music business.

(2) REGULATIONS. --
The Register of Copyrights may prescribe regulations whereby royalty fees are paid to an escrow account at the last established rate in which the terms and rates for the then-current period have not been determined, including for the period prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

Another legalistic superstructure. Escrow accounts aren't necessary if the artist or copyright holder is getting PAID.

SEC. 6. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: INCIDENTAL AND ARCHIVAL COPYING.
(b) DIGITAL COPIES. --

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement to make or to authorize the making of a copy or phonorecord of a sound recording or a work included in a sound recording, in a digital format, provided that such copy or phonorecord is created by and is incidental to the operation of a device in the ordinary course of the use of a work otherwise lawful under this title.

So, it's legal when MCA/Universal, Sony or Warner Brothers provide a file-sharing system for music, but when the Government decides it's not, it's NOT. More anti-Napsterism?

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a phonorecord lawfully acquired by digital phonorecord delivery, or a copy lawfully acquired by digital transmission of a literary work embodied in that phonorecord, to make or authorize the making of another phonorecord or copy of such works, if such new phonorecord or copy is for archival purposes only and that all archival phonorecord or copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the phonorecord or copy should cease to be rightful.

The phrase "lawfully acquired" is used a lot here it seems, and hopefully this means "bought with money", but I suspect it also means "acquired by 'notice of intention'". Inclusions for backups and mirrors are made again, reiterating that if your work from a broadcast done months ago is on a backup tape somewhere, they've got a right to keep it, but that if the work was not "lawfully acquired", the archives must be destroyed. Potentially conflicting on its own.

SEC. 7. EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF CERTAIN STATUTORY PERFORMANCE LICENSE CRITERIA ON PROGRAMMING SERVICES.
(a) EVALUATION BY THE REGISTER OF COPY RIGHTS. --
The Register of Copyrights, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Technology Policy of the Department of Commerce, shall evaluate the effects, under the statutory sound recording performance license set forth in section 114(d)(2) of title 17, United States Code, upon preexisting and emerging non-interactive digital audio transmission services of the criteria set forth in sections 114(d)(2)(B) and 114(d)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of such title, with respect to --

The Register of Copyrights etc. shall evaluate the possible effects of this legislation upon existing Copyright law and the Commerce Code, regarding digital audio transmission services, regarding:

(1) the economic costs of compliance with the criteria;

How much will it cost everyone to comply with this new legislation?

(2) the effect of compliance with the criteria upon the nature of the programming and the marketability of such services;

How much will it affect the companies that operate replication, broadcast and streaming services, and how will it affect the cost of goods-in-question?

(3) whether any non-interactive digital audio transmission service would be unable to comply with the criteria and, therefore, to qualify for the statutory license;

Will anyone making technology or providing transmission service be excluded by not being able to comply, and therefore not qualify for any license to do so?

(4) whether any changes to the criteria, including the elimination thereof, would enable additional non-interactive digital audio transmission services to qualify for the statutory license; and

Is there anything else technologically that would be affected by the need to qualify under the legislation?

(5) the likely impact upon copyright owners of sound recordings of any such changes to the criteria.

What impact upon copyright owners will there be under this legislation? (See above)

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS. --

The Register of Copy rights shall, not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Congress a report on the evaluation conducted under subsection (a), including any legislative recommendations the Register may have.

The Register of Copyrights will report on all this within a year of this law going into effect, as noted in items 1-5 just above, and make recommendations. (Didn't Perot call this "closing the barn door after the cow's gone outside"?)

Sorry about the length, but it's the lawyers who composed this, most probably in order to discourage us all from plowing through it and finding out what it really means. We know the Big 5 would like to make musicians and composers go back to the Good Old Days of the Studio System, when we had to crawl across a carpet to some studio executive just to be able to record our work in a professional manner. Well, the barn door's been open for a while, and despite RIAA efforts the technology is available world-wide (instead of just not in the United States!), and of course there's the Internet, the greatest promotion, publication and distribution medium ever seen (which I don't need to say doesn't require the Big 5 record companies to operate well!). This legislation is daunting to read at best, and guarantees from a Big 5 standpoint that you and I will never completely understand it! Surprising given their immense failure at their monolithic effort to stamp out home recording in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Again, the introducers (not necessarily the authors, get it folks?) are Chris Cannon, a Republican from the 3rd district of Utah, web page at http://www.house.gov/cannon/ - and Rick Boucher, a Democrat from the 9th district of Virginia. http://www.house.gov/boucher/

The entire text of the Music Online Competition Act of 2001 is here at the US Congress' web pages, under Representative Boucher's site.

Go to these pages, and tell them what you think! These people are representatives of the People in our Government, and they're supposed to look out for our interests, not the RIAA's nor just mp3.com and its partners! Next go to your own representative's page via http://www.house.gov and tell them what you think. Do it now. Tell your friends who also compose, record, produce, and perform their own music, and get them to make their voices heard. It's your music we're talking about here!

If you want to give your rights and your music away just say nothing and watch your rights to record at home again become challenged in a matter of years, if not months. The RIAA is WORKING HARD on this. Democracy is a participative process, alas, and reflects none but those who do the participating. I really hate politics, and I hate it more when I feel like I have to be involved in it.

So it goes, huh? Get the word out and give this URL to as many as you think need to see it.