"Copyright and the Digital Distribution of Music"
David Moser, Music Industry Lawyer and Lecturer, USA
This article written from a U.S. perspective counters the argument that, as we move into the 21st century, there is anything fundamentally wrong with the basic principles of copyright law. While new laws certainly need to be formulated to take account of changing technologies and their application, copyright law, it is argued, has (albeit often slowly) continually evolved and successfully adapted to new circumstances throughout its convoluted and clearly still controversial history.



I. Introduction

AT the beginning of the 21st century, copyright law and its application to the music industry is in a transitional state. Over the past several years, copyright has received much more public attention than ever before due to lawsuits against companies such as Napster and MP3.com. Unfortunately, much of the media coverage has been biased and inaccurate, helping to create a public view of copyright as a tool of the entertainment industries employed to maintain control of music and other creative works. Although it has sometimes been used as such, it was not intended for such purposes, and has more often than not fulfilled its intended purpose of providing incentives to authors to create new works of art, while assuring public access to those works.

Adversaries of copyright law tend to oversimplify the issues that copyright law seeks to resolve. Using slogans such as "information wants to be free" and "the genie is out of the bottle," and relying on inaccurate notions of "free speech", "fair use", and "file sharing", these critics avoid the difficult balance that copyright law attempts to strike between providing access to creative works while providing authors with incentives to create such works. Instead, they attempt to persuade the courts, the legislature and the public that they should be allowed to use creative works without having to pay any compensation to the owners and creators of these works.


Some people believe that we have reached the end of the copyright era, and that intellectual property should be free to all in the Internet age. Some of these "information wants to be free" proponents even believe that they are being altruistic by making copyrighted works available to others for free. According to John Perry Barlow, a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead and current outspoken copyright critic:

Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted, or expanded to contain digitized expression any more than real estate law might be revised to cover the allocation of broadcasting spectrum (which, in fact, rather resembles what is being attempted here). We will need to develop an entirely new set of methods as befits this entirely new set of circumstances.1

Barlow?s analogy ignores the fact that copyright has always been an evolving body of law. Just because expression can be stored in digitized form does not mean that copyright has outlived its usefulness. If all laws were thrown out when any new set of circumstances challenged their application, society would be in a constant state of chaos. Certainly, there are new circumstances which copyright law must adapt to, but copyright has been adapting since its origins over two centuries ago, and to think that any new technology, no matter how innovative it may be, automatically eliminates copyright?s necessity or applicability, seems extremely short-sighted.



It is important to realize that the theft of intellectual property is not a victimless crime. The victims include not only authors, but also producers (record companies, publishers and all the individuals who work for them), and the public, too, since losses due to piracy are generally passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. For example, when you buy a compact disc at a record store, part of the purchase price covers costs that the record company incurs in an attempt to prevent and fight piracy, and these costs could be argued to have risen dramatically in recent years, in large part due to Internet piracy.

Although the recording industry has been criticized for the legal actions it has pursued against companies using new technologies to distribute copyrighted works, is it really so surprising that an industry has tried to protect the right to control the products which it invests millions of dollars to produce and market? Is there any industry that would sit idly by while new companies attempted to build businesses by freely appropriating their products? This is essentially what some Internet-based businesses such as Napster have tried to do. If it became possible to steal cars easily because someone invented a device which made it possible to unlock and start cars without breaking into them, would the auto industry simply allow people to do so? Just as automobile manufacturers are not likely to give up their main assets (cars), the music industry is not willing to give up its main assets (copyrights) without a serious fight. So far, they are winning the fight using a mixture of legal and business tactics. The legal tactics have included filing lawsuits against companies such as Napster and MP3.com, while the business tactics have included buying out the few Internet music companies that have managed to survive the drastic devaluation in their stock prices which took place over the past year.2

The Internet is merely a relatively new medium to which existing laws such as copyright must be applied. Music in digital form which is copied and distributed using computers and the Internet is protected by the same provisions of copyright law that apply to music in more traditional formats - such as compact discs and cassettes - as well as some amendments to copyright law dealing specifically with digital music. The U.S. Copyright Act specifically recognizes that technological advances will alter the mediums in which works are fixed in tangible form, and the Copyright Act was specifically intended to include works fixed in digital form in such media as computer files, compact discs, etc..3 According to the judge who decided one of the first cases involving the digital distribution of music over the Internet:

