Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Rejects CARP Recommendations
dave-fu writes "This just in: webcasters can breathe a sigh of relief as common sense and good taste has won out over stuffed suits and greased pockets--CARP has been rejected. If you weren't aware of it, CARP would have imposed exorbitant fees on webcasters, effectively killing webcasting radiostations, or at least preventing them from playing all (American) copyrighted music." See our previous story, or saveinternetradio.org, or read through the Copyright Office page linked above for background information. I wouldn't rejoice just yet - while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low. There will still be royalty rates set by the Copyright Office, and the final rates may not be anything to cheer about.
This is good, but like the article said, I think we need to continue campaigning to the LOC so that the royalty rates they DO set are reasonable. Nothing could kill off Internet radio like deathly royalties.
/gleffler
Librarians are the true modern heros. Go hug one today.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
...the CARP has gotten off the HOOK. The RIAA is hoping to catch a few suckers.
Hopefully common sense will be used when setting rates. Internet broadcast requires more costs (in theory) then regular radio broadcasts.
With regular radio broadcasts, the number of listeners has no impact on your ability to deliver content (in this case, music). With internet broadcasts, the more users you have, you need to have more bandwidth to be able to serve them content at the same data rate. In some (most?) cases more bandwidth leads to more expenditure of $$$.
If the other expenses of internet radio stations are to be considered in setting of these royalty rates (which I think is BS in the first place, the RIAA is too damn greedy) I should hope they will use common sense and set them lower.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
The requirements under CARP
A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
D) Date of Transmission
E) Time of Transmission
F) Time zone of origination of Transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound Recording Title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording Label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)
And a listener's log listing:
1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique User identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions
This is an air of relief for our college radiostation, because for a long time Internet has been our primary broadcasting medium. We were getting ready to find ways to recover our outreach, if our Internet outlet was cut off by CARP's rates.
We don't get too wide of a listening audience (compared to your average commercial webcaster), but it's still important that Internet maintains a wide variety of webcasters.
Note the article says that the final decision is to be made on June 20, so it's not over yet. We have put up flyers and a notice on our web page about the rates, but it's been difficult to raise awareness to this issue: most people just don't care.
(sorry, anon at work..)
Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?
It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them. If they want to charge royalty rates that effectively do the same thing, that's their bad business decision.
So why is the Copyright Office involved?
One thing that lots of the places seemed to bitch about was the tracking of the listeners. Now, I know that they wanted it to be retroactive to the DMCA and that's just stupid, but from say now on, what's the big deal? Can't a log parser do this in no time? Just track unique hosts or something like that. If they just needed numbers it should be a no brainer, even something like webalizer can give you those numbers if you set it up right.
Free Mac Mini
If the United States makes it illegal/expensivie to operate an internet radio station, the radio station can simply move its servers to another location (lets say Canada or UK) where the regulation doesn't exist (yet). There is no visible effect on the service to the user, and the American government successfully alienates another new technology. In the mean time other contries will benefit from the short-sightedness of another.
In the end, you cannot continue to support an outmoded business model with legislation and regulation (if this worked in the past it certainly won't work in a "Global Economy").
The CARP fees were totally outrageious. Their purpose was (or, is) to destroy Internet radio. This would leave the major labels with virtually no competition to their radio monopoly.As an independent artist, it's good to hear at least some occasional good news.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low.
That made something click, here.
It seems to me that, rather than getting the producer and consumer together to negotiate a fair-market price, the RIAA lobbied to get the government to impose a price.
For how long has the music economy been socialist? Is our intolerance of the RIAA limited to its bullying and selfishness, or can it be extended to this attempt to corrupt the freedom of commerce itself?
--Blair
...or maybe another location, but something to bear in mind. Yeah, when something is played on good ol' airwave radio, the songwriter is paid. But the labels aren't being paid by the stations when a song is played - rather, the labels are paying the stations for (effectively? you decide) promoting their music. I still haven't figured out why the RIAA thinks they should be paid for webcasters promoting music that may or may not be from RIAA-stable artists. They're not getting that out of airwave radio.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
but definitely, this is just a lull in the skirmish. Time to reload and keep the pressure on for equitable royalties (equitable to the performers and to the webcasters).
Someone you trust is one of us.
It appears from the order that over the next 30 days, the Libraian of Congress has the job of determining the licensing charges that will be the final descision.
Does anyone have an idea of what the counter proposal to the CARP recommendations will be?
If the RIAA gets royalty rates that effectively shut down webcasts of music it controls, then that would be good news for anyone wanting to webcast independent or unsigned artists. Sure, you could set up an Internet radio station that only plays non-RIAA music, but you wouldn't get much attention with all the other stuff there.
Of course, if people start listening to non-RIAA stuff online, the RIAA will rethink their royalty system.
Diana Rehm covered this yesterday. There's an audio link here
Webcasters want the same rates as normal broadcasters. That is, they pay a percentage of gross sales.
So, if an Internet radio station has sales of zero, then they pay zero. If they have gross sales of a million bucks, then they pay the same fee as broadcasters that have gross sales of 5 million dollars.
Good thing this was rejected. It would have been an accounting impossibility.
I run a net-radio over UDP. Which means, I know how many packets I send out, but not how many are recieved by listeners, or even how many people are trying to listen (if someone changes the station, we may not be notified). Additionally, we can send to independent retransmission sites that relay it onto even more listeners. Commercial radio stations get reasonalby accurate statistics on listenership. We can't. How could we make a good-faith guess at our numbers?
How do traditional radio stations track thier listners?
I assume they don't/can't. So why and what purpose does tracking internet users serve?
I assume someone will say they do it based on the radio stations "power" and the desity of the population, but I've been driving at night in Idaho and picked up radio stations from Denver, CO.
And how is this new XM radio paying royalties?
Where I live (the middle of no freaking where) I can get two radio stations. Therefore, Internet radio is a huge blessing to me. One of my favorite stations is an anime music one, so I listen to that constnatly. When this CARP stuff came to my attention it wa the first time I have ever written to a congressman.
I for one am glad that this got shot down and hopefully something more sensible comes up.
For the record: With internet radio I've tuned into a number of different anime shows and bought some DVDs and I am activly seeking out some of the shows dvds.
Without internet radio i'd never have had the ability to get exposed to hard to find music and therefore couldn't buy anything.
:)
This is definitely good news. At least it proves that the copyright office won't be easily swayed by the RIAA's demands. As far as the whole independent music thing goes, i believe it's a very good thing for independent music.. in the longrun that is. The bad thing is that if the approved rates are outrageous, the only stations that will be able to afford them are the ones backed by big companies such as broadcast.com and spinner.. etc. which is pretty much the same thing that happened to FM radio with monsters like clearchannel buying out all the small stations. They're the reason why there's 5 cookie-cutter station formats around the country. The good thing is that maybe this is a wake-up call to artists/labels and independent stations/media. Maybe it's finally time to move away from cookie-cutter programming and pay attention to independent labels and artists.. We've already made a big move with the Internet by overcoming the RIAA's monopoly with distributors, and college/internet stations have always done it to a certain extent.. True, at first listeners might not pay attention to it. But give it a few years.. This is only the beginning.
royalty rates of fractions of pennies ($.0014) as the CARP originally proposed is not the way that things should work. not that i have the answer as to how they should work, but i will not participate in pay-per-use/view media. just drop CD prices and let the public do the advertising for your sorry asses. the promotional value of a song that someone enjoys hearing for free is worth far more than $.0014.
i just climb trees, and look for rhythm everywhere.
kurthanson.com is the homepage for the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN), a fine spot for up-to-date information on what's going on in the world of webcasting.
Found both of these links at WFMU, aka numero uno webcasting radio station in the world.
Gotta love the fact that the RIAA wants to see that webcasters pay fees on top of the ASCAP/BMI fees that "real" radio stations do without getting any of the payola.
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what the Librarian of Congress does in the next 30 days.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
... my wife is going to get really mad at me for all the CDs i buy after listening to Radio Paradise. i think this site has caused more havoc in my checking account than any other music-related stimulus since the advent of the CD player!
as several posters mentioned, we can't view this as a victory - not yet, probably not ever. the RAC has many fights ahead, and anyone who listens to internet radio should try to help: details here.
when it rains, it gets real soggy. when it pours, i'm under the tap just _waiting_ for the joy
As an aside, whatever happened to the multicast backbone? I seem to recall that "they" were working on some kind of an IP-level packet redistribution service (my words) that would enable an application to tell its closest router "hey, I wanna listen to 244.123.45.6", and it'd then ask it's upstream router the same thing, etc., until it was able to get a copy of the stream routed to the requesting client.
Or something remotely like that.
Anyway, it seemed like a terrific idea, 'cause the content provider wouldn't have to server a thousand different, unique streams, all with the same content -- it'd just send a single stream to an MBone address, and anyone who wanted to receive it could ask for it.
I just did a quick check on it, and only found 6-year-old FAQs and such. Has it died? Has it been overcome by events with IPv6?
I ask 'cause it occurred to me that any webcaster broadcasting on mbone wouldn't be *able* to tell how many people were listening. A sort of end-run around some of CARP, as it were...
Now I can continue my evil plot to deliver subliminal messages to webcast listeners to buy M$ products. hee hee who who ha ha ha ha!!
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
I did my part and wrote my senator and Representative asking them to not pass the CARP recommendations. I am happy that they came to their senses and rejected that awful proposal. Still it is something to think about that the government is becoming more aware of how information is exchanged on the net and working to pass FAIR and JUST laws to regulate it. I think this type of legislation will only take time to eventually be implemented.
A search on google for Internet Radio Returns 2,660,000 Hits. This is some indication of how popular Internet Radio is becoming. I tried to gather places on the Net whom have added the wonderful news to their site already, but it seems the only one I can find at the moment is the link given and this one Radio And Internet Newsletter.
/.................../ \\
Man that sucks I use carp quite often. It really helps see my error on my cgi scripts. Oh wait.. What are you talking about?
Shouldnt the only people who are making money are the radio stations? I mean, to play them on the net is advertising, and the RIAA should be paying them to play the songs. Infact, the stations should charge .10 per play per song from the RIAA .. And just play whatever songs they want otherwise.. If the RIAA pays for certain songs to be played more, then they would of course get preference.. And then there are the Advertisements, since the Net is techincally larger, the advertisers should be paying the radio stations almost double for the net stations to play them.. The stations shouldnt have to pay ANYONE except their ISP for bandwidth.
Wow, the little man finally won a round with the big corporate pirates. The fight is not over yet, but this appears to be a good sign. Keep on fightn
Daily Shenanigans
I read the Librarian of Congress's order, and it doesn't say WHY the CARP recommendation was rejected. Nor could I find a press release explaining the decision, although there might be one forthcoming.
You're all assuming that the LoC wants Internet radio to be free, or cheaper than CARP wanted, but that might not be the case! Maybe the LoC wants HIGHER royalty rates!
- Have a picture
...says "something smells fishy!"
Neither side was happy about the proposed fees. This announcement just means the stakes have been raised.
-jacob
indy music wont have any competition from the riaa bands. there will be a pretty clear dividing line here that may persuade some artists to not sign up with a corporate label if they otherwise would. if internet radio becomes a big oulet for music, these artists would not want to miss out on it.
of course as soon as that started happening, the RIAA would clammor for internet broadcasting licenses, audits of broadcasters a la BSA, and/or whatever else they do to destroy anyone that threatens thier monopoly. but that doesnt mean they will suceed.
I will, but maybe that's just because my fiancée just got accepted into a masters of library science program.
Hiroshima fans will be pissed that their team has been rejected!
sulli
RTFJ.
So if the RIAA forces these high royalties on internet radio stations, then there'll be less stations to listen to, less variety, so less people will be satisfied with the selection. Soooooo, that would just encourage more people to just download MP3s so they can listen to what they want...
Don't screw the customers, or the customers will screw you.
"It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them"
It may not be very nice, but if I want to copy a friend's CD, I don't see why the government should stop me.
You see, Copyright isn't a natural right, it is done by legislative fiat. Thus, part of what you "give up" for copyright and DMCA protection is the government get to tell you how you can apply those right.
If you don't like it, then don't apply for the copyright. "Oh dear" you say, "Then I have no protection". Well yes, that's the point. If you want the FBI to be your copyright militia, then you have to play by their rules.
Remember, there is no RIGHT to a copyright.
Here is a Newsbytes story on the ruling. A little bit more hard-news information about the decision and its likely impact.
modern choral music...
"Otherwise this would give the internet radio stations and advantage over the normal stations"
Web stations already have the enormous handicap that you have to be in a fixed location to listen. Radio stations can be picked up by a $1 radio that you buy at a souvenier shop.
If you don't get the advantage that is, then you don't understand jack. no offense.
whooo hooo!! This is great =) I've been campaigning for months to keep net radio from dying.
I ate my sig.
The nice thing about internet radio is the ability to use something like StreamRipper and save every song, properly named and tagged, as a .mp3 file.
I've been doing a lot of this recently as it appeared internet radio was perhaps about to end and I wanted to snatch up a bunch of the music while I still had the chance.
I'm on a high speed connection, so last week for a couple days I was actually running 5 instances of StreamRipper at once, each connected to a different "radio station". Within just a couple work days I had snagged multiple gigabytes of 128kbit mp3 files.
I think what I've just described is why the RIAA and such are making such a fuss.
You may have read today that the Librarian of Congress, based upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, issued an Order rejecting the Panel's determination proposing rates and terms for these licenses. In such cases, the law provides that the Librarian shall issue his final determination within 30 days of his decision to reject the Panel's proposed rates and terms. The final determination is due on June 20, 2002.
We hope this means that the Librarian has realized that not all current parties were properly represented at the CARP hearings, and the proposed rates and reporting requirements were unreasonable and did not represent a market rate.
Webcasters want a royalty rate that is fair and equitable to all sides - a rate based on revenues, in the 3% range, much like the royalties paid to the composers of the songs now through ASCAP and BMI. The rejected proposal would have killed the market by wiping out most if not all of the industry.
Webcasters also want reduced reporting requirements - Song Name, Artist, Album and Label where available. Not the 25 or so data points asked for by the RIAA.
We do not know what will happen next. This ruling may even mean that another CARP hearing will be held, this time we hope it will be more accessible to small internet broadcasters. (Previous CARPs required all participants to share the costs associated with it, which came out to about $300,000 for each participant.)
But internet broadcasters are happy that we can stay on the air for another 30 days. If the decision went the other way, many stations would have started shutting down this week.
So the RIAA wants money from the internet radio sites and they want valuable marketing data to be collected and sent to them. I say that the RIAA should be paying the internet radio stations for logging all that important RIAA related demographic marketing DATA. That is a ton of useful info for the RIAA to data mine in exchange for US$.0014 per song per listener? AM / FM Radio can not even give the RIAA such consicely formatted data. Maybe, internet radio can offer the labels something more than AM / FM radio can in exchange for hard cash. This sounds fair to me.
For how long has the music economy been socialist? Is our intolerance of the RIAA limited to its bullying and selfishness, or can it be extended to this attempt to corrupt the freedom of commerce itself?
... a definition in common usage in the United States) would be two centuries or so, give or take.
Since the music economy has taken something that was completely free (as in freedom) for the first 3 million years of humanity's existence, and locked it down under copyright for the last couple of centuries or so, one answer (in which socialism is defined as a government mandated, command economy
Essentially ever since we started granting authors and publishers artificial monopolies on their works in the, possibly misguided, assumption that it was necessary in order to foster creativity and expand the public commons (centuries of opposing evidence containing such greats as Michealangelo, Bach, Mozart, and William Shakespear nothwithstanding). So long as the government is using its coercive powers to impose scarcity and restriction where no such natural barriers exist, we will have a media economy that is, effectively, a command economy.
It should come as no surprise that the parties involved in a command economy have to go to the government to have their rates set and their operating parameters defined. "Free" in any sense of the word, be it market, price, or freedom, has little if anything to do with the situation our approach to artistic compensation via monopoly copyrights has created.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
the RIAA argued that they were way too low.
Does anyone have a link to the this argument?
Should be good for a few laughs.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Great post- gets a 3 in my book. Anywho Metropolis records says they aren't a part of the RIAA and fully back web-broadcasters- cuz they know that it's free publicity. The huge recording labels don't want the general population to know that they have a choice other than repetitive cookiecutter music that they 'manufacture'.
http://www.metropolis-records.com/
one of my fave webcasters www.digitalgunfire.com that plays metropolis's stuff
Has anyone put up a mirror of the contents in HTML or plain text?
Fight for your right to read books!
I'm a musician, and I have been approached by various studios to be recorded or whatever. I for one am getting REALLY tired of watching no talent people getting rich off of other people's talents. If you want to support your favorite musician, go to their shows. THAT is where they make their money. A band only gets about $1-3 dollars per $20 CD. So every time you buy a CD you're paying on average $18 for executives to tell you what's good and what's not AND to pay for the RIAA to "buff" politicians and beaurocrates (I know I spelled it wrong) to pass laws that are like what they are trying to do right now.
Don't get me wrong. I buy the CDs of bands I like, but those are few these days since there are so many bands putting out 1 good song and the rest suck.
There is a bright side to all this. With the advent of the internet and P2P software, bands that have the desire and talent can make it without a recording studio. Nickelback is an EXCELLENT example of that. Granted their site is on NT and isn't working because of NT (and many of it's so called admins, not ALL NT admins are bad, don't get me wrong) doesn't work properly. But if I'm not mistaken, they have made it big without the help of any recording label even though they appear to be with one now. So I say, look around, find the music you like in whatever means you like, JUST DON'T BUY CDS!! Screw the recording studios. Don't give them money to try to make laws making everything in this world more difficult.
I say again, this is from a musician that has almost been signed several times. Musicians make their money on tour, not from the CDs
i'm usually more aware of this type of legislation but was caught off guard by this. So I did some digging at RIAA's site (better to know your enemy) and found this spin control document.
My favorite quote:
In recent weeks, the CARP rates have become the subject of an intense misinformation and propaganda campaign (so called "grassroots" but really ginned up by sophisticated lobbyists in D.C.)
nahhh it's not grass roots... it's ginned up by sophisticated lobbyists!
Hil Rosenator is smoking some crack if she expects people to really believe this but it is interesting. Whom did they have in mind?
Well later on in the document they specifically name MTV, Microsoft, AOL/TW. With the exception of MTV (who's parent company may have some quarrels with RIAA) it seems like technology vs. copyright all over again. I just wish the tech companies would realize they are fighting this together and publicly unify against RIAA and other media hordes (whores?) who have clearly put aside internal bickering to concentrate on world domination through Project "Nickle and Dime" the fuck out of everyone.
Commerical radio already has the tremendous advantage of being able to use radio frequencies that are just aren't allotted to anybody. In the US, you can't just ask the FCC to give you, for example, 99.5 on your FM dial to start broadcasting. That's why commerical stations are required to provide news in the US.
You can't spell C-R-A-P without C-A-R-P.
-- Have you ever noticed that at trade shows, Microsoft is always the company that is handing out stress balls?
I'm too young, but remember when it was a scandal if a station was +paid+ to play a certain artists' music?
:)
My local KISS-FM (yes, just like yours thanks to Clear Channel) played that damn Eminem song all day and night while saying "WE ARE GOING TO PLAY THE WHOLE ALBUM THROUGH"
People used to actually do that - it was how the album was meant to be played dammit! It made me want to call and play the album for them
I know my rant is off topic, so here is my attempt to bring it back on course. If this type of thing ever goes through I think we should take the current FCC FM license prices (which are high enough) and just times them by 29374938920 so that no one gets radio.
Then the RIAA will just send us a shopping list or deduct money from our checking accounts daily for living...
Get your Unix fortune now!
The original MBONE's routing architecture wasn't scalable. More sophisticated routing schemes have been devised fairly recently but to my knowledge there are next to no ISPs that offer multicast connectivity to consumers.
And given that corporate mergers are resulting in a significant fraction of the ISPs being owned by content provider megacorps, don't expect them to be in any rush to deploy them, or to make the input accessable to end users (rather than just the media corps) if they ARE deployed.
There's probably more money to be made by the megacorps by promoting mom-and-pop "internet radio" than by blocking it. But until the media decision makers have an epiphany the dogs will likely remain in the manger.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Am I the only one who initially read it as "Copyright Office Rejects Crap Recommendations" and thought, "Wow! Stuff that Matters!"?
This page accidentally left blank
Sure I hate the RIAA, everybody does... Even as an artist, I don't see their bigger royalties coming anywhere except into some old-fart copyright-buying bastard who never contributed a note or a beat to the dead artist money he ripps!
But who gives a crap about arrogant little bitchy radio stations anyway?
Internet Radio will prevail, Internet radio forever. I still stand the chance of starting up my very own netradio station/site.
Wasn't multicast developed to tackle this kind of problem? They should theoretically be able to broadcast one stream and have it routed to all of their listeners. If it can't work in IPv4 on the current internet, what about with IPv6?
Come on, this is the stuff that's supposed to drive in new technology!
I've searched, and I've been unable to find any information telling me what radio stations currently pay to air a song.
Anyone know?
Jason Pollock
The late Don Crabb always used to say on the Steve Dahl Show: Pornography Drives Technology. If/when video files can be tossed around like audio streams, THAT's when you'll get these problems ironed out.
My father is a blogger.
It is clear to me that any and all delay in the process helps the RIAA members and harms the webcasters for two reasons: During the three-and-a-half (so far) years wait for the price of music to be set, it has been impossible for a webcaster to make a real business plan, to create a spreadsheet that describes their business in numbers, to pitch potential investors, or to sign any serious contracts with advertisers or other funders, thus crippling the fledgling industry. On the other hand, the record industry needs lots of time to get their act together to move in with their own outfits.
As a webcater, I am coming to realize that unlike most of the people in broadcasting, I am a BUYER and not a freeloader. I am going to demand some respect from any label trying to get on my station. Tribute even.
I am afraid that the RIAA is going to price their member's works out of the market. If I can buy gas at one station for $1.50 or go next door and pay $15.00, where do you think I will tend to pull in to fill up?
Today I was on Paul Allen's TechTV when the statement from the Librarian of Congress came out. I deleted a RIAA member property song from the play rotation on my station, on camera, and they aired it! Click Click "Well, no royalties for Lowen and Navarro, no promotion, no exposure, no airplay, no CD sales. Too bad. Too expensive."
Our show, Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar begins its 8th year on Saturday. We've been on line since September of 1995, with RealAudio 1.0.
We've been both broadcast and cybercast (archived, not streamed, for the first few years), and were there three years before the DMCA.
Yes, we were opposed to the CARP rules and gave them our Golden Bruce Award this year, but we also opposed the DMCA and praised the Dutch rights agency BUMA (which allows imperfect cybercasts with simple licensing, and none at all at low streaming rates.
Our problem has been living through all these issues. We began operating with the understanding that we were a niche program (new nonpop) working as a research site as well as a music site (we won the year 2000 ASCAP-Deems Taylor Award, even after the DMCA).
But the DMCA contained no grandfathering and had no exceptions for educational/research use. In 1998, before the passage of the law, we started getting releases from composers and labels (which you can read about here) as a pre-emptive measure. We didn't receive all of them, which still meant, with the advent of the retroactive CARP rules (see the abbreviated list in a previous post), the impossible requirement to research all our logs, including on computers long out of service and whose logs were long gone.
On average, by my guesswork calculation (where Britney's "I'm a Slave 4 U" and Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" are both considered "songs") our yearly payment to the RIAA (which does
not
represent most nonpop artists) would have been $5,160, more than a dozen times a typical license for the same 900-watt radio station we broadcast from.So the Librarian of Congress's rejection of CARP is good news, if only for the interim. True commercial cybercasts are another issue, and the DMCA and CARP rules are a burden for them as well; we broadcast and cybercast within the nonprofit/educational arena (on a community station with volunteer staff) and also provide a true research site, but CARP swept us in with the rest.
I don't offer any new insights here, only a sense of relief, and a place to say them.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
"Kalvos" of Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar
CARPCRAP?