Copyright Royalty Board Regulations Regarding Procedures for Determination and Allocation of Assessment To Fund Mechanical Licensing Collective and Other Amendments Required by the Hatch-Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, 32296-32317 [2019-13292]

Agencies

• Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress
• Library of Congress

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32296-32317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13292]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board

37 CFR Parts 303, 350, 355, 370, 380, 382, 383, 384, and 385

[Docket No. 18-CRB-0012 RM]


Copyright Royalty Board Regulations Regarding Procedures for 
Determination and Allocation of Assessment To Fund Mechanical Licensing 
Collective and Other Amendments Required by the Hatch-Goodlatte Music 
Modernization Act

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) adopt regulations 
governing proceedings to determine the reasonableness of, and allocate 
responsibility to fund, the operating budget of the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective authorized by the Music Modernization Act (MMA). 
The Judges also adopt proposed amendments to extant rules as required 
by the MMA.

DATES: Effective July 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, 
by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 13, 2019, the Copyright Royalty 
Judges (Judges) published proposed regulations governing proceedings to 
determine the reasonableness of, and allocate responsibility to fund, 
the operating budget of the Mechanical Licensing Collective authorized 
by the Music Modernization Act (MMA). The Judges also proposed 
amendments to extant rules as required by the MMA. 84 FR 9053. The 
Judges received comments from the Digital Music Association (DiMA), The 
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), and SoundExchange, 
Inc.\1\ The commenters generally support the Judges' proposal while 
recommending certain adjustments, many of which the Judges accept as 
improvements to the rules as originally proposed. The Judges hereby 
adopt the proposed rules as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposal was further to a Notice of Inquiry that the 
Judges published on November 5, 2018. 83 FR 55334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The MMA amended title 17 of the United States Code (Copyright Act) 
to authorize, among other things, designation by the Register of 
Copyrights (with the approval of the Librarian of Congress) of a 
Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(A)(iv) and 
17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(B)(i). The MLC is to be a nonprofit entity created 
by copyright owners to carry out responsibilities set forth in sec. 115 
of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(A)(i). The Copyright Act sets 
forth the governance of the MLC, which shall include representatives of 
songwriters and music publishers (with nonvoting members representing 
licensees of musical works and trade associations). 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(3)(D). The MLC is authorized expressly to carry out several 
functions under the Copyright Act, including offering and administering 
blanket licenses and collecting and distributing royalties. 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(3)(C)(i) and (iii).
    Section 115(d)(5)(A) of the MMA defines a second entity, the 
Digital Licensee Coordinator (``DLC''), a single nonprofit entity not 
owned by any other entity, created to carry out responsibilities under 
the MMA. The DLC must be endorsed by and enjoy substantial support from 
digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees that 
together represent the greatest percentage of the licensee market for 
uses of musical works in covered activities, as measured over the 
preceding three calendar years. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(A). The DLC will be 
designated by the Register, with the approval of the Librarian, and is 
authorized to perform certain functions under the Copyright Act, 
including establishing a governance structure, criteria for membership, 
and dues to be paid by its members.\2\ The DLC is also authorized to 
engage in efforts to enforce notice and payment obligations with 
respect to the administrative assessment, including by receiving 
information from and coordinating with the MLC. The DLC is also 
authorized to initiate and participate in proceedings before the Judges 
to establish the

[[Page 32297]]

administrative assessment. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Register may decline to designate a DLC if she is unable 
to identify an entity that fulfills the qualifications for the DLC 
set forth in the MMA. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MMA provides that the Judges must, within 270 days of the 
effective date of the MMA, commence a proceeding to determine an 
initial administrative assessment that digital music providers and any 
significant nonblanket licensees shall pay to fund the operations of 
the MLC. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D)(iii)(I).\3\ The Judges may also conduct 
periodic proceedings to adjust the administrative assessment. 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7)(D)(iv). In the proceedings to determine the initial and 
adjusted administrative assessments, the Judges must determine an 
assessment ``in an amount that is calculated to defray the reasonable 
collective total costs.'' 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The assessment may also be paid through voluntary 
contributions from digital music providers and significant 
nonblanket licensees as may be agreed with copyright owners. 17 
U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Creation of the MLC and the other statutory changes in the MMA 
require or authorize modification of the Judges' regulations relating 
to sec. 115. For example, sec. 102(d) of the MMA requires the Judges, 
not later than 270 days after enactment of the MMA, to amend 37 CFR 
part 385, ``to conform the definitions used in such part to the 
definitions of the same terms described in sec. 115(e) of title 17, 
United States Code, as added by'' sec. 102(a) of the MMA. That 
provision also directs the Judges to ``make adjustments to the language 
of the regulations as necessary to achieve the same purpose and effect 
as the original regulations with respect to the rates and terms 
previously adopted by the [Judges].''
    In that regard, the MMA also adds a new sec. 801(b)(8) to the 
Copyright Act, which authorizes the Judges ``to determine the 
administrative assessment to be paid by digital music providers under 
section 115(d)'' and states that ``[t]he provisions of section 115(d) 
shall apply to the conduct of proceedings by the [Judges] under section 
115(d) and not the procedures in this section, or section 803, 804, or 
805.'' 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(8). To discharge this duty, the MMA authorizes 
the Judges to adopt regulations concerning proceedings to set the 
administrative assessment established by the statute to fund the MLC. 
17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D)(viii) and 115(d)(12)(A).

A. Discussion of Comments

    As noted above, the three sets of comments the Judges received were 
generally supportive of the Judges' proposal, much of which responded 
to comments that the Judges had received in response to their Notice of 
Inquiry (NOI). Some comments, however, raised issues with particular 
aspects of the proposal, which the Judges address below. The comments 
of DiMA and NMPA overlapped on many issues. Therefore, the Judges 
discuss the respective comments of these two commenters in a single 
section. SoundExchange's comments are addressed in a separate section.
1. DiMA and NMPA Comments
    According to DiMA, Congressional intent in adopting the MMA is that 
the MLC and the DLC are to be created, designated, and approved to 
serve as proxies for the interests of their respective constituencies, 
with the MLC serving as the voice of musical work copyright owners/
licensors and the DLC serving as the voice of digital music licensees. 
DiMA Comment at 3. DiMA believes, however, that as currently drafted, 
certain of the proposed rules put the DLC in an inferior position as 
compared to the MLC, creating inequities that ultimately may undermine 
the perceived goal of the assessment proceedings to establish the 
amount and terms of the administrative assessment based on a 
comprehensive, transparent record or to allow for the negotiation of a 
voluntary agreement among the MLC and DLC, which DiMA asserts, 
represent the vast majority of their respective stakeholders. Id. at 4. 
DiMA points out perceived disparities between the MLC and the DLC in 
three areas, discussed below.
(a) DiMA Believes the MLC and the DLC Should Be Provided With Equal 
Opportunities To Take Depositions
    DiMA notes that proposed Sec.  355.3(e) would authorize the MLC to 
notice and take up to five depositions during its discovery period and 
would authorize the DLC, together with ``interested copyright owners, 
interested Digital Music Providers, and interested Significant 
Nonblanket Licensees,'' to notice and take up to five depositions 
``collectively'' during their discovery period.
    According to DiMA, the proposed rules thus permit the MLC to review 
whatever discovery it deems relevant, determine the five individuals it 
believes would be most advantageous to depose and the order in which it 
wishes to depose these individuals, and set the timing of those 
depositions within the discovery period, unencumbered by the other 
parties. DiMA Comment at 4.
    In contrast, DiMA notes, the DLC would be required to share its 
five depositions with the other proceeding participants. As a result, 
DiMA believes that the proposed rules would constrain the DLC in its 
efforts to take depositions, requiring that it negotiate and compromise 
on the deposition process with other participants, making the 
development of a coherent and efficient strategy for this process 
incredibly difficult.
    DiMA asserts that under the proposed rules, any proceeding 
participant other than the MLC could essentially ``hijack'' the first 
discovery period deposition process by noticing all five depositions on 
the very first day of that discovery period, thereby blocking the DLC's 
ability to take depositions of potentially far more relevant 
individuals. DiMA believes that the perceived open-ended nature of the 
deposition process in the proposed rules would create disputes that the 
CRJs would be required to resolve over areas such as the individuals 
who would be deposed, the time allocations for examination of those 
witnesses, and the timing of the depositions, resulting in significant 
inefficiencies within the discovery timeline. DiMA Comment at 5.
    DiMA believes that the DLC should be provided with access to the 
deposition process equal to that of the MLC, and the proposed rules 
should be amended to permit the DLC to take up to five depositions 
under the same conditions as those provided to the MLC.
    DiMA acknowledges the need to ensure that the discovery process is 
also fair to other proceeding participants. To that end, DiMA 
recommends that the proposed rules be modified to mandate a duty 
requiring these other parties to cooperate with DiMA and each other in 
good faith in discovery and to attempt to resolve disputes amongst 
themselves before availing themselves of the discovery disputes process 
outlined in proposed Sec.  355.3(h). DiMA also suggests that the Judges 
modify the proposed rules to make clear that proceeding participants 
whose interests may not be fully represented by either the MLC or the 
DLC are permitted to take advantage of the discovery disputes process 
set forth in proposed Sec.  355.3(h), to request authorization from the 
CRJs to take any depositions they deem necessary and, upon a showing of 
good cause, be permitted to take those depositions. DiMA Comment at 6.
    DiMA believes that the deposition process outlined above would 
place the DLC on equal footing with the MLC, while at the same time 
providing meaningful opportunities to other proceeding participants to 
partake in the deposition process as well. Id.
    The Judges believe that DiMA's proposed modifications to Sec.  
355.3(e) and (h) are reasonable and appropriate

[[Page 32298]]

and therefore adopt DiMA's recommended modifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DiMA recommended that the Judges insert a lengthy phrase 
throughout proposed Sec.  355 each time the term Digital Licensee 
Coordinator appears to account for the possibility that the Register 
does not designate a DLC (i.e., or if no Digital Licensee 
Coordinator has been designated, interested Digital Music Providers 
and Significant Nonblanket Licensees representing more than half of 
the market for uses of musical works in Covered Activities, acting 
collectively). As a more efficient alternative, the Judges define 
the term Digital Licensee Coordinator to include either the entity 
that the Register designates or, if the Register does not designate 
a DLC, interested Digital Music Providers and Significant Nonblanket 
Licensees representing more than half of the market for uses of 
musical works in Covered Activities, acting collectively. As a 
corresponding change to the new definition of DLC, the Judges also 
removed paragraph (d) of section 355.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) DiMA Believes That the First and Second Discovery Periods Should Be 
Substantively Identical
    In the Joint Proposal that DiMA and the NMPA submitted in response 
to the Judges' Notice of Inquiry, NMPA/DiMA recommended that 
administrative assessment proceedings have two discovery periods. 
According to DiMA, the first discovery period would be reserved for the 
DLC and other participants in the proceeding, other than the MLC, to 
allow those parties to examine the MLC's submission and probe its 
constituent parts in preparation for the DLC's and other participants' 
responsive submissions. The second discovery period would be reserved 
for the MLC to allow it to examine the responsive submissions and to 
probe their constituent parts in preparation for the MLC's reply 
submission, which, under the Joint Proposal, the MLC would have the 
option to file after the second discovery period. DiMA Comment at 7.
    DiMA contends that the proposed rules contain several ambiguities 
and inconsistencies that require clarification to ensure that discovery 
during administrative assessment proceedings is efficient, logical, and 
equitable. Id. For example, DiMA notes that Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(iii) of 
the proposed rules reserves the first discovery period ``for the [DLC] 
and any other participant in the proceeding, other than the [MLC], to 
serve discovery requests and complete discovery pursuant to Sec.  
355.3(d).'' DiMA further notes that Sec.  355.3(d) states that ``the 
[DLC], interested copyright owners, interested Digital Music Providers, 
and interested Significant Nonblanket Licensees . . . and any other 
participant in the proceeding may serve requests for additional 
documents'' (emphasis added by DiMA).
    According to DiMA, the italicized language in Sec.  355.3(d) is 
problematic in that there are no statutorily authorized ``other 
participant[s] in the proceeding'' other than the DLC, interested 
copyright owners, interested Digital Music Providers, and interested 
Significant Nonblanket Licensees, all of which are already enumerated 
within the same sentence, making this language redundant at best and 
potentially opening the door to discovery by the MLC during the first 
discovery period at worst, which, DiMA contends, is directly contrary 
to the language of proposed Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(iii). DiMA Comment at 8. 
DiMA therefore recommends that the Judges clarify Sec.  355.3(d) to 
remove the ``interested copyright owners, interested Digital Music 
Providers, and interested Significant Nonblanket Licensees'' language 
and instead conform this language with the language from Sec.  
355.2(g)(1)(iii) (i.e., ``the Digital Licensee Coordinator and any 
other participant in the proceeding, other than the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective'') to resolve this internal inconsistency and 
potential ambiguity. For the same reasons, DiMA also suggests that 
identical language in Sec.  355.3(f)(1) likewise be modified 
accordingly. DiMA Comment at 8. The Judges believe DiMA's proposed 
modifications are reasonable and appropriate and therefore adopt them.
    DiMA further notes that as presently drafted, proposed Sec. Sec.  
355.2(g)(1)(iii) and 355.3(d) fail to set forth the right of the DLC 
and other proceeding participants to take depositions during the first 
discovery period, which, DiMA contends, appears to be an inadvertent 
oversight, since those depositions are clearly contemplated by, and 
discussed in, Sec.  355.3(e). DiMA recommends that Sec.  355.3(d) be 
amended to add a subsection (2) that substantively mirrors Sec.  
355.3(g)(2) (but with the reference to ``note'' corrected to 
``notice''), which addresses the MLC's ability to take depositions 
during the second discovery period (i.e., ``The [DLC] (or if no [DLC] 
has been designated, interested Digital Music Providers and Significant 
Nonblanket Licensees representing more than half of the market for uses 
of musical works in Covered Activities, acting collectively) and any 
other participant in the proceeding, other than the [MLC], may notice 
and take depositions as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.''). 
DiMA Comment at 8.
    DiMA also asserts that Sec.  355.3(e) requires the correction of 
what appears to be a typographical error. According to DiMA, the first 
sentence of that section authorizes the noticing and taking of 
depositions during the first discovery period by the DLC and other 
proceeding participants. The second sentence then authorizes the 
noticing and taking of depositions by the MLC but inadvertently states 
that these depositions are to be taken during the ``first'' rather than 
the ``second'' discovery period. Yet Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(v) discusses the 
second discovery period in the proceeding, which provides for the MLC 
``to serve discovery requests and complete discovery of the [DLC] and 
any other participant in the proceeding pursuant to Sec.  355.3(g).'' 
Section 355.3(g), in turn, is titled ``Second discovery period.'' 
According to DiMA, the general framework of discovery and other 
sections of the proposed rules confirm that the second sentence of this 
subsection should instead read (proposed amendment in italics): ``The 
[MLC] may give notice of and take up to five depositions during the 
second discovery period.'' DiMA Comment at 9.
    DiMA notes that the Judges requested specific comments with regard 
to reply submissions of the MLC, voicing the concern that the proposed 
rules as currently written ``would authorize the MLC to respond to 
submissions of the DLC and other opposing parties but the proposal 
would not authorize the MLC to seek discovery from those parties to 
support its submission.'' DiMA Comment at 9, quoting 84 FR at 9057.
    DiMA posits that this reading of the proposed rules was perhaps the 
result of the inconsistencies discussed above that, when resolved, make 
clear that the second discovery period, the discovery period 
specifically set aside for the MLC in both the proposed rules and in 
the Joint Proposal, occurs after the DLC and other participants provide 
their responsive submissions and concurrent document productions and 
written disclosures. According to DiMA, the proposed rules already 
authorize the MLC to conduct discovery subsequent to the filing of 
responsive submissions by the DLC and other participants and prior to 
the filing of any reply submission by the MLC. DiMA Comment at 9.
    For its part, NMPA ``observes that the Proposed Rule could be read 
as unfairly limiting the scope of discovery in the second discovery 
period for the MLC as compared to the scope of discovery in the first 
period applicable to the DLC and additional parties.'' NMPA Comment at 
8. NMPA notes that proposed Sec.  355.3(d) states that in the first 
discovery period, ``[a]ny document request shall be limited to 
documents that are Discoverable'' whereas proposed Sec.  355.3(g)(1) 
states, with respect to the second discovery period, ``requests shall 
be limited to documents

