On Monday, the Department of Justice filed papers opposing the stay that DiMA (and others) sought in the DC Circuit. Why is the Department of Justice getting involved in this case?
First a quick recap. As we’ve noted earlier, the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Several parties have indicated that they will appeal, but the process will be a slow one. In the meantime, they have asked the DC Circuit to “stay” the CRB’s ruling while the appeal goes on. This would preserve the status quo: internet radio stations would continue to pay the same royalties during the appeal.
The Department of Justice represents the various agencies of the federal government in court. In this case, the Feds are acting as lawyers for the CRB, defending the CRB’s decision. The DOJ will not be the only people to oppose a stay. We can probably expect SoundExchange, an arm of RIAA, to file papers opposing it as well.
The court will probably act relatively quickly. As of today, July 15 is only three and a half weeks away...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
July 15th, an Important Moment For American Broadcasters
On July 15, absent a stay by the appellate courts, the new license rates for internet radio stations come into effect. As I’ve noted before (see my post “Jesse And Me”) – we’re headed down a path of pushing American broadcasters overseas. Where has the value of free speech gone? At BroadClip we're confident that our business won't be much affected by the new rates, but like everyone else we think that the variety of internet radio is worth protecting, and we feel that our government should not be taking a stand against the small operators who are responsible for so much of its vitality.
Several parties have filed notices that they will appeal the Copyright Royalty Board's decision to the Federal Circuit, and DiMA has sought a stay of the new rates, but as of now the Federal Circuit has not made any decision about the stay. In Congress, while the Internet Radio Equality Act now has 119 co-sponsors in the House, and three Senators have signed on. Congress has moved quickly (for Congress!), but time is running out.
Therefore, we are joining with other internet radio focused businesses to call attention to this issue by participating in the Day of Silence on June 26th. New users can sign up for an account, but we will not be recording any songs on that date. We do not want to take this step, but we feel that this issue is important enough that we must participate.
Thank you for your understanding, and remember to keep contacting your Senators and your Representative in the House to keep internet music alive!
Several parties have filed notices that they will appeal the Copyright Royalty Board's decision to the Federal Circuit, and DiMA has sought a stay of the new rates, but as of now the Federal Circuit has not made any decision about the stay. In Congress, while the Internet Radio Equality Act now has 119 co-sponsors in the House, and three Senators have signed on. Congress has moved quickly (for Congress!), but time is running out.
Therefore, we are joining with other internet radio focused businesses to call attention to this issue by participating in the Day of Silence on June 26th. New users can sign up for an account, but we will not be recording any songs on that date. We do not want to take this step, but we feel that this issue is important enough that we must participate.
Thank you for your understanding, and remember to keep contacting your Senators and your Representative in the House to keep internet music alive!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
More CRB Appeals
Apparently the National Association of Broadcasters has also filed an appeal of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision. This brings us to at least three appeals, including the DiMA/NPR one and the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System.
I should be more accurate. The full substantive appeals have actually not yet been filed. The parties have filed a document indicating that they will file an appeal. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will come up with a briefing schedule. At the same time, as I mentioned last week, they will come up with a schedule about filing the motions related to the request for a stay, which was filed by DiMA and NPR.
I should be more accurate. The full substantive appeals have actually not yet been filed. The parties have filed a document indicating that they will file an appeal. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will come up with a briefing schedule. At the same time, as I mentioned last week, they will come up with a schedule about filing the motions related to the request for a stay, which was filed by DiMA and NPR.
Friday, June 1, 2007
CRB Decision Appealed
On May 30, the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and NPR appealed the Copyright Royalty Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. These are not the only parties to appeal the CRB’s decision--the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System filed its appeal earlier this month. DiMA and NPR also filed an additional motion yesterday requesting that the court issue a “stay” while the CRB decision is under appeal.
What does this all mean?
The appeals are what they sound like. They are asking the DC Circuit to reverse the decision of the CRB.
A “stay” is a legal concept. A court issues a stay to preserve the status quo. In this case, DiMA and NPR are asking the court to keep the present royalty system in effect while the court decides the appeal. If the court refuses to issue a stay, the new CRB imposed royalty rates will take effect on July 15, even though they would be under appeal.
So the court has two decisions. In the next few weeks, it will have to decide whether to issue the stay. Then, over the next several months, it will decide the actual appeal of the CRB’s decision. It is impossible to predict what the court will do, but we’ll keep you informed.
Note that this is entirely separate from ongoing efforts to reverse the CRB’s decision in Congress. Congress has the power to set the rates and overrule the CRB and make the appeal to the DC Circuit unnecessary. While the DC Circuit mulls over the appeal, Congress will hopefully step up to the plate and pass the Internet Radio Equality Act. Keep contacting your Senators and your Representative to encourage them to vote in favor of the Internet Radio Equality Act.
What does this all mean?
The appeals are what they sound like. They are asking the DC Circuit to reverse the decision of the CRB.
A “stay” is a legal concept. A court issues a stay to preserve the status quo. In this case, DiMA and NPR are asking the court to keep the present royalty system in effect while the court decides the appeal. If the court refuses to issue a stay, the new CRB imposed royalty rates will take effect on July 15, even though they would be under appeal.
So the court has two decisions. In the next few weeks, it will have to decide whether to issue the stay. Then, over the next several months, it will decide the actual appeal of the CRB’s decision. It is impossible to predict what the court will do, but we’ll keep you informed.
Note that this is entirely separate from ongoing efforts to reverse the CRB’s decision in Congress. Congress has the power to set the rates and overrule the CRB and make the appeal to the DC Circuit unnecessary. While the DC Circuit mulls over the appeal, Congress will hopefully step up to the plate and pass the Internet Radio Equality Act. Keep contacting your Senators and your Representative to encourage them to vote in favor of the Internet Radio Equality Act.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Internet Radio has Senate Support
We have been touting the Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060), introduced on April 26th in the House of Representatives. This Act, which now has dozens almost over one hundred co-sponsors, would reverse the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board and impose a mandatory license fee of 7.5% of revenues for internet radio stations.
On May 10, Senators Ron Wyden (D. Or.) and Sam Brownback (R. Kan.) co-sponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S.1353. This is encouraging news. We hope that this bill attracts the same kind of bipartisan support in the Senate as has been shown in the House.
It is important that you contact your Senators to tell them how important it is to support this bill. In addition, if your Representative has not yet supported this bill, please contact him or her as well.
On May 10, Senators Ron Wyden (D. Or.) and Sam Brownback (R. Kan.) co-sponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S.1353. This is encouraging news. We hope that this bill attracts the same kind of bipartisan support in the Senate as has been shown in the House.
It is important that you contact your Senators to tell them how important it is to support this bill. In addition, if your Representative has not yet supported this bill, please contact him or her as well.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Internet Radio Picks Up Congressional Support
We have another post by Broadclip's General Counsel, Matthew Drake. Thanks Matt!
The Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060) is attracting strong bipartisan support. Originally sponsored by Rep. Jay Inslee (D. Wash.), the bill now has Donald Manzullo (R. Ill) as an additional sponsor, and dozens of co-sponsors ranging across the ideological spectrum. Whatever else they may disagree on, they can agree that Internet radio is good and should not be squashed by jacking up the royalty rates. The following members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors:
Michael Arcuri (D. N.Y.)
Tammy Baldwin (D. Wis.)
Roscoe Bartlett (R. Md.)
Earl Blumenauer (D. Or.)
Rick Boucher (D. Va.)
Corrine Brown (D. Fla.)
Vern Buchanan (R. Fla.)
Michael Capuano (D. Mass.)
Stephen I. Cohen (D. Tenn.)
Joseph Courtney (D. Conn.)
Barbara Cubin (R. Wyo.)
Susan A. Davis (D. Cal.)
Peter A. DeFazio (D. Or.)
Keith M. Ellison (D. Minn.)
Brad Ellsworth (D. Ind.)
Sam Farr (D. Cal.)
Bob Filner (D. Cal.)
Luis Fortuno (R. P.R.)
Virginia Foxx (R. N.C.)
Raul M. Grijalva (D. Az.)
Luis V. Gutierrez (D. Ill.)
Brian M. Higgins (D. N.Y.)
Baron Hill (D. Ind.)
Maurice Hinchey (D. N.Y.)
Michael M. Honda (D. Cal.)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D. Ill.)
Dale E. Kildee (D. Mich.)
Mark S. Kirk (R. Ill.)
John Lewis (D. Ga.)
Jim McDermott (D. Wash.)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R. Wash.)
Michael H. Michaud (D. Maine)
James P. Moran (D. Va.)
Ron Paul (R. Tex.)
David E. Price (D. N.C.)
Dave Reichert (R. Wash.)
Tim Ryan (D. Ohio)
Carol Shea-Porter (D. N.H.)
John M. Spratt, Jr. (D. S.C.)
Lee Terry (R. Neb.)
Lynn Woolsey (D. Cal.)
If your Representative is not on this list, contact him or her about just how important this legislation is.
Time is important. The final decision of the Copyright Royalty Board was published in the Federal Register on May 2. According to the final decision, initial payments, retroactive to January 1, 2006, will be due July 15.
In the meantime, the deadline for appealing the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is 30 days after it was published, i.e. June 1. The first appeal has already been filed by the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System. It will not be the last.
The Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060) is attracting strong bipartisan support. Originally sponsored by Rep. Jay Inslee (D. Wash.), the bill now has Donald Manzullo (R. Ill) as an additional sponsor, and dozens of co-sponsors ranging across the ideological spectrum. Whatever else they may disagree on, they can agree that Internet radio is good and should not be squashed by jacking up the royalty rates. The following members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors:
Michael Arcuri (D. N.Y.)
Tammy Baldwin (D. Wis.)
Roscoe Bartlett (R. Md.)
Earl Blumenauer (D. Or.)
Rick Boucher (D. Va.)
Corrine Brown (D. Fla.)
Vern Buchanan (R. Fla.)
Michael Capuano (D. Mass.)
Stephen I. Cohen (D. Tenn.)
Joseph Courtney (D. Conn.)
Barbara Cubin (R. Wyo.)
Susan A. Davis (D. Cal.)
Peter A. DeFazio (D. Or.)
Keith M. Ellison (D. Minn.)
Brad Ellsworth (D. Ind.)
Sam Farr (D. Cal.)
Bob Filner (D. Cal.)
Luis Fortuno (R. P.R.)
Virginia Foxx (R. N.C.)
Raul M. Grijalva (D. Az.)
Luis V. Gutierrez (D. Ill.)
Brian M. Higgins (D. N.Y.)
Baron Hill (D. Ind.)
Maurice Hinchey (D. N.Y.)
Michael M. Honda (D. Cal.)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D. Ill.)
Dale E. Kildee (D. Mich.)
Mark S. Kirk (R. Ill.)
John Lewis (D. Ga.)
Jim McDermott (D. Wash.)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R. Wash.)
Michael H. Michaud (D. Maine)
James P. Moran (D. Va.)
Ron Paul (R. Tex.)
David E. Price (D. N.C.)
Dave Reichert (R. Wash.)
Tim Ryan (D. Ohio)
Carol Shea-Porter (D. N.H.)
John M. Spratt, Jr. (D. S.C.)
Lee Terry (R. Neb.)
Lynn Woolsey (D. Cal.)
If your Representative is not on this list, contact him or her about just how important this legislation is.
Time is important. The final decision of the Copyright Royalty Board was published in the Federal Register on May 2. According to the final decision, initial payments, retroactive to January 1, 2006, will be due July 15.
In the meantime, the deadline for appealing the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is 30 days after it was published, i.e. June 1. The first appeal has already been filed by the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System. It will not be the last.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it
Today we have another post by Roy Smith - co-founder of Turtle Beach Systems. Thanks Roy!
