94-16963. Consolidation of 1992, 1993 and 1994 Digital Audio Recording Distribution Proceedings  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-16963]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 13, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
    
    Copyright Office
    [Docket No. RM 94-2B CARP-DD]
    
     
    
    Consolidation of 1992, 1993 and 1994 Digital Audio Recording 
    Distribution Proceedings
    
    AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
    
    ACTION: Notice of consolidation of proceedings, royalty distribution, 
    and public meeting.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is granting a motion to consolidate the 
    1992, 1993, and 1994 digital audio recording (DART) distribution 
    proceedings which will begin in 1995. In addition, the Office will make 
    distribution of the 1992 and 1993 Nonfeatured Musicians and Nonfeatured 
    Vocalists DART subfunds in July. The Office will hold a public meeting 
    to discuss the best evidence for the distribution of DART royalties in 
    September.
    
    DATES: (1) The distribution of the royalties in the 1992 and 1993 
    Nonfeatured Musicians and Nonfeatured Vocalists DART subfunds will take 
    place July 28, 1994. (2) The public meeting to discuss best evidence 
    for distribution of royalties will take place 10 a.m., Tuesday, 
    September 27, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: The public meeting will take place at the temporary CARP 
    hearing room, Suite 921, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
    20009.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schwartz, Acting General Counsel, 
    U.S. Copyright Office, Department 17, Library of Congress, Washington, 
    DC 20540. Telephone (202) 707-8380.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        On December 17, 1993, Congress passed the Copyright Royalty 
    Tribunal Reform Act of 1993. This legislation dissolved the Tribunal 
    and established a new system of copyright arbitration royalty panels 
    (CARPs) to be supported by the Library of Congress and the Copyright 
    Office.
        The first proceeding to be initiated under the new CARP system was 
    the distribution of the 1992 and the 1993 digital audio recording 
    technology (DART) royalties. The 1992 DART distribution proceeding was 
    begun by the Tribunal but was suspended when the Tribunal was 
    abolished, and needed to be started anew. The 1993 DART distribution 
    was begun by the Copyright Office under the new authority conferred by 
    the Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993. On March 1, 1994, 59 
    FR 9773, we began the process of distributing DART royalties by asking 
    the claimants to the 1992 and 1993 DART funds for comments on the 
    following questions:
        (a) Do any controversies exist concerning the distribution of 1992 
    and/or 1993 DART royalties?
        (b) If controversies do exist, which subfunds do they exist in?
        (c) If settlements have been reached, which parties have reached 
    settlement and which have not?
        (d) Do the claimants believe it would be advisable to consolidate 
    the 1992 DART proceeding with the 1993 DART proceeding?
        In addition, in the March 1, 1994, notice and in a subsequent 
    notice appearing May 16, 1994, 59 FR 25506, the Library of Congress and 
    the Copyright Office established the initial procedural dates that 
    would apply to the 1992 and 1993 DART proceedings, as follows:
        June 10, 1994--comments from claimants due on whether controversies 
    exist in the distribution of 1992 and 1993 DART funds, and whether the 
    1992 and 1993 DART distribution proceedings should be consolidated.
        June 15, 1994--precontroversy motions, and/or objections to any 
    listed arbitrators due from claimants who will be participating in the 
    1992 and/or 1993 DART distribution proceedings.
        June 30, 1994--declaration by the Librarian of Congress to be made 
    as to whether any controversies exist in the distribution of 1992 and 
    1993 DART royalties, and, if they do, a declaring of the initiation of 
    CARP proceedings.
        August 1, 1994--authorization by the Copyright Office of the 
    distribution of any royalties found not to be in controversy.
    
    II. The Commentators
    
        We received comments from the following claimants:
    
    The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC)
    Ymistye L. White
    Alicia Carolyn Evelyn
    Eugene (Lambchops) Curry
    James Cannings
    Gear Publishing Company
    Hideout Productions on behalf of Punch Enterprises, Inc. and Bob Seger
    Sword and Stone Publishing, Inc.
    Bopp du Wopp, Inc.
    Jointly, the independent administrator of the Nonfeatured Musicians and 
    the Nonfeatured Vocalists subfund; the American Federation of Musicians 
    (AFM); the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA); 
    and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
    Jointly, AARC, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers 
    (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI); Copyright Management, Inc. (CMI), 
    Gospel Music Coalition (GOSPEL); The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA); 
    SESAC, Inc. (SESAC), and the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA).
    Jointly, ASCAP, BMI, CMI, GOSPEL, HFA, SESAC, and the SGA.
    
