Lex 8256: The Law in Cyberspace Seminar

Music licensing in a digital environment

-Brandon Hewitt


Thanks to Apurva and Bruce, you should have a reasonable understanding of the basics of copyright and some of the main issues in the world of online music.  As you have seen, though, the issue of music licensing in a digital environment is extremely complex.  While Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing is still the hottest topic, especially amongst the record labels, and webcasting has seemingly been taken care of with statutory licensing, there is another area which the copyright law and its recent amendments have yet to catch up to – Podcasting.

Podcasting (a hybrid of ipod and broadcasting) presents new issues (or maybe old ones) for the music industry and Congress because, unlike webcasting (streaming), listeners of podcasts are able to hold onto the file as well as fast-forward, rewind, pause and otherwise manipulate the content of the file.  This ability renders podcasting interactive, excluding it from eligibility for the statutory licenses afforded webcasters. 

To refresh yourself on the intricacies of the copyright law and music licensing, and to learn about the basics of podcasting, please read The Regulation of Shrink-Wrapped Radio: Implications of Copyright on Podcasting. (This is the only article of length you need to read for this hour, so please, please, please read it). 

Now that you’ve read the article, why do you think podcasting is treated so much differently than webcasting?  Should it be?  Is congress just slow to catch up, or are they intentionally not acting on this issue out of concern for the record labels and music industry?

Speaking of the record labels, it seems that they are the ones which have lobbied for Congress to act as it has in the last 10 years with the passing of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRSRA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  Congress’ stated intent for these two pieces of legislation was to protect the major record labels and keep consumers from replacing their conventional forms of purchasing music with online replacements.  Does this reconcile with the idea that copyright protection is in place to foster creativity of artists and creators?  Who is Congress worried about – the artists or the lobbying companies?  What are the record labels worried about – their musical artists or fattening their own pockets?  Compare Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization v. UMG Recordings, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16111 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) with UMG Recordings v. MP3.com, 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 

OK, so what are the solutions?  Blanket licensing for podcasting/digital downloads similar to those allotted for webcasting and traditional radio broadcasting?  Leaving the law as it stands, maximizing the protection afforded to copyright owners?  Read this Newsweek article about Napster founder Shawn Fanning and his new project, Putting the Napster Genie Back in the Bottle.  While Shawn’s idea is directed specifically towards P2P, the issues are not dissimilar to Podcasting.  The idea of letting the artists control their bundle of rights is making waves; check out Creative Commons.  How realistic are these proposed solutions?