University of Denver

Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
Volume 21 
Issue 1 Spring Article 5 
2018 
Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj 
 Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Sean M. Winebrenner & Leeann M. Lower, Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 21 U. Denv. Sports & Ent. L.J. 
13 (2018). 
This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted 
for inclusion in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For 
more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. 
Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska 
This case comment is available in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/
vol21/iss1/5 
BALL V. CITY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
By: Sean M. Winebrenner' and Leeann M. Lower"
ABSTRACT
On March 7, 2015, Larry Ball was cited for trespassing by the Lincoln
Police Department when passing out religious leaflets outside the Pinnacle
Bank Arena. Ball brought action against the City of Lincoln, Nebraska
along with Pinnacle Bank/Spectator Management Group ("SMG"),
alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. More specifically, he
claimed SMG violated his constitutional rights by denying his exercise of
free speech based upon the premise that public property is a nonpublic
forum. The District Court was tasked with evaluating Pinnacle Bank
Arena's Exterior Access and Use Policy to determine whether Ball's First
Amendment rights were violated.
Many questions came into play when evaluating the legal issues of this case.
Were Larry Ball's First Amendment rights violated? How are the rights of
the individual weighed against the needs of the public? What are considered
public and nonpublic areas? What are traditional public forums? Upon
consideration of the aforementioned legal issues and the evidence
presented, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Ball's
motion for injunctive relief.'
FACTS OF THE CASE
Pinnacle Bank Arena (the "Arena") is located in the city of Lincoln,
Nebraska, hosting athletic, public, recreational, and entertainment events.
In October of 2014, SMG (the "Defendants"), operator of the Arena,
adopted the Exterior Access and Use Policy (the "Policy"), outlining certain
exterior areas as nonpublic forum areas reserved for the use of tenants and
the artists or productions they authorized. The Policy was created to protect
the "Plaza Area" in front of the main doors for use by tenants, and to ensure
safety and crowd management. With 12,000 to 15,000 people entering and
exiting a facility during events, consistency and efficiency in relation to
* Power Skating Instructor, Indy Junior Fuel Hockey, Indianapolis, IN; M.A. Sport
Administration, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
**Assistant Professor, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH; Ph.D. Sport Management, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
' Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, No. 8:15CV95, 2015 WL 1781817 (U.S. D. Neb.
April 15, 2015).
1
et al.: Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
accessibility to patrons was considered important to Defendants. To further
reduce crowd management issues and ensure safety, the Policy banned
certain types of public communication within defined areas of the Arena
perimeters, such as leafleting, merchandise sales, picketing, signature
gathering, and promotional material distribution. The Policy was posted on
the Arena's website and copies were made available to the public.
Therefore, the specific exterior areas designated as nonpublic forums were
communicated to citizens, such as Larry Ball (the "Plaintiff").
Plaintiff is a citizen of Lincoln, Nebraska, who expresses his Christian faith
by passing out pamphlets with Christian messages. On March 15, 2014, he
handed out religious items, directly outside the Arena doors, to individuals
attending the boys' state high school basketball tournament. The Arena's
staff approached him multiple times, each time asking him to move outside
the Plaza Area to the sidewalk. Plaintiff returned later that afternoon and,
again, began leafleting in the Plaza Area, albeit in a different location, north
of the bollards. SMG staff then contacted the Lincoln Police Department
after he refused to move. Lincoln police officers asked Plaintiff to move to
the sidewalk outside the Plaza Area, but he again refused to move and was
subsequently arrested and ticketed for trespassing and refusing to comply
with the officers' directives. Plaintiff challenged the arrest and ticket,
claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, upon which the charges
were dismissed.
Approximately one year later, on March 5, 2015, Plaintiff returned to the
Arena to hand out more pamphlets. He was aware of the Policy, having
received a copy from the Arena's staff. Plaintiff stood in the Plaza Area
north of the bollards, approximately 25 feet from an Arena door. The
Lincoln Police Department were, again, called and he was, again, ticketed
for trespassing, but was not arrested. Two days later, Plaintiff distributed
leaflets again on a sidewalk allegedly designated as a public thoroughfare
outside the Plaza Area. Once again, he was cited for trespassing, at which
time he left the Arena property. He subsequently filed a legal complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in an attempt to seek
injunctive relief and monetary damages for alleged violations of his First
Amendment rights.
COURT ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court has outlined three categories of forums regarding free
speech: (1) the traditional public forum, (2) the designated public forum,
and (3) the nonpublic forum. Traditional public forums are "places which
by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and
14 U. oF DEivvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J (VOL. 21
2
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/5
debate and the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed."2
Traditional public forums are those that have "immemorially been held in
trust for the use of public, and, time out of mind, have been used for
purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and
discussing public questions." 3 The Supreme Court has recognized
sidewalks, streets, and parks as traditional public forums. In these public
forums, the government cannot prohibit communicative activity.
Alternatively, designated public forums are public property which the State
government has unfolded for use by the public as a place for articulating
activity and individuals are afforded the same protection provided to
traditional public forums. Lastly, nonpublic forums are not specifically
designated as open to public expression and individuals possess no
protection.
In his complaint, Plaintiff asserted that his First Amendment free speech
rights were violated by the Policy enforced by Defendants. He argued that
the Arena is a traditional public forum; and, therefore, he has the right to
express his freedom of speech at the facility's perimeters. In support of his
argument, Plaintiff claimed the Plaza Area has the physical characteristics
of a traditional sidewalk. Appearance and location of a walkway are
supportive factors in determining whether the walkway is a sidewalk, for
purposes of the public forum analysis. For example, in U.S. v. Grace,4 the
Supreme Court found the restriction of speech on the public sidewalks
surrounding the Supreme Court building unconstitutional, as the sidewalks
around the building were indistinguishable from any other sidewalk in
Washington D.C. and should not be treated differently.
In response, Defendants argued that the Policy is a reasonable restriction on
speech because the Plaza Area is a nonpublic forum. In Cornelius v.
NAACP, 5 the Supreme Court stated that "nothing in the Constitution
requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise
their right to free speech on every type of Government property without
regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused
by the speaker's activities." Defendants claimed the Policy is designed to
reduce disruption that might be caused by activities, such as Plaintiff's, in
the Arena's perimeter. As Defendants are state actors, the First Amendment
rights of private citizens must be balanced by the government's interest in
2 Perry Edu. Ass'n. v. Perry Local Educators Ass'n., 460 U.S. 37 (1983).
3Id
4 United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985).
SPRING 2018) U. oF DENvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J. 15
3
et al.: Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
the needs of the public. In considering this balancing test, Defendants
alleged that Plaintiff's activities within the Arena's perimeters caused safety
concerns for the public using the Arena.
In response to Plaintiffs traditional public forum argument, Defendants
claimed the markings of the Plaza Area's boundaries are nonpublic and
reasonable (see Figure 1). Specifically, Defendants asserted that the
sidewalks around the Arena's perimeter have distinctive colors and design
and clearly do not match public sidewalks outside the perimeter. The
boundary elements identified by Defendants, along the southern edge of the
Plaza Area, are notably less distinctive than the landscaping and grassy area
that separates the Plaza from the Arena.
COURT DECISION
The primary legal issue examined by the district court was whether or not
the Arena's perimeters are considered a public or nonpublic forum and if
the sidewalks look, act, and function like a public sidewalk. The court
ultimately held that Plaintiff did not demonstrate a violation of his
established constitutional rights. More specifically, he failed to demonstrate
that the Policy's perimeters around the Pinnacle Bank Arena's entrance is a
public forum. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that Defendants' Policy
restricting certain expressive activity in the Plaza Area is unreasonable.
The district court found that the Arena's perimeters have several physical
characteristics common to public forums and may function as a type of
public thoroughfare; however, it noted that the use of the Plaza Area as a
forum for unlimited public expression was inconsistent with the Plaza
Area's traditional use and principle purpose. The city of Lincoln,
Nebraska's purpose in establishing the Plaza Area, and the Policy
implemented, suggested that the Plaza Area was not intended to be used as
a public forum. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Plaintiff was
not likely to prevail on his claim that the Plaza Area is a traditional public
forum.
Furthermore, the district court found that enforcement of the Policy did not
seriously impair Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, as he can equitably
reach his target audience in the public sidewalk near his desired location,
which preserves the government's interest in public safety. As a result, the
district court denied Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order, instructing him to practice his activities in the
future in public areas, across the street from the Arena's perimeters;
otherwise, he will be subject to further arrest.
16 U. oF DEivvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J (VOL. 21
4
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/5
SPRING 2018) U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTER TA JNMENTL.J. 17
PERIMETER
A
N
t 1 _ - - I
Figure 1. Pinnacle Bank Arena Policy Zone. Non-public forum exterior
Arena areas depicted inside the orange line, defined as "areas that extend
out to the public sidewalk perimeter and include walkways, steps, verandas,
terraces, access ramps, parking lots, loading ramps, the Arena Festival
Space/parking lot, and the Arena premium parking garage."
/
SPRING 2018) U. oF DEivvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J. 17
5
et al.: Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
18 U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTERTAiNMENT LJ. (VOL. 21
6
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/5


English

Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska

Borgmann, Callie P.

Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
Volume 21 
Issue 1 Spring Article 6 
2018 
The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and 
New Copyright Royalties Regulations 
Callie P. Borgmann 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj 
 Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Callie P. Borgmann, The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and New Copyright 
Royalties Regulations, 21 U. Denv. Sports & Ent. L.J. 19 (2018). 
This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more 
information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. 
The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and New Copyright 
Royalties Regulations 
This note is available in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/
iss1/6 
THE FUTURE OF STREAMING MUSIC:
THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT AND NEW COPYRIGHT
ROYALTIES REGULATIONS
By: Callie P. Borgmann*
ABSTRACT
This note details how the Copyright Royalty Board and Congress are
seeking to change the music industry. In January of 2018, the Copyright
Royalty Board introduced new regulations that outline new procedures for
paying songwriters and record labels royalties that derive from streaming
services. These regulations will increase royalties from streaming by nearly
fifty percent over the next five years and will help to eliminate the disparity
between streaming and terrestrial royalty compensation. Additionally,
Congress has proposed the Music Modernization Act, which would
ultimately create an administrative agency that would handle copyright
within the music industry. In the end, these new regulations will influence
songwriters, streaming services, and users.
NEW ROYALTY REGULATIONS
On January 26, 2018, the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") introduced
new regulations relating to royalties paid to songwriters for streaming
services. This decision came as a result of a 2017 trial between the National
Music Publishers Association ("NMPA") and the Nashville Songwriters
Association International ("NSAr) (NMPA and NSAI are collectively the
"writers") against various streaming services such as Amazon, Apple,
Spotify, and Pandora, as well as pressure from songwriters to increase
streaming royalty rates.2 Over the next five years, songwriter royalty rates
for interactive streaming will increase by nearly fifty percent.3 Prior to
implementation of the new regulations, services were only required to pay
* University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, Juris Doctor 2019. Callie is also a
Managing Editor on the Sports and Entertainment Law Journal.
1 Press Release, Nashville Songwriters Association International, CRB Dramatically
Increases Rates for Songwriters NMPA & NSAI Declare Victory (Feb. 12, 2018),
https://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/crb-dramatically-increases-rates-songwriters-
nmpa-nsai-declare-victory.
2id
3 Paula Parisi, Copyright Royalty Board Boosts Songwriters' Streaming Pay Nearly 50%,
VARIETY (Jan. 27, 2018, 11:23 AM) http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/copyright-royalty-
board-boosts-songwriters-streaming-pay-nearly-50-1202679 118/.
1
Borgmann: The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and Ne
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
songwriters ten percent of revenue; this will now be raised to fifteen percent
in coming years on a progressive scale.4
Royalty Year5 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
% of Revenue 11.4% 12.3% 13.3% 14.2% 15.1%
Percent of Total
Content Costs
22.0% 23.1% 24.1% 25.2% T26.2%
Though the streaming services sought to reduce the rates in the 2017 trial,
the writers came out victorious despite not receiving a per-stream rate that
they had initially hoped to receive.6 In the past, streaming services had to
utilize multiple calculations to determine the amount of royalties owed to
songwriters. However, the regulations introduce new, more simplified rate
terms.7 Rates are now based on either total content costs or a percentage of
revenue, whichever is greater.8 Content costs are paid directly to record
labels without harsh legal constraints, meaning the writers have some free-
market impact. In addition to the new calculations, there are no longer caps
and limitations on writer rates, giving more opportunity for benefits.9 Rates
that are paid directly to record labels from streaming services have
improved as well.
Going forward, for every $3.82 earned by a streaming company, the
songwriter or publisher will receive one dollar.10 These regulations only
include mechanical licenses, a term that originated from rolls cranked
through player pianos, and includes albums, CDs, and downloads. "
Anything that is broadcasted, either analog or digitally, is considered to be
"public performance," which have different royalty rates.12 This is where
Pandora differs from Spotify and Apple Music. Pandora's rates are similar
to traditional radio stations, because it is not an interactive listening
platform, whereas Spotify and Apple Music are interactive by allowing