    III. Motion to Consolidate and Stay Procedural Dates
    
        The comments indicated that, while many settlements were reached, 
    there still existed some unresolved controversies in each of the 
    subfunds. Rather than requesting the immediate initiation of a CARP 
    proceeding to resolve these controversies, a joint motion was filed by 
    AARC, ASCAP, BMI, CMI, GOSPEL, HFA, SESAC, and SGA requesting that the 
    Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office consolidate the 1992 and 
    the 1993 DART distribution proceedings with the 1994 DART distribution 
    proceedings that will start next year, and defer all consideration of 
    DART distributions until 1995.
        As a consequence of their motion to consolidate, the joint 
    commentators also requested that the initial DART procedural dates of 
    June 15 (precontroversy motions and objections), June 30 (initiation of 
    proceedings), and August 1 (authorization of distributions) be stayed 
    until after the 1994 claims are filed in 1995.
    
    A. Justification of Motion to Consolidate and Stay of Procedural Dates
    
        In support of their motion to consolidate, the joint commentators 
    noted that the 1992 and the 1993 DART funds, which are the first funds 
    to be collected under the Audio Home Recording Act that took effect on 
    October 28, 1992, are quite small: a little over $100,000 for 1992, and 
    less than $500,000 for 1993. They anticipate that, because the DART 
    fund is new, many issues of first impression will have to be resolved, 
    but that the costs of such action will be such as to consume most, if 
    not all, of the fund. The joint commentators observed that the costs 
    borne by the copyright owners in a DART proceeding are not only their 
    own costs, but the costs of the Library of Congress, the Copyright 
    Office, and the arbitrators. In the interest of economy, therefore, the 
    joint commentators requested that the 1992 and 1993 distribution 
    proceedings be consolidated with the 1994 proceeding.
        In addition, the joint commentators noted that the Library of 
    Congress and the Copyright Office have endeavored to adopt regulations 
    to govern the new CARP proceedings, but that the current regulations 
    are interim rules. Comments on the interim rules were due June 15, 
    1994, and reply comments are due July 15, 1994. The joint commentators 
    would prefer that a DART proceeding operate under the final rules that 
    result from these latest rounds of comments, rather than proceed under 
    the interim rules.
        Last, the joint commentators stated that they will endeavor to use 
    the time between now and 1995 to gather the best information and data 
    relevant to a DART distribution proceeding, and to continue to work for 
    more settlements in each of the subfunds. To the extent that more 
    settlements are reached, fewer controversies will need to be brought 
    before the arbitrators, and fewer royalties will have to be spent on 
    the expense of a CARP proceeding.
    
     B. Grant of Motion to Stay Procedural Dates and Establishment of 
    Comment Period
    
        On June 21, 1994, the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office 
    issued an Order finding good cause to grant the motion to stay the 
    procedural dates of June 15, June 30, and August 1, established in this 
    proceeding.
        Concerning the motion to consolidate the 1992, 1993, and 1994 
    distribution proceedings, the Order gave those persons who did not join 
    in the joint motion until June 24, 1994, to respond to it, as provided 
    by Sec. 251.45 of the Copyright Office rules.1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\Section 251.45 provides that the comment period for 
    precontroversy motions is two weeks from the filing of the motion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    C. Responses to the Motion to Consolidate Proceedings
    
        Responses to the joint motion to consolidate proceedings were filed 
    by James Cannings, Eugene Curry, and Alicia Carolyn Evelyn.
        Mr. Cannings agreed with the consolidation of the 1992, 1993 and 
    1994 proceedings provided that the distribution methodology proposed by 
    Bopp du Wopp, Inc. is considered as one possible method by the 
    claimants. Mr. Cannings urged diligent and good faith efforts at 
    settlement before 1995.
        Mr. Curry questioned whether the proposed consolidation of 1992, 
    1993 and 1994 would lead to another consolidation next year, then the 
    year after that, ad infinitum. Mr. Curry would agree to future years 
    being consolidated, i.e., 1994, 1995, and 1996, but wanted an immediate 
    distribution of 1992 and 1993 moneys this August.
        Ms. Evelyn stated that she would object to the motion to 
    consolidate so long as public performance royalty issues she has raised 
    with BMI and ASCAP remain unresolved. She joined with Mr. Cannings in 
    support of Bopp du Wopp, Inc.'s proposed distribution methodology.
    
