In February 2002, the US Copyright Office released its recommendations
on webcasting rates and reporting requirements. Following the release,
both webcasters and copyright holders (i.e. labels) mounted campaigns
to express their often opposing views on the recommendations, urging
their supporters to register their opinions with the Copyright Office
and their elected representatives.
Webcasters, copyright owners and artists are all concerned about the
outcome of these proceedings because of the potential long-term effects
on both musicians and internet webcasting. The FMC understands the concerns
that various parties hold on these emerging issues, and find many of
their arguments compelling. We support the growth of webcasting as a
viable and necessary alternative to commercial/terrestrial broadcasting,
however we also want musicians whose music is played on webcast stations
to be fairly compensated for their work.
Based on our interest in the outcome, the FMC participated in the webcasting
debate through various channels. On April 5 we filed initial comments
with the Copyright Office, which we reported on in last month’s newsletter.
Over the past month the FMC has published four other documents:
A. CARP Fact Sheet
B. Reply Comments to the Copyright Office
C. Prepared Statement for the Roundtable
D. Senate Judiciary Testimony on Webcasting
A. CARP Fact Sheet
The FMC recognizes that the CARP proceedings and the history behind
this whole process are very confusing. In an effort to clarify some
of these complicated issues, we drafted a detailed fact sheet. We passed
our document by the US Copyright Office before posting it to make sure
the information was as accurate as possible.
Check out the CARP Fact Sheet here:
The FMC encourages the webcasting and music community to use this fact
sheet as a resource to better understand these issues and to learn how
artists and citizens can participate in the decision-making process
affecting webcasting.
B. Reply Comments to the Copyright Office
After reading the initially filed comments, FMC submitted reply comments.
We found that many of the comments filed were articulate and reasoned,
but that many organizations could not recognize a middle ground on the
webcasting issue. In our reply we focused on two specific issues regarding
reporting requirements:
i) The FMC agreed with the statements made by many filers that the proposed
"Listener Log" presented many problems both in regards to
necessity in relation to compliance with Section 114 (d)(2), and in
relation to listeners’ expectations about privacy
ii) The FMC also concurred with a number of filers regarding the undue
burden that the proposed recordkeeping requirements would place on smaller webcasters.
In addition, the FMC suggested potential remedies to these problems,
some of which were different than those proposed by various filers in
the comments phase. The FMC believes that, although the proposed recordkeeping
requirements as they stand are onerous and burdensome, there are compelling
reasons for webcasters to maintain accurate records of what is being
played to ensure that musicians and artists will be fairly compensated.
Read our reply comments here.
C. Prepared Statement for the Copyright Office Roundtable
On May 10, the US Copyright Office hosted a Public Roundtable on webcasting
rates and reporting requirements. The all-day event, which included
representatives from the webcasters, record labels, unions, and citizen
advocates, was intended to give various stakeholders an opportunity
to publicly state their cases before the Copyright Office.
Both Jenny Toomey and Brian Zisk sat in on the panel discussions. We
also prepared a statement that addressed our interest in participating
in the event, which you can read here.
There’s some great coverage of the Roundtable here (scroll down halfway):
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/051302/index.asp