The battle of record industry versus their customers is eerily similar to a battle that was fought and lost before many of today’s music lovers were born. The issues were quite similar and the results of that battle shed light on the likely outcome of this one.
Back in the early days of the PC in the early 1980’s, software was a very new concept. There had never been a product that could be replicated at will by the customer. And replicate they did: “Oh, you want a copy of WordStar? Here you go.”
Like RIAA in the '90’s, the software developers got legislation passed to identify and protect their intellectual property rights, but in practice these new laws were almost unenforceable. Most developers of high dollar value applications then moved to an early form of DRM called “copy protection”.
Just like DRM for music today, copy protection used a variety of crafty methods to prevent users from making multiple copies of programs. Some systems required a hardware key that had to be installed in the computer, others used specially prepared diskettes with known errors that disk copy programs could not duplicate.
The hacker community responded rather quickly. (Sound familiar?) Patches soon appeared online to unlock all popular copy protected applications.
Unfortunately, copy protection had two unintended effects on the legal purchasers of software. The first was that many legal users encountered problems with their legal copies because of the copy protection and publishers were forced to spend great amounts of effort to make their product work through the DRM issues.
The second unintended effect was that legal customers developed an adversarial attitude because they were indirectly being accused of being thieves. Even when it worked, the DRM was still an annoyance that didn’t provide value.
In the end, the honest people who were not likely to copy and distribute the software were inconvenienced and angry about it, and the dishonest people who were inclined to copy the software were still able to do so. (Again, sound familiar?)
Eventually the software industry abandoned copy protection in favor of installation keys and online registration ala Microsoft's genuine Windows testing and those 30 digit install codes.
The PC Software industry didn't fall apart when it dropped copy protection. As we all know, it has flourished.
Yes, there is piracy. Every business has theft, fraud, shrinkage, and bad debts. The point is that DRM is one solution of many for these problems. Will the music industry learn anything from the battles lost by the software industry of the '80’s? Time will tell.
The battle of record industry versus their customers is eerily similar to a battle that was fought and lost before many of today’s music lovers were born. The issues were quite similar and the results of that battle shed light on the likely outcome of this one.
Back in the early days of the PC in the early 1980’s, software was a very new concept. There had never been a product that could be replicated at will by the customer. And replicate they did: “Oh, you want a copy of WordStar? Here you go.”
Like RIAA in the '90’s, the software developers got legislation passed to identify and protect their intellectual property rights, but in practice these new laws were almost unenforceable. Most developers of high dollar value applications then moved to an early form of DRM called “copy protection”.
Just like DRM for music today, copy protection used a variety of crafty methods to prevent users from making multiple copies of programs. Some systems required a hardware key that had to be installed in the computer, others used specially prepared diskettes with known errors that disk copy programs could not duplicate.
The hacker community responded rather quickly. (Sound familiar?) Patches soon appeared online to unlock all popular copy protected applications.
Unfortunately, copy protection had two unintended effects on the legal purchasers of software. The first was that many legal users encountered problems with their legal copies because of the copy protection and publishers were forced to spend great amounts of effort to make their product work through the DRM issues.
The second unintended effect was that legal customers developed an adversarial attitude because they were indirectly being accused of being thieves. Even when it worked, the DRM was still an annoyance that didn’t provide value.
In the end, the honest people who were not likely to copy and distribute the software were inconvenienced and angry about it, and the dishonest people who were inclined to copy the software were still able to do so. (Again, sound familiar?)
Eventually the software industry abandoned copy protection in favor of installation keys and online registration ala Microsoft's genuine Windows testing and those 30 digit install codes.
The PC Software industry didn't fall apart when it dropped copy protection. As we all know, it has flourished.
Yes, there is piracy. Every business has theft, fraud, shrinkage, and bad debts. The point is that DRM is one solution of many for these problems. Will the music industry learn anything from the battles lost by the software industry of the '80’s? Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