Defendant's copyright infringement was clear, and the mere fact that it was clothed in the exotic webbing of the Internet does not disguise its illegality.4

Currently, many people and organizations are proposing amendments to copyright law. Copyright owners are attempting to convince the U.S. Congress that greater protection is required, while new industries that use copyrighted works are attempting to limit copyright law and obtain exemptions favorable to them. Some copyright scholars are also worried that some of the recent amendments to copyright law have gone too far and unfairly limit the rights of individuals to build upon existing works, thereby stifling rather than promoting creativity. In the author?s opinion, passing legislation in response to every technological change that arises is bound to be a self-defeating prophecy. Although some amendments to copyright law will be required, too much legislation (especially as the result of lobbying by affected industries) results in the creation of over-complicated, impractical laws, many of which will become obsolete as technology continues to evolve.



II. New Technologies

Technological developments have always provided a challenge to copyright law. In fact, copyright law initially developed as a response to the invention of the printing press. Innovations in technology have led to new ways to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works and have consistently expanded the boundaries of copyright.

New technologies can provide both threats and opportunities for copyright owners. Initially, the threats must be dealt with, but, in the long run, copyright owners have benefited greatly from technological advances. After the invention of the photocopy machine, the print publishing industry worried that its business would be ruined by people photocopying rather than buying print publications. However, many books, newspapers and magazines continue to be sold. Similarly, the motion picture industry originally believed that the VCR would destroy the movie business. In fact, people continue to pay to watch movies in theaters, while selling videocassettes to rental stores has provided motion picture companies with a substantial additional revenue stream.

The music industry has also been no stranger to technological advances. Since Thomas Edison invented the gramophone in 1877, advances in recording technology have challenged copyright law and forced it to adapt. The gramophone was followed by inventions such as the phonograph, eight-track, analog cassette, compact disc, and digital audiotape. In the early years of radio, many felt that this new broadcasting medium would destroy the record business. Several decades later, some worried that video would supplant radio.

It is important to note that none of the new technologies mentioned above have destroyed their respective industries. In fact, some - such as the VCR and the compact disc - have actually rejuvenated their industries, bringing in new sources of revenues. However, the concern of the various entertainment industries when a major new technology is introduced is not totally misplaced. The mistake is that the concern should be over the use of technology rather than technology itself. No technology is inherently bad. Instead, it is the illegal use of technology by individuals which poses the real threat to copyrighted works, and the industries built upon copyright ownership.

At the dawn of the 21st century, the newest challenge to copyright and the music industry is actually the combination of two technologies - digital technology and the Internet. These technologies are changing the way people listen to music. Through these technologies, copyrighted works are much more easily accessible than anytime in the past. This also means that copyrighted works can be much more easily infringed than anytime in the past.

A. Digital Technology

Digital technology involves converting information such as sounds into mathematical bits which are represented by a series of 0s and 1s. With analog recording, each successive copy results in a decrease in sound quality. The main advantage of digital audio technology is that there is virtually no loss of sound quality regardless of how many generations of copies are made. Additionally, digitization provides an easy and inexpensive way to reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies.

B. The Internet

The Internet is made up of a worldwide network of computers connected by telephone and cable lines. The Internet allows computers and their users to communicate with each other. Information is transmitted over the Internet in analog form through the use of modems. A modem converts digital information stored on a computer into analog form so that the information can be transmitted to another computer over phone or cable lines. The receiving computer?s modem converts the analog information back into digital form.



III. How Music Is Used on the Internet

IN order to understand how copyright law applies to the Internet, it is first necessary to examine how the copyright owner?s exclusive rights are exercised in the Internet medium. There are two main ways music is distributed over the Internet - streaming and digital downloading. Both of these technologies allow music to be transmitted over the Internet to any individual?s computer.

A. Streaming

Streaming technology allows for the continuous transmission of music over the Internet in real time, so that listeners hear the music as it is transmitted to them from a website. Streaming can be thought of as the Internet equivalent of radio broadcasting. No permanent copy of the music transmitted is made on the listener?s computer since the audio is merely "streaming" (or passing) through the computer on its way to a connected sound system. Many radio stations transmit their broadcasts over the Internet using streaming technology: a process known as "webcasting". One disadvantage of streaming is that the listener must be online to hear the music. Additionally, the music is usually of lesser sound quality than downloaded files, since it has to be heavily compressed in order to flow through typical modems. Many record companies use streaming technology to allow consumers to preview recordings and videos.