4 Mark Kaufman, Musicians Must Now be Paid More for Their Streamed Songs - But is
This a Big Blow to Spotify?, MASHABLE (Jan. 31, 2018),
https://mashable.com/2018/01/3 1/copyright-court-rules-streaming-companies-have-to-
pay-artists-more/#UzLIpMgjbPq 1.
'Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords
(Phonorecords III), Docket No. 16-CRB-0003-PR (2018-2022),
https://app.crb.gov/case/viewDocument/2288 [hereinafter Public Initial Determination].
6 Parisi, supra note 3.
7 id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
" Id.
1
2 Id.
20 U.oFDEivvERSPoRTs&ENTERTAiNmENTLJ (VOL. 21
2
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 6
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/6
listeners to play songs on demand. Non-interactive services are simply able
to pay less royalties because they lack the on-demand nature that some
streaming services provide.13
Subscription costs are likely to increase in the future, but not due to
increased streaming royalty rates. Subscription costs may increase due to
additional content; however, it is not likely subscription costs will increase
immediately, but rather over the course of the next five years.14 It is possible
that streaming services such as Apple Music and Spotify may already be
paying above the rates set forth in the regulations due to agreements with
record labels.15 Streaming services may already intend on increasing their
subscription prices as they add additional content, such as podcasts and
videos, regardless of the new regulations. Though the additional content
could come at a higher price, it could provide users a more interactive
listening process that is reminiscent of visiting record stores.16
IMPACT OF NEW REGULATIONS
While the new streaming royalties are considered a win for songwriters and
singers alike, the new regulations may have a negative impact on some
individual streaming services. Large streaming services, such as Apple,
may feel less impact in their bottom line numbers by being required to pay
out more to individual songwriters. 17 However, the implications of these
new rates may have a greater impact on Spotify, a smaller streaming
service, as it seeks to become profitable in its first year as a publicly traded
corporation.1 8 A large part of streaming income is driven by the number of
people who subscribe to the streaming services. As of October 2017,
Spotify had 18.2 million paid subscribers in the United States alone, while
Apple Music had approximately fifteen million in the United States. 19
13 Erin Jacobson, How Spotify Has Waged War with the Music Industry, FORBES (Sept.
22, 2017, 8:35 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2017/09/22/how-
spotify-has-waged-war-with-the-music-industry/#470fe0c856d5.
14 Kaufman, supra note 4.
15 Id.
16 See generally id.
17 Parisi, supra note 3.
" Id.; see generally Zack O'Malley Greenburg, Spotify Goes Public at $30 Billion; When
Will Artists See Any of That?, FORBES (Apr. 3, 2018, 2:01 PM),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2018/04/03/spotify-ipo-goes-public-
at-30-billion-when-will-artists-see-any-of-that/.
19 Ed Christman, Apple Music, Spotify Battle Heats Up Again as Race for US Subscribers
Gets Closer, BILLBOARD (Feb. 5, 2018),
https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8098161/apple-music-spotify-streaming-
wars-subscribers-advantage.
SPRING 2018) U. oF DENvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J. 21
3
Borgmann: The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and Ne
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
22 U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTERTAiNMENT L.J. (VOL. 21
Apple has continued to add subscribers in the United States at a faster rate
than Spotify, which provides speculation about the strength of Spotify's
earning power.20 However, Spotify has more subscribers worldwide, and it
seems likely Spotify will utilize their overall subscription growth to show
their strength as a corporation.21
Currently, Spotify pays an average of $0.00397 per stream, or $3.97 per
1,000 streams.22 This rate gives Spotify a competitive advantage over
Apple, who pays $7.83 per 1,000 streams, or $0.00783 per stream.23 This
merely shows that Spotify users listen to more music than Apple
subscribers, not that Spotify is necessarily more successful.24
An increase in streaming rates is incredibly important for songwriters and
publishers alike. In 2013, Rodney Jerkins, producer of "As Long As You
Love Me" by Justin Bieber, exposed the discrepancies between streaming
rates and public performances.25 Though the song earned songwriter Andre
Lindall $146,000 in royalties, Jerkins revealed just how little streaming
royalties contributed to that number; thirty-eight million streams on
Pandora generated a mere $278 and thirty-four million YouTube streams
generated only $218.26 According to UC Irvine Media Studies Professor
Peter Krapp, for a songwriter to make minimum wage in the state of
California, their songs would need to receive four million streams per
month.27
20 See id.