    IV. Grant of Motion to Consolidate
    
        The Library of Congress and the Copyright Office agree with the 
    arguments made by the joint commentators and hereby grant the motion to 
    consolidate the 1992, 1993, and 1994 DART royalty distribution 
    proceedings into one proceeding that will begin in 1995.
        As we discussed in our notice of March 1, 1994, the Audio Home 
    Recording Act established certain statutory deadlines for the 
    commencement of DART distribution proceedings which, as the agency 
    delegated the responsibility, we were prepared to meet. However, as 
    observed by the Administrative Conference of the United States, 1 
    C.F.R. 305.78-3, there are special circumstances when the meeting of a 
    statutory deadline would not serve the public interest. Here, the 
    majority of the claimants themselves have asked for a waiving of the 
    statutory dates so that they might realize the economies that would 
    accrue from a consolidation of proceedings, and so that they might 
    continue settlement talks that could potentially avoid the cost of a 
    CARP proceeding altogether. Under these circumstances, to initiate a 
    CARP proceeding immediately will only serve to spend the claimants' 
    royalties needlessly, and will likely result in the claimants receiving 
    fewer royalties today than if they waited until 1995.2 In 
    addition, we see no financial harm in waiting until 1995. The 
    claimants' royalties will remain invested in United States Treasury 
    securities, and will continue to earn interest.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\When confronted with the question of whether to nullify the 
    Copyright Royalty Tribunal's cable rate adjustment because the 
    Tribunal missed its statutory deadline by 28 days, the Court of 
    Appeals for the District of Columbia stated that ``Statutes that, 
    for guidance of a government official's discharge of duties, propose 
    to secure order, system, and dispatch in proceedings, are usually 
    construed as directory, whether or not worded in the imperative, 
    especially when the alternative is harshness or absurdity.'' The 
    Court also noted that ``agencies rigidly tied to a deadline * * * 
    would become Penelopes, forever engaged in unraveling the webs they 
    wove.'' National Cable Television Association v. Copyright Royalty 
    Tribunal, 724 F. 2d 176, 189, fn. 23 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The objection of Mr. Curry to consolidation is based on a concern 
    that consolidations will happen every year, and no moneys will ever be 
    distributed. We do not see that occurring. Our goal, and, we believe 
    that of the moving parties, is economy, not delay. The moving parties 
    do not want to see their royalties remaining with the government and 
    neither do we.
        The objection of Ms. Evelyn is tied to her other issues with ASCAP 
    and BMI, and are not relevant to our consideration here.
        As stated earlier, in our Order, dated June 21, 1994, we granted 
    the joint commentators' motion to stay all previously announced 
    procedural dates intended to govern a 1992 and 1993 DART royalty 
    distribution proceeding.3 Consistent with our ruling today to 
    consolidate the 1992, 1993, and 1994 proceedings, new procedural dates 
    will be established in 1995, in accordance with our yearly statutory 
    obligation under Chapter 10 of the Copyright Code to ascertain DART 
    controversies and to initiate DART proceedings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\As discussed below, in part VI, we are making a full 
    distribution of the Nonfeatured Musicians Subfund and the 
    Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfund on July 28, 1994. See, discussion 
    below, at VI.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    V. Inquiry Into Best Evidence
    
        The concerns expressed by the commentators about the potential for 
    the costs of a DART proceeding to use up most or all of the DART 
    royalties available for distribution are valid, and are very much 
    shared by the Library and the Copyright Office. Two scenarios 
    especially concern us. One, there is the possibility of holding 
    extensive hearings for controversies where the amounts in dispute are 
    ultimately determined to be quite small. Two, even if the amounts in 
    controversy are sizable, there is the possibility of holding months-
    long hearings about the validity of the evidence offered by the 
    parties, which again would ultimately use up the bulk of the royalties 
    in the DART funds, and the time allotted for arbitration. This is 
    especially likely because DART proceedings have never been held, and 
    there is no precedent concerning what is the most relevant evidence. We 
    note that at a similar stage in its regulatory history, the issue of 
    the best evidence for distributing jukebox royalties was the subject of 
    a full evidentiary hearing at the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, but, 
    nevertheless, resulted in the Tribunal deciding that no distribution 
    determination could be reached without further efforts at producing 
    better evidence.4 This is a situation we should like to avoid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\``The Tribunal considers that the record of the current 
    proceeding is insufficient as a basis on which we can make a 
    distribution of the 1979 jukebox royalties. * * * The Tribunal, 
    therefore, has elected not to make a distribution in this 
    proceeding.'' 1979 Jukebox Royalty Distribution, 46 FR 58139, 58142 
    (Nov. 30, 1981).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Consequently, the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office will 
    hold a public meeting at 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 27, 1994 at the 
    temporary CARP hearing room, Suite 921, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 
    Washington, D.C. 20009. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss what 
    would be the best evidence for distribution of the Sound Recordings 
    Fund and the Musical Works Fund.
        We note that section 1006(c) of the Copyright Code states that the 
    allocation of the Sound Recordings Fund shall be made according to the 
    extent sound recordings were distributed, and that the allocation of 
    the Musical Works Fund shall be made according to the extent musical 
    works were distributed or disseminated to the public in transmissions. 
    We should like, therefore, to know:
        (a) Do industry data exist, or can industry data be produced, that 
    will demonstrate validly the distribution of sound recordings in the 
    United States?
        (b) Do industry data exist, or can industry data be produced, that 
    will demonstrate validly the dissemination of musical works to the 
    public in transmissions in the United States?
        (c) How should ``distributed'' be defined given the practice of 
    allowable returns? Should the arbitrators employ the rule adopted by 
    the Copyright Office with respect to section 115?5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ With respect to the 17 U.S.C. 115 mechanical license, 
    ``distributed'' is defined as occurring when ``the person exercising 
    the compulsory license has voluntarily and permanently parted'' with 
    possession of the phonorecord. The Copyright Office has taken the 
    position that permanent distribution of phonorecords occurs one year 
    from the date that the compulsory licensee parts with possession, or 
    at the time when a sale of the phonorecord is recognized in 
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or 
    according to the IRS' practices, whichever of these events comes 
    earlier. 42 FR 64889, 64892 (Dec. 29, 1977).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (d) If methodologies exist for the production of data relating to 
    (a) and (b), what are the drawbacks of such methodologies?
        (e) If methodologies exist for the production of data relating to 
    (a) and (b), would the data cover all distributions and all public 
    disseminations so that even the smallest or most specialized claimant 
    can be compared mathematically to the larger claimants?
        (f) If the methodologies cannot cover the smaller claimants, what 
    measurements can be proposed to cover them?
        (g) If conflicting methodologies exist, how do the parties propose 
    to resolve the conflicts?
        We emphasize that we are not asking these questions to decide 
    distribution issues. Distribution issues are properly for the CARP 
    arbitrators. But if we can in any way help to focus and sharpen the 
    proceedings, the savings in time and expense before a CARP panel will 
    far outweigh the cost of this one public meeting. The public meeting 
    will give the parties an opportunity to explore the positions of each 
    claimant, facilitate concentrating on solving the evidentiary problems, 
    and reveal what further steps need to be taken. A public record of the 
    meeting will be made for those who do not attend, and for the benefit 
    of the CARP panel, if one is ultimately convened.
    
