Licensing Parity Fair Compensation for Musical Works Sound Recordings (Essay Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Licensing Parity and Fair Compensation for Musical Works and Sound Recordings
Introduction
Under the current U.S. copyright law, musical works and sound recordings are classified into different categories for the purpose of royalty regulation. This distinction serves no logical purpose yet it creates a world of difference in regulation and royalty terms between a song and a sound recording (Samuelson 1508). Under copyright law, songs and sound recordings are given different definitions and are therefore subject to different legal rules, yet for all intents and purposes, they are the same thing. The objective of this essay is to critique the recommendation that musical works and sound recordings must be regulated under a new system that is fair and consistent. I am of the view that the proposal on creating fair compensation for musical works and recordings will provide a pragmatic solution to a problem that has plagued the music industry for several decades.
In my opinion, music is the heart and soul of culture, the beat to which societies move. It is the definitive characteristic of each generation’s popular culture. It has the power to heal, to unite, to bring joy and express the depth of the entire range of human emotion. The legal regulatory mechanisms in place in the U.S. music industry are designed to ensure that the creative energy, musical talent, capital, and labor invested into the production of new music are all rewarded with maximum financial gain for those who make the investments (Pallante 1). Copyright law grants exclusive proprietary rights to the creators of music material. The original creators of this material can assign their rights to others who can then exercise these rights. The legal owners of music material are permitted to control the system and form of production as well as the means of distribution. Ideally, this should ensure that those who do not participate in the creative production process cannot profit unduly from the artistic works of others.
In light of the economic and cultural significance of the field of creative arts, and in particular of music, copyright law is an integral part of ensuring that artists receive fair compensation for their creations. Registration of a copyright over musical works provides artists and music labels with a myriad of key benefits. Immediately a musical work is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, it is published in the Copyright Catalog, which serves as constructive notice to the public that the work is protected under U.S. law. Copyright registration is proof of actual ownership and is an effective way to settle and prevent ownership disputes. Musicians are also protected from future challengers who may dispute the validity of their ownership. Copyright registration also grants owners the legal standing to file suits against those who infringe upon their rights. In addition, where infringement suits succeed, the copyright holder is entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and statutory damages. Without a registered copyright, artists would only be able to recover nominal damages if they proved infringement on their creative works.
Overview of Challenges to the Current Copyright System
Unfortunately, the U.S. copyright system continues to face several challenges that hinder its optimal operation when it comes to protecting musical artists (Samuelson 1507). Constant engagement between copyright attorneys, various players in the music industry and regulators such as the U.S. Copyright Office is necessary to find pragmatic solutions to the present musical licensing problemsthat are beneficial to all parties. The proposal discussed in this essay was framed within the context of the guiding principles set out in the 2014 report by the U.S Copyright Office. Stakeholders unanimously agreed on the objectives of overhauling the current copyright system (Pallante 134). The copyright system needs to provide fair compensation to music creators for the contributions they make to musical works. The process of issuing music licenses need to be streamlined to improve efficiency. Accurate, reliable data must be provided to industry stakeholders in a transparent manner to assist in the process of licensing and identifying prices of music. Finally, the information gathered concerning the use of music and payment for that use should be availed to those who hold those rights.
The best method to achieve these objectives remains a contentious issue for the music industry (Pallante 135). The U.S. Copyright Office has provided suggestions on possible solutions to these challenges based on its role in the industry as a government agency responsible for regulation of copyright. In terms of licensing, the existing processes should be modified so that similar uses of music are handled in a similar fashion. The role of the government is to provide an enabling environment that fosters transactions of a voluntary nature while remaining supportive of solutions that would cater to the needs of the majority. The issues of rate setting and antitrust law need to be viewed as mutually exclusive rather than being addressed as a solitary issue. Lastly, there should be standardization of the process of setting rates that is based on trends and characteristics of the market. These additional guiding principles, specifically guide the U.S. Copyright Office, in its quest to find applicable solutions to the copyright woes of the music industry.
The existing music licensing system has evolved organically through the decades, based on the prevailing circumstances in the music industry (Samuelson 1507). In the absence of a sound copyright policy to guide the development of a cohesive structure, the current licensing system creates different categories of rights holders, with different adverse rights. Artists and record labels compete on this uneven playing field for different classes of ownership rights. The current system creates winner and losers and is considered to antiquated, punitive, grossly inefficient and an insurmountable barrier to those who seek to create a vibrant marketplace for music production. It is therefore logical that the first place to start is with the removal of legal distinctions that treat uses of musical works, and the platforms on which these works are disseminated as different when they are essentially the same.
Musical Works, Sound Recordings, and the Need to Remove Outdated Legal Distinctions
The term musical work denotes the harmonies, melodies, lyrics, vocal and instrumental arrangements that are brought together in a unique sequence to create a recognizable song that is distinct from all others. A sound recording denotes the product of the technological process that converts a musical work into a permanent format that can be replayed and distributed widely. In line with these definitions, the original author of the musical work is the musician who prepares and arranges the elements that create the song. The original author of the sound recording is the musician or company that produces the first recorded version of the song. Consequently, under copyright law, there are two proprietary rights that attach to every song (Pallante 135). This has implications for the manner in which these two works can be handles. For instance, a person who pirates a music CD infringes on both the copyright for the musical work and the copyright for the sound recording. A person who makes an unauthorized cover of a song only infringes on the copyright for the musical work. Similarly, where an artist samples the work of another without authorization this is infringement on the copyright for the sound recording
The distinction between musical works and sound recordings has become problematic because of recent technological developments. These developments have made it harder for musicians to control the distribution of their music. Music can now be made available through myriad of online platforms such as YouTube or downloading sites like Spotify that upload free content. For instance, I am of the opinion that artists have been pushed to fight for fairer compensation terms because of the current inequitable system. Taylor Swift has been embroiled in royalty dispute with Spotify over low royalty rates paid to her for her 2012 album Red. The artist had initially declined to make it available on Spotify, but eventually relented and allowed the site to disseminate her music (Cubbison 38). However, last year, Swift declined to have her new album 1989 made available on the site. Swift said the move was undertaken in a bid to protest what she viewed as the undercutting of musicians. According to Swift, piracy, streaming, and file sharing have eaten into actual album sales, resulting in drastic drops in album sales. Swift views this as unacceptable devaluation of priceless art. The consumers may never need to purchase the music albums that they would like to listen to, as the music is available for free online. Licensing therefore becomes significant because it affects the revenue music producers can generate from online distribution of their music, depending on whether they hold rights to a song or to a sound recording. The purpose of eliminating these retrogressive distinctions is to create a level system, where both songs and song recordings are accorded equal consideration, by a central authority figure that utilizes a standardized measure to determine fixed rates.
I think the most obvious benefit of removing this distinction is that it will pave the way for the simplification and standardization of rates charged for songs and sound recordings that are used in a non-interactive way (Pallante 136). In this new set up, it will be possible for music publishers and record labels to dialogue in the spirit of cooperation and amicable negotiati...