My, what a thicket this Sec. 115 reform is turning out to be. This is legislation designed to provide digital music services with a blanket compulsory license for digital music, essentially. A reason to support this legislation? Well, right now music services are paying money into escrow but none of that money is going to artists; presumably this legislation would change that (although I think a rate-setting action at the Copyright Royalty Board would still have to happen). So paying artists is good. Reasons not to support this bill? Well, my first would be my extreme allergy to a blanket compulsory license, which is a phenomenal violation of property rights. But lots of other people have gripes about this bill.

Launched as a deal between the music publishers (NMPA) and digital music services (DiMA), the bill, known as SIRA, passed the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee June 8th. A revised version was included in a bill with orphan works legislation called the "Copyright Modernization Act of 2006." It hasn't been formally introduced yet; I attended the House Judiciary Committee markup yesterday where it was supposed to move, but sponsor Lamar Smith held it back. He told me afterward that some tweaking needed to be done and a few interested parties had some things to say about it.

My spies tell me that is the understatement of the year.

Who is frustrated? Recording artists and songwriters, for one. NMPA, in Hill testimony, seemed to be positioning it as representing songwriters too, but I never saw Rick Carnes testify. The NAB came out against the bill just before the aborted markup; never good to get that powerful group against you. RIAA has been hesitant about this bill from day one. They were not included in the original negotiations, they've viewed a bill that reforms less than 10% of the market a missed opportunity, and they too appear reluctant to get on board. Satellite companies such as XM and Sirius are also concerned about additional fees they might face. Oh, and let's not forget the consumer electronics folks. CEA doesn't have the track record NAB does in blocking (or moving) legislation, but it has a lot of members. One bone of contention, I'm told, is with the "letters of direction" language, which is opposed by artists and songwriters. I'd try to explain it, but far better to read a summary by Chris Castle.

Loyal readers of this blog know Lamar Smith is one of my favorite members of Congress, for his honesty and his desire to broker compromise. But this time he may not pull it off. He started out with only two parties. They were two key parties -- music services and publishers -- and I'm sure he figured that would be more effective than having everyone at the table from Day One. But now all of these other parties are faced with a bill not to their liking and not what they would have crafted if involved.

I'm told that the unholy pairing of SIRA with orphan works might not be long for this world. Orphan works would be decoupled and would likely move, whereas SIRA would stay behind and continue to be tweaked. That makes sense to me. The Library of Congress in its comments on SIRA recommended it not be paired with other legislation.

I remain eager to hear from readers about what is good in SIRA and what is not. My mind remains open, but my gut says an 85-page bill that creates a blanket compulsory license is not a good thing.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:10 AM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain, Legislation and Legislators

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(1)