Tag Archives: copyright

The Copyright Laws…They Are A-Changin’

It is happening right now, at this moment. There is no denying it. The U.S. Copyright Law is going to be changed, and the process of review and comments has begun. Are you aware? Are you up to date? Would it impact you? Do you care?

If we are in any way affected by copyright law, I believe we have a responsibility, at this moment, to engage in the process. U.S. lawmakers, the U.S. Copyright Office, and industry leaders, are interested in what we, the stake holders, think. They are asking, they are inviting, and they are concerned. Are we ready to respond, or are we content with letting the changes occur without getting involved? If we don’t have the will to change it, we don’t have the right to criticize it.

This past week, The Copyright Office, on request of the House Judiciary Committee, was scheduled to take part in a roundtable discussion with music leaders in New York. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has held six hearings on the Copyright Law since this past March. According to Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights, this is the most activity in copyright hearings “in a very, very long time.” Maria Pallante has presented her own call to copyright change in a lecture delivered on March 4, 2013 at Columbia University, called “The Next Great Copyright Act”, which she also presented to the House Judiciary subcommittee on Intellectual Property a few weeks later. Have you read it? Do you know what some of those changes she is exploring are? (You can read her full lecture at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf ).

The purpose of this blog for the coming months will be to dive into many, and hopefully most, of the intricate issues the music industry will be dealing with in copyright reform. Oh wait…I’m not going to use the word “reform”. Ms. Pallante has said numerous times that neither she, and to her knowledge, no one in Congress, is calling this “reform”. It’s an update. We’ll see. I believe big changes are necessary, and perhaps some things need to be completely eliminated, while other sections need to be started from scratch. The first Register of Copyrights, Thorvald Solberg, said in 1926, “there comes a time when the “subject ought to be dealt with as a whole, and not by further merely partial or temporizing amendments.” I think we’re now at one of those times.

I was able to spend most of a day last month (December) with Maria Pallante during a visit to Nashville, and I will tell you I found her to be a very smart, capable, dedicated, and forward thinking leader. I believe she is going to prove herself to be an effective “change agent” related to copyright law. She says she believes the updated law needs to be “forward thinking but flexible. It should not attempt to answer the entire universe of possible questions, but, no matter what, it must serve the public interest. Thus, it must confirm and rationalize certain fundamental aspects of the law, including the ability of authors and their licensees to control and exploit their creative works, whether content is distributed on the street or streamed from the cloud.”

The goal of this weekly blog is to provide succinct information, definition and updates on copyright law issues, to discuss specific pain points in the law, and kick around ideas of change. It is to motivate forward thinking stake holders to get engaged, to gather intelligent, new and creative ideas from those people, and to provide a focused forum, or “crowd source” medium, to discuss improvement of the law. It is also to establish the Nashville community as a very real and respected voice in the process.

We’ll cover ideas such as performance royalties for sound recordings in terrestrial radio; whether or not we need a compulsory license; whether the life of post 1978 copyrights should be decreased without additional registrations (an idea already floated by Ms. Pallante); and new license models for the digital space. I have a list of over 40 timely and relevant topics that are ready to be teed up to discuss.

While genuine copyright change is clearly a daunting endeavor, the bell to begin has been rung, and it’s time for critical thinkers to step into the game. Spread the word. We need you. And we need you now. Let’s don’t just leave this to a few individuals in Washington.

“None of us is as smart as all of us.”Chinese proverb

John Barker

ClearBox Rights, LLC

(In order to better keep up to date and engage in this process, you may sign up to automatically receive this blog when it is published weekly, by clicking here https://clearboxrights.wordpress.com/ and entering your email address in the top right and press “Follow”).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Great Day in Nashville with Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights

Maria Pallante, the current Register of Copyrights, along with Steve Ruwe, an attorney in the Copyright Office General Counsel’s Office,  came to Nashville yesterday (Dec. 17th) to meet with a number of Nashville’s leaders in publishing and copyright. Maria presented parts of her vision for “The Next Great Copyright Act”, as well as addressing other areas of the Copyright Office.

She said a lot of great things, and was careful to NOT use the word “reform” when talking about what is being discussed in committees related to the Copyright Act.

She also mentioned, but did not dwell on, the idea of shortening the life of post 1978 copyrights to life plus 50 (rather than 70), unless the heirs update their registration with the Copyright Office. Not sure how I feel about that one.

Her complete speech from the Manges Lecture “The Next Great Copyright Act” can be viewed at the link below:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf

Now the push is to get DC to focus on Nashville to participate in a future round-table discussion related to changes in the law.

The sponsoring organization, The Copyright Society of the South, has posted links on their website for those of you who are interested in connecting for various newsletters, to read some of the mentioned lectures, or to connect with various legislative groups involved in the Copyright Law review process.

The Copyright Society of the South’s website is www.copyrightsocietyofthesouth.com.

Also, some discussion has begun on the Copyright Society’s LinkedIn page. Whether you were a part of yesterday’s presentation, or missed it and would like to see what others are saying, you may click below to join the discussion. Make sure you join the LinkedIn group.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Copyright-Society-South-4830259?gid=4830259&mostPopular=&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tas%3Acopyright%20society%20of%20the%20south%2Cidx%3A1-1-1

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Maria Pallante, U.S. Register of Copyrights, in Nashville Tomorrow (Tue. 12/17)

Maria Pallante, the current U.S. Register of Copyrights, will be presenting “The Next Great Copyright Act” in Nashville tomorrow, (Tuesday, Dec. 17th) at the First Amendment Center (1207 18th Avenue South) at 2:00PM. If you would like to go, there are still a limited number of seats available. Email me at jbarker@clearboxrights.com and I will get your name on the list. The cost is $20.00. (Checks made payable to Copyright Society of the South).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A New Music Theory

I’d like to propose a new music theory. But first, to set things up, see if any of the equations below look familiar from past school days.

E = mc²

Einstein’s famous equation says that energy (E), is equal to mass (m) multiplied with the square of the speed of light (c). Einstein came up with this in 1905. He wasn’t the first to propose a mass-energy relationship (Sir Isaac Newton did in 1717), but Einstein was the first to publish it in this equation.

π = c/d

This is the definition of Pi, calculated to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle (c) divided by its diameter (d), which is always 3.14159….. This is a mathematical constant, and was first “published” in a similar geometrical statement on a clay tablet in Babylon dating back to 1900-1600 B.C. The Greek letter “π” was added around the mid-18th century.

a² + b² = c²

This is called the Pythagorean Theorem, and states that, in a triangle with a right angle, the square of the length of the side opposite the right angle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This formula is about 2,350 years old, and is used all over mathematics.

Each of these famous formulas existed and were practiced before they were formalized in the written form in which they now exist. They were complex theories, argued over a period of time, but ultimately accepted as simple calculations which show a mathematical constant.

Okay, here’s a formula that has been practiced for decades, but I can’t find where it has yet been published, nor has it reached its total acceptance in the music industry. At least…not yet.

© =

This simply says the song copyright © (Songwriters/Publishers), is of equal value to the sound recording (Artists/Record Companies). In other words, the “idea” has equal value to the “expression” of that idea.

Song copyright rates were initially set under the 1909 Copyright Act, when congress defined the “compulsory license” at the rate of 2 cents. Prices for products to play music, which at that time were piano rolls, record cylinders and record discs, were left up to “fair market”. The United States tax law defines fair market as “…the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” (United States v. Cartwright). There were no restrictions on the pricing of these recorded products.

Fast forward over 100 years, and the song copyright rates are still restricted (although they have been increased to 9.1 cents), yet recorded products continue to enjoy fair market, or “willing buyer/willing seller”, price freedom. However, in certain areas that fall outside of the compulsory license restrictions, song copyrights have been negotiated for decades at the same value as the sound recording, such as synchronized uses in film, television, and commercials. For decades, where there was no physical product involved, the industry seemed okay with the idea of  © = .

