A comparison between the licensing of public performance rights and the licensing of synchronization rights further illustrates the problem faced by music users who rely on PRO licenses. Producers of movies or television programming have traditionally entered separate synchronization licenses with each owner of a fractional interest in a song the producer seeks to include in his or her television show or movie, generally on a song-by-song basis.
Unlike many ASCAP and BMI licensees, the producer can identify a song before it is used and has the ability to substitute to a different song if the producer cannot reach agreements for the synchronization rights with each of the song’s fractional owners. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a producer to fail to obtain synchronization licenses from all of a song’s fractional owners and to turn instead to a different song.
In contrast, music users publicly performing music are often using music selected by others – for example, by the producer who placed a song in a television show or the disk jockey selecting songs for the radio (which may be played in a bar or restaurant that cannot control the music chosen). These users rely on blanket licenses to allow them to perform music without first determining whether they have cleared the rights in a work. Unlike a movie or television producer, these music users cannot switch to a different song if they lack the rights to publicly perform a song. Their only recourse under a fractional licensing regime, under which their PRO blanket licenses leave them exposed to infringement liability, might be to simply turn off the music.
The problems inherent in allowing ASCAP and BMI to engage in fractional licensing would be exacerbated by the absence of a reliable source of data on song ownership to which music users could turn to identify whether they possess rights to perform a song or from whom they could seek a license. The Division’s investigation uncovered that no such authoritative information source exists today, even for existing works, and, further, that songwriting credits for new releases may not be fully established until after the songs have been released.
If music users cannot rely on ASCAP and BMI blanket licenses to avoid infringement exposure, they are likely to avoid playing songs – including new releases – that they are not confident they possess the right to perform. Nor are music users positioned to lead the creation of a comprehensive and reliable database of song ownership information. To the extent such a database could be created, songwriters, music publishers, and PROs have much greater access to the information necessary to do so.
Finally, allowing fractional licensing might also impede the licensed performance of many songs by incentivizing owners of fractional interests in songs to withhold their partial interests from the PROs. A user with a license from ASCAP or BMI would then be unable to play that song unless it acceded to the hold-out owner’s demands, providing the hold-out owner substantial bargaining leverage to extract significant returns. The result would be a further reduction in the benefits of the ASCAP and BMI licenses and the creation of additional impediments to the public performance of music.