Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License, 43364-43368 [05-14872]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43364
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and Special Use Authorization approvals on
NFS lands that involve analysis,
documentation, and other requirements of
the NEPA are subject to agency appeal
procedures, currently under 36 CFR part 215.
If an appeal is filed, the FS must respond
within 45 days and operations must not
occur for 15 days following the date of appeal
disposition.
FS regulations at 36 CFR part 251 govern
appeals of written decisions of the FS related
to issuance, denial, or administration of
written instruments to occupy and use NFS
lands. A list of the types of written
instruments is provided at 36 CFR 251.82,
and includes an SUA and Surface Use Plan
of Operations related to the authorized use
and occupancy of a particular site or area.
The operator may appeal decisions of the
BIA under 25 CFR part 2.
Attachment I—Sample Format for Notice of
Staking
Attachment I—Sample Format for Notice of
Staking
(Not to be used in place of Application for
Permit to Drill Form 3160–3)
1. Oil Well, Gas Well, Other (Specify).
2. Name, Address, and Telephone of
Operator.
3. Name and Telephone of Specific Contact
Person.
4. Surface Location of Well.
Attach:
(a) Sketch showing road entry onto pad,
pad dimensions, and reserve pit.
(b) Topographical or other acceptable map
showing location, access road, and lease
boundaries.
4a. A map (e.g., a USGS 71⁄2″ Quadrangle)
of the area including the proposed well
location and access road.
5. Lease Number.
6. If Indian, Allottee or Tribe Name.
7. Unit Agreement Name.
8. Well Name and Number.
9. American Petroleum Institute Well
Number (if available).
10. Field Name or Wildcat.
11. Section, Township, Range, Meridian; or
Block and Survey; or Area.
12. County, Parish, or Borough.
13. State.
14. Name and Depth of Formation
Objective(s).
15. Estimated Well Depth.
16. For directional or horizontal wells,
anticipated bottom hole location, if known.
17. Additional Information (as appropriate;
include surface owner’s name, address and,
if known, telephone).
18. Signed llll Title llll Date
Note: When the Bureau of Land
Management or Forest Service, as
appropriate, receives this Notice, the agency
will schedule the date of the onsite
inspection. You must stake the location and
flag the access road before the onsite
inspection. Operators should consider the
following before the onsite inspection and
incorporate these considerations into the
Notice of Staking Option, as appropriate:
(a) H2S Potential.
(b) Cultural Resources (Archeology).
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:42 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
(c) Federal Right-of-Way or Special Use
Permit.
[FR Doc. 05–14103 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–84–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 270
[Docket No. RM 2005–2]
Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of
Sound Recordings Under Statutory
License
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Supplemental request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Interim Chief Copyright
Royalty Judge, on behalf of the
Copyright Royalty Board of the Library
of Congress, is issuing a supplemental
request for comments regarding rules for
the delivery and format of records of use
of sound recordings for statutory
licenses under sections 112 and 114 of
the Copyright Act.
DATES: Written comments should be
received no later than August 26, 2005.
Reply comments should be received no
later than September 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a
private party, an original and five copies
of comments and reply comments must
be brought to Room LM–401 of the
James Madison Memorial Building,
Monday through Friday, between 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m., and the envelope must
be addressed as follows: Copyright
Royalty Board, Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building, LM–
401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20559–6000. If
delivered by a commercial courier
(excluding overnight delivery services
such as Federal Express, United Parcel
Service and other similar overnight
delivery services), an original and five
copies of comments and reply
comments must be delivered to the
Congressional Courier Acceptance Site
located at 2nd and D Street, NE.,
Monday through Friday, between 8:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., and the envelope must
be addressed as follows: Copyright
Royalty Board, Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building, LM–
403, 101 Independence Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20559–6000. If sent by
mail (including overnight delivery using
United States Postal Service Express
Mail), an original and five copies of
comments and reply comments must be
addressed to: Copyright Royalty Board,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station,
Washington, DC 20024–0977.
Comments and reply comments may not
be delivered by means of overnight
delivery services such as Federal
Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due
to delays in processing receipt of such
deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Roberts, Jr., Senior Attorney,
or Abioye E. Oyewole, CRB Program
Specialist. Telephone (202) 707–8380.
Telefax: (202) 252–3423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
The Copyright Act, as amended by the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Pub.
L. 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998)),
provides a statutory license for digital
audio transmissions by certain eligible
subscription, nonsubscription, satellite
digital audio radio, business
establishment and new subscription
services (17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A)) and a
related ‘‘ephemeral’’ statutory license
for the temporary recordings used in
those transmissions (17 U.S.C.
112(e)(4)). The statute directs the
Librarian of Congress to ‘‘establish
requirements by which copyright
owners may receive reasonable notice of
the use of their sound recordings under
this section, and under which records of
use shall be kept and made available by
entities performing sound recordings[]’’
by digitial audio transmission. 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(4)(A); see, also 17 U.S.C.
112(e)(4). Avoidance of infringement
liability is contingent upon ‘‘complying
with such notice requirements * * *.’’
17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(B)(i).
Through extensive prior proceedings,
the Librarian has partially ‘‘establish[ed]
requirements by which copyright
owners may receive reasonable notice of
the use of their sound recordings,’’
adopting interim regulations on the
types of information that must be kept
by digital audio services under 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4). See, 69
FR 11515 (March 11, 2004). A notice of
proposed rulemaking on the issues of
delivery and formatting was published
on April 27, 2005, by the Copyright
Office. 70 FR 21704. Responsibility for
the notice and recordkeeping
regulations was transferred by Congress
to the Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’)
by amended sections 114(f)(4)(A) and
112(e)(4) in the Copyright Royalty and
Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L.
108–419, 118 Stat. 2341 (November 30,
2004), which became effective on May
31, 2005. As anticipated in the April 27,
2005, notice of proposed rulemaking,
the rulemaking record, including the
comments received on the proposed
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
delivery and formatting rules, has been
transferred to the Copyright Royalty
Board (‘‘the Board’’), which was created
by the Librarian to house the functions
of the CRJs.
By this notice, the Copyright Royalty
Board is seeking further comments on
the rules proposed by the Copyright
Office in the April 27, 2005, notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’). These
additional comments are sought in an
effort to improve the quality of the
Board’s consideration of these important
matters.
Reports from expert consultants are
encouraged.
In issuing this supplemental notice,
the Board stresses that it has not made
a decision on the merits of any of the
formatting and delivery issues presented
in this rulemaking proceeding and will
consider any further comments on any
matter interested persons might wish to
offer. The Board is, however, urging
commenters to zero in on the following
specific technical issues.
II. The Need for Supplemental
Rulemaking Comments
A. Spreadsheets
This rulemaking task has proved
nettlesome and frustrating. The written
comments received from copyright
owners 1 and licensees, 2 pursuant to the
April 27, 2005, notice of proposed
rulemaking, underscores the continued
sharp divisions among the parties on the
highly technical formatting and delivery
issues. Resolution of these issues does
not draw upon a reservoir of traditional
agency expertise. The written comments
seem frequently characterized by
conclusory assertions and the issuance
of a final rule on this record would be
extremely difficult.
The Board’s goal here is to obtain a
fair and practical allocation of the
burdens of data delivery for those who
are unable to negotiate their own data
delivery solutions with SoundExchange.
The resulting system should not impose
an unnecessary burden on copyright
owners; at this time, the system cannot
allow copyright owners to throw up
burdens that would defeat or
unnecessarily discourage use of the
statutory licenses. The Board is
earnestly asking for more specific,
additional information that will reduce
the speculative nature of its rulemaking
decision to the degree possible. The
information should be detailed enough
to provide support for, and rebuttal to,
assertions regarding the burdens
imposed by the proposed rules or by the
logical alternatives to those rules.
Citations to supporting references
should be provided wherever possible.
1 SoundExchange,Inc. (‘‘SoundExchange’’), which
has been designated as the Receiving Agent for
royalties paid pursuant to the section 112 and 114
statutory licenses, has filed extensive comments in
these rulemaking proceedings. The Board has also
received comments of a limited nature from Royalty
Logic, Inc. (‘‘RLI’’).
2 Comments reflecting the views of the digital
audio service providers have been received from
Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (‘‘CBI’’); Harvard Radio
Broadcasting Company, Inc. (‘‘WHRB’’); the
Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. (‘‘IBS’’);
and the National Religious Broadcasters Music
License Committee and Salem Communications
Corp. (‘‘NRBMLC/Salem’’).
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:42 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
III. Specific Factual Questions
SoundExchange has agreed to allow
webcasters to use two commercially
available spreadsheets in creating and
formatting records of use for each sound
recording used under sections 112 and
114 of the Copyright Act.
SoundExchange has already posted on
its Web site a template for Microsoft
Excel and asserts that a version for
Correl’s Quattro Pro will soon be posted.
It submits that ‘‘due to the significant
limitations of spreadsheets,
SoundExchange shall not be required to
provide technical support for the use of
spreadsheets for recordkeeping
purposes.’’ SoundExchange comments
at Exhibit B at 3 (May 27, 2005). All
spreadsheet data must be converted into
an American Standard Code for
Information Interchange (‘‘ASCII’’)
format prior to delivery to
SoundExchange.
CBI and WHRB offer the following
objections. CBI objects that
SoundExchange will not provide
technical assistance to services seeking
to complete spreadsheets and that such
a provision ‘‘absolves SoundExchange
of any responsibility to provide a
template and instructions that are free
from errors, no matter how egregious.’’
CBI comments at 8 (May 27, 2005). CBI
and WHRB assert that converting
spreadsheet data to ASCII is expensive,
impractical, and ‘‘eliminates the only
reasonable, financially accessible, and
widely available tool.’’ Id.; WHRB
comments at 6 (May 27, 2005) (‘‘The
process of using a spreadsheet program
to export an ASCII file is difficult and
will be prone to errors, particularly in
the hands of unpaid volunteers with
relatively high rates of turnover.’’)
Questions:
1. How expensive and timeconsuming would it be for a typical
noncommercial webcaster on the
Internet to compile spreadsheets using
Microsoft Excel? Using Corel Quattro
Pro?
2. What are the practical difficulties
in converting a Microsoft Excel or Corel
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43365
Quattro Pro spreadsheet into ASCII?
How costly is it?
3. What are the kinds of technical
support that are typically needed in
preparing Microsoft Excel and Corel
Quattro Pro spreadsheets and converting
them to ASCII? How would that
technical support be available to a
webcaster and what costs would be
involved?
B. Commercially Available Software
Although the Copyright Office NPRM
only addressed commercially available
spreadsheets as a means of creating
records of use, the Board is interested in
knowing what, if any, software is
commercially available that could be
used to compile records of use.
Questions:
What, if any, commercially available
software is available that could be used
to compile records of use? Would such
software produce records of use that are
format compatible with
SoundExchange’s data processing
system? What are the costs associated
with such software?
C. Report Delivery
SoundExchange supports four
methods of delivery for electronic data
files: File Transfer Protocol (‘‘FTP’’);
electronic mail attachment; CD-ROM
delivery and; floppy diskette delivery.
Each of these delivery methods has
specific requirements (examples: e-mail
attachments may not exceed ten
megabytes; FTP delivery requires
securing username and password;
floppy diskettes must measure 3.5
inches in diameter). Webcasters do not
object to the proposed delivery
methods.
However, WHRB recommends that
records of use should be accepted by
SoundExchange via its Web site. Once
logged in, services would have the
ability to upload new reports to the
SoundExchange site, ‘‘with
SoundExchange automatically handling
the naming and tagging of the reports.’’
The Web site could also allow the
webcasters to view their history of
submitted reports. WHRB comments at
6–7 (May 27, 2005). SoundExchange has
opposed allowing delivery of records of
use to a Web site, citing unspecified cost
and security concerns. See 70 FR 21704,
21707 (April 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What are the average estimated
costs of creating and maintaining a Web
site for receipt of records of use? What
are the security concerns and how may
they be addressed? Is there a
commercially available Web site
software that could perform this task? Is
Web site software available that could
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
43366
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
be adopted from other SoundExchange
uses?
2. To what extent can a
SoundExchange-hosted Web site reduce
costs associated with records of use?