    VI. The Nonfeatured Musicians and the Nonfeatured Vocalists 
    Subfunds
    
    A. Background--1993
    
        The Audio Home Recording Act established two funds: the Sound 
    Recordings Fund and the Musical Works Fund. Within the Sound Recordings 
    Fund, the Act further established four subfunds: the Copyright Owners 
    Subfund, the Featured Artists Subfund, the Nonfeatured Musicians 
    Subfund, and the Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfund.
        With regard to the Nonfeatured Musicians Subfund and the 
    Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfund, the Act outlined certain specific 
    procedures. It required that ``2\5/8\ percent of the royalty payments 
    allocated to the Sound Recordings Fund shall be placed in an escrow 
    account managed by an independent administrator jointly appointed by 
    the interested copyright parties described in section 1001(7)(A) and 
    the American Federation of Musicians (or any successor entity) to be 
    distributed to nonfeatured musicians (whether or not members of the 
    American Federation of Musicians or any successor entity) who have 
    performed on sound recordings distributed in the United States.'' 
    Similarly,``1\3/8\ percent of the royalty payments allocated to the 
    Sound Recordings Fund shall be placed in an escrow account managed by 
    an independent administrator jointly appointed by the interested 
    copyright parties described in section 1001(7)(A) and the American 
    Federation of Television and Radio Artists (or any successor entity) to 
    be distributed to nonfeatured vocalists (whether or not members of the 
    American Federation [of] Television and Radio Artists or any successor 
    entity) who have performed on sound recordings distributed in the 
    United States.'' 17 U.S.C. 1006.
        In 1993, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal adopted a regulation, 
    ultimately reissued by the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office 
    when the Tribunal was abolished, that required the independent 
    administrator to give notice to the government of his or her selection 
    by March 31 of each year. 37 C.F.R. 311.4; 58 FR 53822 (1993).
        In the same rulemaking, the Tribunal determined that it did not 
    have the jurisdiction to decide controversies within the two subfunds 
    that were administered by an independent administrator. The Tribunal 
    reasoned that, according to the wording of section 1006(a), its 
    authority over the distribution of royalties extended only to 
    ``interested copyright parties'' and that nonfeatured performers, 
    whether musicians or vocalists, were not defined under the Audio Home 
    Recording Act as ``interested copyright parties.'' 58 FR 53822, 53824 
    (Oct. 18, 1993).
        Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that its role in handling the 
    moneys for the two nonfeatured performer subfunds was simply a 
    ministerial task of distributing the royalties to the independent 
    administrator when a distribution was ready to be made. Id.
    
    B. Background--1994
    
        After the Tribunal's abolition, the Copyright Office began to 
    receive claims for 1993 DART royalties during January-February, 1994. 
    One claimant, Eugene Curry, filed a claim for the Nonfeatured Musicians 
    Subfund. Subsequently, the Office was informed that Edward Peters had 
    been appointed the independent administrator for both the Nonfeatured 
    Musicians Subfund and the Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfund.
        The Copyright Office sent a letter to Mr. Curry and Mr. Peters 
    asking three questions: (a) who were the interested copyright parties 
    that participated in the selection of the independent administrator?; 
    (b) is there any controversy between Mr. Curry and Mr. Peters about the 
    distribution of Nonfeatured Musicians Subfund?; and (c) if there is a 
    controversy, how would Mr. Curry and Mr. Peters recommend the 
    resolution of the controversy? Letter, dated May 4, 1994.
        Mr. Curry responded that there was a controversy between him and 
    Mr. Peters on the distribution of the subfund.
        Mr. Peters responded that he was selected by RIAA and AFM6; 
    that, according to the Copyright Code and Tribunal precedent, the 
    Copyright Office has no authority to resolve disputes in the 
    nonfeatured subfunds; that, because the Copyright Office has no 
    authority, Mr. Curry should not have filed a claim with the Copyright 
    Office nor should the Office have processed his claim; that Mr. Curry 
    will be treated properly by Mr. Peters; and the fact of his non-union 
    membership will have no relevance whatever in the ultimate distribution 
    of the subfund.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\ RIAA, as a representative of copyright owners in sound 
    recordings, is entitled to participate in the selection of the 
    independent administrator. Other claimants to the Copyright Owners 
    Subfund of the Sound Recordings Fund are also entitled to 
    participate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Separately, the Copyright Office received a joint comment from Mr. 
    Peters, AFM, AFTRA, and the RIAA arguing in greater detail that the 
    Audio Home Recording Act and the Tribunal's decision in 1993 support 
    the conclusion that the independent administrator is to receive the 
    allocated royalties for the two nonfeatured performers subfunds 
    directly, and is not subject to the authority of the Copyright Office 
    or the CARP panel in resolving disputes in those subfunds.
    
