NPR, SoundExchange File Responses With Copyright Royalty Board

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on April 2, 2007 - 3:11pm.

Washington - National Public Radio (NPR) on Monday submitted a memorandum to the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which again stated its request for a public rehearing of the CRB's recent ruling on royalties webcasters must pay to stream music online.

"In this filing, we are asking the Copyright Royalty Board judges for a public rehearing where we can provide supplemental testimony and oral argument of its motion, on the public record," said Andi Sporkin, NPR's vice president of communications.

"We are also asking the CRB and the recording industry to remember public radio's non-commercial status and our public service mission, as other royalty groups and decisions have done for years."

The memo cites the "unworkability in application of the rate structure…for NPR," adding that "both the aggregate tuning hour and per-performance metrics…cannot reasonably be applied or implemented across the NPR system."

Meanwhie, SoundExchange -- the entity set up by the record industry to collect webcast royalties -- called on the CRB to reject webcasters' motions for rehearing.

"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," said SoundExchange executive director John Simson.

"Yes, Internet radio is important to the music community, but that doesn't mean that artists and record labels don't deserve fair compensation for their works."

 

Related Links:
http://tinyurl.com/322gaj (SoundExchange statement)

http://tinyurl.com/2rsd2c (DMW previous coverage)



Comments

Rules haven't changed, only the strategy

This is not a surprising move on the part of SoundExchange. Mr. Simson realizes that Webcasters still have valid testimony to bring to the table -- information that could further substantiate the Webcasters' case.
Record artists and sound-recording copyright holders certainly deserve adequate and fair compensation for their artistic labour. However, the determination of "adequate and fair compensation" is ultimately at the behest of the Copyright Royalty Judges, not SoundExchange.
In the United States judicial system (a royalty rate hearing is certainly a tribunal in its own right), the person or persons sitting at the bench do not owe a fiduciary responsibility to any one party during a legal proceeding. in other words, a fair and impartial judgment must be passed down provided any admissible evidence and arguments submitted for consideration on behalf of all parties involved.
Now, if SoundExchange does not wish to acknowledge such commonplace rules of "legal gameplay," then they should rightfully withdraw from this process here and now.
Randall Krause
Executive Director
Small Webcaster Community Initiative

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Add image
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br><p> <b> <i> <img> <hr>
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.