Proposed Rule2023-03738
Fees for Late Royalty Payments Under the Music Modernization Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 23, 2023
Issuing agencies
Library of CongressCopyright Office, Library of Congress
Abstract
The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a notification of inquiry soliciting public comments regarding when fees for late royalty payments should be assessed in connection with reporting by digital music providers under the Music Modernization Act's blanket license.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11398-11401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03738]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11398]]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 210
[Docket No. 2023-2]
Fees for Late Royalty Payments Under the Music Modernization Act
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notification of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a notification of inquiry
soliciting public comments regarding when fees for late royalty
payments should be assessed in connection with reporting by digital
music providers under the Music Modernization Act's blanket license.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on April 10, 2023. Written reply comments must be received
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of governmental efficiency, the Copyright Office
is using the <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> system for the submission and posting of
public comments in this proceeding. All comments are therefore to be
submitted electronically through <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. Specific instructions
for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office's website
at <a href="https://copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-late-fees/">https://copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-late-fees/</a>. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer or the internet, please contact the Copyright Office using the
contact information below for special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the
General Counsel, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e38e868597a3808c939a918a848b97cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1aca4a7b581a2aeb1b8b3a8a6a9b5efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a> or telephone at 202-
707-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (the
``MMA'') substantially modified the compulsory ``mechanical'' license
for reproducing and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical
works under 17 U.S.C. 115.\1\ It did so by switching from a song-by-
song licensing system to a blanket licensing regime that became
available on January 1, 2021 (the ``license availability date''),\2\
administered by a mechanical licensing collective (the ``MLC'')
designated by the Copyright Office (the ``Office'').\3\ Digital music
providers (``DMPs'') are able to obtain this new statutory mechanical
blanket license (the ``blanket license'') to make digital phonorecord
deliveries of nondramatic musical works, including in the form of
permanent downloads, limited downloads, or interactive streams
(referred to in the statute as ``covered activity'' where such activity
qualifies for a blanket license), subject to various requirements,
including reporting obligations.\4\ DMPs also have the option to engage
in these activities, in whole or in part, through voluntary licenses
with copyright owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018).
\2\ 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(15).
\3\ As permitted under the MMA, the Office also designated a
digital licensee coordinator (the ``DLC'') to represent licensees in
proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Judges and the Office, to
serve as a non-voting member of the MLC, and to carry out other
functions. 84 FR 32274 (July 8, 2019).
\4\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Copyright Royalty Judges' Late Fee Regulations
Under section 115, the Copyright Royalty Judges (``CRJs'') are
responsible for setting the blanket license's rates and terms of
royalty payments. As part of this ratesetting authority, the CRJs'
determinations ``may include terms with respect to late payment[s]''
(``late fees'').\5\ The Office has a corresponding responsibility to
oversee the administration of the blanket license, including
promulgating regulations governing reporting and payment requirements
for DMPs. The MMA added a new provision to section 115 to address the
new blanket license, stating that ``[l]ate fees for past due royalty
payments shall accrue from the due date for payment until payment is
received by the [MLC].'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 803(c)(7).
\6\ Id. at 115(d)(8)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The currently operative late fee provision was adopted by the CRJs
as part of an approved settlement in the Phonorecords IV proceeding,
which covers the time period 2023 through 2027.\7\ The provision states
that ``[a] Licensee shall pay a late fee of 1.5% per month, or the
highest lawful rate, whichever is lower, for any payment owed to a
Copyright Owner and remaining unpaid after the due date established in
17 U.S.C. 115(c)(2)(I) \8\ or 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A)(i),\9\ as
applicable and detailed in part 210 \10\ of this title.'' \11\ It
further provides that ``[l]ate fees shall accrue from the due date
until the Copyright Owner receives payment.'' \12\ In adopting the
parties' settlement, the CRJs found that the late fee provision was
``not unreasonable.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 87 FR 80448 (Dec. 30, 2022).
\8\ Section 115(c)(2)(I) states that, except as provided in
section 115(d)(4)(A)(i), ``royalty payments shall be made on or
before the twentieth day of each month and shall include all
royalties for the month next preceding.''
\9\ Section 115(d)(4)(A)(i) states that ``[a] digital music
provider shall report and pay royalties to the [MLC] under the
blanket license on a monthly basis in accordance with . . .
subsection (c)(2)(I), except that the monthly reporting shall be due
on the date that is 45 calendar days, rather than 20 calendar days,
after the end of the monthly reporting period.''