Then came digital. iTunes, and other digital downloads, continued along the physical product balance of 8 to 1 (99 cents, with record companies receiving approximately 70 cents, and paying 9.1 cents for the song copyright). However, when Apple and record companies raised prices on many single downloads to $1.29 (their right in the fair market), the song copyright remained restricted at 9.1 cents, and the resulting ratio is more like 10 to 1. Other widely publicized digital providers have any greater out of balance ratios, such as Pandora, at 14 to 1. Even though the song copyright is not restricted in the same way for streaming (Pandora) as it is in downloads, there are still restrictions with the license entities (PROs), not to mention the licenses for song copyrights and recordings were negotiated separately, and without any consideration as to a proper “ratio” between the two. The historic anomaly of imbalance between the two continues, even though there is no physical product involved.

To be fair, a more accurate way to state the formula should probably take into account that no physical product exists. Looking back at references, the symbol ∄ means “there does not exist”, and the symbol (m) means mass, or physical matter. Adding those to the end of the new formula, it now reads:

© = (∄m) – Song Copyright equals Sound Recording if there does not exist physical Matter (or product).

I like it. This is a new paradigm, or new way of thinking, for the future of music licensing. Now, I realize there are arguments that can be made against this, such as terrestrial radio currently paying 100% to song owners, and 0% to artists and record companies. And there is the statement made by various record people that they would be willing to negotiate a different balance if songwriters and publishers would be willing to take a more equal risk in getting the recordings to the marketplace. Good points. I plan to address those arguments in the coming blogs.

Bottom line, it is clear that no one knows all the right answers at this moment in time. But, until we change our paradigm related to the value of each part, we may never see a correction occur.

Let’s prove this formula correct.

© = (∄m)

John Barker
ClearBox Rights

“Almost every significant breakthrough in the field of scientific endeavor is first a break with tradition; with old ways of thinking, with old paradigms.” – Thomas Kuhn

 

© 2013 John Barker.  All rights reserved.  Information contained in this Blog is of a general nature and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice.  Any reader of this Blog who has legal matters related to information addressed in this Blog should consult with an experienced attorney. This Blog contains no warranties or representations that the information contained in it is true or accurate in all respects or that it is the most current or complete information on the subject matter covered. John Barker is President and CEO of ClearBox Rights, LLC.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

That’s Not Fair

While at SXSW in Austin, Texas last week, I heard something from a panel discussing music licensing that was quite disturbing. A panelist told a roomful of independent artists something like “before you use part of another song or recording as fair use, you should consult an attorney.” The disturbing part was not the recommendation that an attorney be consulted. What was alarming is that he was implying the artists can start with the idea that their use falls under “fair use”, then simply verify that it does. Shouldn’t that panelist have instead implied that you should begin with the idea that you will need permission to use a part of a protected copyright and consult an attorney if you believe that use could fall under the fair use doctrine? It seems we’ve thrown around the fair use idea so much, with misdirected understanding of what it is intended for, that it has become a starting place for using songs over the idea of getting permission from the rights owners.

That same week, our office heard from a lady who is self-publishing a fiction book, saying that a book publishing company had told her that she could use up to 4 lines of a song in her book under “fair use”. Churches and other non-profit organizations frequently ask about making copies of music with the belief that their specific use of music is allowed under fair use. And I get asked all the time how much of a song can be used, that is, how many notes or measures or words, without needing to get permission or a license. These questions are all based on erroneous interpretations of the proper intent of the “fair use” doctrine.

Let’s set things straight. “Fair Use” was not mentioned in the 1909 Copyright Act. Until 1978, fair use was defined and applied by the judicial system as specific exceptions to the exclusive rights granted to the owners of copyrights. Congress realized the need to define this in the law, so it was included in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. However, the language of the current Fair Use statute is said to be illustrative rather than absolute, with the intent to restate, but not replace, the prior rulings determined by judges. Today’s courts regularly consider other factors as well.

The exact language in the Copyright Act (section 107) states fair use is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…”. That’s it. So it’s a little difficult to justify those misdirected notions I described earlier as being allowed under this stated purpose.

The Act then lists four factors to be considered, under the umbrella of the above stated purpose, when determining whether a use is “fair”:

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Fair Use is not intended as a substitute for the purchase of music, or to allow the copying of performances, workbooks, tests, or other copyrighted material in normal settings. It is not intended to allow a small but recognizable portion of music to be borrowed and included in a new work. Generally speaking, it is not intended as a method to circumvent the copyright law in order to use a copyrighted work for a standard use.

