Berman-Coble letter makes SX's argument to SX
·May 25, 01:54 PM
Posted by: Paul Maloney
Monday’s SoundExchange
offer to small webcasters to reauthorize the rates and terms of
the Small
Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002 (with  some
unspecified modifications) was, according to the press release,
supposedly spurred by a letter
from Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA,
right) and Howard Coble
(R-NC, left), the Chairman and ranking minority member, respectively,
of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet
and Intellectual Property (See RAIN coverage here).
Copies of the Berman-Coble letter, apparently released by
SoundExchange to various journalists earlier this week and subsequently
obtained by RAIN, are surprisingly
interesting.
Specifically, of the five-page document, almost four
pages are devoted to a defense of the CRB decision! And
a careful read
of the document reveals that most of the Berman-Coble letter’s language
almost precisely mimics the verbiage employed
by the recording industry — i.e., on the SoundExchange
website and in various other SoundExchange press releases.
In other words, the Berman-Coble letter, oddly enough, primarily
argues to SoundExchange SoundExchange’s
own precise arguments!
The letter also includes a previously-unannounced request
by Berman and Coble for SoundExchange to achieve"resolution"…
"no later than June 15, 2007"
and notes that the writers "plan to advance legislation if
we determine that it is the public interest."
A copy of the Berman-Coble letter in .pdf form is available
here.
 From Kurt’s blog:
"I’m
Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter"
What first caught my eye in the Berman-Coble
letter was this sentence:
"In return for compelling sound recording copyright
owners to make their works available, the qualifying services agree to meet
the terms and conditions of the compulsory license, which, inter
alia, requires the periodic filing of statements
of account and the timely payment of statutory royalties."
Odd. Why would Reps. Berman and Coble feel obligated
to tell John Simson something like this that he obviously
already knows?
The only answer I could come up with is that SoundExchange
wanted Berman and Coble to make that point so
they could use the quote in their press release.
Applying Occam’s razor
Let’s imagine for a moment
that SoundExchange was feeling the
pressure of growing support for the Internet Radio
Equality Act — Congress besieged by e-mails, faxes, and phone
calls from webcasters, musicians, and listeners; dozens of co-sponsors
signing up for the bill; the NAB throwing in their support on
Friday — and wanted to derail its
momentum.
One optimal way of doing it might be to cut a deal
with two classes of webcasters that are driving most of the
pressure from constituents, yet comprise only a tiny
portion of royalty payments received: Small webcasters
and non-comms.
And what better way to present that plan than to say
it was "at the request of Congress"
(even though it was technically only at the request of two
Congressmen who, based on their past voting history, likely
would have opposed the Internet Radio Equality Act)?
And better yet, what if the request "from Congress"
was a five-page letter filled with every point SoundExchange
wanted made in support of the CRB decision? Score!..
For more, see Kurt Hanson’s "Radio And Music:
A New Blog," here.…
|
share: del.icio.us.  Reddit  Digg  Yahoo  Wink  Windows  Google  Newsvine 
Commenting is closed for this article.
|
Other blog entries 
