Username:
Password:






 
Congressional Rep's React to Webcasting fees
Posted by Mike Darrah on June 24, 2002 at 2:28 PM   (printer friendly)

U.S. Congressional Reps. Jay Inslee and Rick Boucher have stepped up to webcasting's defense, stating they are quite concerned with the finalized CARP royality rates determined by the Librarian of Congress on June 20th.

As quoted from http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/Inslee_Carp.htm

Boucher and Inslee Say Web Radio Copyright Decision is Unfair; Considering Legislation to Lower Webcasters' Fees

Washington, D.C.-- U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee and Rick Boucher reacted to this evening's determination by the Librarian of Congress to cut in half royalty fees charged to webcasters. Inslee and Boucher are also considering legislative action that would more effectively ensure fair payment to music creators while continuing to maintain a diverse, innovative Internet medium for music broadcasting. Following the Librarian's decision, Inslee and Boucher made the following statement:

"We are moderately encouraged that the Librarian of Congress reduced the rates for internet-only webcasters to the same level AM/FM radio Internet broadcasters. We remain very concerned, however, that this rate will lead to the elimination of hundreds of small businesses and does not provide a viable model to serve both the internet radio industry and recording artists.

"Unfortunately, these rates are a direct result of the flawed "willing-buyer/willing-seller" standard that Congress mandated the Librarian of Congress use in determining these rates. Instead of assessing a fair rate, the flawed standard instead requires the arbitrators to try to replicate willing buyers and willing sellers in an already flawed marketplace.

"While the Librarian of Congress clearly went to great lengths to change the burdensome Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) ruling, we believe that such a contorted process and poor outcome can be avoided by changing the standard guiding the Librarian's decision-making and removing other obstacles in current copyright law that were identified by the Librarian.

"We will be considering legislation to change the standard from "willing-buyer/willing-seller" for internet radio to the traditional fair market formula used by other CARPs. In addition, we want to ensure that all future CARPs must take into consideration small business concerns and allow effective participation of small, niche and noncommercial entities. We believe these standards will allow for the development of a viable internet radio industry and ensure that artists, writers, and record labels are fairly compensated."

The "willing-buyer/willing-seller" standard requires that the CARP establish royalty rates for internet radio based on market transactions between the record labels and the internet broadcasters. There has only been one such transaction in the marketplace since the law was passed, and that contract was terminated prematurely by the webcaster. Therefore, the CARP did not have enough information on viable contracts from which to make a rate determination.


User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)

Mediamaster  
Date: June 24, 2002 @ 2:38 PM
Finally, someone in congress that the RIAA didn't pay off. I guess it's only a matter of time though.

First Post!

Hail Mp3!!!


spaarlamp  
Date: June 24, 2002 @ 3:22 PM
I WAS a regular listener of the soma fm internet radio stream. It is a shame. There was a real uniqeu sound on the internet. INTERNET RADIO MUST STAY .

W-B  
Date: June 24, 2002 @ 8:38 PM
I'll predict, however, that the RIAA will be giving boodles of money to whoever will be opposing Inslee and Boucher in their respective races during the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections, to ensure that any attempt at true fairness in this issue is "nipped in the bud." It is thus imperative that those who care about freedom and liberty, if they can, help these two individuals if in fact they are running for election; they may very well need it. Especially with "Dubya" pushing to further tilt Congrees towards the Republicans.

thumbtack  
Date: June 24, 2002 @ 11:24 PM
I met with Rick Boucher last summer, and his legislative assistant attended a Pho meeting with me in DC at the Future of Music Conference in Jan. of this year. Rick is truly one of the few in Congress who "gets it". Rick is gatering support slowly, as he has to educate each of the people he talks with in Congress. His district is home of the Galax Fiddlers Convention, and several of the Grammy winners from "Oh Brother" live in his district. I live about 2 miles from his district. Check out my photos page on Dmusic and scroll to the bottom. Thats Rick on the left and me on the right. (oh and don't forget to checkout the "Redneck Pacifier" just above it.)

At the same time, my congressman Bob Goodlatte, (R) from the Roanoke VA area has taken apprx 20,000 from the major labels and the movie industry, he ran unoposed last election. He has also written a Op-ed piece for the Washington Post that sounds like it was edited by Hilary Rosen herself.

One thing you can do is go to http://www.boycott-riaa.com/action.php (your Dmusic id works here BTW) and
check out the links to find out who your Congresscritter is and send them you thoughts and concerns. They love e-mail these days after that Antrax mess a while back. They need votes more than they need the cash from the RIAA members and MPAA members. (if they don't get elected they can't get the cash)

goldenpi  
Date: June 25, 2002 @ 11:01 AM
The RIAA and MPAA seem to have an agreement. The RIAA keeps things going well (for them, not us) in the short term, with political corruption and law suits against anyone who dares to hum in public. The MPAA takes a more leng-term approach, working on copy prevention technology and laws instead.

I already emailed everyone I could, but they dont listen to anyone who cant vote for them.

I think TCPA and the Fritz Chip need research, but intels specs read like sales pitch, full of talk about how fantastic it is without saying what it does.

Remye  
Date: June 25, 2002 @ 11:54 AM
holy mp3 batman! www.http://www.jasrac.or.jp/ejhp/
what the hell?? Is everyone so hungry for money and "power" and "control" that even the japanese are getting into the act? This needs to stop.. technology and the internet weren't created to make money, the were created to bring a world divided closer together. This is WHACKED..I swear if I didn't have other things to do on the 'net, I'd shut down my connection.

W-B  
Date: June 25, 2002 @ 6:50 PM
Again . . . there is no difference between these jokers and, say, the Enron executives who overbilled California (hence the rolling blackouts that plagued that state for about two years) and then took (and took and took) from the workers' pension funds (thus leaving their employees with absolutely nothing left when the company hit the skids), all so they (most notably, Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay) could live high off the hog. Selfishness, paranoia and arrogance are the bywords of the day in terms of how both the RIAA and the MPAA run the show (into the ground, may I add). I also see no difference between the RIAA-MPAA and, say:
- the Taliban during their reign in Afghanistan (notably, the whole Buddhist statue flap)
- Richard Nixon, what with his policy of running the country by fiat and utmost secrecy, with a complete contempt for and distrust of the public (I recommend Richard Reeves's recent Nixon biography for must-read status)
- any tyrant who runs a country that is a totally closed society, which existence is entirely tied to the ruler holding on to his absolute power
- and so on, etc., ad nauseam (and boy, is this whole thing nauseating)

In short, the RIAA-MPAA do NOT care about the artist, the consumer, etc., but ONLY care about themselves. In fact, they hate the guts of the average consumer. They loathe the consumer. They detest and despise the consumer. They have nothing but contempt for the consumer. They believe the consumer is utterly incapable and unworthy of being trusted with the technology of tomorrow. They consider the consumer lower than pond scum. They obviously believe "fair use" to be a privilege, not a right. (Not to mention that certain news media outlets share corporate ties with some RIAA-MPAA member elites, and therefore the news media are every bit as against the consumer as the RIAA-MPAA are.) They are so arrogant, they refuse to listen to anybody -- or to acknowledge that their fascistic power grab is creating all these problems. They do NOT want the "little guy" to compete with these monoliths who fully intend to give the public ONLY what these monoliths WANT to give the public.

W-B  
Date: June 25, 2002 @ 10:31 PM
To "dee": A possible answer is, the Justice Department is concentrating much of their resources on hounding Microsoft, this despite the fact that the RIAA's influence of late has been far more negative and destructive. Though you're right: It IS strange. But the way the "guvmint"'s been run since the days when Ronald Reagan was President, it's no surprise it's come to this.

goldenpi  
Date: June 26, 2002 @ 9:44 AM
Im not sure of the details, but isn't the RIAA just existing violating some laws?

thumbtack  
Date: June 26, 2002 @ 11:13 AM
Actually there is a DOJ investigation into the RIAA and labels business practices...It's ongoing and they usually don't release any info until the investigation is completed.

slain666  
Date: June 27, 2002 @ 7:42 AM
The corporations used me, LIKE THEY BRAIN WASHED YOU!!! The RIAA doesn't want to be saved, they are next in line, TO DIE!

goldenpi  
Date: June 27, 2002 @ 10:11 AM
So, investigation will complete in 2156 with a $0.99 fine?

Zahal  
Date: June 27, 2002 @ 10:45 PM
no the fine will be .000000000000001 cents and it will be enclosed in a time capsule to be opened in 4545:)

goldenpi  
Date: June 28, 2002 @ 5:59 AM
The official fine will be .0001 cent, but they will have to pay a few thousand extra in bribes.

lreznik  
Date: June 28, 2002 @ 10:16 AM
hey

W-B  
Date: June 28, 2002 @ 11:31 AM
About this "politicians don't listen to anyone who can't vote for them": If you're talking about out-of-state (i.e. a New Yorker writing to a South Carolina politician), then why (other than the issue of $$$$$$$) are they following orders from media monopolies that don't even have home offices in the states many of these politicians ostensibly "serve"? (Although, i.e., New York's Charlie Rangel and California's Adam Schiff, serve in states where these entertainment multinationals have headquarters; Schiff sponsored the House version of CBDTPA, and I saw Rangel's name as one of many RIAA bribees.)