\10\ ``Part 210'' refers to the Office's regulations governing
reporting and payments under section 115.
\11\ 37 CFR 385.3.
\12\ Id. Parties in the most recent section 115 ratesetting
proceeding recognized that this language ``does not acknowledge that
the [MLC] has responsibility for collecting payment under the
blanket license for digital uses'' and moved to add the following
language to the end of the quoted language: ``except that where
payment is due to the mechanical licensing collective under 17
U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A)(i), late fees shall accrue from the due date
until the mechanical licensing collective receives payment.'' Mot.
to Req. Issuance of Amendment to Determination at 1-2, Determination
of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords
(Phonorecords IV), Copyright Royalty Bd., No. 21-CRB-0001-PR (2023-
2027) (Jan. 10, 2023), <a href="https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27417">https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27417</a>.
The current provision is similar to the CRJs' pre-MMA late fee
regulations for the section 115 license. See, e.g., 37 CFR 385.4
(2018) (``A Licensee shall pay a late fee of 1.5% per month, or the
highest lawful rate, whichever is lower, for any payment received by
the Copyright Owner after the due date set forth in [sec.]
210.16(g)(1) of this title. Late fees shall accrue from the due date
until payment is received by the Copyright Owner.'').
\13\ 87 FR 80448, 80452 n.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11399]]
B. The Office's September 2020 Rule and Adjustments
On September 17, 2020, the Office issued an interim rule adopting
regulations concerning reporting and payment requirements under the
blanket license (the ``September 2020 Rule'').\14\ The September 2020
Rule addressed the ability of DMPs to make adjustments to monthly and
annual reports and related royalty payments, including to correct
errors and replace estimated royalty calculation inputs (e.g., the
amount of applicable public performance royalties) with finally
determined figures.\15\ The interim regulations permit DMPs to make
adjustments in other situations as well, such as in exceptional
circumstances, following an audit, or in response to a change in the
applicable statutory rates or terms adopted by the CRJs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 85 FR 58114 (Sept. 17, 2020). That proceeding involved
multiple rounds of public comments through a notification of inquiry
(``NOI''), 84 FR 49966 (Sept. 24, 2019), a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NPRM''), 85 FR 22518 (Apr. 22, 2020), and an ex parte
communications process. Guidelines for ex parte communications,
along with records of such communications, including those
referenced herein, are available at <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-implementation/ex-parte-communications.html">https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-implementation/ex-parte-communications.html</a>. All
Office rulemaking activity, including public comments, as well as
educational material regarding the MMA, can currently be accessed
via navigation from <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization">https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization</a>.
References to public comments in the Office's proceedings are either
cited in full or are by party name (abbreviated where appropriate),
followed by ``NOI Initial Comments,'' ``NOI Reply Comments,'' ``NPRM
Comments'' or ``Ex Parte Letter,'' as appropriate.
\15\ 37 CFR 210.27(d)(2)(i), (f), (g)(3)-(4), (k).
\16\ Id. at 210.27(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the timing of the DMPs' reports and payments, their
monthly reports of usage and related royalty payments must be delivered
to the MLC no later than 45 days after the end of the monthly reporting
period.\17\ Reports of adjustment adjusting monthly reports of usage
must either be combined with the annual report of usage covering the
relevant monthly report or delivered to the MLC before such annual
report.\18\ Annual reports of usage must be delivered to the MLC no
later than the 20th day of the sixth month following the end of the
DMP's fiscal year covered by the annual report.\19\ Reports of
adjustment adjusting annual reports of usage must be delivered to the
MLC no later than 6 months after the occurrence of a relevant
triggering event.\20\ Any underpayment of royalties associated with a
report of adjustment must be paid to the MLC contemporaneously with
delivery of the report of adjustment or promptly after receiving an
invoice from the MLC.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 210.27(g)(1); see 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A)(i).
\18\ 37 CFR 210.27(g)(4)(i), (k)(1).
\19\ Id. at 210.27(g)(3).
\20\ Id. at 210.27(g)(4)(ii).
