Re: NAB challenge to US Copyright Office ruling rejected

["Kaimbridge M. GoldChild" <kaimbridge@my-deja.com>]

Shawn Mamros wrote,

> It's amazing.  The cited article does not mention, even once,
> the fees that radio stations already pay to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
>
> The only way there will be a "level playing field" on the 'net
> would be if the web-only-casters have to pay ASCAP, BMI, SESAC,
> *and* the RIAA - just as radio stations will now have to, if they
> want to webcast.

Well, maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and
ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, RIAA, AFTRA, etc.,  will finally get their toilets
flushed.
I can't see how they've gotten away with it this far.
<rant on>
They want extra compensation for extra exposure, FINE.
But let's keep it in perspective:  How many listeners can a typical
streamcast carry at once--10, 20, 100, 1000?
So, great, what is the rate for a station that has a listenership of
1000?:  That's what the charges should be based on, PERIOD, not "yea,
but, oh gee, this is the internet and you can hear it ANYWHERE, so we're
gonna try and soak you as a 500KW, 90 share, 35 rating NYC blowtorch": 
Uh uh, nice try, but no cigar!
So what if IT IS a separate, digital feed?:  What about when (if?) the
FM band starts co-broadcasting in digital?
Helloooooo webcasters, WAKE UUUUUUUUP!
</rant>

     ~Kaimbridge~