PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.789 / 104th Congress

Fairness in Musical Licensing Act of 1995

Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 1, 1995

Fairness in Musical Licensing Act of 1995 - Revises Federal copyright law to provide that communication by electronic device of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the reception of a broadcast, cable, satellite, or other transmission shall not be a copyright infringement unless an admission fee is charged to see or hear the transmission or the transmission is not properly licensed. Provides that a performance or display in a commercial establishment shall not be considered infringement if incidental to the main purpose of the establishment. Specifies that, if a general music user and a performing rights society are unable to agree on the appropriate fee to be paid for the user's past or future performance of musical works in the society's repertoire, the user shall be entitled to binding arbitration of such disagreement pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association in lieu of any other dispute-resolution mechanism established by any judgment or decree governing the operation of such society. Requires the arbitrator to determine a fair and reasonable fee for the user's past and future performance of works in such society's repertoire and to impose a penalty for infringement if the user's past performance infringed the copyright of such works. Makes an arbitrator's determination binding on both parties. Sets forth provisions regarding civil actions for infringement that may be submitted to arbitration if the license fee for a performance is contested. Requires a performing rights society, at the request of any radio broadcaster, to offer the broadcaster a per programming license to perform nondramatic musical works in its repertoire. Directs that such license be offered on terms and conditions that provide an economically and administratively viable alternative to blanket licenses. Sets forth provisions regarding prices of such licenses. Requires, beginning January 1, 1998, the performance of nondramatic musical works by broadcasters under any per programming period license to be determined on the basis of statistically reliable sampling or monitoring by the society and prohibits the society from requiring the broadcaster to report such performance to the society. Authorizes such broadcasters to bring actions to require compliance with such requirements. Directs each performing rights society to make available free online computer access to copyright and licensing information for each work in its repertoire as well as a semiannual printed directory of each title in its repertoire. Requires such society, upon request, to provide to any person who may perform musical works in its repertoire, copies of documentation establishing the society's right to license the public performance of such works. Bars a society from instituting or being a party to any action alleging infringement in, or charging a fee under any per programming period license for, any work in the repertoire that is not identified or documented as described above, with exceptions. Requires the Attorney General to report annually to the Congress on the activities of the Department of Justice relating to the continuing supervision and enforcement of specified consent decrees of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc. Sets forth conditions under which landlords, organizers of conventions, or others making space available to another party are exempt from liability under any theory of vicarious or contributory infringement with respect to an infringing public performance of a copyrighted work by a tenant, lessee, or other user of such space. Provides that the transmission of religious services or the recording of copies or phonorecords of a transmission program embodying such services shall not be a copyright infringement.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-9] · R–WI

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
184 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

  2. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  3. Introduced in House

  4. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.789 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.789 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.789 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.789 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources