Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67777-67781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27775]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

[Docket No. 2010-4]

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: Congress has directed the Copyright Office to conduct a study
on the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before
February 15, 1972, under Federal jurisdiction. Currently, such sound
recordings are protected under a patchwork of State statutory and
common laws from their date of creation until 2067. This notice
requests written comments from all interested parties regarding Federal
coverage of pre-1972 sound recordings. Specifically, the Office seeks
comments on the likely effect of Federal protection upon preservation
and public access, and the effect upon the economic interests of rights
holders. The Office also seeks comments on how the incorporation of
pre-1972 sound recordings into Federal law might best be achieved.

DATES: Initial written comments must be received in the Office of the
General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than December 20,
2010. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General
Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than December 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office strongly prefers that comments be
submitted electronically. A comment page containing a comment form is
posted on the Copyright Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/comment-submission-index.html. The Web site
interface requires submitters to complete a form specifying name and
organization, as applicable, and to upload comments as an attachment
via a browse button. To meet accessibility standards, each comment must
be uploaded in a single file in either the Adobe Portable Document File
(PDF) format that contains searchable, accessible text (not an image);
Microsoft Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text file
format (not a scanned document). The maximum file size is 6 megabytes
(MB). The name of the submitter and organization should appear on both
the form and the face of the comments. All comments will be posted on
the Copyright Office Web site, along with names and organizations.
If electronic submission of comments is not feasible, comments may
be delivered in hard copy. If hand delivered by a private party, an
original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be
brought to the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM-401,
James Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave., SE., Washington, DC
20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as
follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office.
If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies
of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional
Courier Acceptance Site (``CCAS'') located at 2nd and D Streets, SE.,
Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be
addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright
Office, LM-403, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by
means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United
Parcel Service or DHL.
If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or
reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright
GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David O. Carson, General Counsel, or
Chris Weston, Attorney Advisor. Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-
8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The Copyright Office is conducting a study on ``the desirability of
and means for bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,
under federal jurisdiction.'' When it enacted the Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress directed the Register of
Copyrights to conduct such a study and seek comments from interested
parties. H. Comm. On Appropriations, H.R. 1105, Public Law 111-8
[Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] 1769

[[Page 67778]]

(Comm. Print 2009). With this notice, the Copyright Office explains the
background to the study and seeks public comment on whether pre-1972
sound recordings should be brought within the Federal copyright
statute. The Office also poses a number of questions on specific topics
relevant to the overall inquiry.