    C. Discussion
    
        The Library of Congress and the Copyright Office have reviewed the 
    Audio Home Recording Act and the Tribunal's 1993 decision, and agree 
    with the joint commentators, AFM, AFTRA, RIAA and Mr. Peters, that the 
    independent administrator is to receive the royalties from the two 
    nonfeatured performers subfunds directly from the Copyright Office, and 
    that disputes as to his (or her) distribution of those funds are not 
    subject to the jurisdiction of a CARP panel.
        Our purpose in sending the May 4 letter to Mr. Curry and Mr. Peters 
    was to facilitate a settlement. The provisions of the Audio Home 
    Recording Act are unique among other provisions governing statutory 
    royalties in that they open up the possibility of a dispute in a 
    royalty fund without offering an administrative remedy. How to handle 
    such a dispute was not a question that was faced by the Tribunal in 
    1993, because in that year there were no claims filed at all in the 
    nonfeatured performers subfunds. This year, Mr. Curry's claim, and his 
    subsequent notice that he is in controversy, presents the issue 
    foursquare.
        Recognizing the plain meaning of the statute, we agree that the 
    royalties in the two nonfeatured performers subfunds are to be 
    distributed directly to the independent administrator. We also 
    recognize that claimants to those two subfunds do not file claims with 
    the Copyright Office. They need to contact the independent 
    administrator directly.
        But we believe there is a function for the Copyright Office to 
    perform. Each year, to the extent that the Copyright Office receives 
    expressions of interest to receive royalties from those two subfunds, 
    we will forward the names to the independent administrator.7 In 
    addition, the Copyright Office will maintain a public file that will 
    consist of (a) the names of those expressing interest in the subfunds; 
    (b) the notice of the independent administrator; (c) any correspondence 
    concerning the two subfunds; and (d) any notification of the final 
    disposition of any dispute within the subfunds. The notification is not 
    required, but is being requested to complete the public record. It is 
    also noted that we are not asking for a notification of the disposition 
    of all moneys in the subfunds, just those is dispute. We recognize and 
    will continue the Tribunal's policy of not inquiring into the 
    distribution of settled claims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\ This year, in addition to Mr. Curry, James Cannings filed a 
    claim for the Nonfeatured Musicians Subfund and the Nonfeatured 
    Vocalists Subfund. Mr. Cannings' claims were filed after the 
    February 28, 1994 deadline, and would have been returned as untimely 
    filed if they were claims subject to the Copyright Office's 
    jurisdiction. However, in light of our ruling today, the statutory 
    deadline in 17 U.S.C. 1007(a)(1) does not apply to claims beyond the 
    Copyright Office's jurisdiction. Therefore, his claims are also 
    being forwarded to the independent administrator for resolution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    D. Distribution Notice
    
        In light of the above discussion, we are ordering a full 
    distribution of the royalties available in the 1992 and 1993 
    Nonfeatured Musicians and Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfunds to Mr. Edward 
    Peters, the independent administrator, on July 28, 1994. This 
    distribution will constitute the final distribution in those subfunds, 
    except (a) in the event that there are any late payments, a subsequent 
    distribution will be made to the independent administrator that 
    represents those subfunds' share of the late payment; and (b) in the 
    event that any refund is ultimately found to be required, the 
    independent administrator will need to repay the Office the subfunds' 
    share of the refund.
    
        Dated: July 7, 1994.
    Barbara Ringer,
    Acting Register of Copyrights.
        Approved by:
    James H. Billington,
    The Librarian of Congress.
    [FR Doc. 94-16963 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 1410-09-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/13/1994
Department:
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice of consolidation of proceedings, royalty distribution, and public meeting.
Document Number:
94-16963
Dates:
(1) The distribution of the royalties in the 1992 and 1993 Nonfeatured Musicians and Nonfeatured Vocalists DART subfunds will take place July 28, 1994. (2) The public meeting to discuss best evidence for distribution of royalties will take place 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 27, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: July 13, 1994, Docket No. RM 94-2B CARP-DD