B. Digital Downloading

Digital downloading allows people to make (or download) copies of digital music files from websites. Downloaded files can be stored on a computer hard drive or other storage device, and played on demand.

(1) MP3 - The Latest Challenge

Traditionally, when audio files are copied to a computer hard drive, they take up a lot of memory. Consequently, audio files must be compressed in some manner in order to transmit and store them effectively. Compression involves taking digital data, such as a recording, and representing it with a smaller number of bits. Compression algorithms delete redundant parts of a digital file and parts of the file that are inaudible to the human ear. The result is a smaller or compressed file which reduces the amount of bandwidth and storage space needed. MPEG Layer 3, or simply MP3, is a compression format which reduces the size of digital audio files by a ratio of 11 to 1, without much loss of sound quality.5 Whereas a typical four minute music file in uncompressed format takes up about 40 megabytes of storage space, the same recording in MP3 format takes up only 3.5 megabytes. The MP3 compression format is not owned by anyone, and has become the most commonly used compression format for music files.

There are two ways you can obtain and store MP3 files. The first involves using a search engine to locate websites where MP3 files are located, and then downloading a file to your computer?s hard drive. You can afterwards play the MP3 file using software known as an MP3 player, which can be downloaded for free. Although some recordings are available for downloading in this manner, many of them have been posted illegally. It has been estimated that in the first six months of 1999, 3 billion MP3 files were downloaded from the Internet - equaling 17 million MP3s each day.6

You can also create MP3 files from compact discs. To do so, you must use a software program called a "ripper" which extracts music tracks from the compact disc while it is loaded in your computer CD-ROM drive. The extracted tracks can then be saved on your computer?s hard drive, and converted to MP3 format.

Once you have a music file stored on your computer hard drive in MP3 format, you can play the music using your computer (equipped with a sound card and speakers), or record it onto compact discs if you have a compact disc recorder (CD-R). You can make an infinite number of copies, which if made from a lawfully acquired file and used solely for your own personal use, is perfectly legal. However, you cannot legally give away, sell or upload copies to websites without the copyright owners? permission.

(2) The Legality of MP3

There is nothing inherently illegal about the MP3 compression format. However, it is often used illegally. Uploading and downloading an MP3 file containing a copyrighted work is legal when the copyright owner gives the uploader or downloader permission to do so. However, if you upload or download an MP3 file containing a copyrighted work without the copyright owner?s permission, you will generally be infringing the copyright owner?s exclusive rights.7

(3) The Music Industry?s Concern over MP3 and Internet Piracy

The use of MP3 software for the distribution of music has generated considerable fear in the music industry. Many individuals possess ripped MP3 files of their entire CD collections, and the trading of illegal MP3 files over the Internet has become rampant. Worsening the problem, more and more consumers are buying compact disc recorders, and many are using them to burn CDs of illegal MP3 files. Due to the compressed nature of the MP3 format, many more audio tracks can be recorded onto a single CD than the typical 10-12 tracks on commercially-released CDs.



IV. How Does Copyright Apply to the Internet?

ONE of the main problems for businesses attempting to offer music legally over the Internet is the complexity involved in licensing music. This can be a complicated process since most uses will involve two separate copyrighted works (a musical work and a sound recording) which are normally owned by different parties. Additionally, there are different rights and limitations on those rights applicable to musical works and sound recordings.

A. The Reproduction Right

Copyright owners of musical works and sound recordings have the exclusive right to reproduce or make copies of their works. The reproduction right is exercised continuously by Internet users, often without their even being aware of it. Whenever someone receives an e-mail or visits a website, a copy of the computer file accessed is made on the computer user?s hard drive. Reproduction occurs when a work is entered into a computer for more than a temporary period. For instance, a reproduction occurs in each of the following situations:8