Can it assist in organizing and
cataloging delivered data and, if so, in
what fashion and to what extent?
3. Could a SoundExchange-hosted
Web site be required to provide services
with access to prior submitted records
of use? For how long?
D. File Naming
Every record of use must be named
and must contain the dates of the
reporting period. SoundExchange insists
that the ‘‘[s]tart and end dates should be
in the format of day, month, and year
(DDMMYYYY) where DD is the twodigit day of the log period (beginning or
end); MM is the two-digit month of the
log period; and YYYY is the four-digit
year of the log period (beginning or
end).’’ SoundExchange comments,
Exhibit B at 4 (May 27, 2005). NRBMLC/
Salem urge that the reporting dates for
data files should be in the format of
YYYYMMDD, which they state is ‘‘the
official format adopted by the ASCII
standard.’’ NRBMLC/Salem comments
at 1 (May 27, 2005); See, also NRBMLC/
Salem comments at 5 (September 30,
2002) and NRBMLC/Salem reply
comments at 8 (October 10, 2002).
In addition, NRBMLC/Salem submit
that ‘‘we are concerned about radio
stations that may not have the
technological capability of assigning file
names the length that SoundExchange’s
proposal envisions.’’ Id.
Questions:
1. What is the ASCII standard for
reporting days, months and years? Is
one way more cumbersome or expensive
than the other?
2. What is required to be
technologically capable of assigning file
names of the length proposed in the
NPRM?
E. File Extension
SoundExchange requests that the
service name, start and end date of the
reporting period and the transmission
category be followed by the file
extension ‘‘.txt.’’. An example of a file
identifier is as follows: ex.
AcmeMusicCo15012005–
21012005_H.txt. NRBMLC/Salem
objects to the sole use of ‘‘.txt’’ as a file
extension and asserts that ‘‘[t]here is no
need for the Office to regulate at this
level of detail, and alternate file type
extensions should be allowed so long as
the data contained in the file is in the
appropriate format.’’ NRBMLC/Salem
reply comments at 9 (October 10, 2002).
Questions:
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:42 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
1. What difficulties would it create for
SoundExchange if reports without .txt
file extensions and/or with different file
extensions were submitted?
2. What difficulties would it create for
digital audio services if they were
required to use .txt file extensions on
their reports?
F. Delivery Address
RLI requests that it receive all records
of use. RLI comments at 1 (May 27,
2005).
Questions:
1. What standing does RLI have to
request copies of the reports of use?
2. How expensive and burdensome
would it be, on average, for services to
provide RLI with records of use in
addition to SoundExchange?
3. Must all the format requirements be
the same?
G. Files With Headers
SoundExchange requests that the
following header appear, in order, on
each data file of a record of use:
Row No.
1 ...........
2 ...........
3 ...........
4 ...........
5 ...........
6 ...........
7 ...........
8 ...........
9 ...........
10 .........
11 .........
12 .........
13 .........
14.
Field definition
Name of Serivice.
Name of Contact Person.
Street Address.
City, State, Zip, Country.
Phone.
E-mail.
Start of the Reporting Period.
End of the Reporting Period.
Report Generation Date.
Number of Rows.
Text Indicators.
Field Delimiters.
Blank Line.
SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at
8 (May 27, 2005).
NRBMLC/Salem object to
SoundExchange’s requested format for a
file with headers on multiple grounds.
First, they assert that the contact
information on the first six lines should
not be required since preexisting
subscription services are not required to
report such information in a file with
headers. See 37 CFR 270.2. Second they
assert that there is no reason to require
lines 7 and 8 because the information
contained therein already appears in the
file name. Third, they assert that line 9
is completely unnecessary because the
report generation date has nothing to do
with the distribution of royalties. And
fourth, NRBMLC/Salem submit that row
10 is unnecessary because the
information has nothing to do with a
station’s music use.
NRBMLC/Salem comments Exhibit 2
at 7–8.
NRBMLC/Salem assert that files with
headers should resemble the format
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
followed by the webcasters that generate
playlists. They propose the following
requirements for files with headers:
i. A file identifying the data fields
conforming to the following
specifications with accompanying
header information:
1. The file may identify the sound
recordings performed on a particular
day or during a particular multiple-day
reporting period.
2. The file must contain at least the
fields required to be reported * * * but
may contain additional fields. If the file
contains data concerning sound
recording transmissions spanning more
than one day, the date of transmission
of each sound recording shall also be
specified in each data record.
3. The Service shall provide header
information that identifies the required
fields of information and the order in
which they appear in the file. The
header information shall include field
identifiers from the following list:
a. DATE, to identify the date on
which a sound recording was
performed;
b. TITLE, to identify the title of the
sound recording;
c. ARTIST, to identify the featured
performing artist;
d. ALBUM, to identify the album from
which the sound recording was played,
if, in fact, the sound recording was
played from an album and if that
information is in the source file that was
used to create the playlist;
e. LABEL, to identify the record label
that distributes the sound recording, if
that information is in the source file that
was used to create the playlist;
f. LISTENER, to identify the estimated
number of listeners who heard the
particular sound recording performed;
and
g. IRREL, to identify irrelevant fields
not required to be reported.
4. At the Service’s option, header
information may be embedded in the
file as the first line of data, or it may be
provided to the Collective 3 separately.
The Service shall notify the Collective
of the means of transmitting such
header information.
5. At the Service’s option, information
concerning the estimated number of
listeners to particular sound recordings
may be submitted in a separate file with
accompanying header information
including, without limitation, the DATE
and LISTENER field identifiers set forth
above * * *
6. Notwithstanding the above
requirements, output files generated by
3 The ‘‘Collective’’ in this instance is
SoundExchange, and possibly Royalty Logic if its
proposal for inclusion is adopted.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
a Broadcaster’s music scheduling or
digital automation software shall be
deemed to be in an acceptable format
provided that they are accompanied by
header information described above to
identify the data fields contained
therein.
NRBMLC/Salem reply comments Tab A
at 2–4 (September 30, 2002) (footnote
added).
Questions:
1. How are files with headers
typically organized? Are there any
generally recognized standards for
music reporting? What are the software
requirements and costs associated with
creating data files with headers?