\21\ Id. at 210.27(k)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of the rulemaking proceeding that culminated in
the September 2020 Rule, interested parties, including the MLC and DLC,
raised opposing views about whether late fees adopted by the CRJs apply
to royalty payments made in connection with reports of adjustment.\22\
The DLC proposed that the Office adopt regulations to clarify that
adjustments to estimates are not a basis for assessing late fees where
a DMP makes its estimates and adjustments in accordance with the
Office's regulations, including applicable reporting deadlines.\23\ In
support of its proposal, the DLC said that ``the late fee is meant to
ensure that digital music providers are following the regulations,''
and ``[i]f a service is following the regulations by making a
reasonable estimate of an input it does not know the value of, it
should not be penalized with a late fee even if it so happens that the
estimate is too low.'' \24\ The MLC and others disagreed with the DLC's
position, and the MLC proposed regulatory text providing that no
estimate shall change or affect the due date for royalty payments or
the applicability of late fees to any underpayment resulting from an
estimate.\25\ In support of its proposal, the MLC stated that the
relevant due date is the monthly due date set by statute regardless of
any adjustment, and that ``[t]o permit DMPs to estimate inputs in a
manner that results in underpayment to songwriters and copyright
owners, without the penalty of late fees, encourages DMPs to underpay,
to the detriment of songwriters and copyright owners.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 85 FR 58114, 58136-37; 85 FR 22518, 22530.
\23\ DLC NOI Reply Comments at 16-17, Add. A-8; DLC NPRM
Comments at 14.
\24\ DLC NOI Reply Comments at 16-17 (further asserting that
``if the rule were otherwise, PROs could delay finalizing agreements
(while still being paid interim royalties) with the purpose of
causing digital service providers to have to pay late fees to
publishers as a result''); see also DLC NPRM Comments at 14
(``Although the CRJs set the amount of the late fee, the Office is
responsible for establishing due dates for adjusted payments. It is
those due dates that establish whether or not a late fee is
owed.'').
\25\ MLC NPRM Comments at 36-37, App. C at xiv; MLC Ex Parte
Letter at 7-8 (Feb. 26, 2020); see also AIMP NPRM Comments at 4-5
(``[L]ate royalty payments have been a significant problem for
copyright owners, and the implementation of a late fee for any
royalty amounts paid late was a significant step forward. The
regulations as proposed, should remove any doubt that might
interfere with those late fee payments.''); Peermusic NPRM Comments
at 5 (``[W]e appreciate the Copyright Office's rejection of the DLC
request that underpayments, when tied to `estimates,' should not be
subject to the late fee provision of the CRJ regulations governing
royalties payable under Section 115, and we would request that the
regulations be clear on this point.'').
\26\ MLC NPRM Comments at 36-37; see also AIMP NPRM Comments at
4-5 (``[E]xpanded use of estimates, and the result of retroactive
adjustment of royalty payments, does create increased risk and
additional burden to copyright owners.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the relevant comments, the Office explained that it
``appreciates the need for relevant regulations to avoid unfairly
penalizing DMPs who make good faith estimates from incurring late fees
due to subsequent finalization of those inputs outside the DMPs'
control, and also to avoid incentivizing DMPs from applying estimates
in a manner that results in an initial underpayment that delays royalty
payments to copyright owners and other songwriters.'' \27\ The Office,
however, declined to adopt a rule addressing the interplay between the
CRJs' late fee regulation and the Office's provisions for adjustments
because it was not clear at the time of the September 2020 Rule that
doing so would be the best course, ``particularly where the CRJs may
wish themselves to take the occasion of [the Phonorecords III] remand
or otherwise update their operative regulation in light of the
[September 2020 Rule].'' \28\ At the time, the Office said it would
instead ``monitor the operation of this aspect of the [September 2020
Rule], and as appropriate in consultation with the CRJs.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 85 FR 58114, 58137.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Current Status
Since the September 2020 Rule, however, the CRJs have not taken any
action on the late fee issue and have not indicated that they plan to
do so. During this same time period, the MLC and DLC submitted comments
in response to a May 2022 amendment to the September 2020 Rule that
again raised the issue of late fees and confirmed their continued
disagreement on the subject.\30\ Both the MLC and DLC requested the
Office to provide guidance.\31\ The DLC requested that the Office
``specify that when both the initial estimated payments and the later
[[Page 11400]]
adjustment of such payments to account for the updated and finalized
information are made according to the timelines established in the
regulations, such payments are proper and have been made by the `due
date for payment' as set forth in 17 U.S.C. [sec.] 115(d)(8)(B)(i).''
