The problems is that while the government might have thought in 1976 when the section was enacted that they had to tie up that loose end by referencing the Copyright Office, they probably did not realize that they were also requiring a look up in what was to become arguably the least reliable source of song information. Then you are deemed to have a compulsory license after that service date. The Copyright Act says that if you can’t find contact information for the song copyright owner in the Copyright Office’s public records, then you can send your NOI to the Copyright Office instead of to the copyright owner. As anyone who has done song research knows, there are a number of reliable places to look for a song copyright owner, starting with the performing rights societies like ASCAP and BMI that provide a free lookup service on their websites.īut…you can’t find what you don’t look for. One could argue that those are mutually exclusive end states, so keep that in mind. law, unless the service has a direct license with the copyright owner, a digital service can rely on the government’s compulsory license by sending a “notice of intention” (or “NOI”) to the copyright owner. The loophole permits digital music services to get away with what would otherwise be both infringement and nonpayment of royalties under yet another safe harbor, this time from 1976. You’ve probably heard about the “mass NOI” problem resulting from the Copyright Office allowing Big Tech to profit from a loophole in the Copyright Act.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |