Slashdot Mirror
Broadcasters Appeal Royalty Ruling
tanveer1979 pointed out this story, but his summary of it wasn't much good. :) According to Reuters and Kurthanson.com, broadcasters (regular radio stations, not webcasters) are appealing a year-old ruling which would require them to make the same royalty payments for webcasting that webcast-only stations have to make. They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty payments to apply only to internet services which allow one to pick what music one receives - if the listener is force-fed a stream, like regular radio, Congress didn't intend for the royalty payments to apply.
I wish these guys the best. But I seriously doubt they have much chance of changing the ruling. I fear the RIAA and big business has too strong a hold on the key parties in congress for them to be able to make much head way. It is really sad that the RIAA seeks to have such a strangle hold on every possible outlet for media. Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!
and broadcast giants like Clear Channel Communications Inc. would be on the hook for 70 cents for each song played to an audience of 1,000 listeners.
Would this be a textbook example of an "unintended consequence?"
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
From the article (Reuters): "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal." [emphasis added]
If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.
Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.
But here's hoping the broadcasters win. It would be great news for webcasters: just eliminate choice, the way God intended, and you're allowed to broadcast over the Web for free!
Money is not only the only issue here. A big portion of the law requires radio stations to keep an unreasonable amount of records regarding the number of listeners at any given time, all kinds of information about the song. This alone would crush the independent (college etc.) radio stations that simply cannot afford to implement the infrastructure. What is happening is that independent stations will forced out of the market, while the big boys who can afford the equipment will serve to further homogenize American music.
-
Summary of Argument:
...
So the NAB does want a special deal for FCC-licensed radio broadcasters. Internet-only webcasters would not benefit from this deal. Nor will they benefit if the NAB wins this lawsuit. Read the filing.AM/FM streaming -- the Internet transmission by an FCC-licensed radio broadcaster of the program fare offered by such broadcaster pursuant to its FCC license -- constitutes a "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" within the meaning of Section 114(d)(1)(A) of the Copyright Act, and thereby is exempt from the limited performance right in sound recordings conferred by Section 106(6) of the Act.
While there is thus no need to resort to legislative history, that legislative history nevertheless confirms the plain language construction of the "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" exemption, and demonstrates that Congress did not intend to impose sound recording public performance copyright liability upon FCC-licensed terrestrial broadcasters that simultaneously stream their radio programming to listeners via the Internet.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.