[[Page 32299]]

that are Discoverable and relevant to consideration of whether any 
counterproposal fulfills the requirements of 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7) or one 
or more of the elements of this part.'' NMPA Comment at 8.\5\ NMPA also 
requests that the Judges change paragraph (2) in the definition of 
Discoverable in proposed Sec.  355.7 to read ``(2) Relevant to 
consideration of whether a proposal or response thereto fulfills the 
requirements in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7).'' According to NMPA, these 
requested changes should eliminate confusion concerning the MLC's 
ability to take discovery of the DLC and other parties regarding their 
respective responses to the MLC's proposal. NMPA Comment at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed further below, NMPA does not believe that 
independent counterproposals are appropriate in the context of 
assessment proceedings. NMPA Comment at 8. As a result, NMPA 
requests that the Judges remove from proposed Sec.  355.3(g)(1) the 
language ``and relevant to consideration of whether any 
counterproposal fulfills the requirements of 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7) or 
one or more of the elements of this part.'' NMPA Comment at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Judges find that DiMA's and NMPA's respective recommended 
modifications to the proposed rules in this area are reasonable and 
appropriate and therefore adopt them.
(c) DiMA Believes That Any Voluntary Agreement Must Be Agreed Upon Only 
by the MLC and the DLC Without Mandatory Participation or Approval of 
Other Participants
    DiMA avers that Sec. Sec.  355.4 and 355.6(d) of the proposed rules 
may not be consistent with the MMA because they include participants 
other than the MLC and the DLC in the negotiation periods and in any 
voluntary agreement that ultimately may result from those negotiations. 
According to DiMA, inclusion of such other participants is not mandated 
by the MMA and should be obviated by the MLC's and the DLC's roles as 
statutorily-designated representatives of their respective 
stakeholders. DiMA Comment at 10.
    DiMA notes that Sec.  355.4 of the proposed rules requires the 
participation of not only ``[t]he [MLC] [and] the [DLC],'' but also the 
participation of ``interested copyright owners, interested Digital 
Music Providers, and interested Significant Nonblanket Licensees'' 
(emphasis added by DiMA) in both negotiation periods within an 
administrative assessment proceeding, and sets the commencement of the 
first negotiation period for ``the day after the [Judges] give notice 
of all participants in the proceeding.'' DiMA notes that in explaining 
this provision and its timing, the Judges stated that they ``are loathe 
to encourage the MLC and the DLC, or other significant participants, to 
engage in negotiations for up to a month (or up to half the suggested 
negotiating period) before the [Judges] identify and give notice of the 
full roster of participants.'' DiMA Comment at 10, quoting the Judges' 
Rule Proposal, 84 FR at 9057.
    DiMA notes that Sec.  355.6(d) of the proposed rules likewise 
references voluntary agreements ``negotiated and agreed to by the [MLC] 
and the [DLC], interested copyright owners, interested Digital Music 
Providers, and interested Significant Nonblanket Licensees'' (emphasis 
added by DiMA).
    DiMA contends, however, that the MMA does not require or encourage 
such broad participation. According to DiMA, under the MMA only the MLC 
and the DLC must agree to any negotiated voluntary agreement. DiMA 
consequently requests that the Judges modify the proposed rules to 
remove ``interested copyright owners, interested Digital Music 
Providers, and interested Significant Nonblanket Licensees'' from 
proposed Sec. Sec.  355.4 and 355.6(d).\6\ DiMA also requests that the 
Judges modify the proposed rules such that the first negotiation period 
will begin on the date of commencement of the proceeding to determine 
or adjust the administrative assessment. DiMA Comment at 12.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DiMA contends that the MMA clearly contemplates the 
possibility of a negotiated, voluntary agreement between the MLC and 
the DLC (only), to which the entire industry would be bound, 
because, according to DiMA, the MLC and the DLC are statutorily-
designated entities that by their nature represent the broad 
majority of their respective constituencies. DiMA avers that this 
aspect of the MMA contrasts with regulations governing settlements 
in royalty rate proceedings which, DiMA notes, explicitly state that 
a settlement can be reached by ``some or all of the parties,'' and 
that participants who are not parties to the agreement can file 
objections to the adoption of any such agreement. DiMA Comment at n. 
3, citing 37 CFR 351.2(b)(2).
    \7\ DiMA notes that the Joint Proposal included the following 
MMA language to account for the possibility that a DLC may not be 
designated: ``(or if none has been designated, interested digital 
music providers and significant nonblanket licensees representing 
more than half of the market for uses of musical works in covered 
activities).'' DiMA recommends that this language be included 
throughout the proposed rules, as appropriate. DiMA Comment at n.2. 
As discussed in note 4 above, as an alternative, the Judges have 
defined the term Digital Licensee Coordinator to include the group 
of parties that DiMA suggests if the Register does not designate a 
DLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Judges believe that involvement in the settlement discussions 
between the MLC and DLC by other participants is appropriate and 
permitted--though not mandated--under the statute. At the same time, 
the Judges agree with DiMA's interpretation of the statute that only 
the MLC and DLC must agree to a voluntary settlement. Nevertheless, the 
Judges believe that the views of other participants may be helpful, and 
perhaps essential, for the Judges to determine whether good cause 
exists to exercise their discretion to reject a settlement. The Judges, 
therefore, have modified section 355.4 to clarify that participants 
other than the MLC and DLC may participate in settlement negotiations 
and may comment on any resulting settlement. In keeping with the 
accelerated timeline for administrative assessment proceedings, the 
Judges have imposed tight space limitations for comments, and 
abbreviated deadlines for comments and any reply by the settling 
parties. These limitations are subject to the general rules governing 
requests for enlargement in sections 303.3(c) and 303.7(b). The Judges 
have made a conforming change to section 303.3(c) to ensure that the 
rule governing requests for enlargement of space applies to space 
limitations set in section 355.4 and other provisions of subchapter B.
(d) Issues Relating to Fact Finding in Administrative Assessment 
Proceedings
    DiMA's set of comments also addressed six areas regarding the fact 
finding process: (1) Flexibility in scheduling of the proceedings and 
related timing; (2) concurrent expert testimony; (3) necessity of 
hearings; (4) admissibility of deposition transcripts; (5) witness 
attendance at the hearing and review of transcripts; and (6) scope of 
mandatory document productions. NMPA's comment also addressed some of 
these areas. The Judges address each area is turn.
Flexibility in Proceeding Scheduling and Related Timing
    DiMA agrees that the Judges' scheduling proposal, which DiMA views 
as more flexible than that DiMA and the NMPA proposed in their Joint 
Comment on the NOI, will allow the Judges to adopt a tailored schedule 
for each proceeding based on the circumstances of that proceeding and 
still retain the structural framework of the proceeding. DiMA Comment 
at 12. Likewise, NMPA states that it understands the Judges' desire for 
flexibility and agrees that a less structured schedule can still allow 
the Judges to conduct proceedings in a timely and efficient manner. 
NMPA believes that the Judges can establish the schedule in each 
particular proceeding with an eye toward commencing and completing the 
proceeding in accordance with the

[[Page 32300]]

overall timetable set forth in the MMA. NMPA Comment at 3.
    DiMA requests, however, that the Judges allot sufficient time after 
the close of the first and second discovery periods for the parties to 
incorporate relevant facts obtained through discovery into those 
submissions and to resolve discovery disputes that may arise. Id. at 
13. DiMA also requests that the Judges consider incorporating a period 
of 3-5 days between the due date for opening and responsive submissions 
and the start of the first and second discovery periods to provide 
proceeding participants a few days to review the submissions and 
document productions and disclosures before commencing discovery 
activities. Id.
    DiMA also notes that the Judges propose 60 days for the first 
discovery rather than the 75 days that the DiMA/NMPA Joint Comment had 
proposed. See proposed Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(iii). The second discovery 
period would also be 60 days. DiMA asserts that there is justification 
for a longer first discovery period because the DLC will have to 
coordinate and negotiate with other parties involved in the first 
discovery period, whereas the MLC will be the lone party directing the 
second discovery period and will not be hindered by competing interests 
regarding noticing and taking depositions and deciding the number and 
extent of document requests. DiMA Comment at 13-14. DiMA contends that 
a longer discovery period is necessary and requests that the Judges 
reconsider a 75-day period for the first discovery period.
    After careful consideration, the Judges decline to adopt DiMA's 
requests to lengthen the first discovery period and delay the 
commencement of the discovery periods. The timing provisions in the MMA 
for determining the Administrative Assessment are particularly 
compressed. The Judges believe that 60 days is a reasonable amount of 
time for discovery and that a longer period would only serve to 
restrict further an already short time frame for determining an 
Administrative Assessment.
Concurrent Expert Testimony
    DiMA and NMPA each responded to the Judges' proposal regarding 
concurrent expert testimony. DiMA supports the Judges' inclusion of the 
concurrent testimony option and believes that this approach could 
assist the Judges in creating a more comprehensive record upon which 
they can base their determination and in answering questions the Judges 
may have. DiMA also believes that a concurrent testimony approach could 
allow the Judges more latitude to address any concerns they may have 
with regard to the proposals then at issue. According to DiMA, engaging 
in concurrent expert testimony may lead to efficiencies by allowing the 
experts to focus on the heart of the issues that remain in dispute, to 
explain their differing viewpoints on those issues, and to have the 
ability to examine those viewpoints in real time by the experts 
themselves, the Judges, and counsel.
    Additionally, DiMA avers that concurrent expert testimony may be 
particularly useful where, as here, the proceeding will be very 
subject-matter specific and the issues addressed at the hearing will be 
fairly complex, technical, and nuanced. To the extent the Judges or the 
parties elect to use the concurrent evidence approach in a particular 
proceeding, DiMA recommends that the Judges consider how best to direct 
and focus such testimony to ensure that the process is efficient and 
orderly at the hearing. DiMA also supports inclusion of concurrent 
expert testimony as an option for testimony at the hearing either in 
addition to or in lieu of ``traditional'' expert testimony, as the 
circumstances may dictate, while at the same time making clear that, in 
the absence of a specific ruling to the contrary, ``traditional'' (i.e. 
non-concurrent) expert testimony will remain the default process and 
structure in administrative assessment proceedings. DiMA Comment at 13-
14.
    NMPA believes a concurrent evidence approach could help to narrow 
and clarify issues and permit immediate correction of testimony by one 
expert when another expert identifies mistakes in the first expert's 
testimony. Accordingly, NMPA does not object to the inclusion of 
language within proposed rule Sec.  355.5(d) to permit a concurrent 
evidence procedure.
    In light of uncertainties concerning the equities in particular 
proceedings, however, should the Judges adopt this approach, NMPA 
believes it would be helpful if, in any given proceeding, the Judges 
would solicit the views of the parties before requiring participation 
in a concurrent evidence procedure. NMPA Comment at 12-13.
    The Judges adopt the concurrent evidence provision as proposed, 
but, consistent with NMPA's recommendation, will consider the views of 
any party regarding the implementation of a concurrent evidence 
approach in any particular Administrative Assessment proceeding. The 
Judges also confirm, consistent with DiMA's comment, that 
``traditional'' expert testimony will remain the default process and 
structure in administrative assessment proceedings, i.e., absent any 
ruling by the Judges establishing a concurrent form of receiving expert 
testimony.
Necessity of Hearings
    DiMA notes that current proposed Sec.  355.5(a) allows the Judges 
to issue a determination for the administrative assessment without a 
hearing. DiMA Comment at 15. DiMA believes that this option is 
inconsistent with the MMA. In particular, DiMA references sec. 
115(d)(7)(D)(iii)(III), which, DiMA contends, mandates a hearing. DiMA 
Comment at 15. As a result, DiMA contends that the proposed rules 
should be modified to clarify that a hearing is a required phase of the 
administrative assessment proceeding unless a voluntary agreement is 
reached between the MLC and the DLC. In addition to what DiMA believes 
is a statutory mandate, DiMA also believes that a hearing would afford 
the Judges the opportunity to examine whatever portions of the proposed 
assessment they found to be deficient or otherwise inconsistent with 
the MMA and to make a determination consistent with 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7). DiMA Comment at 16.
    As a practical matter, the Judges agree that, absent a settlement, 
a hearing will be beneficial for developing a record as a foundation 
for an Administrative Assessment determination. Therefore, the Judges 
accept DiMA's recommendation to amend proposed Sec.  355.5(a) to remove 
references to the Judges' consideration of filings submitted for a 
determination without a hearing.
Admissibility of Deposition Transcripts
    As DiMA notes, the Judges' proposed rules allow the introduction of 
deposition transcripts pursuant to the rules and limitations of Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 32. 84 FR at 9058; proposed Sec.  355.5(c). 
DiMA agrees with the Judges' position on this issue because, according 
to DiMA, submission of only the deposition testimony that is permitted 
under FRCP 32 will ensure that the Judges receive these materials in a 
way that does not require them to wade through many exploratory lines 
of questioning in discovery depositions and does not duplicate the live 
testimony of any hearing witnesses. DiMA Comment at 16. NMPA noted that 
``the Joint Comments proposed that complete transcripts be admitted so 
relevant portions would be available as needed during the hearing 
without undue burden or delay. At the same time, NMPA understands the 
concerns

[[Page 32301]]

articulated by the [Judges]. What is critical is that pertinent 
deposition testimony be available for use by the parties as necessary 
during a hearing.'' NMPA Comment at 13. The Judges acknowledge NMPA's 
desire to have pertinent deposition testimony available during a 
hearing and believe that the current proposal will permit such access. 
As a practical matter, the Judges note that during an Administrative 
Assessment proceeding parties may submit deposition transcripts (and 
other exhibits) to the Judges. Once they are marked for identification, 
the entire transcript or a subset of it thereafter may be offered for 
admission into evidence during the hearing. Such submission is 
consistent with the current proposal. Therefore, the Judges adopt the 
rules in this area as proposed.
Witness Attendance at the Hearing and Review of Transcripts
    As DiMA notes, proposed Sec.  355.5(d) generally prohibits a 
witness, other than a party representative, from listening to or 
reviewing a transcript of another witness prior to testifying. DiMA 
Comment at 17. DiMA does not object to this provision with respect to 
fact witnesses but recommends a carve-out for expert witnesses ``as the 
testimony of expert witnesses is inherently different in nature and 
often benefits from learning additional facts from which expert 
opinions can be formed or adjusted.'' Id. DiMA believes such a carve-
out is particularly useful where the Judges contemplate the possibility 
of concurrent expert testimony.
    The Judges believe that a carve-out for expert witnesses is 
reasonable and appropriate and therefore adopt it.
Scope of Mandatory Document Productions
    DiMA notes that proposed Sec.  355.3(b), which deals with the 
initial Administrative Assessment proceeding, is inconsistent with 
proposed Sec.  355.3(c), which deals with proceedings to adjust the 
Administrative Assessment, in that the latter requires the MLC to 
produce a three-year projection of costs, collections, and 
contributions whereas the former does not. DiMA recommends that the 
Judges modify the proposed rules to add the three-year projection 
requirement, beginning as of the license availability date, to Sec.  
355.3(b) both for the sake of consistency between proceedings and to 
provide the Judges with ``robust, relevant information that will be 
useful in making their ultimate determination.'' DiMA Comment at 18. 
DiMA believes that ``mandating projections for at least three years 
will provide more accurate long-term cost information and will thus 
more likely result in an administrative assessment that will not 
require as much adjustment in future years.'' Id. The Judges accept 
DiMA's request as appropriate and reasonable and adopt the modification 
as suggested.
    DiMA also notes that the Judges have included in Sec. Sec.  
355.3(b)(2)(iii) and 355.3(c)(2)(v) a new, specific category of 
documents for mandatory production by the MLC (i.e., processes for 
requesting proposals, inviting bids, ranking and selecting the 
proposals and bids of potential contracting and sub-contracting parties 
competitively (or by another method), including processes for ensuring 
the absence of overlapping ownership or other overlapping economic 
interests between the MLC or its members and any selected contracting 
or sub-contracting party). Id. at 18-19. DiMA supports this inclusion 
``as these documents are directly relevant to the core question of 
`reasonable' costs and are vital to a determination that is fair, 
accurate, and consistent with 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7).'' Id. at 19.
    NMPA, on the contrary, believes that the proposed provision seems 
unnecessary and potentially onerous. NMPA Comment at 10. NMPA believes 
that the proposed provision, which was not included in the Joint 
Comments of NMPA and DiMA, could be interpreted to require production 
of materials concerning virtually every contract of the MLC no matter 
how small. Id. NMPA also suggests that some of the proposed language 
concerning ``overlapping economic interests'' could be read to suggest 
an expansion of the Judges' role beyond what is contemplated under the 
MMA. NMPA requests that the Judges modify the proposed language (i.e., 
first clause of proposed Sec. Sec.  355.3(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v) 
concerning the MLC's choice of vendors) at the very least to include a 
materiality threshold of ten percent of the MLC's annual budget. NMPA 
Comment at 10-11. As currently proposed, NMPA fears that the provisions 
could be read as requiring that the MLC would need to produce every 
contract, proposal and bid--no matter how trivial or immaterial. NMPA 
Comment at 10. NMPA maintains that such a requirement would be 
enormously burdensome and could threaten timely completion of the 
proceeding. NMPA Comment at 10-11.
    NMPA is also concerned about the second clause of proposed Sec.  
355.3(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v), which is addressed to ``ensuring the 
absence of overlapping ownership or other overlapping economic 
interests . . .''. NMPA Comment at 11. NMPA believes that this proposed 
language could be interpreted as suggesting that the Judges ``are 
somehow responsible for policing the policies and practices of the MLC 
with respect to conflicts of interest.'' Id. NMPA believes that the 
policies and practices of the MLC are adequately addressed in the MMA 
(e.g., requirements of an annual report detailing the MLC's operations 
and expenditures and periodic audits to guard against ``fraud, abuse, 
waste, and the unreasonable use of funds''). NMPA Comment at 11 and 
n.9. NMPA notes that the MMA does not confer authority or 
responsibility to the Judges to enforce these provisions. NMPA contends 
that the Judges' authority under the MMA is limited to establishing the 
Administrative Assessment for the MLC in accordance with the criteria 
set forth in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7). NMPA Comment at 11. As a result, NMPA 
requests that the Judges eliminate the second clause of proposed Sec.  
355.3(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v).
    As a preliminary matter, the Judges acknowledge NMPA's concerns 
regarding the costs of gathering and providing information with respect 
to the MLC's operations, but the Judges believe that the NMPA is 
reading the proposal's requirement with respect to vendors too broadly. 
The Judges do not seek the type of granular information that NMPA's 
broad reading of proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v) implies. 
Rather, the proposal should be read more literally as requiring the MLC 
to produce information about the processes it employs in requesting 
proposals, inviting bids, ranking and selecting the proposals and bids 
of potential contracting and sub-contracting parties competitively (or 
by another method), and the processes for ensuring the absence of 
overlapping ownership or other overlapping economic interests between 
the MLC or its members and any selected contracting or sub-contracting 
party. In other words, when the MLC is seeking to employ a vendor, will 
it submit requests for proposals and choose the lowest bid? Will the 
MLC create a list of preferred vendors and employ one or more of them 
on an as-needed basis? Or will the MLC use another process for 
conducting its operations? The Judges believe that such information is 
well within the Judges' authority to carry out its obligations under 
the MMA to determine whether the MLC's costs are reasonable. 
Additionally, even if such information will be contained in the MLC's 
annual report, that document will not necessarily be completed and

[[Page 32302]]

available for the Judges to consider. Going forward, in future 
assessment adjustment proceedings, if the required information is fully 
set forth in the most recent annual report, the MLC could submit the 
relevant pages from that document and confirm they remain applicable, 
in an attempt to satisfy this required document production. 
Accordingly, the Judges decline to adopt NMPA's proposed revisions.
(e) Responses to Other Requests for Comments
    DiMA correctly pointed out that the Judges erred in the numbering 
of the subparagraphs of the definition of Purchased Content Locker 
Service in Sec.  385.2. DiMA Comment at 19-20. The Judges modify the 
definition to revert the numbering of this definition to the numbering 
in the extant definition.
    DiMA also noted an inconsistency in the proposal regarding the 
duration of the first negotiation period (i.e., 45 days in proposed 
Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(i) versus 60 days in proposed Sec.  355.4(a)). DiMA 
supports a 60-day period.\8\ In its comment NMPA noted the same 
discrepancy, and speculated that it might relate to the Judges' belief 
that the negotiation period should commence after the parties to the 
proceeding have been determined, rather than at the commencement of the 
proceeding as NMPA and DiMA had recommend in their Joint Proposal. NMPA 
Comment at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NMPA likewise noted the discrepancy but did not advocate for 
a particular duration for the negotiation period. See NMPA Comment 
at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Judges are sympathetic to DiMA's concerns that there be 
adequate time to negotiate and therefore expand the first negotiation 
period to 60 days, but the Judges note their desire that all parties 
have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in the negotiation 
process and therefore will direct the MLC and the DLC, if any, to 
monitor the list of parties filing petitions to participate \9\ and to 
include all petitioners in any ongoing negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case 
management system, eCRB, maintains a list of participants for each 
proceeding. That list is updated automatically each time a petition 
to participate is accepted for filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DiMA notes what it believes is an internal inconsistency in the 
beginning of the first discovery period set forth in proposed Sec.  
355.2(g)(1)(iii) and the second discovery period set forth in proposed 
Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(v) and the procedure for calculating due dates 
generally, set forth in proposed Sec.  303.7(a). DiMA recommends a 
modification to Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(iii). DiMA Comment at 21. The Judges 
believe that this recommendation is reasonable and appropriate and 
modify proposed Sec.  355.2(g)(1) to enhance its clarity.
    DiMA also highlights three parallel provisions in the proposed 
rules regarding the production of documents by the MLC concurrent with 
its opening submission in the initial administrative assessment 
proceeding (proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2)), in proceedings to adjust the 
assessment (proposed Sec.  355.3(c)(2)) and by the DLC and other 
participants concurrent with their responsive submissions (proposed 
Sec.  355.3(f)(2)). The first provision would require that the 
documents be filed with the Judges, while the second and third 
provision would not require such filing. DiMA believes that none of the 
provisions should require filing with the Judges and therefore 
recommends that the Judges modify proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2) to remove 
the filing requirement, which DiMA contends would help to promote 
efficiency in Administrative Assessment proceedings since the 
participants are likely to produce a broader scope of documents than 
the narrower subset of documents they ultimately will attach as 
exhibits to their submissions or use at the hearing. DiMA Comment at 
21-22. In the interests of promoting such efficiency, the Judges accept 
DiMA's recommendation and modify proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2) to mirror 
the related provisions that DiMA references.
    DiMA also highlights two parallel provisions in proposed Sec. Sec.  
355.3(b)(2)(iii) and 355.3(c)(2)(v) regarding documents the MLC must 
provide concurrently with its opening submission in the initial 
Administrative Assessment proceeding and in proceedings to adjust the 
Administrative Assessment. DiMA opines that the language in the two 
sections should be identical but that it currently varies and that such 
variation creates ambiguity and inconsistency. DiMA believes that the 
applicable language in proposed Sec.  355.3(c)(2)(v) is clearer and 
should apply to proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2)(iii) also. DiMA Comment at 
22-23. The Judges agree and accept DiMA's recommended modification.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The revised provision states: ``The Collective's processes 
for requesting proposals, inviting bids, ranking and selecting the 
proposals and bids of potential contracting and sub-contracting 
parties competitively (or by another method), including processes 
for ensuring the absence of overlapping ownership or other 
overlapping economic interests between the Collective or its members 
and any selected contracting or sub-contracting party''. Proposed 
Sec.  355.3(b)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DiMA also highlights a phrase in proposed Sec.  355.3(c)(2)(i) 
relating to the MLC's obligation to produce documents that identify and 
demonstrate ``costs, collections, and contributions as required by 17 
U.S.C. 115(d)(7) . . . including Collective Total Costs''. DiMA Comment 
at 23 (emphasis added by DiMA). DiMA asserts that the addition of the 
italicized phrase is inconsistent with an equivalent provision in 
proposed Sec.  355.3(b)(2)(i) and creates an ``unnecessary ambiguity'' 
because it suggests that there may be other costs that are relevant to 
the determination of the Administrative Assessment in addition to 
Collective Total Costs as that term is defined by the MMA. DiMA 
contends that there are no such other costs. As a result, DiMA 
recommends that the Judges strike the italicized language from proposed 
Sec.  355.3(c)(2)(i). In the interests of avoiding ambiguity, the 
Judges accept the recommended change.
    DiMA also highlights three sections of the rule proposal that 
address the mandatory written disclosures that the MLC, DLC, and other 
proceeding participants must provide concurrently with their 
submissions in the Administrative Assessment proceeding (i.e., proposed 
Sec. Sec.  355.3(b)(3), 355.3(c)(3), and 355.3(f)(3)). DiMA points out 
that although the substance of the written disclosures is generally 
consistent among the three subsections, the specific language of the 
proposed rules differs. DiMA recommends that the language of the three 
sections be harmonized and believes that the language of Sec.  
355.3(b)(3) is the clearest and therefore should be the model for each 
of the sections. DiMA Comment at 23-24. The Judges support the goal of 
harmonization of comparable provisions and therefore accept DiMA's 
recommended modifications.
    DiMA also recommended that proposed Sec.  355.3(e) addressing 
deposition notices be clarified by removing an ambiguity. DiMA Comment 
at 24. The Judges believe the recommended modification is appropriate 
and reasonable and therefore accept DiMA's recommended 
modification.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The modified sentence states: ``The initial notice of 
deposition under this paragraph (e) must be delivered by email or 
other electronic means to all participants in the proceeding, and 
such notice shall be sent no later than seven days prior to the 
scheduled deposition date, unless the deposition is scheduled to 
occur less than seven days after the date of the notice by agreement 
of the parties and the deponent.'' Proposed Sec.  355.3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DiMA also recommends that proposed Sec.  350.1 be modified to 
clarify that Administrative Assessment proceedings are proceedings 
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 801(b). The Judges believe that DiMA's 
recommended modification is appropriate and reasonable and

[[Page 32303]]

therefore they accept DiMA's recommended modification.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The modified sentence states: ``The procedures set forth in 
part 355 of this subchapter shall govern administrative assessment 
proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d) and 801(b)(8), and the 
procedures set forth in parts 351 through 354 of this subchapter 
shall govern all other proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 801(b).'' 
Proposed Sec.  350.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DiMA comments that the Judges declined in the proposal to adopt 
certain changes to extant Sec.  385.21(d), which DiMA contends would 
mitigate the need for future updates to part 385 which DiMA believes 
will likely be required after the Copyright Office adopts new 
regulations with respect to statements of account and the content and 
format of usage data that will be required to be reported to the MLC 
after the license availability date (as defined in the MMA) (e.g., 
while the per-play calculation is currently performed by the service 
providers, DiMA anticipates that that responsibility will shift to the 
MLC (based on data reported by the service providers) once the blanket 
license becomes available). DiMA Comment at 25. The Judges believe that 
the proposed changes to extant rule 385.21(d) are reasonable and 
appropriate and therefore adopt them.
    DiMA also recommended certain technical updates to proposed Sec.  
303.5 and related provisions that the Judges believe are appropriate 
and therefore adopt them.
    NMPA correctly noted that the Judges proposed, incorrectly, to omit 
385.31(d) regarding ``unauthorized use.'' NMPA Comment at 17. This 
provision will be unchanged from the extant provision.
    NMPA also cautioned the Judges that an observation that the Judges 
made in the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding retaining the 
extant assessment if the Judges found that the MLC's proposal did not 
fulfill the requirements of 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7) ``would seem to be 
inconsistent with the responsibilities entrusted to the [Judges] by 
Congress in relation to the administrative assessment.'' NMPA Comment 
at 3. NMPA states that the Judges must establish the Administrative 
Assessment in an amount that meets the requirements set forth in 17 
U.S.C. 115(d)(7). According to NMPA, ``[i]f the correct amount happens 
to be the extant assessment, then retaining that assessment would be 
appropriate if it fulfills the requisite statutory criteria--but if it 
does not fulfill such criteria, then retaining the extant amount would 
be erroneous.'' NMPA Comment at 4. The Judges recognize that no matter 
what amount they choose as the Administrative Assessment, that choice 
must be consistent with the Judges' obligations under the Copyright Act 
as amended by the MMA and supported by evidence in the record.
    In the Notice, the Judges also asked whether the DLC should be 
required (rather than permitted) to submit and support a 
counterproposal. 84 FR at 9057. NMPA believes that such a provision 
``is not only unnecessary, but would be counterproductive.'' NMPA 
Comment at 5. NMPA contends that the DLC should comment on and respond 
to the MLC's proposal rather than submit a wholly separate one. Id. 
NMPA states that under the MMA, it is the MLC and not the DLC or any 
other party that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that it 
fulfills its statutory duties. Id. NMPA contends that ``any legitimate 
proposal has to be based on the needs and budget of the MLC as 
reasonably determined by the MLC and supported by evidence offered in 
the administrative assessment proceeding.'' NMPA Comment at 6, emphasis 
by NMPA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NMPA asserts that the Administrative Assessment 
proceeding is fundamentally different from a royalty rate 
proceeding, in which the Judges typically consider competing 
proposals to determine the rate that best reflects the probable 
outcome of market-based negotiations. NMPA states that the 
Administrative Assessment is not meant to emulate market 
negotiations or choose between competing rates but is instead meant 
to capture the actual costs of operating the MLC. NMPA Comment at 
n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, NMPA supports proposed Sec.  355.3(f) in its current 
form, which, according to NMPA, reflects the approach in the Joint 
Comments of NMPA and DiMA by requiring the DLC and other parties to 
respond to the MLC's proposal rather than submit competing proposals. 
NMPA Comment at 6. NMPA requests, however, that the Judges modify the 
proposed definition of ``Discoverable'' in proposed Sec.  355.7 ``to 
ensure that it permits discovery of information relevant to both a 
proposal or response thereto.'' NMPA Comment at 6, emphasis original. 
NMPA also asks that the Judges eliminate the restriction in proposed 
Sec.  355.3(g) that limits the scope of discovery taken by the MLC to 
discovery regarding counterproposals. NMPA states the ``[i]n order to 
reply to concerns raised by the DLC or others, the MLC must be 
permitted to take discovery on their responsive submissions, regardless 
of the precise nature or characterization of those responses.'' NMPA 
Comment at 6, emphasis original.
    The Judges believe NMPA's proposed modifications are reasonable and 
appropriate and therefore adopt them. However, although the NMPA 
correctly notes that it is the MLC that has a responsibility under the 
MMA to identify its ``needs and budget,'' the DLC and the users of the 
musical works have a commensurate obligation under the MMA to bear the 
costs associated with operating the MLC. Nothing in the rules adopted 
herein prohibits the DLC (or any other participant that would bear any 
or all of the costs assessed) from proposing in its (or their) 
submissions, on an itemized basis corresponding with the items in the 
MLC's proposal, a rejection of, or substitution for, one or more of the 
provisions in the MLC proposal.
    NMPA also suggests that the Judges add the word ``relevant'' to the 
current definitions of ``end user'' and ``stream'' in Sec.  385.2 to 
avoid confusion regarding the usage of those terms in the regulation 
versus how those terms are used in the MMA, which, according to NMPA 
are used differently and in a less specific manner in the MMA than they 
are in part 385. NMPA Comment at 15-16.\14\ The Judges believe that the 
current proposed regulations are sufficiently clear and therefore 
decline to adopt NMPA's suggested modifications to the definitions of 
end user and stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NMPA also notes that the Judges declined to add a sentence 
to the definition of ``eligible interactive stream'' that states: 
``An Eligible Interactive Stream is a digital phonorecord 
delivery.'' NMPA Comment at 16. NMPA defers to the Judges' 
conclusion that such an addition is not necessary or helpful but 
notes that ``NMPA and DiMA understand `Eligible Interactive Streams' 
to be digital phonorecord deliveries as per the MMA definition, and 
therefore subject to licensing under section 115.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SoundExchange's Comment \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ SoundExchange did not address aspects of the proposed rules 
relating to the sec. 115 compulsory license. SoundExchange Comment 
at n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SoundExchange generally supports the proposed rules as they relate 
to pre-1972 recordings under secs. 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act and 
believes that the Judges should adopt these provisions substantially as 
proposed. SoundExchange Comment at 2.\16\ Most of SoundExchange's 
comment addressed the definition of copyright owner and the SDARS Pre-
1972 royalty deduction, which are discussed in turn below.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ SoundExchange also encourages the Judges to approve its 
pending proposal, unrelated to the current rulemaking, to grant 
SoundExchange the authority to use proxy data to distribute 
statutory royalties in cases in which a licensee never provides a 
usable report of use. SoundExchange Comment at n.2.
    \17\ SoundExchange also recommended two technical changes to the 
proposed rules, both of which the Judges adopt as recommended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Definition of Copyright Owner
    With respect to the definition of copyright owner in the proposed 
rules,