A work is copied to a computer file, whether on the computer?s hard drive, a floppy disk, CD-ROM or other storage medium. This includes "ripping" an MP3 file from a compact disc.
A digitized file is uploaded from a computer to a website.
A digitized file is downloaded from a website.
One person?s computer is used to access a file on another computer. This process is commonly known as file-sharing, and is the basis for software programs such as Napster.
A file is transferred from one computer on a network to another.
If you operate a website which allows digital downloads of files containing copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions, you need to obtain licenses from the copyright owners or their agents. Licenses to reproduce copyrighted sound recordings are obtained directly from the record company or artist which owns the sound recording. In some instances, independent artists may be willing to license the right to reproduce their sound recordings for free. For instance, MP3.com requires that all independent artists who make recordings available for download on their website give them the right to allow reproduction of the recordings without any payment to the artist. Record companies, on the other hand, are not usually willing to license the right to download their recordings for free since the only way they make money is by selling recordings. If a record company is willing to issue a license allowing you to make digital downloads of its recordings available, you will normally have to agree to pay a royalty to the record company for each download. However, many record companies will not issue licenses allowing their recordings to be distributed in MP3 format at all, since it is an insecure format which is often used for illegal copying.


In addition to the license for a sound recording, a license is also required for any copyrighted musical compositions contained on a sound recording. Licenses to reproduce musical compositions can be obtained either from the songwriter or publisher who owns them, or a licensing agent such as The Harry Fox Agency - which represents many music publishers in the United States.

B. The Public Performance Right

A copyright owner has the exclusive right to perform publicly a copyrighted work, directly or through a means of communication or transmission. The transmission of music over the Internet can constitute a public performance. When you listen to music over the Internet, the music is certainly being performed, but it may not seem that the performance is a "public" one. However, the fact that a performance occurs at different times for different users does not legally prevent it from being a public performance. Similarly, when you download a music file, the public performance right may be implicated. This is true even if you do not listen to the music immediately after it is downloaded, since copyright law only requires that the performance is transmitted.

Licensing of the public performance right is handled predominantly by performing rights organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in the United States, and by similar performing rights organizations in other countries. The performing rights organizations offer licenses which authorize performances of musical compositions over the Internet, for fees generally based on the amount of music used and the amount of revenue generated. It is also important to realize that under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, sound recordings transmitted over the Internet are also subject to a performance right. To obtain performance licenses for sound recordings, you would need either to contact the copyright owner of the particular sound recording (usually a record company) or the copyright owner?s licensing agent. Currently, it appears that an organization called Sound Exchange (a division of the Recording Industry Association of America) will be the licensing agent for the majority of American record companies. Most foreign countries recognize a broader performance right than the United States. In such countries, the performance right generally applies to all public performances (including live performances, broadcast performances, and digitally transmitted performances) rather than solely digital transmissions.

C. The Reproduction/Performance Controversy

Before the digital distribution of music over the Internet, the difference between a reproduction and a performance of music was usually clear. Unfortunately, music transmitted over the Internet does not always fit within these distinct categories. Often, both rights are involved when music is transmitted over the Internet. In a sense, the distinction between listening to, and purchasing, music becomes blurred in the Internet environment.

Resolving this controversy has not been easy, in great part due to the turf war between reproduction right licensing agents and performance right organizations, neither of whom want to give up a potentially lucrative source of royalty income. The transmission of music over the Internet generally makes the act of copying automatic since the digital representation of the music is copied into the receiving computer?s Random Access Memory (RAM), so that it can be played. Consequently, reproduction rights agents such as the Harry Fox Agency believe that virtually all transmissions of music involve a reproduction. At the same time, the performance rights organizations believe that all transmissions also constitute public performances. The result is that a website wanting to make music available by digital transmission over the Internet is forced to obtain several licenses for the right to transmit musical compositions, as well as to obtain separate licenses to transmit sound recordings.


Example :
A website which allows users to download from a choice of copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings would have to obtain at least the following licenses : mechanical licenses for the reproduction of musical compositions from the Harry Fox Agency, or individual publishers; blanket performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC; and licenses for the reproduction and performance of the Sound Exchange, or the copyright owners of the sound recordings.




