I read this and the other related post but I do not understand the situation.
I presume the determination of royalties is a private issue set by contract between artist and user. I would be very surprised if the copyright law or some US Government agency determines the amount of the royalty.
Is that a US Government agency? Sounds more like a private sector cooperative arrangement.
I must admit I am suspicious of webcasters and other new technology advocates. IMHO they seek benefits and protections of govt regulation but none of the obligations. In this particular instance, it seems they want the freedom to broadcast but are they willing to accept the restrictions that more traditional broadcasters are required to comply with?
The copyright issues of performance were extensively discussed on the rec.arts.tv newsgroup. I was sorry to see many posters claimed as a Constitutional Right to freely download works without charge; they saw works as all being in the public domain that they were entitled to have access to. In fact, the US Constitution explicitly provides for copyright and patent protection. One might debate the terms, but the protection clearly exists.
Some posters were angry at large corporations that own many works. I have no love for big corporations, but that is irrelevent, they have their rights to their ownership just as you and I do.
Some posters were angry at retracted works, such as old movies or music that is no longer sold. They felt strongly that had a right to such items. I strong disagree. If I produce a work but later on decide to withdraw it from sale or distribution, that is my sole right to do so. (You can resell your own copy, but not duplicate it for sale).
If I am missing any arguments in this issue, could someone explain them in layman's terms? Thanks. [public replies, please]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I understand it, the 'new' rates being requested of webcasters is not, in itself substantially out of line; a bit higher than the rates charged many other groups, but sort of reasonable. Where the problem arises is the group which represents the musicians/artists is asking for this payment to be retroactive to January 1, _2006_, or 18 months ago. Instead of demanding that the royalty payments begin _immediatly_, which is part of the problem, they are asking for arrears to be paid as well. PAT]