21 Michelle Castillo, Music Streaming Service Spotify Files to Go Public, Lost $1.5 Billion
Last Year, CNBC (last updated Mar. 5, 2018, 9:21 AM)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/spotify-files-for-ipo.html.
22 Daniel Sanchez, What Streaming Music Services Pay (Updated for 2018), DIGITAL
Music NEWS (Jan. 16, 2018), https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16/streaming-
music-services-pay-2018/.
23 Id.
24 See Kabir Sehgal, Spotify and Apple Music Should Become Record Labels So
Musicians Can Make a Fair Living, CNBC (last updated Jan. 26, 2018, 11:04 AM)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/how-spotify-apple-music-can-pay-musicians-more-
commentary.html. (stating that Spotify is still losing money, despite growing forty percent
a year).
25 Kai Miller, Rodney Jerkins Reveals the Ugly Truth About Royalties After Writing a Hit
for Justin Bieber, BET (Oct. 6, 2017) https://www.bet.com/music/2017/10/06/rodney-
jerkins-justin-bieber-royalities.htnml.
2 6 Id.
27 Kaufman, supra note 4.
4
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 6
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/6
MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT
In addition to changes through the CRB's new regulations, Congress has
begun working on an act that could permanently change the face of the
music industry and royalties. In late 2017, Congress introduced H.R. 4706,
also known as the Music Modernization Act ("MMA"), with the intention
to "amend title 17, United States Code, to provide clarity and modernize the
licensing system for musical works under section 115 and to ensure fairness
in the establishment of certain rates and fees under sections 114 and 115."28
This act was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on April
25, 2018, but still must past the Senate.29 This act would provide for an
administrative agency that would issue licenses to digital streaming
services, and collect and distribute royalties to rights holders. This is
different than current policies in place, where services are required to
identify each rights holder and issue payment directly.30 The MMA will
help to regulate policies within the music industry and update copyright
laws that have not been updated since 1976.
Another issue songwriters face frequently is that royalty payments are
untimely. This act would seek to cure that problem with the new late fee
provision of the CRB's regulations.31 Currently, 17 U.S.C. § 115 does not
outline any late fees regarding royalty payments; 32 however, the CRB's
new regulations impose fines on streaming services that fail to compensate
songwriters in a timely fashion. The new regulations outline the fines for
streaming services that fail to compensate songwriters in a timely fashion
as a late fee of 1.5% or the highest lawful rate, whichever is lower, for any
payment that is received after the due date.33
28 Music Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 4706, 115th Cong. (as passed by H.R., Apr.
25, 2018); see also Micah Singleton, Congress May Actually Fix Music Royalties, VERGE
(Jan. 26, 2018 10:36 AM), https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/26/16931966/congress-
music-modemization-act-licensing-royalties.
29 Paula Parisi, Music Modernization Act Unanimously Passes House ofRepresentatives,
VARIETY (Apr. 25, 2018, 1:57 PM), http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/music-
modernization-act-unanimously-passes-house-of-representatives-1202787045/.
30 See generally Singleton, supra note 28.
31 Id.
32 17 U.S.C. § 115 (2018).
33 37 C.F.R. § 385.4.
SPRING 2018) U. oF DENvER Spom & ENTERTAiNmENT L J. 23
5
Borgmann: The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and Ne
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
24 U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTERTAiNMENT L.J. (VOL. 21
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the new regulations set in place by the CRB change the face of
streaming. For songwriters, these changes will impact their earning power.
Increased penalty enforcement will also help to decrease the amount of late
payments made by streaming companies. If the MMA is enacted,
songwriters and streaming services will be regulated more closely.
However, until Congress enacts the MMA, songwriters may need to
continue to fight for higher compensation and more stringent regulation.
Streaming services will have an uphill battle in maintaining their bottom
line as well as preserving and improving their relationships with artists.
6
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 6
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/6
SPRING 2018) U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT L J. 25
7
Borgmann: The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and Ne
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018
26 U. OF DENVER SPORTS & ENTERTAiNMENT LJ. (VOL. 21
8
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 21 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 6
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol21/iss1/6


The Future of Streaming Music: The Music Modernization Act and New Copyright Royalties Regulations

Domestic Violence & Men\u27s Professional Sports: Advancing the Ball

Rogers, Mike

Masters, Kelli

Paving the Road between NCAA Stardom and an NFL Career: A University Advisory Panel Perspective

Palachuk, Geoffrey F.

Transformative Use Test Cannot Keep Pace with Evolving Arts

Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal,

Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
Volume 17 
Issue 1 Spring 2015 Article 1 
2015 
Vol. 17, no. 1: Title Page 
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
true 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj 
Recommended Citation 
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal (2015) "Vol. 17, no. 1: Title Page," Denver Sports & 
Entertainment Law Journal: Vol. 17: Iss. 1, Article 1. 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol17/iss1/1 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For 
more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. 
Vol. 17, no. 1: Title Page 
This front matter is available in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/
vol17/iss1/1 
SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT
LAW JOURNAL
ARTICLES
At the Crossroads: The Intersection of
Synchronization Licensing and Musician
Advocacy
Kaine Hampton
A Race to the Bottom? International Income
Tax Regimes' Impact on the Movement of
Athletic Talent
Matthew Akers
Sport and Spectacle: Should MMA be Protected
Under the First Amendment?
Jason J. Cruz
The Sponsorship Function in Collegiate Athletics:
Discussing a Potential Outcome of thein Jkins v
NCAA Lawsuit
John A. Fortunato
College Coaching: Demarcating Appropriate
Behavior and the Means of Enforcement
Zachary Paterick
Timothy E. Paterick
Sandy Sanbar
No Longer Perry Mason: How Modern American
Television's Portrayal of Attorneys Shifts Public
Opinion
Chris Ryan
UNIVERSITYof
DENVER
STURM COLLEGE OF LAW
1
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: Vol. 17, no. 1: Title Page
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2015
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER SPORTSAND ENTERTAINMENT LA TJOURNAL
VOLUME XVII
- EDITORIAL BOARD -
NADIN SAID
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
ASHLEY DENNIS
SENIOR ARTICLES EDITOR
SAMIT BHALALA
TECHNOLOGY EDITOR
SAMANTHA ALBANESE
BLOG EDITOR
STAFF EDITORS
RILEY COLTRIN
JOANNA NAKAMOTO
CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM
SARA MONTGOMERY
AMELIA MESSEGEE
ERICA VINCENT
LEONARD LARGE
MANAGING EDITORS
JENNIFER TORRES
CANDIDACY EDITOR
ERICA VINCENT
MARKETING EDITOR
SARAH WOBKEN
MAX MONTAG
AMANDA MARSTON
JUSTIN DAVIS
JAKE LUSTIG
FACULTY ADVISOR
STACEY BOWERS
2
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 17 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 1
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol17/iss1/1


Vol. 17, no. 1: Title Page

Glover, Camille

Television Violence: The Impact on Children versus First Amendment Rights

Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
Volume 8 
Issue 1 Spring 2010 Article 2 
2010 
Vol. 8, no. 1: Letter from the Editor 
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 
true 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj 
Recommended Citation 
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal (2010) "Vol. 8, no. 1: Letter from the Editor," Denver Sports & 
Entertainment Law Journal: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 2. 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/vol8/iss1/2 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For 
more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. 
Vol. 8, no. 1: Letter from the Editor 
This front matter is available in Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/selj/
vol8/iss1/2 
University of Denver Sports and Entertainment LawJournal
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Dear Reader,
With much delight, we are pleased to present the Spring 2010 issue of the University of
Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. With this issue, we are excited to bring you
incisive legal analysis and commentary on a variety of topics within sports and entertainment
law. Our authors present diverse perspectives from their positions as law students, professors,
and practitioners, and we are enthused to publish five articles, each of which abounds with
insightful legal commentary.
The articles range from a commentary and case study on youth basketball programs in
America, to an analysis of the intellectual property and contract issues associated with contests,
to the historical preservation issues associated with the demolition of Tiger Stadium in Detroit.
Further, our fourth article analyzes the dangers of rapid weight loss in the context of the sport of
wrestling, and the regulatory efforts of high school and intercollegiate wrestling organizations to
educate and keep the participants safe. We are especially proud of our final article, as it was co-
authored by two of the Journal members. The article, written by Allison Rosen and Elizabeth
Dauer, examines copyright law and the visual arts in the context of the ongoing Shepard Fairey,
et al. v. The Associated Press case. We would like to thank each of the authors for their hard
work and contributions to the Spring 2010 issue of the University of Denver Sports and
Entertainment Law Journal.
Scott Neckers
Fditor-in-Chief
3
1
Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal: Vol. 8, no. 1: Letter from the Editor
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2010


Vol. 8, no. 1: Letter from the Editor

Song, Seagull Haiyan

How Should China Respond to Online Piracy of Live Sports Telecasts - A Comparative Study of Chinese Copyright Legislation to U.S. and European Legislation

Crowe, Zachary D.

The NCAA Death Penalty - Death for Penn State or Death for Competition