Fair Use is intended to be used as a “right” under certain, limited situations, and not as a “defense” against practical infringement claims.

Through recent decades, there have been many court cases involving a wide variety of confusing and unclear exceptions of Fair Use. Interestingly, most of these cases were infringement cases, and Fair Use was introduced into the case as an affirmative defense, many times with successful judgments allowing the use as “fair”. Personally, I believe the courts got some of those decisions wrong. But I realize anyone can argue pretty much anything in the court of law, and when it comes to complex matters like determining Fair Use, you just never know which side the final decision will support.

Without arguing over the fine points of precedent setting cases and decisions, my hope is that we can agree to look at Fair Use as a limited right in certain situations, and not promote fair use as a method to cheat the system or defend a stupid act. Let’s promote the idea of respecting and using copyrights by starting with seeking permission from the rightful owners. If the use of an existing work really is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research (which should obviously be known at the outset of such a use, and not brought up only when a defense is needed), then fair use is a fair option.

Otherwise….it’s just not fair.

John Barker
ClearBox Rights, LLC

“We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don’t, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions.” – Mary Jessamyn West, U.S. Novelist

© 2013 John Barker.  All rights reserved.  Information contained in this Blog is of a general nature and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice.  Any reader of this Blog who has legal matters related to information addressed in this Blog should consult with an experienced attorney. This Blog contains no warranties or representations that the information contained in it is true or accurate in all respects or that it is the most current or complete information on the subject matter covered. John Barker is President and CEO of ClearBox Rights, LLC.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

So You Think You Own This Copyright?

If you are a publisher, and a writer assigns one of their songs to you, you own it….or so you think. Unfortunately, the U.S. Copyright Law includes some language which may result in publishers discovering that they may not actually own the copyright after all.

A copyright normally becomes the property of the author immediately upon fixation of the song in any tangible form. Two exceptions are if the author has pre-assigned his new songs to a publisher “upon creation”, such as being under an exclusive songwriter agreement, or if the copyright is being created as a “work-for-hire”, at which point the employer owns the song. If there are multiple writers, each of the writers become equal co-owners of the copyright unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.

Once the copyright exists, the only ways it can be transferred to another owner is through a written transfer signed by the owner, or less often by “operation of law”, such as a will, or pass as personal property by applicable laws of intestate succession (which is upon death of the author where no will exists). Section 204(a) of the Copyright Law reads, “A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” (Underlining is mine). So the bottom line is, if the author is living, an assignment must be made in writing. (There is actually a recent case, Vergara Hermosilla v. Coca Cola Company, where the 11th Circuit Court found that an email exchange constituted an effective transfer of a copyright under Florida law, but the court did not actually address whether the email exchange constituted a “writing” as stated in Section 204 of the Copyright Act).

The Copyright Law later states that the written assignment “may be recorded in the Copyright Office” by following certain procedures. However, the recordation of the assignment is not mandatory, nor is it necessary for the validity of the agreement…..or is it?

In Section 205, the Act explains that if there are conflicting transfers of ownership, the earliest one does not necessarily prevail. Unless the first transfer was recorded in the Copyright Office within one month after its execution in the U.S., and in a manner required to give “constructive notice”, then a later assignment of that same copyright can override the earlier one. There are a lot of details involved in this, but it is quite possible that a writer can go around town and assign his song for monetary terms more than once, and the last publisher the song was assigned to could be found to be the ultimate owner if that last owner was the first one to properly record the transfer document with the Copyright Office.

So my question is, shouldn’t a private contract between two parties for the transfer of personal property be valid and undisputable without the need to publicly register the agreement with a government body? I don’t pretend to be an expert in the area of property transfers, but apparently we make similar private transactions all the time, which are valid without registering with the government, such as buying a car, purchasing an original painting, buying a smart phone, a computer, or a whole list of personal property items.