2. Given that preexisting subscription
services are not required by Copyright
Office regulations to report the data
contained in the first six lines of
SoundExchange’s proposal, what are the
costs/benefits to requiring this
information in each data file?
3. Given that lines 7 and 8 of the
header information contained in
SoundExchange’s proposal are already
reported in the file name, what are the
costs/benefits of requiring them to be
repeated in each data file?
4. To what extent must the header
information in SoundExchange’s
proposal be provided in the requested
order? Is any variance possible? What
are the costs/benefits associated with
variances?
5. What are the problems, if any,
associated with the NRBMLC/Salem
proposal for files with headers? Do they
present compatibility issues with the
SoundExchange data processing system
and, if so, what are those issues?
6. Can there be flexibility in the
regulations for the creation of files with
headers or must the regulations be rigid?
H. Field Delimiters and Text Indicators
SoundExchange proposes the field
delimiter for a data string be a pipe (‘‘ | ’’)
and that the text indicator be a carat
(‘‘∧’’) and that in no instance may a field
delimiter or text indicator appear in a
data string. SoundExchange comments
Exhibit B at 8 (May 27, 2005). Harvard
and NRBMLC/Salem propose the use of
commas for field delimiters and quotes
as text delimiters, arguing that these are
the industry standards. NRBMLC/Salem
comments at 1–2 (May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What are the industry standards for
use of field delimiters and text
delimiters? Should particular ones be
specified in the regulations? To what
extent is flexibility acceptable in their
selection?
2. What problems will be created by
allowing the use of commas and quotes
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:42 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
as field delimiters and text indicators,
respectively? How can such problems, if
any, be avoided?
I. Data Fields
SoundExchange requests that all data
appearing in data fields be in upper case
characters (ex. THE ROLLING STONES).
SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at
11 (May 27, 2005). CBI submits that
while the:
[U]se [of] all capital letters in the data
fields might be convenient for
SoundExchange, [it] is a substantial
problem for stations in numerous ways.
Stations that have existing databases
would have to go back and change every
record in their database, not an
insignificant prospect. This would be a
time consuming task that would also
likely induce additional errors in the
database. Stations that manually enter
the data by hand at the time of use will
likely encounter many unintentional
cases of the data being entered
improperly. Further, those that utilize
this data for other uses will likely not
want the data to be in all capital letters,
which would require such stations to
maintain two separate databases.
CBI comments at 10 (May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What are the costs/benefits of
requiring all data fields to be in upper
case characters? Will the
SoundExchange data processing system
accept lower case characters in a data
field and combinations thereof?
2. What is the industry standard for
data fields?
J. Abbreviations
SoundExchange requests that there
not be any abbreviations permitted in
the data fields. SoundExchange
comments Exhibit B at 11 (May 27,
2005). CBI, NRBMLC/Salem and WHRB
object. CBI submits that disallowing
abbreviations will increase the
likelihood of data entry errors due to the
voluntary nature of staff and/or the
requirement would ‘‘cause a major
expense and/or disruption’’ to their
existing practices. CBI comments at 11
(May 27, 2005). NRBMLC/Salem states
that ‘‘[t]he very concept that there is a
‘‘standard’’ manner of inputting title
and artist information in light of the
many ways in which stations receive
music and the varying practices
amongst broadcasters defies common
sense.’’ NRBMLC/Salem reply
comments at 7 (October 10, 2002).
WHRB argues that SoundExchange
should be required to ‘‘compile and
make publicly available a
comprehensive, universal database to
identify sound recordings.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43367
WHRB comments at 8 (May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What problems, if any, does
allowing abbreviations within data
fields present to SoundExchange’s data
processing system? How can these be
addressed?
2. Can a set of rules be developed that
permit abbreviations within data fields
and, if so, what should these rules be?
3. What are the burdens and costs
associated with the creation and
maintenance of a data-base of sound
recording titles, album titles, artists’
names, etc. by SoundExchange? What
should be the functionality of such a
database? How could such a database be
utilized to reduce the overall costs of
reporting records of use?
K. Files Without Headers
SoundExchange requests the
following format requirements for data
files without headers:
(1) ASCII delimited format, using pipe
( | ) characters as delimiters, with no
headers or footers;
(2) Carets (∧) should be used as the
text indicator, surrounding
alphanumeric data elements such as
name of Service, transmission category,
channel name, artist, song title, album;
(3) No carets (∧) should surround
dates and numbers;
(4) A carriage return must be at the
end of each line; [and]
(5) All data for one record should be
on a single line.
SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at
11 (May 27, 2005)(sixth format
requirement omitted).
NRBMLC/Salem proposes different
requirements for files without headers:
A file containing data records only,
with no header information, and
conforming to the following
specifications.
1. The file may identify the sound
recordings performed on a particular
day or during a particular multiple-day
reporting period.
2. The file must contain only the
fields required to be reported * * *, in
a particular order reasonably agreed
upon by the Service and the Collective.
3. At the Service’s option, information
concerning the estimated number of
listeners to particular sound recordings
may be submitted in a separate file
containing date and listener information
in an order reasonably agreed upon by
the Service and the Collective.
NRBMLC/Salem reply comments Tab A
at 4 (September 30, 2002).
Questions:
1. Are there industry standards for
compiling data files without headers
and, if so, what are they? What are the
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
43368
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
costs/benefits of compiling data files
without headers versus those with
headers?
2. How flexible can the format
requirements be for files without
headers? What are the options?
3. Can categories of data be submitted
in separate files or must it all be
submitted in a single file? What is the
capability of SoundExchange’s data
processing system to handle more than
one file of data per Service?
4. To what extent could it be
permissible to allow automated services
to report playlist data in native form to
SoundExchange?
IV. Legal and Policy Questions
In addition to the specific technical
questions presented above, interested
persons are also encouraged to supply
their views on the following questions
of a more general nature.
Questions:
1. Did Congress, in 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4), require the
Copyright Royalty Judges to prescribe
particular formatting and delivery
requirements at the level of detail
described in the April 27, 2005, notice
of proposed rulemaking? Is there some
relevant set of Internet conventions or
practices that could guide the Board in
setting data submission standards here?