\32\ The MLC opposed the DLC's position \33\ and instead proposed
regulatory language providing that nothing in the adjustment provisions
``shall change a blanket licensee's liability for late fees, where
applicable.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ MLC Ex Parte Letter at 8 (Oct. 17, 2022); MLC Ex Parte
Letter at 2-5 (Dec. 21, 2022); DLC Comments to Supplemental Interim
Rule at 3, Music Modernization Act Notices of License, Notices of
Nonblanket Activity, Data Collection and Delivery Efforts, and
Reports of Usage and Payment, U.S. Copyright Office, No. 2020-5
(July 8, 2022), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/COLC-2020-0005-0029">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/COLC-2020-0005-0029</a> (``DLC July 2022 Comments'').
\31\ See 85 FR at 58136-37; MLC Ex Parte Letter at 8 (Oct. 17,
2022); MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2-5 (Dec. 21, 2022); DLC July 2022
Comments at 3.
\32\ DLC July 2022 Comments at 3.
\33\ MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2-5 (Dec. 21, 2022).
\34\ MLC Ex Parte Letter at 8 (Oct. 17, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office typically does not offer interpretations of the CRJs'
regulations. However, it is squarely within the Office's authority to
interpret the meaning of ``due date'' as used in the statute.\35\
Moreover, Congress expressly authorized the Office to issue regulations
establishing the adjustment reporting and payment regime.\36\ Thus, the
Office is publishing this notification to facilitate a full airing of
all relevant issues and to expand the public record to better inform
what action the Office should take to address this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(8)(B)(i) (``Late fees for past due
royalty payments shall accrue from the due date for payment until
payment is received by the mechanical licensing collective.'').
\36\ Id. at 115(d)(4)(A)(iv)(II) (``The Register of Copyrights
shall adopt regulations . . . regarding adjustments to reports of
usage by digital music providers, including mechanisms to account
for overpayment and underpayment of royalties in prior periods.'');
see id. at 115(d)(12)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Subjects of Inquiry
The Office invites written comments on the following subjects:
1. Please provide your views regarding whether a DMP is obligated
to pay late fees when it makes an adjustment that reveals an
underpayment of royalties. For example, should late fees apply to all
adjustments, should they apply to no adjustments, or should they apply
only to certain types of adjustments? Should it matter whether a DMP
acted reasonably and in good faith and complied with all applicable
regulations when it made the reporting or payment that later needed to
be adjusted? Common scenarios, such as adjustments to fix errors in
prior reporting as well as the scenarios referenced in 37 CFR
210.27(k)(6), should be discussed. Proposals with specific regulatory
language are encouraged.
2. Please provide detailed legal arguments supporting your views
about the application of late fees in the context of adjustments,
including an analysis of section 115's text and the legislative history
and intent behind any relevant statutory provisions. In particular,
commenters should discuss 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(8)(B)(i) and how that
provision should be read in connection with the statutory reporting and
payment due date provisions in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(2)(I) and (d)(4)(A)(i)
as well as the Office's regulatory due date provisions for adjustments
in 37 CFR 210.27(g)(3), (g)(4), and (k)(1). Commenters should also
address how their position is consistent with other provisions
referring to due dates, such as 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(2)(J),
(d)(3)(G)(i)(I), and (d)(4)(E).
3. Please discuss your understanding of the history and purpose of
the CRJs' authority under 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(7), as adjusted by 17 U.S.C.
115(d)(8)(B), to adopt late fees and of the actual late fee provisions
adopted by the CRJs, including in contexts outside of section 115 if
relevant.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., 37 CFR 380.2(d), 380.6(g), 380.22(f), 382.3(e),
382.7(g), 383.4(a), 384.4(e), 385.3. For example, in the section 114
webcasting context, the CRJs have stated that ``[i]nconsequential
good-faith omissions or errors should not warrant imposition of the
late fee,'' 72 FR 24084, 24108 (May 1, 2007), and have adopted a
late fee provision allowing SoundExchange (the designated collective
under the section 114 license) to ``waive or lower late fees for
immaterial or inadvertent failures of a Licensee to make a timely
payment or submit a timely Statement of Account.'' 37 CFR
380.2(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is the appropriate division of the Office's and CRJs'
respective regulatory authority in this area? For example, can the
Office or CRJs adopt a rule pursuant to which late fees may or may not
apply depending on the type of adjustment at issue (e.g., where the
effect of a hypothetical rule might be that late fees apply to
adjustments to estimates, but not to adjustments responding to royalty
rate changes adopted by the CRJs)? Is the Office's authority more
limited in relation to the CRJs' authority (e.g., to determining the
applicable due date after which a payment is deemed late)?
