Hi There,
Here's a good outline in semi-layman's terms of the law as it might
apply to restaurant owners. NOLO is a very valid source for legal
info. The 2nd part specifically summarizes rules for restaurant
owners. And furhter links are provided at the end of the artilce for
a full reading of the laws.
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual_property/nolo/ency/F64C2692-B1BF-440C-BEB6C20F70863442.html
Copyright Law Changes That May Affect You
Congress passed new copyright laws in 1998. You may find a few
surprises in the new laws.
Congress passed a lot of copyright legislation in 1998, reflecting the
lobbying efforts of many special interest groups.
Whether you are an Internet service provider, boat designer, or
someone who regularly trolls the public domain, you'll find a few
surprises. Below is a scorecard.
The Public Domain Takes a Holiday: The 20-Year Term Extension
Winners: copyright owners
Losers: the public
With many priceless catalogues on the brink of falling into the public
domain -- for example, animated features of Mickey Mouse and Winnie
the Pooh and the music of George Gershwin -- copyright owners such as
Disney and Time-Warner petitioned for 20 more years of copyright
protection. The result was enactment of the Sonny Bono Copyright
Extension Act, which extends the time period during which copyrighted
works are protected. Extending copyright protection harmonizes our
laws with European countries where copyright owners already enjoy
longer protection. In summary:
For works created on or after January 1, 1978, the copyright term is
life of the author plus 70 years (instead of life plus 50 years).
For works for hire (and works published anonymously and
pseudonomously), protection is extended from 75 to 95 years.
For unpublished works and works in their renewal terms, protection is
extended for an additional 20 years.
No expired copyrights will enter the public domain until 2019.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Copyright Term Extension and Music Licensing Act."
Revenge of the Silent Macarena: The End of Small Business Music Royalties
Winners: restaurants, bars and retail establishments; the National
Restaurant Association
Losers: songwriters, performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC)
Previously, businesses using anything larger than a home stereo system
had to pay songwriters for the right to play the radio or television
during business hours. These payments, known as performance licenses,
were paid to performing rights societies collecting the money on
behalf of songwriters. The National Restaurant Association has been
lobbying for years to change how these rules apply to small
businesses. As part of this effort, in 1995 the NRA exploited the
strange tale of a girl scout troop performing the silent Macarena
because a performance license hadn't been paid.
Under new rules which are tacked on to the term extension law
described above, restaurants and bars under 3,750 square feet or
retail establishments under 2,000 square feet who play the radio or
television in their establishments won't have to pay fees. Regardless
of size, all restaurants, bars and stores will be exempt from paying
fees if they have no more than six external speakers (but not more
than four per room) or four televisions measuring 55 inches or less
(but not more than one per room). These rules only apply for
establishments that play radio and television. Establishments that
play pre-recorded music such as compact discs will still be subject to
licenses. Some legal experts have argued that the small business
exemption may violate international treaties and a court challenge to
the licensing exemption is expected.
In addition to these provisions, the Copyright Term Extension and
Music Licensing Act ensures that disputes of these fees can now be
heard in all 12 federal circuits. Before the Act, challenges to
performing rights fees could only be filed in one court in New York
City.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Copyright Term Extension and Music Licensing Act." For a
copyright owner's view of this law, review the ASCAP commentary at
http://www.ascap.com/legislative/legislative.html.
No More Little Black Boxes: Congress Passes Digital Anti-Piracy Measures
Winners: entertainment industry, copyright owners, makers of
anti-piracy devices, the Macrovision Corporation
Losers: electronics manufacturers
In order to transact commerce in the "digital environment," the
entertainment industry is expected to rely heavily on anti-copying
systems -- for example, systems that scramble digital signals or
prevent second generation copying (that is, you can copy a work once,
but not twice). In addition, copyright owners are planning to
implement a system of embedded copyright management information (CMIs
or "digital watermarks") in their copies. These CMIs will identify the
copyright owner and provide information about the work.
To prevent the circumvention of these systems, Congress passed Title I
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"). This legislation
outlaws "little black box" technology. A little black box is any
program or device that undoes the copy-protection systems installed by
the entertainment industry. Or as it's officially described, it's
anything that exists primarily to "avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate,
or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the
copyright owner." There are criminal and civil penalties for those who
make and market this technology. The prohibition against little black
boxes goes into effect immediately. Under certain conditions, law
enforcement agencies are exempt from these requirements.
Title I of the DMCA also prohibits the removal of CMIs. There are some
exemptions to these CMI requirements for analog and digital
broadcasters, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. Newly
manufactured analog tape manufacturers must now accommodate copy
control systems and the Macrovision Corporation's anti-piracy system
is expected to become an industry standard.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and review Title I.
