Why does the US not have a general neighbouring right?

Why does the US not have a general neighbouring right?

• A. The radio industry successfully lobbied against it.
• B. There is no legal framework for neighbouring rights.
• C. Airplay is considered fair use.
• D. Non-interactive streaming covers all rights.

Answer: (A)

The question tests how policy choices and industry lobbying shape what rights exist across countries. A general neighboring right would give performers and producers payments when their performances are broadcast or publicly communicated. In the United States, such a broad, umbrella neighboring-right regime never took hold largely because the radio industry actively lobbied against it, arguing it would impose new costs on broadcasters and restrict the way airwaves are used. That lobbying helped keep the US system aligned with a more limited set of rights and licensing structures, rather than instituting a universal neighboring right. It’s not about fair use or a lack of any legal framework entirely. Fair use is a flexible defense to specific infringements, not a policy reason for or against a broad neighboring-right regime. And non-interactive streaming does involve licensing and rights, but it does not substitute for a general neighboring right that would cover broadcasts across the board.

The question tests how policy choices and industry lobbying shape what rights exist across countries. A general neighboring right would give performers and producers payments when their performances are broadcast or publicly communicated. In the United States, such a broad, umbrella neighboring-right regime never took hold largely because the radio industry actively lobbied against it, arguing it would impose new costs on broadcasters and restrict the way airwaves are used. That lobbying helped keep the US system aligned with a more limited set of rights and licensing structures, rather than instituting a universal neighboring right.

It’s not about fair use or a lack of any legal framework entirely. Fair use is a flexible defense to specific infringements, not a policy reason for or against a broad neighboring-right regime. And non-interactive streaming does involve licensing and rights, but it does not substitute for a general neighboring right that would cover broadcasts across the board.