BY:
Researching legal findings and Relevant Industry specific Podcasts.
There have been many issues which
pertain to my business aspirations which have been decided recently in courts
around the country. As an artist who has been relying heavenly on the Internet
and digital distribution and streaming, music royalty issues stand ant the
forefront of my personal and entertainment company’s attention and portfolio.
In my research of these issues I encounter legal blogs and newsfeeds which at
times contribute valuable information. The Entertainment Law Update podcast
series with Gordon P. Firemark has given me background on these issues. Episode 30 delves into Music Royalty Issues, Crowd funding and other interesting
subjects.
The music royalty
issues decided recently in courtcases between the RIAA(Recording Industry
Association of America) the trade group who represents recording distributors
in the united states and the DiMA(Digital Media Associataion) a national trade
organization devoted to the online audio and video industries, decided what
would be the Mechanical Royalty rates paid to publishers by cloud services and
digital storage services. The Labels will be paid certain statutory rates which
they will pay royalties to publishers on. These issues pertain to section 115
of the Cumpulsory licenses section of
this law creating new statutory rates which were the same as the previous
Mechanical license rate of 9.1 cents. This is significant because there was not
previously an established statutory rate for cloud services, streaming and
ringtones. Licensing has been being issued since 2001 for these kinds of
services but retro-active payments will be issued dating back from 2001 to July 1, 2009. New
reports on license usages will be issued for every 45 days since then for
accounting purposes. This is good for independent self published artists such
as my self to account for and track usage, plays and mechanical royalty rate
payments from distributors.
THE JOBS ACT
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups
Act makes it easier for emerging business to utilize crowd funding platforms,
for investor equity stakes, which yield a return on investment as opposed to
exclusive perks for campaign contributors. Some think the new act also creates
a greater opportunity for abuse on behalf of these Investors and groups. There
are five modules which are included in this act, three of which I will discuss
here.
Module 1 pertains to crowd
funding and Investrors being allowed to contribute 10% of their gross adjusted
income(up to One Million dollars) to activities like this for various returns.
Module 2 addresses changes
to Regulation D Rule 506 of the previous code pertaining to fundraising securities for film. The previous rule only
allowed fundraising solicitation to individuals which had relationships with
those seeking funds,the changes now allow fundraisers to post public notices of
fundraising opportunities for film securities online and in print. It also
raises the amount investors can contribute to these securities without reporting to the SEC(Securities and
Exchange Comission) from 5% million to 50 million dollars.
Module 3 is in reference to
the IPO-Onramp. This section applies to emerging business grossing under 1
billion dollars a year. This provision allows these business to embark on and
IPO(Initial Public Offering) activity
more economically than ever before. In addition Businesses who have up to 500 private shareholder investors were
previously required to become public
companies. The limit has been raised to 2000 private shareholder investors
provided they are not accredited investors.
These issues pertain to emerging companies
such as my own ,some sections more than others, The crowd funding section
especially pertains to some of the projects my company is developing in film.These new developments may
enable fundraising for my projects.
Episode 32
Lawyers, Libel Logos and Lollipops-Actual Knowledge Vs. Redflag knowledge
In The case of UMG VS. VEOH (that is Universal Music Group
versus the online video platform VEOH)
in the ninth circuit court in 2010 it
was decided that in order for their to be
actual knowledge of infringement
of copyrighted material on the ISP(Internet
Service Provider) video site, the Copyright holder must notify the ISP of the infringement on their
site. In light of the recent decision in another case, (Viacom VS YouTube) the
ninth circuit has asked the parties to determine whether the second circuit
court (which has decided the case in the YouTube dispute) is utilizing the same
definition for infringement in terms of actual knowledge? The other issue is if there is no actual knowledge of the infringement does the
copy right holder need to show that the video site has more than the ability to
block, take down or control the access to the infringing material? The answers
were given via supplemental briefs. The decision has since been made proving
VEOH was legal and not–infringing. This however did not save their business due
to legal fees and bankruptcy.
The point is to establish aligning
decisions in cases to establish what makes a video site liable for hosting
infringing materials under safe harbor in the DMCA(Digital Millennium
Copyrights Act.). If in one court they decide the case based on different
criteria than the other, then the precedents
are in conflict and the case can be taken to the supreme court. Not having
correlating decisions doesn’t establish clear precedent and can enable
infringement on different sites.
I follow this issue because when
you are a Copyright holder such as myself it behooves you to know how others
may infringe on your rights and how you may infringe on the rights of others.
When artists publish material and expect compensation for the use of the
material, honoring copyright is imperative to the argument and principle. These
issues and court cases are all relevant to my business and future projects. I
encourage any aspiring entertainment entrepreneurs to regularly research and educate
themselves on the issues relevant to their industry.
Additional References:
http://www.aimp.org/education/articles/1/Librarian_of_Congress_Publishes_New_Digital_Era_Mechanical_Royalty_Rates
https://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-veoh
IMAGES:
No comments:
Post a Comment