There seem to be two potential solutions to this problem. One would be to amend the definitions of reproduction and performance in the Copyright Act to classify certain types of transmissions as reproductions and others as performances. For instance, transmissions that result in a permanent copy could be classified as reproductions, while transmissions that are listened to while being made, and do not result in a permanent copy, could be classified as performances. A second solution would be to reach some type of compromise allowing website operators to obtain a single license covering both the reproduction and performance rights for musical compositions. For instance, copyright owners could appoint a licensing agent to grant the rights of reproduction and public performance for a single fee, thereby simplifying the online licensing process. At this point, such a compromise seems unlikely due to the vested interests of existing licensing agents. Ultimately, however, what is important is that copyright owners are adequately compensated for the use of their works, rather than how those uses are classified, or who collects for them.

The United States Copyright Office has recently weighed in on the webcasting reproduction/performance controversy and has taken the position that it is likely that the reproduction of a temporary or "buffer" copy in the course of streaming is a fair use which would not require an additional payment to the copyright owner.9 The Copyright Office?s reasoning is based on the fact that buffer copies exist only for a short period of time, and consist of only small portions of a work. The Copyright Office stated that:

The sole purpose of making the buffer copies is to permit an activity that is licensed by the copyright owner and for which the copyright owner receives a performance royalty. In essence, copyright owners appear to be seeking to be paid twice for the same activity.10

Although the Copyright Office?s position has no legal effect, it is possible that Congress may eventually decide to resolve this issue, and Congress often gives a great deal of deference to the Copyright Office?s recommendations.

C. The Distribution Right

Another complication brought about by the transmission of music over the Internet involves the copyright owner?s exclusive right to distribute the copyrighted work. Under the first sale doctrine, once someone has legally acquired a copy or phonorecord containing a copyrighted work (e.g., a compact disc, cassette, etc.), they can sell or otherwise distribute that copy or phonorecord without the copyright owner?s consent.11 The first sale doctrine applies to the material object containing a copyrighted work, and is limited to that material object. For example, someone who has lawfully acquired a compact disc is free to distribute that compact disc to someone else. However, the compact disc owner is not free to make and distribute copies of the copyrighted works contained on that compact disc.

In order for a distribution to take place, a material object must change hands. In the online environment, the concept of distribution becomes a bit fuzzy. When a copyrighted work such as a sound recording is transmitted over the Internet, it seems like a distribution has taken place. However, this is not technically true, since such a transmission does not involve the transfer of a material object. Instead, the owner of the copy or phonorecord transmitted still possesses that copy or phonorecord, and the recipient has received a copy of the original. Instead of a distribution, what has taken place is really a reproduction of the original work, which results in a new copy being created. Since a reproduction rather than a distribution has taken place, the first sale doctrine does not apply (since the first sale doctrine is limited solely to the distribution right). The new copy resulting from a digital transmission would therefore be an infringement unless made with the copyright owner?s permission.


Example :
If you buy a compact disc from a record store, the store no longer owns that compact disc. In contrast, if you download a sound recording from a website, a material object has not changed hands. Instead, a reproduction of the sound recording has been made, usually by the copying of the file to your computer's hard drive. If the download was made legally (i.e., the appropriate licenses had been secured), the first sale doctrine would allow you to distribute the phonorecord contained on your hard drive (for example, by removing your hard drive from the computer and giving it to someone else). However, you would not have the right to make and distribute additional phonorecords (such as by copying the file to a recordable compact disc and giving the compact disc to a friend) since the first sale doctrine does not apply to the reproduction right.





Some critics have argued that the first sale doctrine should be extended to reproduction to the extent necessary to allow the digital transmission of a work by the owner of a legally-made copy of the work, as long as the owner of the copy destroys his or her copy after making the transmission. For example, a proposed piece of legislation in the United States known as the Music Online Competition Act12 would expand the first sale doctrine to permit the reproduction that occurs during the course of a digital transmission, provided that the transmitter deletes his or her copy after making the transmission.

The United States Copyright Office, in a recent report to Congress, recommended that Congress refrain from expanding the first sale doctrine as proposed by the Music Online Competition Act, basing its recommendation on the inherent differences between physical copies and digitally transmitted copies. Physical copies of works (especially those in analog formats) degrade over time, making used copies less desirable than new ones. However, digitally transmitted copies do not degrade over time regardless of how much they are used. Additionally, with an Internet connection, digital copies can be transmitted almost instantaneously to an infinite number of people worldwide. The Copyright Office Report states that:

The need to transport physical copies of works, which acts as a natural brake on the effect of resales on the copyright owner?s market, no longer exists in the realm of digital transmissions. The ability of such "used" copies to compete for market share with new copies is thus far greater in the digital world.13

The Copyright Office also expressed doubt about the practicality of the Music Online Competition Act?s requirement that a transmitter delete his or her copy after transmitting it. It would be very difficult for a copyright owner to prove or disprove that someone deleted a copy of a digital file from their computer hard drive or other storage device, after transmitting a copy to someone else. Further, the Copyright Office believes that this difficulty would likely result in "greatly increased risk of infringement in a medium where piracy risks are already orders of magnitude greater than in the physical world".14 According to the Copyright Office:

Removing, even in limited circumstances, the legal limitations on retransmission of works, coupled with the lack of inherent technological limitations on rapid duplication and dissemination, will make it too easy for unauthorized copies to be made and distributed, seriously harming the market for those works.15

Interestingly, the Copyright Office cited "the Napster phenomenon" as evidence that consumers generally want to retain rather than destroy copies which they use to transmit further copies to others.16 Before Napster was forced to shut down by a court order until it could find a way to prevent the massive copyright infringements it was enabling to occur, Napster users would typically transmit digital files to others while retaining their own files. It certainly does not appear to be realistic to expect people voluntarily to comply with a legal requirement to delete their copies of digital files that they transmit to others. Moreover, the costs to copyright owners of policing and enforcing such a requirement would be prohibitive



D. Conclusion

Technological innovations have brought about new ways in which copyrighted works can be reproduced, distributed, performed, and enjoyed. The beginning of the 21st century has been a great challenge for copyright, but despite copyright owners? fears of piracy and the anti-copyright establishment?s cries of a revolution to free music, copyright will continue to survive.

Copyright has survived numerous technological advances over the past two centuries such as the player piano, phonograph recordings, motion pictures, television, radio, cassettes and compact discs. Often, these new technologies have posed challenges to copyright law?s applicability. Although copyright has not always adapted immediately and smoothly, it has not prevented any of these technologies from thriving. Similarly, copyright will survive the challenges posed by the Internet and the digital distribution of music. However, its application will certainly change as new legislation is passed, court precedents are established, and protective technologies are incorporated into copyrighted works.

As always, copyright law must balance the competing interests of copyright owners and the public. Just as the public needs to become educated about copyright law, the music industry needs to educate itself about new ways that music can be made available. Although the music industry should not be blamed for protecting its property, it does deserve some blame for failing to be open to new possibilities of legally making music available in ways that consumers want it. If the music industry becomes a bit more flexible and responsive to new technologies and business models, neither the Internet, nor any other technology, is likely to destroy it. Instead, technology can be used to enhance the creativity of artists, and increase the dissemination of music to the public, which is exactly what copyright is supposed to accomplish.


___________________________________________________________________

1. "The Economy of Ideas", Wired (Mar. 1994), 84-85.
2. For example, Vivendi Universal recently purchased MP3.com for approximately $5 per share. Vivendi Universal had previously acquired Emusic, while Bertelsmann purchased a majority interest in Napster in return for providing funding to try to keep the struggling company in business along more legitimate lines.
3. See: H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 47,52 (1976).
4. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp.2d,349.350 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
5. Some audiophiles would disagree as to the loss of of sound quality when music is compressed in MP3 format. However, to most casual listeners, the reduction in sound quality is minor and possibly unnoticeable.
6. See: Vito Peraino, "The Law of Increasing Returns", Wired (Aug. 1999), 144.
7. I use the word "generally" since, in limited circumstances, uploading or downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's consent may not constitute copyright infringement if the defense of fair use is applicable.
8. See:Final report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (1978), 40.
9. Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, Section 104 Report, August 2001, pp 132-148, available online at: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html
10. Id.
11. 17 U.S.C. 109.
12. Music Online Competition Act of 2001, H.R.2724, August 2, 2001, available online at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2724.IH: (or more concisely : http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/moca-summary.htm)
13. Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, Section 104 Report, August 2001, pp.82-83.
14. Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, Section 104 Report, August 2001, pp.83-84.
15. Id.
16. Id., 85.








Dr. David Moser is Assistant Professor of Music Business at Belmont University, and a North American Special Consultant for Music Business Journal

http://www.musicjournal.org/01digitalcopyright.htm

back to articles
Printer-friendly version