2. Could a system of webcast
sampling, analogous to the sampling
performed by performing rights societies
in the context of broadcasting, meet the
record-of-use requirements of 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4)?
3. Under the provisions of any final
rule adopted to implement the notice
and record of use requirements of 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4), either
copyright owners (in the form of their
agent, SoundExchange) or licensees will
be burdened with having to change their
existing data systems. From a legal and
a policy perspective, on whom is it most
appropriate to place these burdens? Is
the court’s discussion in Amusement
and Music Operators Association v.
Copyright Royalty Tribunal, 676 F.2d
1144, 1154–55 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 459 U.S. 907 (1982)
(‘‘depriv[ing] copyright owners of
increased remuneration for the
exploitation of their works by showing
that some * * * operations will become
unprofitable is * * * unsound and
unjust’’) pertinent to this inquiry?
V. Encouragement of Settlement
As the Copyright Office has
repeatedly stated, it would be far
preferable for the parties to reach their
own agreement on these formatting and
delivery issues. Government regulation,
especially at this level of detail, is an
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:42 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
undesirable substitute for industry
agreement. The parties who will be
affected by the format and delivery
regulations should confer and advise the
Board if some or all of them can jointly
propose solutions with respect to any of
the issues raised in these proceedings.
Dated: July 21, 2005.
Bruce G. Forrest,
Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 05–14872 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0160; FRL–7723–5]
Cyhexatin; Proposed Tolerance
Actions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
revoke, under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section
408(e)(1), all existing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide/acaricide
cyhexatin because they do not meet
requirements of FFDCA section
408(b)(2). EPA canceled food use
registrations for cyhexatin in 1989.
Currently, EPA determined that acute
dietary risks from use of cyhexatin on
commodities for which import
tolerances exist exceed the Agency’s
level of concern. However, EPA also
determined that if the only cyhexatin
tolerance is for orange juice, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm to any
population subgroup will result from
exposure to cyhexatin treated oranges.
Because manufacturers support a
cyhexatin tolerance on orange juice for
purposes of importation and the Agency
has made a determination of safety for
such a tolerance, EPA is also proposing
that, concurrent with the revocation of
the citrus fruit group tolerance, an
individual time-limited tolerance be
established for orange juice. The
regulatory actions proposed in this
document contribute toward the
Agency’s tolerance reassessment
requirements under FFDCA section
408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law,
EPA is required by August 2006 to
reassess the tolerances that were in
existence on August 2, 1996. The
regulatory actions proposed in this
document pertain to the proposed
revocation of 41 tolerances which
would be counted as tolerance
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reassessments toward the August 2006
review deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number OPP–2005–0160, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Agency Website: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Comments may be sent by
e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–
2005–0160.
• Mail: Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001, Attention:
Docket ID Number OPP–2005–0160.
• Hand Delivery: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
Number OPP–2005–0160. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number OPP–2005–0160.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’
systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43364-43368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 270
[Docket No. RM 2005-2]
Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under
Statutory License
AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Supplemental request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, on behalf of the
Copyright Royalty Board of the Library of Congress, is issuing a
supplemental request for comments regarding rules for the delivery and
format of records of use of sound recordings for statutory licenses
under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act.
DATES: Written comments should be received no later than August 26,
2005. Reply comments should be received no later than September 16,
2005.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of comments and reply comments must be brought to Room LM-401 of
the James Madison Memorial Building, Monday through Friday, between
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., and the envelope must be addressed as follows:
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-
6000. If delivered by a commercial courier (excluding overnight
delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service and
other similar overnight delivery services), an original and five copies
of comments and reply comments must be delivered to the Congressional
Courier Acceptance Site located at 2nd and D Street, NE., Monday
through Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., and the envelope must be
addressed as follows: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20559-6000. If sent by mail (including overnight
delivery using United States Postal Service Express Mail), an original
and five copies of comments and reply comments must be addressed to:
Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington,
DC 20024-0977. Comments and reply comments may not be delivered by
means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United
Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such
deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Roberts, Jr., Senior
Attorney, or Abioye E. Oyewole, CRB Program Specialist. Telephone (202)
707-8380. Telefax: (202) 252-3423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
The Copyright Act, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (Pub. L. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998)), provides a statutory
license for digital audio transmissions by certain eligible
subscription, nonsubscription, satellite digital audio radio, business
establishment and new subscription services (17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A))
and a related ``ephemeral'' statutory license for the temporary
recordings used in those transmissions (17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4)). The
statute directs the Librarian of Congress to ``establish requirements
by which copyright owners may receive reasonable notice of the use of
their sound recordings under this section, and under which records of
use shall be kept and made available by entities performing sound
recordings[]'' by digitial audio transmission. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A);
see, also 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4). Avoidance of infringement liability is
contingent upon ``complying with such notice requirements * * *.'' 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(B)(i).
Through extensive prior proceedings, the Librarian has partially
``establish[ed] requirements by which copyright owners may receive
reasonable notice of the use of their sound recordings,'' adopting
interim regulations on the types of information that must be kept by
digital audio services under 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4). See,
69 FR 11515 (March 11, 2004). A notice of proposed rulemaking on the
issues of delivery and formatting was published on April 27, 2005, by
the Copyright Office. 70 FR 21704. Responsibility for the notice and
recordkeeping regulations was transferred by Congress to the Copyright
Royalty Judges (``CRJs'') by amended sections 114(f)(4)(A) and
112(e)(4) in the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004,
Pub. L. 108-419, 118 Stat. 2341 (November 30, 2004), which became
effective on May 31, 2005. As anticipated in the April 27, 2005, notice
of proposed rulemaking, the rulemaking record, including the comments
received on the proposed
[[Page 43365]]
delivery and formatting rules, has been transferred to the Copyright
Royalty Board (``the Board''), which was created by the Librarian to
house the functions of the CRJs.
By this notice, the Copyright Royalty Board is seeking further
comments on the rules proposed by the Copyright Office in the April 27,
2005, notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM''). These additional
comments are sought in an effort to improve the quality of the Board's
consideration of these important matters.
