[wordup] Internet Radio Saved?

[Adam Shand]

Via: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/21/153226

Copyright Office Rejects CARP Recommendations
Posted by michael on Tuesday May 21, @08:45AM

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.

From: http://www.kurthanson.com/
More: http://saveinternetradio.org/
More: http://www.copyright.gov/carp/webcasting_rates.html

What does rejection of CARP ruling mean for webcasting?
BY KURT HANSON

This morning's announcement from the Librarian of Congress makes perfect
sense, as the likely impact of the Carp's recommendation — the virtual
shutdown of Internet radio — would have been totally contrary to the
legislative intent of establishing a statutory royalty rate in the first
place!

One benefit of attending the Copyright Office's roundtable on
recordkeeping requirements two weeks ago (see RAIN story here) was the
chance to see and hear Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters (pictured)
and General Counsel David Carson and realize that they seem to have an
excellent handle on the issues involved. The decision on an appropriate
royalty rate seems to be in good hands.

Certainly Peters and Carson have got all the information they need to
make a decision. According to the CARP report, there are almost 15,000
pages of written transcripts, plus thousands of pages of exhibits and
post-hearing submissions. In addition, there were hundreds (if not
thousands) of pages of comments and reply comments filed by CARP
participants responding to their report.

(Actually, what they don't have in the record is testimony from the
smaller independent webcasters, who were essentially shut out of the
CARP process. (But hopefully the larger webcasters represented their
position on key issues well enough for purposes of establishing the
rate.))

So, for the next 30 days, it's primarily a waiting game.

Hopefully, the Copyright Office will conclude that a "willing buyer" and
a "willing seller" would agree on a rate that's somewhere in the
ballpark of the rate that composers receive. Hopefully they will also
conclude that true "marketplace" negotiators would agree on a royalty
rate that's expressed as a percentage of revenues, so that compensation
to artists and labels can grow as the advertising market for Internet
radio develops. And hopefully they'll set recordkeeping requirements
that strike a reasonable balance between costs and benefits.

Meanwhile, while Peters and Carson and their staff are working on the
statutory rate, there's no reason that webcasters and labels can't be
working together to come up with a voluntary rate that works for both
sides. (See Friday and Monday's two-part "RAIN Editorial" here and David
Oxenford's essay below.)
-- 
"The first casualty of war is truth." -- Rudyard Kipling