The key idea is that recording copyrights (sound recordings) have different fixed terms in different countries. In the United States, the modern rule for sound recordings is a fixed term of 95 years from the date of first publication (release). That means a recording released in 1960 would enter the public domain 95 years later, at the end of that year. In the United Kingdom, the term is 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording was first published or released, so the clock ends on December 31 of the 70th year after release. So the best choice states that US protection lasts 95 years from release, while UK protection lasts 70 years from release. The other patterns don’t match how recording rights are actually timed: mixing 70 years for the US, or 95 years from release for the UK, or tying it to the creator’s life plus 70, would apply to different kinds of rights (like the underlying composition or different historical terms), not to sound recordings.

Patents protect inventions—new, useful, and non-obvious devices, methods, or processes. In music, that means technology that helps create, process, encode/decode, or transmit sound. Algorithms and codecs are classic examples because they are concrete systems and methods that implement a novel way to handle audio, which makes them patent-eligible. Music compositions and sound recordings are protected by copyright, not patents, while live performances are governed by performance rights. So the focus of patent protection in the music context is on the technological tools and methods used in music, rather than the musical work itself or the act of performing it.

Master ownership and how costs get paid back illustrate a key difference between traditional record deals and label services deals. In a traditional record deal, the label usually owns the master recordings. The artist may receive an upfront advance and earns royalties, but the label recoups that money (and other recording and marketing costs) out of the artist’s royalties before the artist receives further earnings. This means the label controls how the masters are exploited and recoups its investment from the artist’s future royalties. In a label services deal, the artist typically keeps ownership of the masters. The label provides services (distribution, marketing, promotion) for payment—often a fee or a share of revenue—rather than advancing money to be recouped from royalties. As a result, the traditional recoupment mechanism from artist royalties into an advance is not the same, and terms are structured around service fees or revenue splits rather than royalty recoupment. So the statement that best contrasts the two is that a traditional deal usually transfers ownership of the masters to the label and uses royalties-based recoupment, while a label services deal does not transfer ownership and uses different (service-based) recoupment terms.

Streaming revenue isn’t paid out to a song all at once or in a single pot to the songwriter. It’s split between the master rights holder (the recording owner, usually the label or artist) and the composition rights holder (the songwriter/publisher). The portion that goes to the song’s owner—the composition side—is typically around 10–15% of the revenue, which for a dollar of streaming revenue is about 15 cents. This reflects the fact that the licensing for the underlying song (the composition) is just one part of what a streaming service pays, with the rest going to the master rights holder and various distributors, licenses, and costs. So the best fit is roughly 15 cents per dollar. The other options overstate the songwriter’s share based on common streaming economics.