Background

Sound recordings are ``works that result from the fixation of a
series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the
sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes
or other phonorecords, in which they are embodied.'' 17 U.S.C. 101.
Until 1972, sound recordings were not among the works of authorship
protected by the Federal copyright statute; they enjoyed protection
only under State law. In 1971, Congress passed the Sound Recording
Amendment, which provided that sound recordings first fixed on or after
February 15, 1972, would be eligible for protection under Federal
copyright law. Sound recordings first fixed prior to that date (pre-
1972 sound recordings) continued to be protected under State law.
In 1976, when Congress passed the Copyright Revision Act, it
created a unitary system of copyright, by bringing unpublished works
(until then protected by State law) under the Federal copyright law,
and preempting all State laws that provided rights equivalent to
copyright. 17 U.S.C. 301(a). However, it explicitly excluded State laws
concerning pre-1972 sound recordings from the general preemption
provision, allowing those laws to continue in effect until 2047. 17
U.S.C. 301(c). That date was later extended by the Copyright Term
Extension Act (CTEA) until 2067. Public Law 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827
(1998). On February 15, 2067, all State law protection for pre-1972
sound recordings will be preempted by Federal law and will effectively
cease.
Thus, there are currently two primary regimes of protection for
sound recordings: State law protects pre-1972 recordings, and Federal
copyright law protects sound recordings of U.S. origin first fixed on
or after February 15, 1972.
Federal law also protects pre-1972 sound recordings of foreign
origin that were eligible for copyright restoration under the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (URAA). Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4973
(1994). This legislation, passed in 1994 in order to implement U.S.
obligations under the TRIPS (``Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property'') Agreement, ``restored'' copyright protection to certain
works of foreign origin that were in the public domain in the United
States on the effective date, which for most works was January 1, 1996.
Because most other countries provide a 50-year term of protection for
sound recordings, generally only those foreign sound recordings fixed
in 1946 and after were eligible for restoration under the URAA.
One consequence of the continued protection under State law of pre-
1972 sound recordings is that there are virtually no sound recordings
in the public domain in the United States. Pre-1972 sound recordings,
no matter how old, can have State law protection until 2067, so that
some sound recordings will conceivably be protected for more than 170
years. Even pre-1972 foreign sound recordings that were ineligible for
copyright restoration because their term of protection had expired in
their home countries are eligible for State law protection, at least in
New York. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc., 830
N.E.2d 250 (N.Y. 2005). Those sound recordings that do have Federal
copyright protection will not enter the public domain for many years.
For example, sound recordings copyrighted in 1972 will not enter the
public domain until the end of 2067.
State law protection for pre-1972 sound recordings is provided by a
patchwork of criminal laws, civil statutes and common law. Almost all
States have criminal laws that prohibit duplication and sale of
recordings done knowingly and willfully with the intent to sell or
profit commercially from the copies. Most States also have some form of
civil protection, sometimes under the rubric of ``common law
copyright,'' sometimes under ``misappropriation'' or ``unfair
competition,'' and sometimes under ``right of publicity.'' Occasionally
these forms of protection are referred to collectively as ``common law
copyright'' or ``common law protection,'' but in fact not all civil
protection for sound recordings is common law--some States have
statutes that relate to unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings--
and a true ``common law copyright'' claim differs from a claim grounded
in unfair competition or right of publicity. In Capitol Records, Inc.
v. Naxos of America, Inc., the New York Court of Appeals (the highest
court of the State) explained that a common law copyright claim in New
York ``consists of two elements: (1) The existence of a valid
copyright; and (2) unauthorized reproduction of the work protected by
copyright.'' Id. at 563. It went on to state that ``[c]opyright law is
distinguishable from unfair competition, which in addition to
unauthorized copying and distribution requires competition in the
marketplace or similar actions designed for commercial benefit.'' Id.
The scope of civil protection varies from State to State, and even
within a State there is often uncertainty because there are few court
decisions that have defined the scope of the rights and the existence
and scope of exceptions. What is permissible in one State may not be in
another. This uncertainty is compounded by the unsettled state of the
law concerning the activities that subject an entity to a State's
jurisdiction.
In general, Federal law is better defined, both as to the rights
and the exceptions, and more consistent than State law. In some
respects Federal law provides stronger protection. For example, owners
of copyrighted works who timely register are eligible for statutory
damages and attorneys fees. 17 U.S.C. 412, 504, and 505. In addition,
copyright-protected sound recordings are eligible for protection under
17 U.S.C. 1201, which prohibits circumvention of technological
protection that protects access to a copyrighted work. At the same time
Federal law provides a more consistent and well-articulated set of
exceptions. While some States include exceptions in their laws
protecting sound recordings, the Federal ``fair use'' and library and
archives exceptions--17 U.S.C. 107 and 108, respectively--are likely
much more robust and effective in providing safety valves for the
unauthorized but socially valuable use of copyrighted works.

