Authors:Taylor A. Collins Abstract: While it is clear, and arguably has been for the last five years, that paid subscription streaming is the future of the music industry, the law has failed to keep pace with “modern consumer preferences and technological developments in the music marketplace.” The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (MMA), which amends the U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C., is Congress’s effort to keep pace with the music industry by fixing our cumbersome and inefficient music licensing system. The MMA is a step in the right direction, but it falls short of Congress’s goal. Focusing on Title I of the MMA—the Music Licensing Modernization Act—I argue that, aside from creating a compulsory blanket mechanical license for musical works, Title I of the MMA has done very little to improve business transactions in the music marketplace. Moreover, instead of “present[ing] a series of balanced tradeoffs among interested parties to create a fairer, more efficient, and more rational system for all,” Title I of the MMA hyper-focuses on the short-term interests of the music publishers and non-performing songwriters that lobbied during the MMA legislative process.I, therefore, argue that Congress should revisit the music marketplace question and update our music licensing system with the following goals in mind: (1) protect the public’s interest in having affordable access to interactive streaming, (2) create administrative synergies in our music licensing system, and (3) increase revenues for industry players and cut costs in the music marketplace. Specifically, Congress should: Replace the willing-buyer/willing-seller standard with the §801(b)(1) (repealed 2018) policy-oriented standard for statutory rate-setting proceedings; Instruct the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) to factor basic principles of federal antitrust law into royalty rate determinations; Expressly communicate to the CRB that maximizing the quality of musical works made available to the public is outside the scope of the CRB’s statutory authority; Reject the principle set forth by the Copyright Office that “[g]overnment licensing processes should aspire to treat equivalent uses of sound recordings and musical works alike”; Authorize the formation of a new Mechanical and Performance Licensing Collective (MPLC), f/k/a Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), and create a compulsory individual and blanket license for the public performance of nondramatic musical works; Migrate public performance rate-setting proceedings from the performing rights organization (PRO) rate courts in the Southern District of New York over to the MPLC; Require terrestrial radio to pay sound recording royalties to recording artists and record companies; Apportion the annual assessment (operating) costs for the funding of the MPLC f/k/a MLC among applicable licensors and licensees; and Create a compulsory licensing system for the recording and commercial release of interpolations. In the following sections—Part I, II, and III—I set forth the details of my policy proposal, identify the drawbacks of our music licensing system, and demonstrate how my recommendations seek to address these inefficiencies. PubDate: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:30:48 PDT
Authors:Alyssa Croft Abstract: Many people strive to be professional athletes because of the respect and accomplishment it receives. You make a lot of money, it can be glamorous, you are in commercials and magazines, and sometimes even movies. However, there are some things people do not think about when it comes to professional athletes. One of the biggest is taxation! There are so many different things athletes must think about and do because of taxes so they can take home the most amount of money possible. Athletes must be careful about who they hire to help them with their taxes because they want to be sure they get someone who will help them get the most out of their money. So many things come into play when someone is looking at taxes for a professional athlete. Athletes can be taxed for the games they play in different cities, for their endorsements, commercials, etc. In other words, athletes pay taxes just like you and me, it is just much more complicated. PubDate: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:30:46 PDT
Authors:Mark Marciszewski Abstract: Some legal questions answered in this article on the horizon for the courts and lawyers is how should courts apply copyright law to popular media made by small scale creators and shared on the internet, otherwise known as "memes."Part II of this article will focus on validity of potential copyright protection in internet memes. It will start by describing the increased monetization surrounding memes and how this monetization calls for greater interest for meme creators to protect their work. It will then describe the merits of individual copyright interests in internet memes.Part III of this article will focus on how memes have existed without copyright lawsuits from content creators: principally, that internet memes constitute fair use. This section will use an example meme to weigh all four statutory factors of fair use to support the argument that internet memes are highly transformative and do not impact the market of the original copyrighted work.Part IV of this article will outline how public policy favors copyright protection of memes since copyright protection would not stifle creativity or new meme creations. First, copyright protection of memes would not disrupt the current “meme culture” of sharing memes because social media platforms, the major platform and vehicle for meme creation and sharing, have negated many copyright concerns through their terms of use policies. Next, it will explain how the Digital Media Copyright Act’s safe harbor rule protects social media platforms from being secondarily liable for potential copyright infringements involving meme appropriation. Finally, it will explain how other aspects of copyright law, like independent creation, the idea/expression dichotomy, and the fair use doctrine, will prevent meme creators from “weaponizing” their copyright interests in their memes. PubDate: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:16:20 PDT
Authors:Joseph C. Alfe et al. Abstract: Are violent video games harming America’s youth' Is it possible a series of interconnected circuit boards can influence children (or even adults) to become, themselves, violent' If so, how should our society-- and government-- respond'To properly answer this last query, violent video games must be viewed through the lens of the First Amendment. Simply put: do games depicting grotesque acts of depravity so profound as to negatively influence the psyche warrant the full constitutional protections ordinarily guaranteed under the mantle of free speech and expression' Are these guarantees without limit' If not, how far may the government go in regulating the content or restricting the availability of these games'This paper first examines the history of video game development and its economic significance. Next, similar “societal boogeymen” are examined, compared, and contrasted to video games. Their impact on society and law is also examined. What, if any, First Amendment protections this class of video games should receive as well as possible regulatory schemes and limitations are then examined. Finally, after weighing public policy interests, a new regulatory framework is proposed. PubDate: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:16:15 PDT
Authors:Jeffrey Shearer Abstract: Title IX fails to provide the tools or guidelines necessary to equalize opportunities for all student athletes in the collegiate setting despite the government’s continuous effort to explain the law. This failure is because judicial precedent has largely developed around the binary proportionality test of compliance. Title IX was originally intended to equalize educational opportunities for male and female students in order to remedy past discrimination in our society. However, the application of Title IX has frequently created fewer opportunities in athletics due to the unintended relationship between the proportionality standard and the social phenomenon that is the commercialization of college sports. This comment will highlight recent historical challenges with Title IX's application in college athletics with a focus on men’s gymnastics. This comment proposes that the Office for Civil Rights revoke their policy letter outlining the binary proportionality test, so that universities will be incentivized to use more qualitative measures of compliance. Finally, this comment will highlight developing legal issues with the application of the binary proportionality test on transgender athletes. PubDate: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:16:10 PDT
Open Access journal
