Scott Andrew - lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!

Notes from the “Copyright in the Courts and Congress” panel on Saturday.

This panel seems to reflect the overall attitude of other panels: the current system doesn’t work in the digital age, and panicked litigation is not the answer.

Despite what Hilary Rosen says, many online broadcasters wanted to play nice with labels. The RIAA brokered licensing agreements with 26 webcasters; the rest got hit with the arbitrary rate set by the Copyright Abitration Panel.

.25 cents per streamed performance (regular work)
.07 cents per streamed simulcast
.014 cents per archived stream

Contention: webcasting fees are seven times that of “regular” performance fees set by BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc.

CARP is only 35% of what the RIAA originally wanted to charge.

CARP deals with performances (webcasts), not downloads.

A missed opportunity: non-interactive webcasting could have been an antidote to the ills labels have suffered from radio consolidation. (see other notes in this weblog) The FCC has totally dropped the ball on regulation.

A graded licensing scheme is needed: should the people who webcast only for the thrill and love of independent, alternative content be hit with the same huge bill as commerical webcasters?

Consensus: Congress is frighteningly clueless. The DMCA is so broadly phrased that even the legality fair use (non-infringing copies) is questionable.

The SSCA Act (Secure Systems in Communications): give tech manufacturers 18 months to agree on a single method for enforcing copy protection in digital equipment, or else the Dept. Of Commerce will do it. The unintended consequences of these types of actions are potentially devastating, as Congress has shown that it lacks the ability to forward-think the technology.

I left this panel very depressed. It’s almost as if the tech industry is being punished for being innovative.