[[Page 32304]]

SoundExchange addresses a concern that the Judges raised about 
potential unintended consequences that could occur by including 
``rights owner'' as defined in sec. 1401(l)(2) of the Copyright Act in 
the definition of ``copyright owners.'' SoundExchange states that sec. 
1401 is ``quite clear about what rights do, and do not, come with being 
a rights owner under sec. 1401(l)(2).'' Moreover, SoundExchange ``does 
not believe that anyone could reasonably see the references to both 
copyright owners and rights owners within [the proposed definitions] 
and infer that those two concepts are redundant and mean the same thing 
for all purposes under the Copyright Act.'' SoundExchange Comment at 4. 
Nevertheless, SoundExchange suggests a proposed modification to the 
definition of Copyright Owners in Sec.  370.1 to distinguish between 
copyright owners under 17 U.S.C. 101 and rights owners under 17 U.S.C. 
1401(l)(2).\18\ The Judges believe the modification SoundExchange 
suggests addresses the concern of unintended consequences or confusion 
over the use of the term copyright owners to refer to copyright owners 
and rights owners. Therefore the Judges adopt the suggested 
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As an alternative that SoundExchange sees as less 
satisfactory, SoundExchange suggests that the Judges could adopt a 
new term that is neither copyright owner nor rights owner to refer 
to a group that includes both. The Judges agree that such an 
alternative would be less satisfaction than the first alternative 
that SoundExchange proposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) SDARS Pre-1972 Deduction
    SoundExchange also addressed the proposed amendments to part 382, 
subpart C, concerning adjustment of statutory royalty payment for SDARS 
to reflect use of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, 
which SoundExchange contended in its comment to the NOI ``have become 
inoperative by their terms.'' 84 FR at 9060, quoting SoundExchange 
Comment on Notice of Inquiry at 6. Although the Judges proposed the 
amendments as SoundExchange had recommended, the Judges requested 
comment on the effect, if any, the proposed modifications would have on 
computation of royalties when an SDARS plays pre-1972 sound recordings 
that have fallen into the public domain. 84 FR at 9060. SoundExchange 
acknowledges that beginning in 2022, there will be sound recordings in 
the public domain. Nevertheless, SoundExchange believes that because 
these sound recordings will be roughly a century or more old when that 
occurs that the possibility of Sirius XM using public domain recordings 
seems more theoretical than real. SoundExchange Comment at 6. 
SoundExchange tried to identify such recordings used by Sirius XM in a 
recent month and found that of the million sound recording plays during 
the month, only a ``handful of plays'' seemed potentially to involve 
recordings originally released before 1923. Id. at 8. By contrast, the 
extant pre-1972 deduction addressed 10-15% of Sirius XM's actual usage 
when the Judges adopted it in 2013. SoundExchange Comment at 9, citing 
SDARS II, 78 FR 23054, 23071 (Apr. 17, 2013). SoundExchange notes that 
the pre-1972 deduction is inoperative today and will have no material 
effect during the current rate period. SoundExchange Comment at 9. 
Moreover, SoundExchange is concerned that Sirius XM could misapply any 
permissible deduction and that the extant regulations could be misread 
as allowing a royalty deduction for recordings ``fixed before February 
15, 1972'' when no such deduction is available through 2021, and in 
2022 and 2023 a deduction would only apply to original recordings 
published before 1923. Id.
    The Judges believe that SoundExchange has adequately addressed 
concerns over an SDARS use of recordings that will enter the public 
domain and therefore adopt the regulations related to pre-1972 sound 
recordings as proposed.
(c) Proposed Technical Corrections
    SoundExchange also recommended two technical corrections, both of 
which the Judges find reasonable and appropriate and adopt. In 
particular, SoundExchange correctly noted that the authority citation 
for part 370 should reference sec. 114(f)(3)(A) rather than 
114(f)(4)(A) to reflect the renumbering of the paragraphs of sec. 
114(f) in the MMA. SoundExchange also noted that the definition of 
``Copyright Owner'' in Sec.  383.2(b) should refer to a copyright owner 
or (as opposed to and in the current proposal) a rights owner under 
sec. 1401(l)(2). SoundExchange Comment at 10.

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 303

    Administrative practice and procedure, Copyright, Lawyers.

37 CFR Part 350

    Administrative practice and procedure, Copyright.

37 CFR Part 355

    Administrative assessment, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Copyright.

37 CFR Parts 370 and 380

    Copyright, Sound recordings.

37 CFR Parts 382 and 383

    Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound 
recordings.

37 CFR Part 384

    Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Ephemeral recordings, 
Performance right, Sound recordings.

37 CFR Part 385

    Copyright, Phonorecords, Recordings.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty 
Judges amend 37 CFR chapter III as set forth below:

SUBCHAPTER A--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. Add part 303 to read as follows:

PART 303--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec.
303.1 [Reserved]
303.2 Representation.
303.3 Documents: Format and length.
303.4 Content of motion and responsive pleadings.
303.5 Electronic filing system (eCRB).
303.6 Filing and delivery.
303.7 Time.
303.8 Construction and waiver.

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 803.


Sec.  303.1   [Reserved]


Sec.  303.2   Representation.

    Individual parties in proceedings before the Judges may represent 
themselves or be represented by an attorney. All other parties must be 
represented by an attorney. Cf. Rule 49(c)(11) of the Rules of the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The appearance of an attorney on 
behalf of any party constitutes a representation that the attorney is a 
member of the bar, in one or more states, in good standing.


Sec.  303.3   Documents: Format and length.

    (a) Format--(1) Caption and description. Parties filing pleadings 
and documents in a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Judges must 
include on the first page of each filing a caption that identifies the 
proceeding by proceeding type and docket number, and a heading under 
the caption describing the nature of the document. In addition, to the 
extent technologically feasible using software available to the general 
public, Parties

[[Page 32305]]

must include a footer on each page after the page bearing the caption 
that includes the name and posture of the filing party, e.g., [Party's] 
Motion, [Party's] Response in Opposition, etc.
    (2) Page layout. Parties must submit documents that are typed 
(double spaced) using a serif typeface (e.g., Times New Roman) no 
smaller than 12 points for text or 10 points for footnotes and 
formatted for 8 \1/2\'' by 11'' pages with no less than 1 inch margins. 
Parties must assure that, to the extent technologically feasible using 
software available to the general public, any exhibit or attachment to 
documents reflects the docket number of the proceeding in which it is 
filed and that all pages are numbered appropriately. Any party 
submitting a document to the Copyright Royalty Board in paper format 
must submit it unfolded and produced on opaque 8 \1/2\ by 11 inch white 
paper using clear black text, and color to the extent the document uses 
color to convey information or enhance readability.
    (3) Binding or securing. Parties submitting any paper document to 
the Copyright Royalty Board must bind or secure the document in a 
manner that will prevent pages from becoming separated from the 
document. For example, acceptable forms of binding or securing include: 
Ring binders; spiral binding; comb binding; and for documents of fifty 
pages or fewer, a binder clip or single staple in the top left corner 
of the document. Rubber bands and paper clips are not acceptable means 
of securing a document.
    (b) Additional format requirements for electronic documents--(1) In 
general. Parties filing documents electronically through eCRB must 
follow the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section 
and the additional requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (10) of 
this section.
    (2) Pleadings; file type. Parties must file all pleadings, such as 
motions, responses, replies, briefs, notices, declarations of counsel, 
and memoranda, in Portable Document Format (PDF).
    (3) Proposed orders; file type. Parties filing a proposed order as 
required by Sec.  303.4 must prepare the proposed order as a separate 
Word document and submit it together with the main pleading.
    (4) Exhibits and attachments; file types. Parties must convert 
electronically (not scan) to PDF format all exhibits or attachments 
that are in electronic form, with the exception of proposed orders and 
any exhibits or attachments in electronic form that cannot be converted 
into a usable PDF file (such as audio and video files, files that 
contain text or images that would not be sufficiently legible after 
conversion, or spreadsheets that contain too many columns to be 
displayed legibly on an 8 \1/2\'' x 11'' page). Participants must 
provide electronic copies in their native electronic format of any 
exhibits or attachments that cannot be converted into a usable PDF 
file. In addition, participants may provide copies of other electronic 
files in their native format, in addition to PDF versions of those 
files, if doing so is likely to assist the Judges in perceiving the 
content of those files.
    (5) No scanned pleadings. Parties must convert every filed document 
directly to PDF format (using ``print to pdf'' or ``save to pdf''), 
rather than submitting a scanned PDF image. The Copyright Royalty Board 
will NOT accept scanned documents, except in the case of specific 
exhibits or attachments that are available to the filing party only in 
paper form.
    (6) Scanned exhibits. Parties must scan exhibits or other documents 
that are only available in paper form at no less than 300 dpi. All 
exhibits must be searchable. Parties must scan in color any exhibit 
that uses color to convey information or enhance readability.
    (7) Bookmarks. Parties must include in all electronic documents 
appropriate electronic bookmarks to designate the tabs and/or tables of 
contents that would appear in a paper version of the same document.
    (8) Page rotation. Parties must ensure that all pages in electronic 
documents are right side up, regardless of whether they are formatted 
for portrait or landscape printing.
    (9) Signature. The signature line of an electronic pleading must 
contain ``/s/'' followed by the signer's typed name. The name on the 
signature line must match the name of the user logged into eCRB to file 
the document.
    (10) File size. The eCRB system will not accept PDF or Word files 
that exceed 128 MB, or files in any other format that exceed 500 MB. 
Parties may divide excessively large files into multiple parts if 
necessary to conform to this limitation.
    (c) Length of submissions. Whether filing in paper or 
electronically, parties must adhere to the following space limitations 
or such other space limitations as set forth in subchapter B or as the 
Copyright Royalty Judges may direct by order. Any party seeking an 
enlargement of the applicable page limit must make the request by a 
motion to the Copyright Royalty Judges filed no fewer than three days 
prior to the applicable filing deadline. Any order granting an 
enlargement of the page limit for a motion or response shall be deemed 
to grant the same enlargement of the page limit for a response or 
reply, respectively.
    (1) Motions. Motions must not exceed 20 pages and must not exceed 
5000 words (exclusive of cover pages, tables of contents, tables of 
authorities, signature blocks, exhibits, and proof of delivery).
    (2) Responses. Responses in support of or opposition to motions 
must not exceed 20 pages and must not exceed 5000 words (exclusive of 
cover pages, tables of contents, tables of authorities, signature 
blocks, exhibits, and proof of delivery).
    (3) Replies. Replies in support of motions must not exceed 10 pages 
and must not exceed 2500 words (exclusive of cover pages, tables of 
contents, tables of authorities, signature blocks, exhibits, and proof 
of delivery).


Sec.  303.4  Content of motion and responsive pleadings.

    A motion, responsive pleading, or reply must, at a minimum, state 
concisely the specific relief the party seeks from the Copyright 
Royalty Judges, and the legal, factual, and evidentiary basis for 
granting that relief (or denying the relief sought by the moving 
party). A motion, or a responsive pleading that seeks alternative 
relief, must be accompanied by a proposed order.


Sec.  303.5   Electronic filing system (eCRB).

