Bryan D. Brown

If you remember back in July, I was begging anyone and everyone who visited this blog to contact their Senators and Congressional representatives urging them to support the Internet Radio Equality Act. While I didn’t e-mail my congressional representative (Lois Capps already signed on as a sponsor to the congressional bill), I did call and e-mail Senator Diane Feinstein - back on July 13th.

Today - six weeks after I wrote to her - I got a response:

Dear Mr. Brown:

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board’s recent decision to increase 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 created the Copyright Royalty Board as a venue to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that digital radio providers and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges recently set the rate that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010.

The proceedings to set the new rate began in 2005, and representatives from all sides were allowed to make their cases to the Copyright Royalty Board. The judges 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. Based on its findings, the Board issued a decision for what it determined to be an approximate fair-market value for the music.

I understand that this decision has raised serious concerns for webcasters, in particular, who are worried that the increased rate will force their businesses to shut down. In response, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced a bill, the Internet Radio Equality Act, which would vacate the Board’s decision and apply a lower rate for 2006-2010.

Clearly, there are important interests that need to be balanced. I am hopeful that it is not too late for a rate compromise to be worked out by the parties involved so that Congress does not need to intervene; however, I will take a close look at the legislation and this issue.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should the Internet Radio Equality Act or similar legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Unfortunately, Sen. Feinstein’s response really doesn’t address the issue at all. Why would the CRB issue a ruling that was obviously going to gut an entire medium?

(For details on how the rates would impact broadcasters, check out Royalty Hike Panics Webcasters, Wired, 6 March 2007)

The CRB, as Sen. Feinstein mentions, was only supposed to rule on rates should the the two sides not come to an agreement. How can webcasters agree on a proposal that will put all but the largest of the large out of business? How is a “fair-market rate” one that entirely favors the outrageous proposal of SoundExchange and puts internet broadcasters out of business?