So what’s involved in properly registering an assignment? The cost of recording a document with the Copyright Office is currently $105.00 for the first song, and an additional $30.00 for each group of 10 songs also included on that initial document. And in order to qualify as “constructive notice”, the songs must also be separately registered as works in the Copyright Office, which is a fee of $35.00 to $65.00 per registration. And before anyone says you can save a lot of money by including multiple songs on each document, remember that a transfer is between one unique assignor party and one assignee. So a publisher receiving 10 songs from 10 different writers must make 10 unique assignments, and 10 unique copyright registrations. For those 10 songs, the total cost of all registrations is between $1,400.00 – $1,700.00 (depending on whether the copyright registrations are completed by paper or on line). And all of this has to be done within 30 days of the execution of the assignment in order to assure that the song cannot be “sold” again out from under you. (Which suggests it is not safe to collect a year’s worth of songs by one writer in order to register them all at once and save money).

Next, we wonder if others are doing this “by the book”. According to the “Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights” for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, the total number of copyright registration claims, or works registered, was 636,527. That would be at least one unique copyright per registration. So how many documents of transfers or other related documents were recorded during that same period? 8,985. That’s less than 1.5% of the number of new works registered that year. Now, granted, the documents in each category may contain multiple songs. But remember this; copyright registration claims are normally for new copyrights. A recordation of transfer document many times is for the sale of an existing group of copyrights to a new party many years after the copyrights had been originally registered. So of that number of 8,985 documents (which are not all documents of transfer), many of them will be for songs which existed years prior. In summation, it appears very few publishers actually “perfect” their copyright assignments under the definition of Section 205.

If a valid copyright is recognized, and protected, the moment the work is affixed in a tangible form, shouldn’t a written and executed assignment of ownership be recognized just as definitively? While I don’t disagree that there should be certain advantages in recording your transfer documents with the Copyright Office, I do disagree that the law allows a dishonest person to assign my copyright to another entity at a later date, and legally forfeit my rightful ownership in the work. The Copyright Law is a fluid set of regulations which is designed to serve the intellectual properties industry. I wonder if this is an instance where the current Copyright Law should be revisited, debated, and potentially updated to better support and reflect the common practices of the industry.

Do you agree? Am I missing something? I welcome your comments and opinions on this. Let’s kick this around a bit.

John Barker

ClearBox Rights, LLC

“One must not hold one’s self so divine as to be unwilling occasionally to make improvements in one’s creations.” – Ludwig van Beethoven

 © 2013 John Barker.  All rights reserved.  Information contained in this Blog is of a general nature and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice.  Any reader of this Blog who has legal matters related to information addressed in this Blog should consult with an experienced attorney. This Blog contains no warranties or representations that the information contained in it is true or accurate in all respects or that it is the most current or complete information on the subject matter covered. John Barker is President and CEO of ClearBox Rights, LLC.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Standard U.S. Mechanical License Ceiling Is No Longer 9.1 Cents

In fact, it never was. That is a truth that surprisingly few people understand, and even fewer practice.

The reality is, as a copyright owner, I can charge as much as I want for someone to make and distribute a recording of my song. Twenty cents? I can charge that. Now granted, the user may have an option to go and get a “compulsory license” to use my song and pay only 9.1 cents, as long as it is not a first use, and as long as they jump through certain legal hoops in order to qualify. But very rarely are compulsory licenses used, with the exception of some of the recent online digital providers. And here’s the kicker. If anyone who wants to use my song has already manufactured the product over 30 days prior, or distributed the recording before they acquired a license (which happens all the time), they are permanently barred from getting a compulsory license for that use. They no longer qualify. So their only option is a negotiated license with me. And I have no legal limits on what I can charge.

Here’s a little history. In the early 1900s, Congress was concerned that the right to make mechanical reproductions of songs might become a monopoly controlled by a single company, so they introduced what is known as the “compulsory license” in the 1909 Copyright Act. This allowed anyone to make a mechanical reproduction, or phonorecord, of a musical composition without the consent of the copyright owner, provided the person adhered to certain provisions of the license as defined in the Copyright Law. This compulsory license was an alternative to a negotiated license, but was only available after the song had already had an initial distribution to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner.