The Copyright Office Study

Faced with the uncertain patchwork of State laws that cover pre-
1972 recordings, libraries, archives and educational institutions have
voiced serious concerns about their legal ability to preserve pre-1972
recordings, and provide access to them to researchers and scholars.\1\
A 2005 study concluded that copyright owners had, on average, made
available on CD only 14 percent of the sound recordings they control
that were released from 1890 through 1964.\2\ Reissues of recordings
from before World War II are particularly scarce. While the statistics
and conclusions from that report are now five years old, the Copyright
Office knows of no reason to believe that the

[[Page 67779]]

situation has changed significantly since that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See generally Rob Bamberger and Sam Brylawski, National
Recording Preservation Board, The State of Recorded Sound
Preservation in the United States: A National Legacy At Risk in the
Digital Age (2010).
\2\ Tim Brooks, National Recording Preservation Board, Survey of
Reissues of U.S. Recordings 7 (2005). For more recent years in that
period, the percentage of recordings that were available reached 33
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copies of many recordings from these eras reside in libraries and
archives. Their custodians, however, are concerned that without the
certainty of Federal copyright exceptions, the reproduction and
distribution activities necessary to preserve and provide access to
these recordings will lack clear legal bases. As a result, some have
urged that consideration be given to bringing pre-1972 sound recordings
under Federal copyright law, so that users have to contend with only a
single set of laws.
When it directed the Register of Copyrights to conduct a study on
the desirability of and means for bringing sound recordings fixed
before February 15, 1972 under Federal jurisdiction, Congress
specifically stated:

The study is to cover the effect of federal coverage on the
preservation of such sound recordings, the effect on public access
to those recordings, and the economic impact of federal coverage on
rights holders. The study is also to examine the means for
accomplishing such coverage.

H.R. 1105, Public Law 111-8 [Legislative Text and Explanatory
Statement] 1769. As part of the study, the Register is to provide an
opportunity for interested parties to submit comments. The Register's
report to Congress on the results of the study is to include any
recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
The body of pre-1972 sound recordings is vast. Commercially
released ``popular'' recordings come most readily to mind--from Rudy
Vallee to Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald to the Beatles and the
Rolling Stones. But pre-1972 commercial recordings encompass a wide
range of genres: ragtime and jazz, rhythm and blues, gospel, country
and folk music, classical recordings, spoken word recordings and many
others. There are, in addition, many unpublished recordings such as
journalists' tapes, oral histories, and ethnographic and folklore
recordings. There are also recordings of old radio broadcasts, which
were publicly disseminated by virtue of the broadcast, but in many
cases are technically unpublished under the standards of the U.S.
Copyright Act.
The Copyright Office requests that parties with an interest in the
question of whether to protect pre-1972 sound recordings as part of the
Federal copyright statute submit their comments on the issue and, in
those comments, respond to the specific questions below. A party need
only address those issues on which it has information or views, but the
Office asks that all answers be as comprehensive as possible.

Specific Questions

Preservation of and Access to Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

The following questions are meant to elicit information about how
Federal protection of pre-1972 sound recordings will affect
preservation and public access.

Preservation

1. Do libraries and archives, which are beneficiaries of the
limitations on exclusive rights in section 108 of the Copyright Act,
currently treat pre-1972 sound recordings differently from those first
fixed in 1972 or later (``copyrighted sound recordings'') for purposes
of preservation activities? Do educational institutions, museums, and
other cultural institutions that are not beneficiaries of section 108
treat pre-1972 sound recordings any differently for these purposes?
2. Would bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under Federal law--
without amending the current exceptions--affect preservation efforts
with respect to those recordings? Would it improve the ability of
libraries and archives to preserve these works; and if so, in what way?
Would it improve the ability of educational institutions, museums, and
other cultural institutions to preserve these works?

