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.

“…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.

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.

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