Comments on: Performance rights act introduced http://senlawoffice.com/exclusiverights/2009/02/audio-performance-right-act-reintroduced/ A copyright law blog covering litigation, policy and academia Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:46:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: T. D. Ruth http://senlawoffice.com/exclusiverights/2009/02/audio-performance-right-act-reintroduced/comment-page-1/#comment-29535 T. D. Ruth Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:18:15 +0000 http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=680#comment-29535 As a music attorney representing primarily artists, I am anxious to hear what moral appeals you believe are less than truthful, and what a public performance royalty for masters would not accomplish if required of terrestrial radio (perhaps that's the more appropriate term, rather than "analog"). I've considered myself somewhat of a student of performing rights for the last 6-7 years and, while it may not be a simple subject, I don't see it as being the beast you describe. In fact, once one has an appreciation for the various uses in copyright and rights implicated in the use, it's quite straight-forward, though perhaps you can challenge my notions. (The only unnecessarily complicated matter, in my view, is the U.S.' strict adherence to the concept of mechanical and public performance rights in connection with hybrid uses, such as tethered downloads and interactive streams; why not ditch the century-old concepts and just accept that there is a new middle-ground that calls on both rights but compensates on it's own basis?) In any event, I would not consider public performance a complicated concept in the overall scheme of U.S. copyright. Have you ever had to deal with termination rights? How about a termination in connection with a work created pre-78 but not formally protected under the 1909 Act, and had to figure out which formula to apply in reaching a termination date, and if under the new Act, actually applying that formula. THAT is complicated! :) As a music attorney representing primarily artists, I am anxious to hear what moral appeals you believe are less than truthful, and what a public performance royalty for masters would not accomplish if required of terrestrial radio (perhaps that’s the more appropriate term, rather than “analog”).

I’ve considered myself somewhat of a student of performing rights for the last 6-7 years and, while it may not be a simple subject, I don’t see it as being the beast you describe. In fact, once one has an appreciation for the various uses in copyright and rights implicated in the use, it’s quite straight-forward, though perhaps you can challenge my notions.

(The only unnecessarily complicated matter, in my view, is the U.S.’ strict adherence to the concept of mechanical and public performance rights in connection with hybrid uses, such as tethered downloads and interactive streams; why not ditch the century-old concepts and just accept that there is a new middle-ground that calls on both rights but compensates on it’s own basis?)

In any event, I would not consider public performance a complicated concept in the overall scheme of U.S. copyright. Have you ever had to deal with termination rights? How about a termination in connection with a work created pre-78 but not formally protected under the 1909 Act, and had to figure out which formula to apply in reaching a termination date, and if under the new Act, actually applying that formula. THAT is complicated! :)

]]>