Access

3. Do libraries and archives currently treat pre-1972 sound
recordings differently from copyrighted sound recordings for purposes
of providing access to those works? Do educational institutions,
museums, and other cultural institutions treat them any differently?
4. Would bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under Federal law--
without amending the current exceptions--affect the ability of such
institutions to provide access to those recordings? Would it improve
the ability of libraries and archives to make these works available to
researchers and scholars; and if so, in what way? What about
educational institutions, museums, and other cultural institutions?
5. Currently one group of pre-1972 recordings does have Federal
copyright protection--those of foreign origin whose copyrights were
restored by law. (See the discussion of the URAA above.) In order to be
eligible for restoration, works have to meet several conditions,
including: (1) They cannot be in the public domain in their home
country through expiration of the term of protection on the date of
restoration; (2) they have to be in the public domain in the United
States due to noncompliance with formalities, lack of subject matter
protection (as was the case for sound recordings) or lack of national
eligibility; and (3) they have to meet national eligibility standards,
i.e., the work has to be of foreign origin. 17 U.S.C. 104A(h)(6). In
determining whether a work was in the public domain in its home country
at the time it became eligible for restoration, one has to know the
term of protection in that country; in most countries, sound recordings
are protected under a ``neighboring rights'' regime which provides a
50-year term of protection. As a result, most foreign sound recordings
first fixed prior to 1946 are not eligible for restoration. To be of
foreign origin, a work has to have ``at least one author or rightholder
who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of
an eligible country, and if published, [must have been] first published
in an eligible country and not published in the United States during
the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country.'' 17
U.S.C. 104A(h)(6)(D).
Does the differing protection for this particular group of
recordings lead to their broader use? Have you had any experience with
trying to identify which pre-1972 sound recordings are (or may be) so
protected? Please elaborate.
6. Are pre-1972 sound recordings currently being treated
differently from copyrighted sound recordings when use is sought for
educational purposes, including use in connection with the distance
education exceptions in 17 U.S.C. 110(2)? Would bringing pre-1972 sound
recordings under Federal law affect the ability to make these works
available for educational purposes; and if so, in what way?
7. Do libraries and archives make published and unpublished
recordings available on different terms? What about educational
institutions, museums, and other cultural institutions? Are unpublished
works protected by State common law copyright treated differently from
unpublished works protected by Federal copyright law? Would bringing
pre-1972 sound recordings under Federal law affect the ability to
provide access to unpublished pre-1972 sound recordings?

Economic Impact

Likely economic impact is an important consideration in determining
whether pre-1972 sound recordings should be brought under Federal law,
and how that change might be accomplished. The questions below are
intended to elicit information regarding

[[Page 67780]]

what revenue expectations copyright owners have with respect to pre-
1972 sound recordings, and how these expectations would be affected by
bringing these recordings under Federal protection. These questions are
also intended to elicit information concerning the determination of
ownership in such recordings.

Value of the Recordings

8. Are there commercially valuable sound recordings first fixed
before 1923 (e.g., that would be in the public domain if the ordinary
Federal term of protection applied) that would be adversely affected?
Please describe these recordings, including whether or not they are
currently under commercial exploitation (and if not, why not) and
elaborate on the nature and extent of their commercial value.
9. Are there commercially valuable sound recordings first fixed
from 1923-1940 that would be adversely affected? Please describe these
recordings, including whether or not they are currently under
commercial exploitation (and if not, why not) and elaborate on the
nature and extent of their commercial value.
10. With regard to commercial recordings first fixed after 1940:
What is the likely commercial impact of bringing these works under
Federal copyright law?
11. Would there be any negative economic impact of such a change,
e.g., in the scope of rights, or the certainty and enforceability of
protection?
12. Would there be any positive economic impact of such a change,
e.g., in the scope of rights, or the certainty and enforceability of
protection?
13. What would be the economic impact of bringing pre-1972 sound
recordings into the section 114 statutory licensing mechanism
applicable to certain digital transmissions of sound recordings? Would
there be other advantages or disadvantages in bringing pre-1972 sound
recordings within the scope of the section 114 statutory license?
14. Does the uncertainty of different regimes under State law make
it less practical for rights holders to bring suit under State law? Are
you aware of any infringement suits concerning pre-1972 sound
recordings brought in the past 10 years?
15. Would business arrangements concerning sampling of sound
recordings be affected by bringing pre-1972 recordings under Federal
law; and if so, how would they be affected? Are pre-1972 sound
recordings currently treated differently with respect to sampling?