5. Please discuss any relevant music industry practices surrounding
late fees and adjustments. For example:
a. Did DMPs typically pay late fees to copyright owners in
connection with adjustments under section 115 prior to the MMA's new
blanket licensing regime? If not, did copyright owners make any demands
for late fees or otherwise respond to the failure to pay late fees?
b. How do voluntary licenses involving covered activity operate in
the context of late fees and adjustments? Do such voluntary licenses
typically contain late fee provisions? Are they analogous to the one
adopted by the CRJs in 37 CFR 385.3? How are they applied to
adjustments?
c. Does the nature of a payment--as a royalty payment, late fee
payment, interest payment, or some other kind of payment--received by a
musical work copyright owner (whether from the MLC or directly from a
licensee) typically affect how the payment is accounted and paid
through to the copyright owner's songwriters for mechanical uses of
their works made by DMPs or other licensees? If so, please discuss the
general industry practice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Comments of Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, and Blake
Morgan on Proposed Regulations for Subparts A, C and D at 12,
Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing
Phonorecords (Phonorecords IV), Copyright Royalty Bd., No. 21-CRB-
0001-PR (2023-2027) (Dec. 7, 2022), <a href="https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27356">https://app.crb.gov/document/download/27356</a> (asking the CRJs to adopt ``clarifying language that
would require the applicable Copyright Owner to treat any late fee
payment so received as an additional royalty payment under any
publishing agreement'' because, otherwise, ``a late fee might be
treated as a catalog-wide penalty that a Copyright Owner collecting
the late fee could argue should be retained for its own account'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Are any of the terms of late fee settlements between publishers
and record companies who use the section 115 license instructive for
the Office to consider in the context of this proceeding?\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., NMPA Late Fee Program, <a href="http://www.nmpalatefeesettlement.com">http://www.nmpalatefeesettlement.com</a> (last visited Feb. 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Under 37 CFR 210.27(d)(2)(i), there are several requirements
that DMPs must comply with to make use of an estimate, including that
the estimate must be reasonable and determined in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP''), and the DMP's
reporting must explain the basis for the estimate and why it was
necessary. Aside from assessing late fees, could concerns about DMPs
potentially abusing the adjustment process be mitigated by enhancing
these requirements? Could such concerns be addressed through other
additional regulations surrounding estimates or adjustments that could
assist the MLC in identifying any DMP noncompliance?
a. Should the Office consider adopting a rule providing that if a
DMP's estimate results in an underpayment of more than a certain amount
or percentage, the estimate is per se unreasonable and, thus, not in
compliance with the Office's regulations?\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Cf. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(D)(i)(VI) (requiring a DMP to bear
the costs of the MLC's audit if the auditor ``determines that there
was an underpayment by the [DMP] of not less than 10 percent'');
Dep't of the Treas., Internal Revenue Serv., Instructions for Form
2210, Underpayment of Estimated Tax by Individuals, Estates, and
Trusts at 1-2 (2021), <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i2210.pdf">https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i2210.pdf</a>
(discussing thresholds for the penalty for underpaying estimated
tax).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11401]]
7. If the Office concludes that late fees do not apply to certain
types of adjustments, could the Office consider adopting regulations
requiring DMPs to pay interest on such adjustments to make copyright
owners whole for any lost time value of money? \41\ If so, what should
such regulations look like? What is an appropriate interest rate?
Should such regulations be similar to the Office's current regulations
assessing interest on royalties paid with late or amended statements of
account under the section 111 and section 119 statutory licenses? \42\
Are there any relevant music industry practices related to assessing
interest on adjusted royalties?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See SONA & NSAI Ex Parte Letter at 2 (July 7, 2022) (asking
the Office to ``consider whether it has the authority to require
interest to be paid'' by DMPs if there is a delay in payment).
\42\ See 37 CFR 201.11(i), 201.17(k)(4); 54 FR 14217, 14220
(Apr. 10, 1989) (adopting rule for section 111 and explaining that
``[t]he Copyright Office does not wish to penalize cable systems for
late and amended filings, but rather wishes to compensate copyright
owners for the present value loss of royalties which should have
been deposited on a timely basis''); 54 FR 27873, 27874-75 (July 3,
1989) (adopting rule for section 119); 57 FR 61832 (Dec. 29, 1992)
(amending the applicable interest rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Please provide any additional pertinent information not
referenced above that the Office should consider in this proceeding.
Dated: February 17, 2023.
Suzanne V. Wilson,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2023-03738 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 23, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.