    (a) Documents to be filed by electronic means. Except as otherwise 
provided in this chapter, all attorneys must file documents with the 
Copyright Royalty Board through eCRB. Pro se parties may file documents 
with the Copyright Royalty Board through eCRB, subject to Sec.  
303.4(c)(2).
    (b) Official record. The electronic version of a document filed 
through and stored in eCRB will be the official record of the Copyright 
Royalty Board.
    (c) Obtaining an electronic filing password--(1) Attorneys. An 
attorney must obtain an eCRB password from the Copyright Royalty Board 
in order to file documents or to receive copies of orders and 
determinations of the Copyright Royalty Judges. The Copyright Royalty 
Board will issue an eCRB password after the attorney applicant 
completes the application form available on the CRB website.
    (2) Pro se parties. A party not represented by an attorney (a pro 
se party) may obtain an eCRB password from the Copyright Royalty Board 
with permission from the Copyright Royalty Judges, in their discretion. 
Once the

[[Page 32306]]

Copyright Royalty Board has issued an eCRB password to a pro se party, 
that party must make all subsequent filings by electronic means through 
eCRB.
    (3) Claimants. Any person desiring to file a claim with the 
Copyright Royalty Board for copyright royalties may obtain an eCRB 
password for the limited purpose of filing claims by completing the 
application form available on the CRB website.
    (d) Use of an eCRB password. An eCRB password may be used only by 
the person to whom it is assigned, or, in the case of an attorney, by 
that attorney or an authorized employee or agent of that attorney's law 
office or organization. The person to whom an eCRB password is assigned 
is responsible for any document filed using that password.
    (e) Signature. The use of an eCRB password to login and submit 
documents creates an electronic record. The password operates and 
serves as the signature of the person to whom the password is assigned 
for all purposes under this chapter III.
    (f) Originals of sworn documents. The electronic filing of a 
document that contains a sworn declaration, verification, certificate, 
statement, oath, or affidavit certifies that the original signed 
document is in the possession of the attorney or pro se party 
responsible for the filing and that it is available for review upon 
request by a party or by the Copyright Royalty Judges. The filer must 
file through eCRB a scanned copy of the signature page of the sworn 
document together with the document itself.
    (g) Consent to delivery by electronic means. An attorney or pro se 
party who obtains an eCRB password consents to electronic delivery of 
all documents, subsequent to the petition to participate, that are 
filed by electronic means through eCRB. Counsel and pro se parties are 
responsible for monitoring their email accounts and, upon receipt of 
notice of an electronic filing, for retrieving the noticed filing. 
Parties and their counsel bear the responsibility to keep the contact 
information in their eCRB profiles current.
    (h) Accuracy of docket entry. A person filing a document by 
electronic means is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the 
official docket entry generated by the eCRB system, including proper 
identification of the proceeding, the filing party, and the description 
of the document. The Copyright Royalty Board will maintain on its 
website (www.loc.gov/crb) appropriate guidance regarding naming 
protocols for eCRB filers.
    (i) Documents subject to a protective order. A person filing a 
document by electronic means must ensure, at the time of filing, that 
any documents subject to a protective order are identified to the eCRB 
system as ``restricted'' documents. This requirement is in addition to 
any requirements detailed in the applicable protective order. Failure 
to identify documents as ``restricted'' to the eCRB system may result 
in inadvertent publication of sensitive, protected material.
    (j) Exceptions to requirement of electronic filing--(1) Certain 
exhibits or attachments. Parties may file in paper form any exhibits or 
attachments that are not in a format that readily permits electronic 
filing, such as oversized documents; or are illegible when scanned into 
electronic format. Parties filing paper documents or things pursuant to 
this paragraph must deliver legible or usable copies of the documents 
or things in accordance with Sec.  303.6(a)(2) and must file 
electronically a notice of filing that includes a certificate of 
delivery.
    (2) Pro se parties. A pro se party may file documents in paper form 
and must deliver and accept delivery of documents in paper form, unless 
the pro se party has obtained an eCRB password.
    (k) Privacy requirements. (1) Unless otherwise instructed by the 
Copyright Royalty Judges, parties must exclude or redact from all 
electronically filed documents, whether designated ``restricted'' or 
not:
    (i) Social Security numbers. If an individual's Social Security 
number must be included in a filed document for evidentiary reasons, 
the filer must use only the last four digits of that number.
    (ii) Names of minor children. If a minor child must be mentioned in 
a document for evidentiary reasons, the filer must use only the 
initials of that child.
    (iii) Dates of birth. If an individual's date of birth must be 
included in a pleading for evidentiary reasons, the filer must use only 
the year of birth.
    (iv) Financial account numbers. If a financial account number must 
be included in a pleading for evidentiary reasons, the filer must use 
only the last four digits of the account identifier.
    (2) Protection of personally identifiable information. If any 
information identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section must be 
included in a filed document, the filing party must treat it as 
confidential information subject to the applicable protective order. In 
addition, parties may treat as confidential, and subject to the 
applicable protective order, other personal information that is not 
material to the proceeding.
    (l) Incorrectly filed documents. (1) The Copyright Royalty Board 
may direct an eCRB filer to re-file a document that has been 
incorrectly filed, or to correct an erroneous or inaccurate docket 
entry.
    (2) If an attorney or a pro se party who has been issued an eCRB 
password inadvertently presents a document for filing in paper form, 
the Copyright Royalty Board may direct the attorney or pro se party to 
file the document electronically. The document will be deemed filed on 
the date it was first presented for filing if, no later than the next 
business day after being so directed by the Copyright Royalty Board, 
the attorney or pro se participant files the document electronically. 
If the party fails to make the electronic filing on the next business 
day, the document will be deemed filed on the date of the electronic 
filing.
    (m) Technical difficulties. (1) A filer encountering technical 
problems with an eCRB filing must immediately notify the Copyright 
Royalty Board of the problem either by email or by telephone, followed 
promptly by written confirmation.
    (2) If a filer is unable due to technical problems to make a filing 
with eCRB by an applicable deadline, and makes the notification 
required by paragraph (m)(1) of this section, the filer shall use 
electronic mail to make the filing with the CRB and deliver the filing 
to the other parties to the proceeding. The filing shall be considered 
to have been made at the time it was filed by electronic mail. The 
Judges may direct the filer to refile the document through eCRB when 
the technical problem has been resolved, but the document shall retain 
its original filing date.
    (3) The inability to complete an electronic filing because of 
technical problems arising in the eCRB system may constitute ``good 
cause'' (as used in Sec.  303.6(b)(4)) for an order enlarging time or 
excusable neglect for the failure to act within the specified time, 
provided the filer complies with paragraph (m)(1) of this section. This 
section does not provide authority to extend statutory time limits.


Sec.  303.6   Filing and delivery.

    (a) Filing of pleadings--(1) Electronic filing through eCRB. Except 
as described in Sec.  303.5(l)(2), any document filed by electronic 
means through eCRB in accordance with Sec.  303.5 constitutes filing 
for all purposes under this chapter, effective as of the date and time 
the document is received and timestamped by eCRB.

[[Page 32307]]

    (2) All other filings. For all filings not submitted by electronic 
means through eCRB, the submitting party must deliver an original, five 
paper copies, and one electronic copy in Portable Document Format (PDF) 
on an optical data storage medium such as a CD or DVD, a flash memory 
device, or an external hard disk drive to the Copyright Royalty Board 
in accordance with the provisions described in Sec.  301.2 of this 
chapter. In no case will the Copyright Royalty Board accept any 
document by facsimile transmission or electronic mail, except with 
prior express authorization of the Copyright Royalty Judges.
    (b) Exhibits. Filers must include all exhibits with the pleadings 
they support. In the case of exhibits not submitted by electronic means 
through eCRB, whose bulk or whose cost of reproduction would 
unnecessarily encumber the record or burden the party, the Copyright 
Royalty Judges will consider a motion, made in advance of the filing, 
to reduce the number of required copies. See Sec.  303.5(j).
    (c) English language translations. Filers must accompany each 
submission that is in a language other than English with an English-
language translation, duly verified under oath to be a true 
translation. Any other party to the proceeding may, in response, submit 
its own English-language translation, similarly verified, so long as 
the responding party's translation proves a substantive, relevant 
difference in the document.
    (d) Affidavits. The testimony of each witness must be accompanied 
by an affidavit or a declaration made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 
supporting the testimony. See Sec.  303.5(f).
    (e) Subscription--(1) Parties represented by counsel. Subject to 
Sec.  303.5(e), all documents filed electronically by counsel must be 
signed by at least one attorney of record and must list the attorney's 
full name, mailing address, email address (if any), telephone number, 
and a state bar identification number. See Sec.  303.5(e). Submissions 
signed by an attorney for a party need not be verified or accompanied 
by an affidavit. The signature of an attorney constitutes certification 
that the contents of the document are true and correct, to the best of 
the signer's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances and:
    (i) The document is not being presented for any improper purpose, 
such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in 
the cost of litigation;
    (ii) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are 
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the 
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the 
establishment of new law;
    (iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have 
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to 
have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 
investigation or discovery; and
    (iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted by the 
evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a 
lack of information or belief.
    (2) Parties representing themselves. The original of all paper 
documents filed by a party not represented by counsel must be signed by 
that party and list that party's full name, mailing address, email 
address (if any), and telephone number. The party's signature will 
constitute the party's certification that, to the best of his or her 
knowledge and belief, there is good ground to support the document, and 
that it has not been interposed for purposes of delay.
    (f) Responses and replies. Responses in support of or opposition to 
motions must be filed within ten days of the filing of the motion. 
Replies to responses must be filed within five days of the filing of 
the response.
    (g) Participant list. The Copyright Royalty Judges will compile and 
distribute to those parties who have filed a valid petition to 
participate the official participant list for each proceeding, 
including each participant's mailing address, email address, and 
whether the participant is using the eCRB system for filing and receipt 
of documents in the proceeding. For all paper filings, a party must 
deliver a copy of the document to counsel for all other parties 
identified in the participant list, or, if the party is unrepresented 
by counsel, to the party itself. Parties must notify the Copyright 
Royalty Judges and all parties of any change in the name or address at 
which they will accept delivery and must update their eCRB profiles 
accordingly.
    (h) Delivery method and proof of delivery--(1) Electronic filings 
through eCRB. Electronic filing of any document through eCRB operates 
to effect delivery of the document to counsel or pro se participants 
who have obtained eCRB passwords, and the automatic notice of filing 
sent by eCRB to the filer constitutes proof of delivery. Counsel or 
parties who have not yet obtained eCRB passwords must deliver and 
receive delivery as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 
Parties making electronic filings are responsible for assuring delivery 
of all filed documents to parties that do not use the eCRB system.
    (2) Other filings. During the course of a proceeding, each party 
must deliver all documents that they have filed other than through eCRB 
to the other parties or their counsel by means no slower than overnight 
express mail sent on the same day they file the documents, or by such 
other means as the parties may agree in writing among themselves. 
Parties must include a proof of delivery with any document delivered in 
accordance with this paragraph.


Sec.  303.7   Time.

    (a) Computation. To compute the due date for filing and delivering 
any document or performing any other act directed by an order of the 
Copyright Royalty Judges or the rules of the Copyright Royalty Board:
    (1) Exclude the day of the act, event, or default that begins the 
period.
    (2) Exclude intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays 
when the period is less than 11 days, unless computation of the due 
date is stated in calendar days.
    (3) Include the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, 
Sunday, Federal holiday, or a day on which the weather or other 
conditions render the Copyright Royalty Board's office inaccessible.
    (4) As used in this rule, ``Federal holiday'' means the date 
designated for the observance of New Year's Day, Inauguration Day, 
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., George Washington's Birthday, 
Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, 
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and any other day declared a Federal 
holiday by the President or the Congress.
    (5) Except as otherwise described in this Chapter or in an order by 
the Copyright Royalty Judges, the Copyright Royalty Board will consider 
documents to be timely filed only if:
    (i) They are filed electronically through eCRB and time-stamped by 
11:59:59 p.m. Eastern time on the due date;
    (ii) They are sent by U.S. mail, are addressed in accordance with 
Sec.  301.2(a) of this chapter, have sufficient postage, and bear a 
USPS postmark on or before the due date;
    (iii) They are hand-delivered by private party to the Copyright 
Office Public Information Office in accordance with Sec.  301.2(b) of 
this chapter and received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the due date; or
    (iv) They are hand-delivered by commercial courier to the 
Congressional Courier Acceptance Site in accordance with Sec.  301.2(c) 
of this chapter and

[[Page 32308]]

received by 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on the due date.
    (6) Any document sent by mail and dated only with a business postal 
meter will be considered filed on the date it is actually received by 
the Library of Congress.
    (b) Extensions. A party seeking an extension must do so by written 
motion. Prior to filing such a motion, a party must attempt to obtain 
consent from the other parties to the proceeding. An extension motion 
must state:
    (1) The date on which the action or submission is due;
    (2) The length of the extension sought;
    (3) The date on which the action or submission would be due if the 
extension were allowed;
    (4) The reason or reasons why there is good cause for the delay;
    (5) The justification for the amount of additional time being 
sought; and
    (6) The attempts that have been made to obtain consent from the 
other parties to the proceeding and the position of the other parties 
on the motion.


Sec.  303.8   Construction and waiver.

    The regulations of the Copyright Royalty Judges in this chapter are 
intended to provide efficient and just administrative proceedings and 
will be construed to advance these purposes. For purposes of an 
individual proceeding, the provisions of subchapters A and B may be 
suspended or waived, in whole or in part, upon a showing of good cause, 
to the extent allowable by law.

SUBCHAPTER B--COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES RULES AND PROCEDURES

0
2. Revise part 350 to read as follows:

PART 350--SCOPE

Sec.
350.1 Scope.
350.2-350.4 [Reserved]

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 803.


Sec.  350.1   Scope.

    This subchapter governs procedures applicable to proceedings before 
the Copyright Royalty Judges in making determinations and adjustments 
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d) and 801(b). The procedures set forth in 
part 355 of this subchapter shall govern administrative assessment 
proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d) and 801(b)(8), and the 
procedures set forth in parts 351 through 354 of this subchapter shall 
govern all other proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 801(b).


Sec.  350.2-350.4   [Reserved]

0
3. Add part 355 to read as follows:

PART 355--ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS

Sec.
355.1 Proceedings in general.
355.2 Commencement of proceedings.
355.3 Submissions and discovery.
355.4 Negotiation periods.
355.5 Hearing procedures.
355.6 Determinations.
355.7 Definitions.

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 801; 17 U.S.C. 115.


Sec.  355.1   Proceedings in general.

    (a) Scope. This section governs proceedings before the Copyright 
Royalty Judges to determine or adjust the Administrative Assessment 
pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 115(d), including establishing 
procedures to enable the Copyright Royalty Judges to make necessary 
evidentiary or procedural rulings.
    (b) Rulings. The Copyright Royalty Judges may make any necessary 
procedural or evidentiary rulings during any proceeding under this 
section and may, before commencing a proceeding under this section, 
make any rulings that will apply to proceedings to be conducted under 
this section.
    (c) Role of Chief Judge. The Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, or an 
individual Copyright Royalty Judge designated by the Chief Copyright 
Royalty Judge, shall:
    (1) Administer an oath or affirmation to any witness; and
    (2) Rule on objections and motions.


Sec.  355.2   Commencement of proceedings.

    (a) Commencement of initial Administrative Assessment proceeding. 
The Copyright Royalty Judges shall commence a proceeding to determine 
the initial Administrative Assessment by publication no later than July 
8, 2019, of a notice in the Federal Register seeking the filing of 
petitions to participate in the proceeding.
    (b) Adjustments of the Administrative Assessment. Following the 
determination of the initial Administrative Assessment, the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective, the Digital Licensee Coordinator, if any, and 
interested copyright owners, Digital Music Providers, or Significant 
Nonblanket Licensees may file a petition with the Copyright Royalty 
Judges to commence a proceeding to adjust the Administrative 
Assessment. Any petition for adjustment of the Administrative 
Assessment must be filed during the month of May and may not be filed 
earlier than 1 year following the most recent publication in the 
Federal Register of a determination of the Administrative Assessment by 
the Copyright Royalty Judges. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall accept 
a properly filed petition under this paragraph (b) as sufficient 
grounds to commence a proceeding to adjust the Administrative 
Assessment and shall publish a notice in the Federal Register in the 
month of June seeking petitions to participate in the proceeding.
    (c) Required participants. The Mechanical Licensing Collective and 
the Digital Licensee Coordinator designated by the Register of 
Copyrights in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5) shall each file a 
petition to participate and shall participate in each Administrative 
Assessment proceeding under this section.
    (d) Other eligible participants. A copyright owner, Digital Music 
Provider, or Significant Nonblanket Licensee may file a petition to 
participate in a proceeding under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. 
The Copyright Royalty Judges shall accept petitions to participate 
filed under this paragraph (d) unless the Judges find that the 
petitioner lacks a significant interest in the proceeding.
    (e) Petitions to participate. Each petition to participate filed 
under this section must include:
    (1) A filing fee of $150;
    (2) The full name, address, telephone number, and email address of 
the petitioner;
    (3) The full name, address, telephone number, and email address of 
the person filing the petition and of the petitioner's representative, 
if either differs from the filer; and
    (4) Factual information sufficient to establish that the petitioner 
has a significant interest in the determination of the Administrative 
Assessment.
    (f) Notice of identity of petitioners. The Copyright Royalty Judges 
shall give notice to all petitioners of the identity of all other 
petitioners.
    (g) Proceeding Schedule. (1) The Copyright Royalty Judges shall 
establish a schedule for the proceeding, which shall include dates for:
    (i) A first negotiation period of 60 days, beginning on the date of 
commencement of the proceeding;
    (ii) Filing of the opening submission by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective described in Sec.  355.3(b) or (c), with concurrent 
production of required documents and disclosures;
    (iii) A period of 60 days, beginning on the day after the date the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective files its opening submission, for the 
Digital Licensee Coordinator and any other participant in the 
proceeding, other than the Mechanical Licensing Collective, to serve 
discovery requests and complete discovery pursuant to Sec.  355.3(d);

[[Page 32309]]

    (iv) Filing of responsive submissions by the Digital Licensee 
Coordinator and any other participant in the proceeding, with 
concurrent production of required documents and disclosures;
    (v) A period of 60 days, beginning on the day after the due date 
for filing responsive submissions, for the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective to serve discovery requests and complete discovery of the 
Digital Licensee Coordinator and any other participant in the 
proceeding pursuant to Sec.  355.3(g);
    (vi) A second negotiation period of 14 days, commencing on the day 
after the end of the Mechanical Licensing Collective's discovery 
period;
    (vii) Filing of a reply submission, if any, by the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective;
    (viii) Filing of a joint pre-hearing submission by the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective, the Digital Licensee Coordinator, and any other 
participant in the hearing; and
    (ix) A hearing on the record.
    (2) The Copyright Royalty Judges may, for good cause shown and upon 
reasonable notice to all participants, modify the schedule, except no 
participant in the proceeding may rely on a schedule modification as a 
basis for delaying the scheduled hearing date. The Copyright Royalty 
Judges may alter the hearing schedule only upon a showing of 
extraordinary circumstances. No alteration of the schedule shall change 
the due date of the determination.


Sec.  355.3   Submissions and discovery.

    (a) Protective orders. During the first negotiation period, the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective, the Digital Licensee Coordinator, and 
any other participants that are represented by counsel shall negotiate 
and agree upon a written protective order to preserve the 
confidentiality of any confidential documents, depositions, or other 
information exchanged or filed by the participants in the proceeding. 
No later than 15 days after the Judges' identification of participants, 
proponents of a protective order shall file with the Copyright Royalty 
Judges a motion for review and approval of the order. No participant in 
the proceeding shall distribute or exchange confidential documents, 
depositions, or other information with any other participant in the 
proceeding until the receiving participant affirms in writing its 
consent to the protective order governing the proceeding.
    (b) Submission by the Mechanical Licensing Collective in the 
initial Administrative Assessment proceeding. (1) The Mechanical 
Licensing Collective shall file an opening submission, in accordance 
with the schedule the Copyright Royalty Judges adopt pursuant to Sec.  
355.2(g), setting forth and supporting the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective's proposed initial Administrative Assessment. The opening 
submission shall consist of a written statement, including any written 
testimony and accompanying exhibits, and include reasons why the 
proposed initial Administrative Assessment fulfills the requirements in 
17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7).
    (2) Concurrently with the filing of the opening submission, the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective shall produce electronically and 
deliver by email to the other participants in the proceeding documents 
that identify and demonstrate:
    (i) Costs, collections, and contributions as required by 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7) through the License Availability Date and for the three 
calendar years following thereafter;
    (ii) The reasonableness of the Collective Total Costs;
    (iii) The Collective's processes for requesting proposals, inviting 
bids, ranking and selecting the proposals and bids of potential 
contracting and sub-contracting parties competitively (or by another 
method), including processes for ensuring the absence of overlapping 
ownership or other overlapping economic interests between the 
Collective or its members and any selected contracting or sub-
contracting party; and
    (iv) The reasons why the proposal fulfills the requirements in 17 
U.S.C. 115(d)(7).
    (3) Concurrently with the filing of the opening submission, the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective shall provide electronically and 
deliver by email to the other participants in the proceeding written 
disclosures that:
    (i) List the individuals with material knowledge of, and 
availability to provide testimony concerning, the proposed initial 
Administrative Assessment; and
    (ii) For each listed individual, describe the subject(s) of his or 
her knowledge.
    (c) Submission by the Mechanical Licensing Collective in 
proceedings to adjust the Administrative Assessment. (1) The Mechanical 
Licensing Collective shall file an opening submission according to the 
schedule the Copyright Royalty Judges adopt pursuant to Sec.  355.2(g). 
The opening submission shall set forth and support the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective's proposal to maintain or adjust the 
Administrative Assessment, including reasons why the proposal fulfills 
the requirements in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7). The opening submission shall 
include a written statement, any written testimony and accompanying 
exhibits, including financial statements from the three most recent 
years' operations of the Mechanical Licensing Collective with annual 
budgets as well as annual actual income and expense statements.
    (2) Concurrently with the filing of the opening submission, the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective shall produce electronically and 
deliver by email to the other participants in the proceeding documents 
that identify and demonstrate:
    (i) Costs, collections, and contributions as required by 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7) for the preceding three calendar years and the three calendar 
years following thereafter;
    (ii) For the preceding three calendar years, the amount of actual 
Collective Total Costs that was not sufficiently funded by the prior 
Administrative Assessment, or the amount of any surplus from the prior 
Administrative Assessment after funding actual Collective Total Costs;
    (iii) Actual collections from Digital Music Providers and 
Significant Nonblanket Licensees for the preceding three calendar years 
and anticipated collections for the three calendar years following 
thereafter;
    (iv) The reasonableness of the Collective Total Costs; and
    (v) The Collective's processes for requesting proposals, inviting 
bids, ranking and selecting the proposals and bids of potential 
contracting and sub-contracting parties competitively (or by another 
method), including processes for ensuring the absence of overlapping 
ownership or other overlapping economic interests between the 
Collective or its members and any selected contracting or sub-
contracting party.
    (3) Concurrently with the filing of the opening submission, the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective shall provide electronically and 
deliver by email to the other participants in the proceeding written 
disclosures that:
    (i) List the individuals with material knowledge of, and 
availability to provide testimony concerning, the proposed adjusted 
Administrative Assessment; and
    (ii) For each listed individual, describe the subject(s) of his or 
her knowledge.
    (d) First discovery period. (1) During the first discovery period, 
the Digital Licensee Coordinator and any other participant in the 
proceeding other than the Mechanical Licensing Collective,

[[Page 32310]]

acting separately or represented jointly to the extent permitted by the 
concurrence of their interests, may serve requests for additional 
documents on the Mechanical Licensing Collective and any other 
participant in the proceeding. Any document request shall be limited to 
documents that are Discoverable.
    (2) The Digital Licensee Coordinator and any other participant in 
the proceeding, other than the Mechanical Licensing Collective, may 
notice and take depositions as provided in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (e) Depositions. The Digital Licensee Coordinator may give notice 
of and take up to five depositions during the first discovery period. 
To the extent any other participant eligible to take discovery during 
the first discovery period and whose interests may not be fully 
represented by either the Mechanical Licensing Collective or the 
Digital Licensee Coordinator seeks to notice and take a deposition, 
that participant shall first notify all other proceeding participants 
and the participants shall attempt, in good faith, to accommodate by 
agreement of the parties any deposition for which good cause is shown. 
If, after good faith discussions, the participants are unable to agree 
with respect to any such additional deposition, the participant seeking 
to take the deposition may file a motion pursuant to paragraph (h) of 
this section. The Mechanical Licensing Collective may give notice of 
and take up to five depositions during the second discovery period. Any 
deposition under this paragraph (e) shall be no longer than seven hours 
in duration on the record (exclusive of adjournments for lunch and 
other personal needs), with each deponent subject to a maximum of one 
seven-hour deposition in any Administrative Assessment proceeding, 
except as otherwise extended in this part, or upon a motion 
demonstrating good cause to extend the hour and day limits. In addition 
to the party noticing the deposition, any other parties to the 
proceeding may attend any depositions and shall have a right, but not 
an obligation, to examine the deponent during the final hour of the 
deposition, (except as that allocation of time may otherwise be 
stipulated by agreement of all participants attending the deposition), 
provided that any participant exercising its right to examine a 
deponent provides notice of that intent no later than two days prior to 
the scheduled deposition date. The initial notice of deposition under 
this paragraph (e) must be delivered by email or other electronic means 
to all participants in the proceeding, and such notice shall be sent no 
later than seven days prior to the scheduled deposition date, unless 
the deposition is scheduled to occur less than seven days after the 
date of the notice by agreement of the parties and the deponent. An 
individual is properly named as a deponent if that individual likely 
possesses information that meets the standards for document production 
under this part.
    (f) Responsive submissions by the Digital Licensee Coordinator and 
other participants. The Digital Licensee Coordinator and any other 
participant in the proceeding shall file responsive submissions with 
the Copyright Royalty Judges in accordance with the schedule adopted by 
the Copyright Royalty Judges.
    (1) Responsive submissions of the Digital Licensee Coordinator, and 
any other participant in the proceeding, shall consist of a written 
statement, including any written testimony and accompanying exhibits, 
stating the extent to which the filing participant agrees with the 
Administrative Assessment proposed by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective. If the filing participant disagrees with all or part of the 
Administrative Assessment proposed by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective, then the written statement, including any written testimony 
and accompanying exhibits, shall include analysis necessary to 
demonstrate why the Administrative Assessment proposed by the 
Mechanical Licensing Collective does not fulfill the requirements set 
forth in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7).
    (2) Concurrently with the filing of a responsive submission 
indicating disagreement with the Administrative Assessment proposed by 
the Mechanical Licensing Collective, the filing participant shall 
produce electronically and deliver by email to the participants in and 
parties to the proceeding documents that demonstrate why the 
Administrative Assessment proposed by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective does not fulfill the requirements set forth in 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7).
    (3) Concurrently with the filing of responsive submission(s), the 
filing participant shall provide electronically and deliver by email to 
the other participants in the proceeding written disclosures that:
    (i) List the individuals with material knowledge of, and 
availability to provide testimony concerning, the reasons why the 
Administrative Assessment proposed by the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective does not fulfill the requirements set forth in 17 U.S.C. 
115(d)(7); and
    (ii) For each listed individual, describe the subject(s) of his or 
her knowledge.
    (g) Second discovery period. (1) During the discovery period 
described in Sec.  355.2(g)(1)(v), the Mechanical Licensing Collective 
may serve requests for additional documents on the Digital Licensee 
Coordinator and other parties to the proceeding. Such requests shall be 
limited to documents that are Discoverable.
    (2) The Mechanical Licensing Collective may notice and take 
depositions as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (h) Discovery disputes. (1) Prior to invoking the procedures set 
forth in this paragraph (h), any participant that seeks intervention of 
the Copyright Royalty Judges to resolve a discovery dispute must first 
attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute between it and the other 
proceeding participant(s). All proceeding participants have a duty to, 
and shall, cooperate in good faith to resolve any such disputes without 
involvement of the Copyright Royalty Judges to the extent possible.
    (2) In the event that two or more participants are unable to 
resolve a discovery dispute after good-faith consultation, a 
participant requesting discovery may file a motion and brief of no more 
than 1,500 words with the Copyright Royalty Judges. The motion must 
include a certification that the participant filing the motion 
attempted to resolve the dispute at issue in good faith, but was unable 
to do so. For a dispute involving the provision of documents or 
deposition testimony, the brief shall detail the reasons why the 
documents or deposition testimony are Discoverable.
    (3) The responding participant may file a responsive brief of no 
more than 1,500 words within two business days of the submission of the 
initial brief.
    (4) Absent unusual circumstances, the Copyright Royalty Judges will 
rule on the dispute within three business days of the filing of the 
responsive brief. Upon reasonable notice to the participants, the Chief 
Copyright Royalty Judge, or an individual Copyright Royalty Judge 
designated by the Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, may consider and rule 
on any discovery dispute in a telephone conference with the relevant 
participants.
    (i) Reply submissions by the Mechanical Licensing Collective. The 
Mechanical Licensing Collective may file a written reply submission 
addressed only to the issues raised in any responsive submission(s) 
filed under paragraph (f) of this section in accordance with the 
schedule adopted

[[Page 32311]]

by the Copyright Royalty Judges, which reply may include written 
testimony, documentation, and analysis addressed only to the issues 
raised in responsive submission(s).
    (j) Joint pre-hearing submission. No later than 14 days prior to 
the commencement of the hearing, the Mechanical Licensing Collective, 
the Digital Licensee Coordinator, and any other parties to the 
proceeding shall file jointly a written submission with the Copyright 
Royalty Judges, stating:
    (1) Specific areas of agreement between the parties; and
    (2) A concise statement of issues remaining in dispute with respect 
to the determination of the Administrative Assessment.


Sec.  355.4   Negotiation periods.

    (a) First negotiation period. The Mechanical Licensing Collective 
and the Digital Licensee Coordinator shall, and other participants may, 
participate in good faith in a first negotiation period in an attempt 
to reach an agreement with respect to any issues in dispute regarding 
the Administrative Assessment, commencing on the day of commencement 
under Sec.  355.2(a) or (b), as applicable, and lasting 60 days. The 
Mechanical Licensing Collective shall advise the other participants, 
via email, about the negotiations and invite them to participate, as 
those participants appear in the participant list in eCRB.
    (b) Second negotiation period. The Mechanical Licensing Collective 
and the Digital Licensee Coordinator shall, and all other participants 
may, participate in good faith in a second negotiation period 
commencing on a date set by the Copyright Royalty Judges and lasting 14 
days.
    (c) Written notification regarding result of negotiations. By the 
close of a negotiation period, the Mechanical Licensing Collective and 
the Digital Licensee Coordinator shall file in eCRB a joint written 
notification indicating
    (1) Whether they have reached an agreement, in whole or in part, 
with respect to issues in dispute regarding the Administrative 
Assessment,
    (2) The details of any agreement,
    (3) A description of any issues as to which they have not reached 
agreement, and
    (4) A list of other participants that intend to join in any 
proposed settlement resulting from the agreement of the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective and the Digital Licensee Coordinator. 
Participants, other than the settling parties, may, within five days 
following the filing of a proposed settlement, file in eCRB comments 
(not to exceed ten pages and not to exceed 2500 words exclusive of 
cover pages, tables of contents, tables of authorities, signature 
blocks, exhibits, and proof of delivery) about the proposed settlement. 
The settling parties may, within five days following the comment 
deadline, file in eCRB a joint response to any comments.


Sec.  355.5   Hearing procedures.