At that time, Congress also set what is called the “statutory mechanical rate”, which is the rate to be paid under the compulsory license, at 2 cents. That rate has been increased over the years to its current rate of 9.1 cents (for a 5 minute or less song). In recent years, various industry groups have negotiated, and the Copyright Royalty Judges have approved, certain digital uses to fall under the definition of Section 115 of the Copyright Law (which defines compulsory licenses), and agreed to additional statutory rates to cover such newly defined uses. However, the practice throughout the years has been that most users of copyrights would negotiate a mechanical license, rather than jump through the numerous legal hoops defined in Section 115 necessary for such a compulsory license.

Here’s the part many people don’t realize. All of these rates we call “statutory” are only applicable to compulsory licenses. Nowhere does the Copyright Law state that these statutory rates are to be applied to negotiated licenses, or any other licenses outside of Section 115. Nowhere. “Statutory Rate” is not even a defined term in the Copyright Law. It is merely a rate established by a legislative body to be applied to a unique compulsory license.

In the 2009 update to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is where the more recent negotiated rates and terms for compulsory licenses for physical and digital phonorecords are published, it is clear in §385.1 to say the scope of these new rates and terms are for licenses in accordance with Section 115 (compulsory licenses), and further, in relationship to voluntary agreements, “…the rates and terms of any [negotiated] license agreements entered into by Copyright Owners and Licensees shall apply in lieu of the rates and terms of this [compulsory license] sub-part…”.

So why does the industry, as a practical matter, stick to a maximum mechanical rate of 9.1 cents in negotiated licenses? Because (I believe) most people assume it is the maximum defined by law. And that is clearly not true. Unfortunately, I have found various trustworthy sources who mention this rate in context as it is used as a ceiling. In the popular book, “This Business of Music”, under the section “Negotiated License”, a statement is made referring to the statutory rate that it “…is likely to serve as a ceiling on royalties in United States negotiated licenses..”.¹ An article by Jeff & Todd Brabec on 2010 Mechanical Royalty Rates says, “This statutory mechanical rate represents the songwriter/music publishing royalties payable for songs contained on all physical audio recordings which are made and distributed…”.² Even Marybeth Peters, the past Register of Copyrights, in a statement to the House Judiciary Committee, referred to the compulsory license rate set by Congress by saying it “acted as a ceiling for the rate in privately negotiated licenses.”³

But it doesn’t have to.

Just last week, I was challenged on this very issue by a person in business affairs at one of the major record labels. In a license we had offered to the label, I was not asking for more than a 9.1 cent rate, but I was simply adding some reasonable terms of my own. The person’s response was, “This is a Statutory Rate license. The statutory language should be correct in a license or not included.” (the person actually did capitalize the words as if it were a defined term). Sorry, but wrong on all counts. Our license is a negotiated license. There is no such thing as a Statutory Rate License. While there may be a Compulsory License which uses a statutory rate, what I offered was a negotiated license for a product that has already been released. We use my terms…. or don’t use the song.

Bottom line, those who control copyrights should understand that they can license normal uses, mechanical or others, on their terms, and not the terms of the users, whether major companies or non-commercial individuals. There is no such thing as a ceiling rate for a negotiated license. I am not calling for unfair rates or terms, but merely challenging us to better understand our rights as copyright owners, and stick to our guns with what we believe are good and fair business practices.

John Barker
ClearBox Rights, LLC

Be sure to put your feet in the right place, then stand firm”. – Abraham Lincoln

¹ “This Business of Music” – Krasilovsky/Shemel (Billboard Books) Chapter 21, “Negotiated Licenses”
² “Music, Money & Success” Brabec/Brabec (Shirmer Trade Books) as quoted on taxi.com
³ Statement before Subcommittee on Courts, The Internet and Intellectual Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary – March 11, 2004

 
© 2013 John Barker. All rights reserved. Information contained in this Blog is of a general nature and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice. Any reader of this Blog who has legal matters related to information addressed in this Blog should consult with an experienced attorney. This Blog contains no warranties or representations that the information contained in it is true or accurate in all respects or that it is the most current or complete information on the subject matter covered. John Barker is President and CEO of ClearBox Rights, LLC.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized