SoundExchange angry at webcasters
p2pnet.net news:- “Just because you don’t like the outcome of a fairly played game doesn’t mean you should ask the referee to order the game replayed.”
The words are John Simson’s (right), executive director of SoundExchange, and he’s talking about efforts by webcasters to persuade the Copyright Royalty Board to re-think its decision on rates.
“America’s National Public Radio says new federal US Copyright Royalty Board rules mean royalty fees paid by Net radio stations for streaming music for 2006-2010 will sky-rocket,” said p2pnet last month, going on:
“But the Fat Lady hasn’t stopped singing. Now, ‘after petitions and pressure from NPR and other broadcasting organizations, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has agreed to grant motions for a possible rehearing over the controversial, proposed new Internet radio royalty rates’.”
However, claiming no “new material facts or fresh evidence” have “suddenly materialized to give the CRB valid reason to revisit its decision,” SoundExchange, an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) property until it was spun-off as a separate entity, wants the motions to be summarily dismissed.
“Without providing any fresh evidence to support their push to pay artists and labels less, some webcasters, who have enjoyed flat rates for seven years and were well aware of the CRB proceeding, are now crying foul,” it states.
According to Simson, artists across the country are, “aghast at the negative reaction of some in the internet community to paying fair value for musical works”.
He also says a “vocal minority is making “unfounded claims about the new rates, and that artists and labels are supportive of internet radio and want to see it flourish”.
The statement has Michelle Shocked declaring:
“A lot of internet users think of music as a product created and generated by major labels with corporate megadollars and so think nothing of taking or paying very little to use this music. But the evidence shows that a large majority of music is now created by independent artists with very small margins trying to earn a living and it’s in that context that the recent decision to raise the internet broadcasting rates is seen as an encouragement to creativity and independence.”
Also See:
p2pnet – Rehearing on Net royalty rates?, March 22, 2007
SoundExchange – SoundExchange Urges Copyright Board to Reject Calls to Reduce Music Artists’ Royalties, April 2, 2006
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
this guy says: “”Just because you don’t like the outcome of a fairly played game doesn’t mean you should ask the referee to order the game replayed.”"
why the hell did THEYâ„¢ do this all the time.
last time a game was failry played, the outcome was ~14years what could be extended once for the same period if creator was still alive.
That was a fairly played game, yet those greedy copyright terrorists had the game replayed over and over again so we now have not only copyright extension if the creator is still alive, but also 50 (70, 90 what ever is it this time) years after him!
So asking for a replay here is “fair game” I say!
__
Alter_Fritz
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Since the decision to increase these broadcast rates where done with the policy that closed out all but the main major interested parties, no input was able to be provided by those it would affect and hit the hardest, those of the smaller groups. This little tactic has now turned around to bite them in the butt as the proposed effects are now realised and looming as imminent.
The groups representing Soundexchange and the RIAA saw to it the doors were closed through wrangling and changed the way the game was to be played at that point. This is when the outcome of the game played changed from fair to unfair. Correcting bad decisions after the fact goes on all the time in sports, especially when it is shown that plainly the referee made a bad call against the rules.
By closing out the other players in this little closed door decision, the bad call was officially put into the play.
Funny how money makes slimly decisions acceptable to those that benefit from them.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“…fairly played game…”
“…their push to pay artists and labels less…”
“…paying fair value for musical works”
“[a] vocal minority is making “unfounded claims about the new rates, and that…labels are supportive of internet radio…”
Large piles of male cow dung. Large.
As it now stands, net radio royalties are low enough so it can be provided without commercial interruptions. For the big money crowd that is just wrong. Either pay a subscription, or endure assloads of commercials. There are no other “viable” options in their minds. “Free” net radio is just WAY too much competition for the status quo.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Simson is being his usual disingenuous self by claiming that “new facts or fresh evidence” is necessary for a rehearing by the CRB.
This is the relevant language from Title 17:
“(2) Rehearings.–
“(A) In general.–The Copyright Royalty Judges may, in exceptional cases, upon motion of a participant in a proceeding under subsection (b)(2), order a rehearing, after the determination in the proceeding is issued under paragraph (1), on such matters as the Copyright Royalty Judges determine to be appropriate.”
There’s nothing in there that requires a request for a new hearing to be based on new evidence. Sometimes, as Mr. Simson overlooks, there can be a dispute as to the proper application of law to “old” facts, and that is a legitimate reason to ask for a rehearing.
Yet Mr. Simson has decided that taking advantage of the rehearing provisions in the law is somehow unfair. If only his RIAA masters had shown the same consideration when the trial court ruled against them in the Grokster case. There were no “new facts or fresh evidence” to present to the appellate court in that case.
Appeals are part and parcel of the process. I don’t think anyone actually believes for a minute that SoundExchange would have placidly accepted a different decision by the CRB, and Simson is supremely arrogant if he pretends otherwise.