II. The Need for Supplemental Rulemaking Comments
This rulemaking task has proved nettlesome and frustrating. The
written comments received from copyright owners \1\ and licensees, \2\
pursuant to the April 27, 2005, notice of proposed rulemaking,
underscores the continued sharp divisions among the parties on the
highly technical formatting and delivery issues. Resolution of these
issues does not draw upon a reservoir of traditional agency expertise.
The written comments seem frequently characterized by conclusory
assertions and the issuance of a final rule on this record would be
extremely difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SoundExchange,Inc. (``SoundExchange''), which has been
designated as the Receiving Agent for royalties paid pursuant to the
section 112 and 114 statutory licenses, has filed extensive comments
in these rulemaking proceedings. The Board has also received
comments of a limited nature from Royalty Logic, Inc. (``RLI'').
\2\ Comments reflecting the views of the digital audio service
providers have been received from Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc.
(``CBI''); Harvard Radio Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``WHRB''); the
Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. (``IBS''); and the
National Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee and Salem
Communications Corp. (``NRBMLC/Salem'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's goal here is to obtain a fair and practical allocation
of the burdens of data delivery for those who are unable to negotiate
their own data delivery solutions with SoundExchange. The resulting
system should not impose an unnecessary burden on copyright owners; at
this time, the system cannot allow copyright owners to throw up burdens
that would defeat or unnecessarily discourage use of the statutory
licenses. The Board is earnestly asking for more specific, additional
information that will reduce the speculative nature of its rulemaking
decision to the degree possible. The information should be detailed
enough to provide support for, and rebuttal to, assertions regarding
the burdens imposed by the proposed rules or by the logical
alternatives to those rules. Citations to supporting references should
be provided wherever possible. Reports from expert consultants are
encouraged.
In issuing this supplemental notice, the Board stresses that it has
not made a decision on the merits of any of the formatting and delivery
issues presented in this rulemaking proceeding and will consider any
further comments on any matter interested persons might wish to offer.
The Board is, however, urging commenters to zero in on the following
specific technical issues.
III. Specific Factual Questions
A. Spreadsheets
SoundExchange has agreed to allow webcasters to use two
commercially available spreadsheets in creating and formatting records
of use for each sound recording used under sections 112 and 114 of the
Copyright Act. SoundExchange has already posted on its Web site a
template for Microsoft Excel and asserts that a version for Correl's
Quattro Pro will soon be posted. It submits that ``due to the
significant limitations of spreadsheets, SoundExchange shall not be
required to provide technical support for the use of spreadsheets for
recordkeeping purposes.'' SoundExchange comments at Exhibit B at 3 (May
27, 2005). All spreadsheet data must be converted into an American
Standard Code for Information Interchange (``ASCII'') format prior to
delivery to SoundExchange.
CBI and WHRB offer the following objections. CBI objects that
SoundExchange will not provide technical assistance to services seeking
to complete spreadsheets and that such a provision ``absolves
SoundExchange of any responsibility to provide a template and
instructions that are free from errors, no matter how egregious.'' CBI
comments at 8 (May 27, 2005). CBI and WHRB assert that converting
spreadsheet data to ASCII is expensive, impractical, and ``eliminates
the only reasonable, financially accessible, and widely available
tool.'' Id.; WHRB comments at 6 (May 27, 2005) (``The process of using
a spreadsheet program to export an ASCII file is difficult and will be
prone to errors, particularly in the hands of unpaid volunteers with
relatively high rates of turnover.'')
Questions:
1. How expensive and time-consuming would it be for a typical
noncommercial webcaster on the Internet to compile spreadsheets using
Microsoft Excel? Using Corel Quattro Pro?
2. What are the practical difficulties in converting a Microsoft
Excel or Corel Quattro Pro spreadsheet into ASCII? How costly is it?
3. What are the kinds of technical support that are typically
needed in preparing Microsoft Excel and Corel Quattro Pro spreadsheets
and converting them to ASCII? How would that technical support be
available to a webcaster and what costs would be involved?
B. Commercially Available Software
Although the Copyright Office NPRM only addressed commercially
available spreadsheets as a means of creating records of use, the Board
is interested in knowing what, if any, software is commercially
available that could be used to compile records of use.
Questions:
What, if any, commercially available software is available that
could be used to compile records of use? Would such software produce
records of use that are format compatible with SoundExchange's data
processing system? What are the costs associated with such software?
C. Report Delivery
SoundExchange supports four methods of delivery for electronic data
files: File Transfer Protocol (``FTP''); electronic mail attachment;
CD-ROM delivery and; floppy diskette delivery. Each of these delivery
methods has specific requirements (examples: e-mail attachments may not
exceed ten megabytes; FTP delivery requires securing username and
password; floppy diskettes must measure 3.5 inches in diameter).
Webcasters do not object to the proposed delivery methods.
However, WHRB recommends that records of use should be accepted by
SoundExchange via its Web site. Once logged in, services would have the
ability to upload new reports to the SoundExchange site, ``with
SoundExchange automatically handling the naming and tagging of the
reports.'' The Web site could also allow the webcasters to view their
history of submitted reports. WHRB comments at 6-7 (May 27, 2005).
SoundExchange has opposed allowing delivery of records of use to a Web
site, citing unspecified cost and security concerns. See 70 FR 21704,
21707 (April 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What are the average estimated costs of creating and maintaining
a Web site for receipt of records of use? What are the security
concerns and how may they be addressed? Is there a commercially
available Web site software that could perform this task? Is Web site
software available that could
[[Page 43366]]
be adopted from other SoundExchange uses?
2. To what extent can a SoundExchange-hosted Web site reduce costs
associated with records of use? Can it assist in organizing and
cataloging delivered data and, if so, in what fashion and to what
extent?
3. Could a SoundExchange-hosted Web site be required to provide
services with access to prior submitted records of use? For how long?
D. File Naming
Every record of use must be named and must contain the dates of the
reporting period. SoundExchange insists that the ``[s]tart and end
dates should be in the format of day, month, and year (DDMMYYYY) where
DD is the two-digit day of the log period (beginning or end); MM is the
two-digit month of the log period; and YYYY is the four-digit year of
the log period (beginning or end).'' SoundExchange comments, Exhibit B
at 4 (May 27, 2005). NRBMLC/Salem urge that the reporting dates for
data files should be in the format of YYYYMMDD, which they state is
``the official format adopted by the ASCII standard.'' NRBMLC/Salem
comments at 1 (May 27, 2005); See, also NRBMLC/Salem comments at 5
(September 30, 2002) and NRBMLC/Salem reply comments at 8 (October 10,
2002).
In addition, NRBMLC/Salem submit that ``we are concerned about
radio stations that may not have the technological capability of
assigning file names the length that SoundExchange's proposal
envisions.'' Id.
Questions:
1. What is the ASCII standard for reporting days, months and years?
Is one way more cumbersome or expensive than the other?
2. What is required to be technologically capable of assigning file
names of the length proposed in the NPRM?
E. File Extension
SoundExchange requests that the service name, start and end date of
the reporting period and the transmission category be followed by the
file extension ``.txt.''. An example of a file identifier is as
follows: ex. AcmeMusicCo15012005-21012005--H.txt. NRBMLC/Salem objects
to the sole use of ``.txt'' as a file extension and asserts that
``[t]here is no need for the Office to regulate at this level of
detail, and alternate file type extensions should be allowed so long as
the data contained in the file is in the appropriate format.'' NRBMLC/
Salem reply comments at 9 (October 10, 2002).
Questions:
1. What difficulties would it create for SoundExchange if reports
without .txt file extensions and/or with different file extensions were
submitted?
2. What difficulties would it create for digital audio services if
they were required to use .txt file extensions on their reports?
F. Delivery Address
RLI requests that it receive all records of use. RLI comments at 1
(May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What standing does RLI have to request copies of the reports of
use?
2. How expensive and burdensome would it be, on average, for
services to provide RLI with records of use in addition to
SoundExchange?
3. Must all the format requirements be the same?
G. Files With Headers
SoundExchange requests that the following header appear, in order,
on each data file of a record of use:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row No. Field definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ Name of Serivice.
2................................ Name of Contact Person.
3................................ Street Address.
4................................ City, State, Zip, Country.
5................................ Phone.
6................................ E-mail.
7................................ Start of the Reporting Period.
8................................ End of the Reporting Period.
9................................ Report Generation Date.
10............................... Number of Rows.
11............................... Text Indicators.
12............................... Field Delimiters.
13............................... Blank Line.
14...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at 8 (May 27, 2005).
NRBMLC/Salem object to SoundExchange's requested format for a file
with headers on multiple grounds. First, they assert that the contact
information on the first six lines should not be required since
preexisting subscription services are not required to report such
information in a file with headers. See 37 CFR 270.2. Second they
assert that there is no reason to require lines 7 and 8 because the
information contained therein already appears in the file name. Third,
they assert that line 9 is completely unnecessary because the report
generation date has nothing to do with the distribution of royalties.
And fourth, NRBMLC/Salem submit that row 10 is unnecessary because the
information has nothing to do with a station's music use.
NRBMLC/Salem comments Exhibit 2 at 7-8.
NRBMLC/Salem assert that files with headers should resemble the
format followed by the webcasters that generate playlists. They propose
the following requirements for files with headers:
i. A file identifying the data fields conforming to the following
specifications with accompanying header information:
1. The file may identify the sound recordings performed on a
particular day or during a particular multiple-day reporting period.
2. The file must contain at least the fields required to be
reported * * * but may contain additional fields. If the file contains
data concerning sound recording transmissions spanning more than one
day, the date of transmission of each sound recording shall also be
specified in each data record.
3. The Service shall provide header information that identifies the
required fields of information and the order in which they appear in
the file. The header information shall include field identifiers from
the following list:
a. DATE, to identify the date on which a sound recording was
performed;
b. TITLE, to identify the title of the sound recording;
c. ARTIST, to identify the featured performing artist;
d. ALBUM, to identify the album from which the sound recording was
played, if, in fact, the sound recording was played from an album and
if that information is in the source file that was used to create the
playlist;
e. LABEL, to identify the record label that distributes the sound
recording, if that information is in the source file that was used to
create the playlist;
f. LISTENER, to identify the estimated number of listeners who
heard the particular sound recording performed; and
g. IRREL, to identify irrelevant fields not required to be
reported.
4. At the Service's option, header information may be embedded in
the file as the first line of data, or it may be provided to the
Collective \3\ separately. The Service shall notify the Collective of
the means of transmitting such header information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``Collective'' in this instance is SoundExchange, and
possibly Royalty Logic if its proposal for inclusion is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. At the Service's option, information concerning the estimated
number of listeners to particular sound recordings may be submitted in
a separate file with accompanying header information including, without
limitation, the DATE and LISTENER field identifiers set forth above * *
*
6. Notwithstanding the above requirements, output files generated
by
[[Page 43367]]
a Broadcaster's music scheduling or digital automation software shall
be deemed to be in an acceptable format provided that they are
accompanied by header information described above to identify the data
fields contained therein.
NRBMLC/Salem reply comments Tab A at 2-4 (September 30, 2002) (footnote
added).
Questions:
1. How are files with headers typically organized? Are there any
generally recognized standards for music reporting? What are the
software requirements and costs associated with creating data files
with headers?
2. Given that preexisting subscription services are not required by
Copyright Office regulations to report the data contained in the first
six lines of SoundExchange's proposal, what are the costs/benefits to
requiring this information in each data file?
3. Given that lines 7 and 8 of the header information contained in
SoundExchange's proposal are already reported in the file name, what
are the costs/benefits of requiring them to be repeated in each data
file?
4. To what extent must the header information in SoundExchange's
proposal be provided in the requested order? Is any variance possible?
What are the costs/benefits associated with variances?
5. What are the problems, if any, associated with the NRBMLC/Salem
proposal for files with headers? Do they present compatibility issues
with the SoundExchange data processing system and, if so, what are
those issues?
6. Can there be flexibility in the regulations for the creation of
files with headers or must the regulations be rigid?
H. Field Delimiters and Text Indicators
SoundExchange proposes the field delimiter for a data string be a
pipe (`` [bond] '') and that the text indicator be a carat
(``[caret]'') and that in no instance may a field delimiter or text
indicator appear in a data string. SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at
8 (May 27, 2005). Harvard and NRBMLC/Salem propose the use of commas
for field delimiters and quotes as text delimiters, arguing that these
are the industry standards. NRBMLC/Salem comments at 1-2 (May 27,
2005).
