Slashdot Mirror
Senate Committee Holds Webcasting Hearing
jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."
The Librarian of Congress can do three things. He could approve the decision, which nobody seems to like.
You know, I'm glad someone said it...
The best thing the Librarian of Congress could do would be to reject the proprosal, and then deal with the inevitable appeals in Federal Court from the RIAA. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. (when they aren't busy dialing our Congressmen!)
It is expected that Hatch will drop new pro-artist, pro-consumer, pro-web legislation soon that is a breath of fresh air in this ongoing debate. The only thing missing is a compulsory license to legalize Napster. From his statement:
1) artists ought to be able to exploit or benefit from works that are not being exploited by the labels that currently hold the copyright, such as out of print works.
2) artists ought be paid their online revenues directly and those revenues should not be unfairly discounted because of traditional, but inapplicable, offsets.
3) artists should be able to keep their own online identifiers, their domain names, so they can more directly control their relationship with their fans online.
4) we need to explore how to make copyright ownership information available through the Copyright Office more accessible and usable through the Internet.
5) we must help ensure that market power in content is not unfairly aggregated to the detriment of other legitimate distributors of online music who seek fair licensing opportunities.
> Do law suits like this happen in any other countries apart from the US, or do we just not hear about them?
Yes and no. There are some examples of cases like this (the Australasian Performing Rights Association took on Telstra over royalties for on-hold music for instance), but do you hear about anything that goes on outside the US?
Perhaps its time for a new industry association to pick up the reigns the RIAA dropped? How about a new entity that's tech friendly who could sign new artists (its not impossible)? I'm sure most musicians wouldn't mind having new revenue streams to tap, its just more money in their pockets. All I'm saying is I wouldn't mind seeing someone defending the artists that had a clue and wasn't refusing to face the tides of change. By properly paying the artists the money they are due, and selling CDs at a decent price, online distribution could more than easily make up the slack of the lower prices/reduced profits that the RIAA has in place now. Online distribution/radio HAS to be cheaper than retail channels. Common sense says so. All that would really be needed is to sign the new acts the RIAA would like and slowly convert the currently popular ones. Who in their right mind would stay with the RIAA backed companies if they can see the greener side of the fence? (pun intended)
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
To really understand this, and to hear for yourself the difference between a great station and the canned corporate crap we get on most FM stations now, check out KPIG. They play such a variety of music, and the manager requires them to play NOTHING that is top 40. KPIG is at http://www.kpig.com.
If you decide to put on a play covered by a publisher like Samuel French or Dramatists Play Service, your royalties will vary depending on whether your group is professional or amateur. Usually the amateur rate is fixed and fairly nominal -- $50 per performance is what I'm remembering -- and the professional rate most likely depends on the size of the theater and the intended run of the play. (You have to get a rate quote from the publisher for professional performances, something I've never done.)
So, why not base Internet royalties on the size of the audience, or perhaps the number of simultaneous streams a broadcaster can handle?
This would allow the larger broadcasters to pay the larger royalties and hopefully allow the hobbyists to pursue their hobby without it bankrupting them.
Surely the RIAA must realize that they can make more money from small payments from a lot of source than from big payments from two or three sources. Unless this is all about power, which is entirely possible, in which case nothing short of shutting down everyone who isn't buddy-buddy with them will make them happy.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I find it interesting that this story has generated so few comments. Apparently, there is little interest in the political process that will actually determine the balance of rights moving ahead. I guess many would rather complain after the decisions are already made.