    (a) En banc panel. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall preside en 
banc over any hearing to determine the reasonableness of and the 
allocation of responsibility to contribute to the Administrative 
Assessment.
    (b) Attendance and participation. The Mechanical Licensing 
Collective, through an authorized officer or other managing agent, and 
the Digital Licensee Coordinator, if any, through an authorized officer 
or other managing agent, shall attend and participate in the hearing. 
Any other entity that has filed a valid Petition to Participate and 
that the Copyright Royalty Judges have not found to be disqualified 
shall participate in an Administrative Assessment proceeding hearing. 
If the Copyright Royalty Judges find, sua sponte or upon motion of a 
participant, that a participant has failed substantially to comply with 
any of the requirements of this part, the Copyright Royalty Judges may 
exclude that participant from participating in the hearing; provided, 
however, that the Mechanical Licensing Collective and the Digital 
Licensee Coordinator shall not be subject to exclusion.
    (c) Admission of written submissions, deposition transcripts, and 
other documents. Subject to any valid objections of a participant, the 
Copyright Royalty Judges shall admit into evidence at an Administrative 
Assessment hearing the complete initial, responsive, and reply 
submissions that the participants have filed. Participants shall not 
file deposition transcripts, but may utilize deposition transcripts for 
the purposes and under the conditions described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 
and interpreting case law. Any participant may expand upon excerpts at 
the hearing or counter-designate excerpts in the written record to the 
extent necessary to provide appropriate context for the record. During 
the hearing, upon the oral request of any participant, any document 
proposed as an exhibit by any participant shall be admitted into 
evidence so long as that document was produced previously by any 
participant, subject only to a valid evidentiary objection.
    (d) Argument and examination of witnesses. An Administrative 
Assessment hearing shall consist of the oral testimony of witnesses at 
the hearing and arguments addressed to the written submissions and oral 
testimony proffered by the participants, except that the Copyright 
Royalty Judges may, sua sponte or upon written or oral request of a 
participant, find good cause to dispense with the oral direct, cross, 
or redirect examination of a witness, and rely, in whole or in part, on 
that witness's written testimony. The Copyright Royalty Judges may, at 
their discretion, and in a procedure the Judges describe in a 
prehearing Scheduling Order, and after consideration of the positions 
of counsel for the participants, require expert witnesses to be 
examined concurrently by the Judges and/or the attorneys. If the Judges 
so order, the expert witnesses may then testify through a colloquy 
among themselves, including questions addressed to each other, as 
limited and directed by the Judges and subject to valid objections by 
counsel and ruled upon by the Judges. The concurrent examination 
procedure may be utilized in conjunction with, or in lieu of, 
traditional direct, cross, redirect and (with leave of the Judges) 
further direct or cross examination. In the absence of any order 
directing the use of concurrent examination, only the traditional form 
of examination described above shall be utilized. Only witnesses who 
have submitted written testimony or who were deposed in the proceeding 
may be examined at the hearing. A witness's oral testimony shall not 
exceed the subject matter of his or her written or deposition 
testimony. Unless the Copyright Royalty Judges, on motion of a 
participant, order otherwise, no witness, other than an expert witness 
or a person designated as a party representative for the proceeding, 
may listen to, or review a transcript of, testimony of another witness 
or witnesses prior to testifying.
    (e) Objections. Participants may object to evidence on any proper 
ground, by written or oral objection, including on the ground that a 
participant seeking to offer evidence for admission has failed without 
good cause to produce the evidence during the discovery process. The 
Copyright Royalty Judges may, but are not required to, admit hearsay 
evidence to the extent they deem it appropriate.
    (f) Transcript and record. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall 
designate an official reporter for the recording and transcribing of 
hearings. Anyone wishing to inspect the transcript of a hearing, to the 
extent the transcript is not restricted under a protective order, may 
do so when the hearing transcript is filed in the Copyright Royalty 
Judges' electronic

[[Page 32312]]

filing and case management system, eCRB, at https://app.crb.gov after 
the hearing concludes. The availability of restricted portions of any 
transcript shall be described in the protective order. Any participant 
desiring daily or expedited transcripts shall make separate 
arrangements with the designated court reporter.


Sec.  355.6   Determinations.

    (a) How made. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall determine the 
amount and terms of the Administrative Assessment in accordance with 17 
U.S.C. 115(d)(7). The Copyright Royalty Judges shall base their 
determination on their evaluation of the totality of the evidence 
before them, including oral testimony, written submissions, admitted 
exhibits, designated deposition testimony, the record associated with 
any motions and objections by participants, the arguments presented, 
and prior determinations and interpretations of the Copyright Royalty 
Judges (to the extent those prior determinations and interpretations 
are not inconsistent with a decision of the Register of Copyrights that 
was timely delivered to the Copyright Royalty Judges pursuant to 17 
U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A) or (B), or with a decision of the Register of 
Copyrights made pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(D), or with a decision 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit).
    (b) Timing. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall issue and cause 
their determination to be published in the Federal Register not later 
than one year after commencement of the proceeding under Sec.  355.2(a) 
or, in a proceeding commenced under Sec.  355.2(b), during June of the 
calendar year following the commencement of the proceeding.
    (c) Effectiveness. (1) The initial Administrative Assessment 
determined in the proceeding under Sec.  355.2(a) shall be effective as 
of the License Availability Date and shall continue in effect until the 
Copyright Royalty Judges determine or approve an adjusted 
Administrative Assessment under Sec.  355.2(b).
    (2) Any adjusted Administrative Assessment determined in a 
proceeding under Sec.  355.2(b) shall take effect January 1 of the year 
following its publication in the Federal Register.
    (d) Adoption of voluntary agreements. In lieu of reaching and 
publishing a determination, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall approve 
and adopt the amount and terms of an Administrative Assessment that has 
been negotiated and agreed to by the Mechanical Licensing Collective 
and the Digital Licensee Coordinator pursuant to Sec.  355.4. 
Notwithstanding the negotiation of an agreed Administrative Assessment, 
however, the Copyright Royalty Judges may, for good cause shown, reject 
an agreement. If the Copyright Royalty Judges reject a negotiated 
agreed Administrative Assessment, they shall proceed with adjudication 
in accordance with the schedule in place in the proceeding. Rejection 
by the Copyright Royalty Judges of a negotiated agreed Administrative 
Assessment shall not prejudice the parties' ability to continue to 
negotiate and submit to the Copyright Royalty Judges an alternate 
agreed Administrative Assessment or resubmit an amended prior 
negotiated agreement that addresses the Judges' reasons for initial 
rejection at any time, including during a hearing or after a hearing at 
any time before the Copyright Royalty Judges issue a determination.
    (e) Continuing authority to amend. The Copyright Royalty Judges 
shall retain continuing authority to amend a determination of an 
Administrative Assessment to correct technical or clerical errors, or 
modify the terms of implementation, for good cause shown, with any 
amendment to be published in the Federal Register.


Sec.  355.7   Definitions.

    Capitalized terms in this part that are defined terms in 17 U.S.C. 
115(e) shall have the same meaning as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 115(e). In 
addition, for purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
    Digital Licensee Coordinator shall mean the entity the Register of 
Copyrights designates as the Digital Licensee Coordinator pursuant to 
17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B)(iii), or if the Register makes no such 
designation, interested Digital Music Providers and Significant 
Nonblanket Licensees representing more than half of the market for uses 
of musical works in Covered Activities, acting collectively.
    Discoverable documents or deposition testimony are documents or 
deposition testimony that are:
    (1) Nonprivileged;
    (2) Relevant to consideration of whether a proposal or response 
thereto fulfills the requirements in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7); and
    (3) Proportional to the needs of the proceeding, considering the 
importance of the issues at stake in the proceeding, the requested 
participant's relative access to responsive information, the 
participants' resources, the importance of the document or deposition 
request in resolving or clarifying the issues presented in the 
proceeding, and whether the burden or expense of producing the 
requested document or deposition testimony outweighs its likely 
benefit. Documents or deposition testimony need not be admissible in 
evidence to be Discoverable.

SUBCHAPTER D--NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTORY 
LICENSES

PART 370--NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTORY 
LICENSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 370 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4), 114(f)(3)(A).


0
5. In Sec.  370.1:
0
a. Remove the paragraph designations;
0
b. Remove the word ``A'' at the beginning of each definition;
0
c. Arrange the definitions in alphabetical order; and
0
d. Add the definition of ``Copyright Owners'' in alphabetical order.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  370.1   General definitions.

* * * * *
    Copyright Owners means sound recording copyright owners under 17 
U.S.C. 101, and rights owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are 
entitled to royalty payments made pursuant to the statutory licenses 
under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114.
* * * * *


Sec.  370.4   [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  370.4(b):
0
a. In the definition of ``Aggregate Tuning Hours'' remove ``United 
States copyright law'' and add in its place ``title 17, United States 
Code''; and
0
b. In paragraph (i) of the definition of ``Performance'', remove 
``copyrighted'' and add in its place ``subject to protection under 
title 17, United States Code''.

SUBCHAPTER E--RATES AND TERMS FOR STATUTORY LICENSES

PART 380--RATES AND TERMS FOR TRANSMISSIONS BY ELIGIBLE 
NONSUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND NEW SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND FOR THE 
MAKING OF EPHEMERAL REPRODUCTIONS TO FACILITATE THOSE TRANSMISSIONS

0
7. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).


0
8. In Sec.  380.7:
0
a. Add introductory text;
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Copyright Owners'' and
0
c. In paragraph (1) of the definition of ``Performance'' remove 
``copyrighted''

[[Page 32313]]

and add in its place ``subject to protection under title 17, United 
States Code''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  380.7   Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
* * * * *
    Copyright Owners means sound recording copyright owners, and rights 
owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments 
made under this part pursuant to the statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 
112(e) and 114.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  380.21:
0
a. In the definition of ``ATH'', remove ``United States copyright law'' 
and add in its place ``title 17, United States Code''; and
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Copyright Owners''; and
0
c. In paragraph (1) of the definition of ``Performance'', remove 
``copyrighted'' and add in its place ``subject to protection under 
title 17, United States Code''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  380.21   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Copyright Owners are sound recording copyright owners, and rights 
owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments 
made under this subpart pursuant to the statutory licenses under 17 
U.S.C. 112(e) and 114(f).
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  380.31 revise the definition of ``Copyright Owners'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  380.31   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Copyright Owners are Sound Recording copyright owners, and rights 
owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments 
made under this subpart pursuant to the statutory licenses under 17 
U.S.C. 112(e) and 114(f).
* * * * *

PART 382--RATES AND TERMS FOR TRANSMISSIONS OF SOUND RECORDINGS BY 
PREEXISTING SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND PREEXISTING SATELLITE DIGITAL 
AUDIO RADIO SERVICES AND FOR THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL REPRODUCTIONS 
TO FACILITATE THOSE TRANSMISSIONS

0
11. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114 and 801(b)(1).


0
12. In Sec.  382.1, revise the definition of ``Copyright Owners'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  382.1   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Copyright Owners means sound recording copyright owners, and rights 
owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments 
made under this part pursuant to the statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 
112(e) and 114.
* * * * *


Sec.  382.20   [Amended]

0
13. In Sec.  382.20, remove the definition of ``Pre-1972 Recording''.


Sec.  382.23   [Amended]

0
14. In Sec.  382.23, remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) and redesignate 
paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).

PART 383--RATES AND TERMS FOR SUBSCRIPTION TRANSMISSIONS AND THE 
REPRODUCTION OF EMPHEMERAL RECORDINGS BY CERTAIN NEW SUBSCRIPTION 
SERVICES

0
15. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114, and 801(b)(1).


0
16. In Sec.  383.2, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  383.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Copyright Owner means a sound recording copyright owner, or a 
rights owner under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who is entitled to receive 
royalty payments made under this part pursuant to the statutory 
licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114.
* * * * *

PART 384--RATES AND TERMS FOR THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS BY 
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT SERVICES

0
17. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 112(e), 801(b)(1).


0
18. In Sec.  384.2, revise the definition of ``Copyright Owners'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  384.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Copyright Owners are sound recording copyright owners, and rights 
owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments 
made under this part pursuant to the statutory license under 17 U.S.C. 
112(e).
* * * * *


Sec.  384.3   [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  384.3:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ``copyrighted'' and add the 
phrase ``subject to protection under title 17, United States Code'' 
after the word ``recordings'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text:
0
i. Remove the word ``copyrighted'' in the first sentence and add the 
phrase ``subject to protection under title 17, United States Code,'' 
after the word ``recordings''; and
0
ii. Remove the word ``copyrighted'' in the second sentence and add the 
phrase ``subject to protection under title 17, United States Code,'' 
after the word ``recordings''; and
0
c. In paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii), remove the word ``copyrighted'' 
each time it appears and add the phrase ``subject to protection under 
title 17, United States Code,'' after the word ``recordings'' each time 
it appears.

PART 385--RATES AND TERMS FOR USE OF NONDRAMATIC MUSICAL WORKS IN 
THE MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING OF PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS

0
20. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 115, 801(b)(1), 804(b)(4).


0
21. In Sec.  385.2:
0
a. Add introductory text;
0
b. Revise the definitions of ``Accounting Period'' and ``Affiliate'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Bundled Subscription Offering'', add the term 
``Eligible'' before the term ``Limited Downloads'' and remove the comma 
at the end of the definition and add a period in its place;
0
d. In the definition of ``Digital Phonorecord Delivery'' remove ``or 
DPD'' and remove ``17 U.S.C. 115(d)'' and add in its place ``17 U.S.C. 
115(e)'';
0
e. Add definitions for ``Eligible Interactive Stream'' and ``Eligible 
Limited Download'' in alphabetical order;
0
f. Revise the definition for ``Free Trial Offering'';
0
g. Remove the definition of ``Interactive Stream'';
0
h. In the definition for ``Licensed Activity'':
0
i. Remove the word ``Digital'' between the words ``Permanent'' and 
``Downloads'';
0
ii. Add the word ``Eligible'' before the term ``Interactive Streams''; 
and
0
iii. Add the word ``Eligible'' before the term ``Limited Downloads'';
0
i. Remove the definition for ``Limited Download'';

[[Page 32314]]

0
j Revise the definition for ``Limited Offering'';
0
k. In the definition for ``Locker Service'':
0
i. Add the term ``Eligible'' before the term ``Interactive Streams'';
0
ii. Remove the term ``Digital'' between the terms ``Permanent'' and 
``Downloads''; and
0
iii. Remove the term ``the Service'' and add in its place ``the Service 
Provider'' each time it appears; and
0
iv. Remove the term ``Service's'' and add in its place ``Service 
Provider's''
0
l. In the definition of ``Mixed Service Bundle'':
0
i. Remove the term ``Digital'' between the terms ``Permanent'' and 
``Downloads''; and
0
ii. Remove the term ``a Service'' and add in its place ``a Service 
Provider'';
0
m. In the definition for ``Music Bundle'':
0
i. Remove the term ``Digital'' between the words ``Permanent'' and 
``Downloads'';
0
ii. Remove the term ``Service'' and add in its place the term ``Service 
Provider'' each time it appears; and
0
iii. Remove the term ``Record Company'' and add in its place the term 
``Sound Recording Company'';
0
n. In the definition for ``Offering'' remove the term ``Service's'' and 
add in its place the term ``Service Provider's'';
0
o. In the definition of ``Paid Locker Service'', remove the term ``the 
Service'' and add in its place the term ``the Service Provider'';
0
p. Remove the definition of ``Permanent Digital Download'';
0
q. Add a definition for ``Permanent Download'' in alphabetical order;
0
r. In the definition for ``Play'':
0
i. Add the term ``Eligible'' before the term ``Interactive Stream'' 
each time it appears; and
0
ii. Remove the term ``a Limited Download'' and add in its place the 
term ``an Eligible Limited Download'' each time it appears;
0
s. Revise the definitions for ``Promotional Offering'' and ``Purchased 
Content Locker Service'';
0
t. Remove the definition for ``Record Company'';
0
u. In the definition of ``Relevant Page'':
0
i. In the first sentence, remove the term ``Service's'' and add in its 
place the term ``Service Provider's'' and add the term ``Eligible'' 
before the term ``Limited Downloads''; and
0
ii. In the second sentence, add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Limited Download'' and before the term ``Interactive Stream'';
0
v. In the definition of ``Restricted Download'' remove the term ``a 
Limited Download'' add in its place the term ``an Eligible Limited 
Download'';
0
w. Remove the definition of ``Service'';
0
x. Add the definitions for ``Service Provider'' and ``Service Provider 
Revenue'' in alphabetical order;
0
y. Remove the definition for ``Service Revenue'';
0
z. Add the definition for ``Sound Recording Company'' in alphabetical 
order;
0
aa. In the definition of ``Streaming Cache Reproduction'' remove the 
term ``Service'' and add in its place the term ``Service Provider'' 
each time it appears; and
0
bb. In the definition of ``Total Cost of Content'':
0
i. Remove the term ``Service'' and add in its place the term ``Service 
Provider'' each time it appears;
0
ii. Remove the term ``interactive streams'' and add in its place the 
term ``Eligible Interactive Streams'';
0
iii. Remove the term ``limited downloads'' and add in its place the 
term ``Eligible Limited Downloads''; and
0
iv. Remove the terms ``Record Company'' and ``record company'' and add 
in their place the term ``Sound Recording Company'' each time they 
appear.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  385.2   Definitions.

    For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
    Accounting Period means the monthly period specified in 17 U.S.C. 
115(c)(2)(I) and in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A)(i), and any related 
regulations, as applicable.
    Affiliate means an entity controlling, controlled by, or under 
common control with another entity, except that an affiliate of a Sound 
Recording Company shall not include a Copyright Owner to the extent it 
is engaging in business as to musical works.
* * * * *
    Eligible Interactive Stream means a Stream in which the performance 
of the sound recording is not exempt from the sound recording 
performance royalty under 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1) and does not in itself, 
or as a result of a program in which it is included, qualify for 
statutory licensing under 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2).
    Eligible Limited Download means a transmission of a sound recording 
embodying a musical work to an End User of a digital phonorecord under 
17 U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(C) and (D) that results in a Digital Phonorecord 
Delivery of that sound recording that is only accessible for listening 
for--
    (1) An amount of time not to exceed one month from the time of the 
transmission (unless the Licensee, in lieu of retransmitting the same 
sound recording as another Eligible Limited Download, separately, and 
upon specific request of the End User made through a live network 
connection, reauthorizes use for another time period not to exceed one 
month), or in the case of a subscription plan, a period of time 
following the end of the applicable subscription no longer than a 
subscription renewal period or three months, whichever is shorter; or
    (2) A number of times not to exceed 12 (unless the Licensee, in 
lieu of retransmitting the same sound recording as another Eligible 
Limited Download, separately, and upon specific request of the End User 
made through a live network connection, reauthorizes use of another 
series of 12 or fewer plays), or in the case of a subscription 
transmission, 12 times after the end of the applicable subscription.
* * * * *
    Free Trial Offering means a subscription to a Service Provider's 
transmissions of sound recordings embodying musical works when:
    (1) Neither the Service Provider, the Sound Recording Company, the 
Copyright Owner, nor any person or entity acting on behalf of or in 
lieu of any of them receives any monetary consideration for the 
Offering;
    (2) The free usage does not exceed 30 consecutive days per 
subscriber per two-year period;
    (3) In connection with the Offering, the Service Provider is 
operating with appropriate musical license authority and complies with 
the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  385.4;
    (4) Upon receipt by the Service Provider of written notice from the 
Copyright Owner or its agent stating in good faith that the Service 
Provider is in a material manner operating without appropriate license 
authority from the Copyright Owner under 17 U.S.C. 115, the Service 
Provider shall within 5 business days cease transmission of the sound 
recording embodying that musical work and withdraw it from the 
repertoire available as part of a Free Trial Offering;
    (5) The Free Trial Offering is made available to the End User free 
of any charge; and
    (6) The Service Provider offers the End User periodically during 
the free usage an opportunity to subscribe to a non-free Offering of 
the Service Provider.
* * * * *
    Limited Offering means a subscription plan providing Eligible 
Interactive Streams or Eligible Limited Downloads for which--

[[Page 32315]]

    (1) An End User cannot choose to listen to a particular sound 
recording (i.e., the Service Provider does not provide Eligible 
Interactive Streams of individual recordings that are on-demand, and 
Eligible Limited Downloads are rendered only as part of programs rather 
than as individual recordings that are on-demand); or
    (2) The particular sound recordings available to the End User over 
a period of time are substantially limited relative to Service 
Providers in the marketplace providing access to a comprehensive 
catalog of recordings (e.g., a product limited to a particular genre or 
permitting Eligible Interactive Streaming only from a monthly playlist 
consisting of a limited set of recordings).
* * * * *
    Permanent Download has the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 115(e).
* * * * *
    Promotional Offering means a digital transmission of a sound 
recording, in the form of an Eligible Interactive Stream or an Eligible 
Limited Download, embodying a musical work, the primary purpose of 
which is to promote the sale or other paid use of that sound recording 
or to promote the artist performing on that sound recording and not to 
promote or suggest promotion or endorsement of any other good or 
service and:
    (1) A Sound Recording Company is lawfully distributing the sound 
recording through established retail channels or, if the sound 
recording is not yet released, the Sound Recording Company has a good 
faith intention to lawfully distribute the sound recording or a 
different version of the sound recording embodying the same musical 
work;
    (2) For Eligible Interactive Streaming or Eligible Limited 
Downloads, the Sound Recording Company requires a writing signed by an 
authorized representative of the Service Provider representing that the 
Service Provider is operating with appropriate musical works license 
authority and that the Service Provider is in compliance with the 
recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  385.4;
    (3) For Eligible Interactive Streaming of segments of sound 
recordings not exceeding 90 seconds, the Sound Recording Company 
delivers or authorizes delivery of the segments for promotional 
purposes and neither the Service Provider nor the Sound Recording 
Company creates or uses a segment of a sound recording in violation of 
17 U.S.C. 106(2) or 115(a)(2);
    (4) The Promotional Offering is made available to an End User free 
of any charge; and
    (5) The Service Provider provides to the End User at the same time 
as the Promotional Offering stream an opportunity to purchase the sound 
recording or the Service Provider periodically offers End Users the 
opportunity to subscribe to a paid Offering of the Service Provider.
    Purchased Content Locker Service means a Locker Service made 
available to End User purchasers of Permanent Downloads, Ringtones, or 
physical phonorecords at no incremental charge above the otherwise 
applicable purchase price of the Permanent Downloads, Ringtones, or 
physical phonorecords acquired from a qualifying seller. With a 
Purchased Content Locker Service, an End User may receive one or more 
additional phonorecords of the purchased sound recordings of musical 
works in the form of Permanent Downloads or Ringtones at the time of 
purchase, or subsequently have digital access to the purchased sound 
recordings of musical works in the form of Eligible Interactive 
Streams, additional Permanent Downloads, Restricted Downloads, or 
Ringtones.
    (1) A qualifying seller for purposes of this definition is the 
entity operating the Service Provider, including affiliates, 
predecessors, or successors in interest, or--
    (i) In the case of Permanent Downloads or Ringtones, a seller 
having a legitimate connection to the locker service provider pursuant 
to one or more written agreements (including that the Purchased Content 
Locker Service and Permanent Downloads or Ringtones are offered through 
the same third party); or
    (ii) In the case of physical phonorecords:
    (A) The seller of the physical phonorecord has an agreement with 
the Purchased Content Locker Service provider establishing an 
integrated offer that creates a consumer experience commensurate with 
having the same Service Provider both sell the physical phonorecord and 
offer the integrated locker service; or
    (B) The Service Provider has an agreement with the entity offering 
the Purchased Content Locker Service establishing an integrated offer 
that creates a consumer experience commensurate with having the same 
Service Provider both sell the physical phonorecord and offer the 
integrated locker service.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    Service Provider means that entity governed by subparts C and D of 
this part, which might or might not be the Licensee, that with respect 
to the section 115 license:
    (1) Contracts with or has a direct relationship with End Users or 
otherwise controls the content made available to End Users;
    (2) Is able to report fully on Service Provider Revenue from the 
provision of musical works embodied in phonorecords to the public, and 
to the extent applicable, verify Service Provider Revenue through an 
audit; and
    (3) Is able to report fully on its usage of musical works, or 
procure such reporting and, to the extent applicable, verify usage 
through an audit.
    Service Provider Revenue. (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5) 
of this definition and subject to GAAP, Service Provider Revenue shall 
mean:
    (i) All revenue from End Users recognized by a Service Provider for 
the provision of any Offering;
    (ii) All revenue recognized by a Service Provider by way of 
sponsorship and commissions as a result of the inclusion of third-party 
``in-stream'' or ``in-download'' advertising as part of any Offering, 
i.e., advertising placed immediately at the start or end of, or during 
the actual delivery of, a musical work, by way of Eligible Interactive 
Streaming or Eligible Limited Downloads; and
    (iii) All revenue recognized by the Service Provider, including by 
way of sponsorship and commissions, as a result of the placement of 
third-party advertising on a Relevant Page of the Service Provider or 
on any page that directly follows a Relevant Page leading up to and 
including the Eligible Limited Download or Eligible Interactive Stream 
of a musical work; provided that, in case more than one Offering is 
available to End Users from a Relevant Page, any advertising revenue 
shall be allocated between or among the Service Providers on the basis 
of the relative amounts of the page they occupy.
    (2) Service Provider Revenue shall:
    (i) Include revenue recognized by the Service Provider, or by any 
associate, affiliate, agent, or representative of the Service Provider 
in lieu of its being recognized by the Service Provider; and
    (ii) Include the value of any barter or other nonmonetary 
consideration; and
    (iii) Except as expressly detailed in this part, not be subject to 
any other deduction or set-off other than refunds to End Users for 
Offerings that the End Users were unable to use because of technical 
faults in the Offering or other bona fide refunds or credits issued to

[[Page 32316]]

End Users in the ordinary course of business.
    (3) Service Provider Revenue shall exclude revenue derived by the 
Service Provider solely in connection with activities other than 
Offering(s), whereas advertising or sponsorship revenue derived in 
connection with any Offering(s) shall be treated as provided in 
paragraphs (2) and (4) of this definition.
    (4) For purposes of paragraph (1) of this definition, advertising 
or sponsorship revenue shall be reduced by the actual cost of obtaining 
that revenue, not to exceed 15%.
    (5) In instances in which a Service Provider provides an Offering 
to End Users as part of the same transaction with one or more other 
products or services that are not Licensed Activities, then the revenue 
from End Users deemed to be recognized by the Service Provider for the 
Offering for the purpose of paragraph (1) of this definition shall be 
the lesser of the revenue recognized from End Users for the bundle and 
the aggregate standalone published prices for End Users for each of the 
component(s) of the bundle that are Licensed Activities; provided that, 
if there is no standalone published price for a component of the 
bundle, then the Service Provider shall use the average standalone 
published price for End Users for the most closely comparable product 
or service in the U.S. or, if more than one comparable exists, the 
average of standalone prices for comparables.
    Sound Recording Company means a person or entity that:
    (1) Is a copyright owner of a sound recording embodying a musical 
work;
    (2) In the case of a sound recording of a musical work fixed before 
February 15, 1972, has rights to the sound recording, under chapter 14 
of title 17, United States Code, that are equivalent to the rights of a 
copyright owner of a sound recording of a musical work under title 17, 
United States Code;
    (3) Is an exclusive Licensee of the rights to reproduce and 
distribute a sound recording of a musical work; or
    (4) Performs the functions of marketing and authorizing the 
distribution of a sound recording of a musical work under its own 
label, under the authority of the Copyright Owner of the sound 
recording.
* * * * *


Sec.  385.3   [Amended]

0
22. In Sec.  385.3, remove the phrase ``after the due date established 
in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5)'' and add in its place ``after the due date 
established in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(2)(I) or 115(d)(4)(A)(i), as 
applicable''.


Sec.  385.4   [Amended]

0
23. In Sec.  385.4:
0
a. In paragraph (a), add the term ``Eligible'' before each of the terms 
``Interactive Streams'' and ``Limited Downloads''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the term ``Service'' and add in its place 
the term ``Service Provider'' each time it appears.

0
24. Revise the heading for subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B--Physical Phonorecord Deliveries, Permanent Downloads, 
Ringtones, and Music Bundles

0
25. In Sec.  385.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  385.11   Royalty rates.

    (a) Physical phonorecord deliveries and Permanent Downloads. For 
every physical phonorecord and Permanent Download the Licensee makes 
and distributes or authorizes to be made and distributed, the royalty 
rate payable for each work embodied in the phonorecord or Permanent 
Download shall be either 9.1 cents or 1.75 cents per minute of playing 
time or fraction thereof, whichever amount is larger.
* * * * *

0
26. Revise the heading for subpart C to read as follows:

Subpart C--Eligible Interactive Streaming, Eligible Limited 
Downloads, Limited Offerings, Mixed Service Bundles, Bundled 
Subscription Offerings, Locker Services, and Other Delivery 
Configurations

0
27. Revise Sec.  385.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  385.20   Scope.

    This subpart establishes rates and terms of royalty payments for 
Eligible Interactive Streams and Eligible Limited Downloads of musical 
works, and other reproductions or distributions of musical works 
through Limited Offerings, Mixed Service Bundles, Bundled Subscription 
Offerings, Paid Locker Services, and Purchased Content Locker Services 
provided through subscription and nonsubscription digital music Service 
Providers in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 115, exclusive 
of Offerings subject to subpart D of this part.

0
28. In Sec.  385.21:
0
a. In paragraph (b):
0
i. Remove the term ``Service'' each time it appears and add in its 
place the term ``Service Provider''; and
0
ii. Remove the term ``Service's'' and add in its place the term 
``Service Provider's'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(4):
0
i. Revise the second sentence; and
0
ii. Remove the phrase ``methodology used by the Service for making 
royalty payment allocations'' and add in its place ``methodology used 
for making royalty payment allocations''; and
0
c. In paragraph (d):
0
i. Remove ``of the Licensee'';
0
ii. Remove ``17 U.S.C.115(c)(5)'' and add in its place ``17 U.S.C. 
115(c)(2)(I), 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A)(i),''; and
0
iii. Revise the second sentence.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  385.21   Royalty rates and calculations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * * To determine this amount, the result determined in step 3 
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section must be allocated to each musical 
work used through the Offering. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * * Without limitation, statements of account shall set forth 
each step of the calculations with sufficient information to allow the 
assessment of the accuracy and manner in which the payable royalty pool 
and per-play allocations (including information sufficient to 
demonstrate whether and how a royalty floor pursuant to Sec.  385.22 
does or does not apply) were determined and, for each Offering 
reported, also indicate the type of Licensed Activity involved and the 
number of Plays of each musical work (including an indication of any 
overtime adjustment applied) that is the basis of the per-work royalty 
allocation being paid.


Sec.  385.22   [Amended]

0
29. In Sec.  385.22:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Interactive Streams'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Interactive Streams'' and add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Limited Downloads'' each time it appears; and
0
c. In paragraph (a)(3), add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Interactive Streams'' and add the term ``Eligible'' before the term 
``Limited Downloads''.

0
30. Revise Sec.  385.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  385.30   Scope.

    This subpart establishes rates and terms of royalty payments for 
Promotional Offerings, Free Trial Offerings, and Certain Purchased 
Content Locker Services provided by subscription and nonsubscription 
digital music Service Providers in accordance with the provisions of 17 
U.S.C. 115.

[[Page 32317]]


0
31. In Sec.  385.31, revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  385.31   Royalty rates.

    (a) Promotional Offerings. For Promotional Offerings of audio-only 
Eligible Interactive Streaming and Eligible Limited Downloads of sound 
recordings embodying musical works that the Sound Recording Company 
authorizes royalty-free to the Service Provider, the royalty rate is 
zero.
    (b) Free Trial Offerings. For Free Trial Offerings for which the 
Service Provider receives no monetary consideration, the royalty rate 
is zero.
    (c) Certain Purchased Content Locker Services. For every Purchased 
Content Locker Service for which the Service Provider receives no 
monetary consideration, the royalty rate is zero.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 10, 2019.
Jesse M. Feder,
Chief United States Copyright Royalty Judge.
    Approved by:
Carla Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2019-13292 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-72-P