Comments on: Lawmakers propose reversal of Net radio fee increases

Congressional bill seeks to overturn a decision that Internet radio advocates say will cripple their services by raising royalty fees.

[DatabaseDoctor]

Finally! Some sanity!

Three cheers for the Reps who finally came through for the small webcasters!

So many congressmen and women stood idly by while the record labels attempted to squeeze every penny they could from independent webcasters or simply put them out of business. After all, if you can't transform yourselves as the world changes, simply eliminate the competition. Remember, these are the same record labels who sue grandmothers and young children for thousands of dollars.

Please throw your support behind this desperately needed legislature and save Internet radio! Call or write your local senator and representative and tell them to vote YES on this bill. You can find your representative and senators here http://www.savenetradio.org !

Keep the music alive!

[eyespark]

Senator Feinstein's Form-letter Response (CA-D)

I thought you might be interested in reading the response I got back when I wrote my senator.

----

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:57:59 -0400
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message


Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision on the statutory rate for music webcasting. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress - at the behest of webcasters - created the Copyright Royalty Board which consists of three judges. By law, the judges are a venue of last resort and are required to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that webcasters and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges set a rate designed to approximate the fair-market value that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010. The new rate that was established is less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005.

Although a few webcasters have recently claimed that the process was unfair, it was not arbitrary and allowed representatives from all sides to make their cases. The judges began the proceedings in 2005, and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of tens of thousands of pages of evidence submitted by all interested parties over an 18-month period.

While some webcasters may choose to pay this rate, independent negotiations between the parties are still possible and this new statutory rate would serve as the ceiling. Additionally, if it appears that the new rate will reduce the overall amount of webcasting - as well as the overall income from this stream of revenue - the copyright owners may still have an incentive to offer webcasters a rate less than the statutory rate.

I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. In the meantime, if you should have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at [phone].


Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator


Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

[billmosby]

Longer than the response I got...

Which so far has been not a peep, and I wrote around the time you
did. Not too hard to tell where some of Feinstein's financial support
comes from, eh?

[skeptik]

Oh the irony

"I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works."

The best part is these fees are paid to the labels, NOT the artists. We all know how the labels pay less per digital download, I suspec they pay less for this kind of thing too.
And of course we all know what a great track record the labels have on fairly distributing the contractually due royalties on sales... criminal non-compliance.

So if she really cared, how about some legislation that FORCES better payment to the artists, not the labels.

She's lying, and she's full of brown waste.

[doose72]

internet radio bill

does regular radio pay royalties?If not why does internet radio have to.If they dont allow downlaods,would that make a difference.Because the station Iam familiar with is free <pandora> so if they dont profit ,what are the royalties for.After all without the downloading issue the internet stations may be prompting purchases of said songs,meaning to me the internet radio maybe helping the artists make money.Inparticular the less promoted artists.????????????

[mariomiy]

Bill should make sure artists are rewarded.

The bill should contain a clause, determining that recording industry entities such as the RIAA and MPAA report and publish monthly how much it collected and how much is paid to artists, with heavy penalties against board members for falsifying numbers.