Ownership of Rights in the Recordings

It is worthwhile to explore State law principles applicable to
authorship and ownership of rights in sound recordings to determine
whether there would be any tension with Federal copyright law
principles.
16. Under Federal law the owner of the sound recording will
generally be, in the first instance, the performer(s) whose performance
is recorded, the producer of the recording, or both. Do State laws
attribute ownership differently? If so, might that lead to
complications?
17. Under Federal law, some copyrighted sound recordings qualify as
works made for hire, either because (1) they are works prepared by
employees in the scope of their employment, or (2) they were specially
ordered or commissioned, if the parties agree in writing that the works
will be works made for hire, and the works fall within one of nine
specific categories of works eligible to be commissioned works made for
hire. 17 U.S.C. 101.\3\ If a work qualifies as a work made for hire, it
is the employer or commissioning party who is the legal author and
initial rights holder, rather than the individual creator of the work.
Prior to the January 1, 1978, the courts recognized the work for hire
doctrine with respect to works created by employees in the course of
their employment, and particularly from the mid-1960s on, they
recognized commissioned works made for hire, under such standards as
whether the work was created at the hiring party's ``instance and
expense'' or whether the hiring party had the ``right to control'' or
exercised ``actual control'' over the creation of the work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The types of works that can qualify as commissioned works
for hire include: A contribution to a collective work, a part of a
motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a
supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test,
answer material for a test, or an atlas. 17 U.S.C. 101(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To what extent does State law recognize the work made for hire
doctrine with respect to sound recordings? To what extent does State
law recognize commissioned works for hire, and under what standard?
Have State laws in this respect changed over time? Is there any
likelihood that, if Federal standards were applied, ownership of pre-
1972 sound recordings would be attributed differently? Is there any
reason to believe that, if pre-1972 sound recordings were to become
protected under Federal copyright law, their ownership would then
become subject to Federal work-made-for-hire standards?
18. Under Federal copyright law, ownership of rights is distinct
from ownership of the material object in which the copyrighted work is
embodied. Transferring ownership of such an object, including the
``original,'' i.e., the copy or phonorecord in which the copyrighted
work was first fixed, does not convey rights in the copyright. 17
U.S.C. 202. A transfer of copyright ownership must be made in a writing
signed by the owner of the rights or her authorized agent. Id. 204.
Some State laws provide (or for a period of time provided) that
transferring the original copy of a work could operate as a transfer of
copyright ownership, unless the rights holder specifically reserved the
copyright rights. To what extent have these State law principles been
applied with respect to ``master recordings''? How if at all would they
affect who would own the Federal statutory rights, if pre-1972 sound
recordings were brought under Federal law?
19. If pre-1972 sound recordings were to be given protection under
the Federal copyright statute, how would or should copyright ownership
of such recordings be determined? Has the issue arisen with respect to
pre-1978 unpublished works that received Federal statutory copyrights
when the Copyright Act of 1976 came into effect?
20. What other considerations are relevant in assessing the
economic impact of bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under Federal
protection?

Term of Protection and Related Constitutional Considerations

Term of Protection

21. If pre-1972 sound recordings are brought under Federal
copyright law, should the basic term of protection be the same as for
other works--i.e., for the life of the author plus 70 years or, in the
case of anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, for a
term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of
120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first? Can
different treatment for pre-1972 sound recordings be justified?
22. Currently, States are permitted to protect pre-1972 sound
recordings until February 15, 2067. If these recordings were
incorporated into Federal copyright law and the ordinary statutory
terms applied, then all works fixed prior to 1923 would immediately go
into the public domain. Most pre-1972 sound recordings, including all
published, commercial recordings, would experience a shorter term of
protection. However, as the date of the recording approaches 1972, the
terms under

[[Page 67781]]

Federal and State law become increasingly similar. For example, a sound
recording published in 1940 would be protected until the end of 2035
instead of February 15, 2067; one published in 1970 would be protected
until the end of 2065 instead of February 15, 2067. In the case of one
category of works--unpublished sound recordings whose term is measured
by the life of author--there would actually be an extension of term if
the author died after 1997. For example, if the author of an
unpublished pre-1972 sound recording died in 2010, that sound recording
would be protected under Federal law until the end of 2080.
In the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress made all unpublished works
being brought under Federal law subject to the ordinary statutory term
that the 1976 Act provided for copyrighted works: life of the author
plus 50 years (later extended by the CTEA to life of the author plus 70
years). However, Congress was concerned that for some works, applying
the ordinary statutory copyright terms would mean that copyright
protection would have expired by the effective date of the 1976
Copyright Act, or would expire soon thereafter. Congress decided that
removing subsisting common law rights and substituting statutory rights
for a ``reasonable period'' would be ``fully in harmony with the
constitutional requirements of due process.'' H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at
138-39 (1976). Accordingly, the 1976 Copyright Act included a provision
that gave all unpublished works, no matter how old, a minimum period of
protection of 25 years, until December 31, 2002. 17 U.S.C. 303. If
those works were published by that date, they would get an additional
term of protection of 25 years, to December 31, 2027 (later extended by
the CTEA to 2047).
If pre-1972 sound recordings were brought under Federal copyright
law, should a similar provision be made for those recordings that
otherwise would have little or no opportunity for Federal copyright
protection? If so, what would be a ``reasonable period'' in this
context, and why? If not, would the legislation encounter
constitutional problems (e.g., due process, or Takings Clause issues)?

Increasing the Availability of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

23. If the requirements of due process make necessary some minimum
period of protection, are there exceptions that might be adopted to
make those recordings that have no commercial value available for use
sooner? For example, would it be worthwhile to consider amending 17
U.S.C. 108(h) to allow broader use on the terms of that provision
throughout any such ``minimum period?'' Do libraries and archives rely
on this provision to make older copyrighted works available? If not,
why not?
24. Are there other ways to enhance the ability to use pre-1972
sound recordings during any minimum term, should one be deemed
necessary?
25. How might rights holders be encouraged to make existing
recordings available on the market? Would a provision like that in
section 303--an extended period of protection contingent upon
publication--be likely to encourage rights holders to make these works
publicly available?

Partial Incorporation

26. The possibility of bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under
Federal law only for limited purposes has been raised. For example,
some stakeholders seek to ensure that whether or not pre-1972 sound
recordings receive Federal copyright protection, they are in any event
subject to the fair use doctrine and the library and archives
exceptions found in sections 107 and 108, respectively, of the
Copyright Act. Others would like to subject pre-1972 sound recordings
to the section 114 statutory license, but otherwise keep them within
the protection of State law rather than Federal copyright law.
Is it legally possible to bring sound recordings under Federal law
for such limited purposes? For example, can (and should) there be a
Federal exception (such as fair use) without an underlying Federal
right? Can (and should) works that do not enjoy Federal statutory
copyright protection nevertheless be subject to statutory licensing
under the Federal copyright law? What would be the advantages or
disadvantages of such proposals?

Miscellaneous Questions

27. Could the incorporation of pre-1972 sound recordings
potentially affect in any way the rights in the underlying works (such
as musical works); and if so, in what way?
28. What other uses of pre-1972 recordings, besides preservation
and access activities by libraries and other cultural institutions,
might be affected by a change from State to Federal protection? For
example, to what extent are people currently engaging in commercial or
noncommercial use or exploitation of pre-1972 sound recordings, without
authorization from the rights holder, in reliance on the current status
of protection under State law? If so, in what way? Would protecting
pre-1972 sound recordings under Federal law affect the ability to
engage in such activities?
29. To the extent not addressed in response to the preceding
question, to what extent are people currently refraining from making
use, commercial or noncommercial, of pre-1972 sound recordings in view
of the current status of protection under State law; and if so, in what
way?
30. Are there other factors relevant to a determination of whether
pre-1972 sound recordings should be brought under Federal law, and how
that could be accomplished?

Dated: October 29, 2010.
David O. Carson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-27775 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P