Turn On, Tune In, Avoid Infringement: Right of Computer Repair Person
to Make Copies of Programs
Winners: software service industry
Losers: customized operating system software designers
In the early 1990s a computer repair firm was sued by Mai Systems, a
software company. The repair company had fixed a client's computer and
in the process, had activated operating and diagnostic software
created by Mai Systems. (When a computer is activated, certain
software is automatically copied into the machine's random access
memory, known as RAM.) Mai argued that the repair company, since it
wasn't the owner or lessee of the computers, had no right to activate
the software, even for purposes of repairing the computer hardware. A
federal appeals court agreed and ruled that the computer repair
company had infringed Mai's software. (MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak
Computer, 991 F. 2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)). The ruling made computer
repair companies liable any time they turned on a client's computer.
In order to clarify this situation, the computer repair industry
lobbied for passage of Title III of the DMCA which ensures that the
lawful owner or lessee of a computer machine may authorize an
independent service provider -- a person unaffiliated with either the
owner or lessee of the machine -- to activate the machine for the sole
purpose of servicing its hardware components. In other words, a
computer repair company is no longer liable for infringement simply by
turning on a client's computer.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and review Title III.
You've Got Bail: Congress Limits Liability for Internet Service Providers
Winners: entertainment industry, copyright owners, Internet service providers
Losers: Internet pirates
During the past few years, court cases have failed to clearly define
when an Internet Service Provider (ISP) was liable for infringement
committed by an online user. Congress removed the mystery for online
providers by limiting the ISP's financial damages in the event an
infringing copy is offered online. Both copyright owners and ISPs
claimed a victory by the enactment of the DMCA.
In general, an ISP won't have to pay monetary damages when:
the ISP is acting as a conduit for an infringing transmission
the ISP obtains no financial benefit from the infringement
the ISP's system caching meets certain conditions
the ISP does not have actual knowledge or awareness of facts
indicating infringing transmissions, and
upon learning of infringing transmission, the ISP acts quickly to
remove or disable access to the infringing transmission.
In addition to these requirements, the ISP must also establish an
agent for receiving notice of infringement. The Copyright Office has
established interim rules for establishing an agent.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and review Title II. You can
also view the rules regarding establishing an agent for receiving
notice of infringement at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp.
Pay to Play: License Fees for Digital and Webcast Transmissions
Winners: music industry, some digital broadcasters
Losers: radio simulcasters and some digital broadcasters
In 1995, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act gave
record companies a "performance right" in digital audio transmissions.
This entitled record companies to get payments when a subscription
digital broadcasting entity (such as a cable radio service) played a
digital recording.
However, technology changed quickly and in 1997, the record companies
attempted to modify the 1995 Act. Digital broadcasters such as
Broadcast.com and Liquid Audio reached a compromise in Title IV of the
DMCA. Webcasters are now entitled to transmit performances if they pay
a statutory license. A statutory license is an automatic or compulsory
license in which the webcaster doesn't have to ask the record company
for permission. Instead, the webcaster simply pays the fee provided by
law. In addition, webcasters obtained an exemption allowing them to
make single copies of songs necessary in webcasting (known as
"ephemeral recordings").
The rules to qualify for the statutory license are lengthy and include
requirements such as:
the digital broadcast cannot be interactive
the broadcast cannot activate remote recording devices, and
during a three-hour broadcast period, a site cannot program more than
three songs from a single album, nor play two songs in a row from a
single album.
Local radio stations simulcasting their signal online are required to
follow a simpler set of rules and pay a licensing fee. However, the
National Association of Broadcasters has already indicated its
opposition to this provision by announcing that its members have no
intention of paying fees for simulcasting their signal online. A court
battle is expected.
Where to learn more: The text of this Act is downloadable at the
Copyright Office Website at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and review Title IV. An
explanation of the digital broadcasting rules can be found at
http://www.digmedia.org.
Pirates Ahoy: Congress Protects Boat Designers
Winners: boat designers
Losers: manufacturers who stealboat designs
Ten years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated state law protection for
boat designs. Bonito Boats Inc. v. Thundercraft Inc., 489 U.S. 141
(1989). As a response to that ruling, Congress passed the Vessel Hull
Design Protection Act which created a new form of federal intellectual
property protection for designers of boat frames or "hulls." (The hull
includes the deck but does not include masts, sails, yards, and
rigging.) To qualify, the design must be original and not dictated
solely by a utilitarian function. Protection is for ten years and
there is a new form of notice required: a "D" in a circle, or the
words "Protected Design" with the year when protection commenced and
the name of the owner. The rules of boat hull registration and the
registration process are administered by a special Copyright Office
Administrator. Why is this form of protection included in the
copyright law? Chalk it up to special interest lobbying.
Where to learn more: The text of The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
is downloadable at the Copyright office Website at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Click on "The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act" and review Title V.
Copyright 2002 Nolo, Inc.
Hope this is helpful.
Schott |
