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.

Yes!

[gleffler]

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

All I can say is...

[Boulder Geek]

Librarians are the true modern heros. Go hug one today.

Common Sense

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

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.

Why is the government involved?

[crow]

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?

Shooting themselves in the perverbial foot...

[MikeOttawa]

The problem with regulating internet technolgies with legislation is that the technology required can be moved to any location.

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").

Did capitalism take a nap?

[blair1q]

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

Re:Did capitalism take a nap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by some analyes, they are meeting in restraint of trade to even have a RIAA. But clearly there is no willingness to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act on these big political donors.

Re:As pointed out in a previous discussion...

[terrymr]

The difference is that when radio was getting started in the music playing business congress decided that it was a promotion tool for the record industry and exempted radio from paying royalties to the record labels.

However now that the record industry has it's lobbying worked out congress suddenly realised that internet radio is really about stealing from the record industry instead of promotion.

Re:Did capitalism take a nap?

[elefantstn]

You miss a huge point here: if the music economy were truly capitalist, there would never have been independent internet radio because the RIAA could simply refuse to license their content. What is at issue here is compulsory licensing: the government requires that the RIAA license their content to anyone who wants to broadcast it, and they set the fee.

To reiterate: This is not the government propping up the RIAA with subsidies. If the RIAA had their way, there would be no fee at all, because they would only license content to their subsidiaries. The government steps in on behalf of independent broadcasters to force the RIAA to license to everyone, and they are arguing over how much the cost of that should be.

Encouraging people into piracy...

[purpledinoz]

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.

I love hearing from unaware people

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Common Sense

[jd142]

Yes, but oncce you have the 100,000 watt antennas, the cost of adding more users is shifted to the listener. It doesn't cost the radio station any more money to broadcast to 1,000 listeners, to 1,000,000 listeners, to 1,000,000,000 listeners, provided they all buy radios and can squeeze into the broadcast range.

Here's an interesting question though: what is the theoretical limit on the number of receivers that can receive a tv or radio broadcast? I suppose part of it would have to do with the number, size and density of the antennas closest to the tower. The density of antennas would have to be so dense that all transmissions would be absorbed.

Re:This is VERY Good News

[gad_zuki!]

Internet radio wouldn't be starving for content they would be starving for cash. Which most likely means they would have to adopt a top-40 format to meet those fees. Which of course would kill any variety in internet radio.

I don't think its mere coincidence that the RIAA gives its own people (broadcast radio) a price break when doing internet radio. This has all been a ploy to eliminate non-wealthy competitors and further the profitable (for the RIAA) top-40 format and its handful of artists.

Thanks but not thanks.