Questions:
1. What are the industry standards for use of field delimiters and
text delimiters? Should particular ones be specified in the
regulations? To what extent is flexibility acceptable in their
selection?
2. What problems will be created by allowing the use of commas and
quotes as field delimiters and text indicators, respectively? How can
such problems, if any, be avoided?
I. Data Fields
SoundExchange requests that all data appearing in data fields be in
upper case characters (ex. THE ROLLING STONES). SoundExchange comments
Exhibit B at 11 (May 27, 2005). CBI submits that while the:
[U]se [of] all capital letters in the data fields might be
convenient for SoundExchange, [it] is a substantial problem for
stations in numerous ways. Stations that have existing databases would
have to go back and change every record in their database, not an
insignificant prospect. This would be a time consuming task that would
also likely induce additional errors in the database. Stations that
manually enter the data by hand at the time of use will likely
encounter many unintentional cases of the data being entered
improperly. Further, those that utilize this data for other uses will
likely not want the data to be in all capital letters, which would
require such stations to maintain two separate databases.
CBI comments at 10 (May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What are the costs/benefits of requiring all data fields to be
in upper case characters? Will the SoundExchange data processing system
accept lower case characters in a data field and combinations thereof?
2. What is the industry standard for data fields?
J. Abbreviations
SoundExchange requests that there not be any abbreviations
permitted in the data fields. SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at 11
(May 27, 2005). CBI, NRBMLC/Salem and WHRB object. CBI submits that
disallowing abbreviations will increase the likelihood of data entry
errors due to the voluntary nature of staff and/or the requirement
would ``cause a major expense and/or disruption'' to their existing
practices. CBI comments at 11 (May 27, 2005). NRBMLC/Salem states that
``[t]he very concept that there is a ``standard'' manner of inputting
title and artist information in light of the many ways in which
stations receive music and the varying practices amongst broadcasters
defies common sense.'' NRBMLC/Salem reply comments at 7 (October 10,
2002). WHRB argues that SoundExchange should be required to ``compile
and make publicly available a comprehensive, universal database to
identify sound recordings.''
WHRB comments at 8 (May 27, 2005).
Questions:
1. What problems, if any, does allowing abbreviations within data
fields present to SoundExchange's data processing system? How can these
be addressed?
2. Can a set of rules be developed that permit abbreviations within
data fields and, if so, what should these rules be?
3. What are the burdens and costs associated with the creation and
maintenance of a data-base of sound recording titles, album titles,
artists' names, etc. by SoundExchange? What should be the functionality
of such a database? How could such a database be utilized to reduce the
overall costs of reporting records of use?
K. Files Without Headers
SoundExchange requests the following format requirements for data
files without headers:
(1) ASCII delimited format, using pipe ( [bond] ) characters as
delimiters, with no headers or footers;
(2) Carets ([caret]) should be used as the text indicator,
surrounding alphanumeric data elements such as name of Service,
transmission category, channel name, artist, song title, album;
(3) No carets ([caret]) should surround dates and numbers;
(4) A carriage return must be at the end of each line; [and]
(5) All data for one record should be on a single line.
SoundExchange comments Exhibit B at 11 (May 27, 2005)(sixth format
requirement omitted).
NRBMLC/Salem proposes different requirements for files without
headers:
A file containing data records only, with no header information,
and conforming to the following specifications.
1. The file may identify the sound recordings performed on a
particular day or during a particular multiple-day reporting period.
2. The file must contain only the fields required to be reported *
* *, in a particular order reasonably agreed upon by the Service and
the Collective.
3. At the Service's option, information concerning the estimated
number of listeners to particular sound recordings may be submitted in
a separate file containing date and listener information in an order
reasonably agreed upon by the Service and the Collective.
NRBMLC/Salem reply comments Tab A at 4 (September 30, 2002).
Questions:
1. Are there industry standards for compiling data files without
headers and, if so, what are they? What are the
[[Page 43368]]
costs/benefits of compiling data files without headers versus those
with headers?
2. How flexible can the format requirements be for files without
headers? What are the options?
3. Can categories of data be submitted in separate files or must it
all be submitted in a single file? What is the capability of
SoundExchange's data processing system to handle more than one file of
data per Service?
4. To what extent could it be permissible to allow automated
services to report playlist data in native form to SoundExchange?
IV. Legal and Policy Questions
In addition to the specific technical questions presented above,
interested persons are also encouraged to supply their views on the
following questions of a more general nature.
Questions:
1. Did Congress, in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4), require
the Copyright Royalty Judges to prescribe particular formatting and
delivery requirements at the level of detail described in the April 27,
2005, notice of proposed rulemaking? Is there some relevant set of
Internet conventions or practices that could guide the Board in setting
data submission standards here?
2. Could a system of webcast sampling, analogous to the sampling
performed by performing rights societies in the context of
broadcasting, meet the record-of-use requirements of 17 U.S.C.
114(f)(4)(A) and 112(e)(4)?
3. Under the provisions of any final rule adopted to implement the
notice and record of use requirements of 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(A) and
112(e)(4), either copyright owners (in the form of their agent,
SoundExchange) or licensees will be burdened with having to change
their existing data systems. From a legal and a policy perspective, on
whom is it most appropriate to place these burdens? Is the court's
discussion in Amusement and Music Operators Association v. Copyright
Royalty Tribunal, 676 F.2d 1144, 1154-55 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 907 (1982) (``depriv[ing] copyright owners of increased
remuneration for the exploitation of their works by showing that some *
* * operations will become unprofitable is * * * unsound and unjust'')
pertinent to this inquiry?
V. Encouragement of Settlement
As the Copyright Office has repeatedly stated, it would be far
preferable for the parties to reach their own agreement on these
formatting and delivery issues. Government regulation, especially at
this level of detail, is an undesirable substitute for industry
agreement. The parties who will be affected by the format and delivery
regulations should confer and advise the Board if some or all of them
can jointly propose solutions with respect to any of the issues raised
in these proceedings.
Dated: July 21, 2005.
Bruce G. Forrest,
Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 05-14872 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
