Kate wrote:
> Not sure about the origins of the RIAA but now, from all I hear within the > indie community, the RIAA is considered to be only looking out for the > interests of the Big 5 labels... I was unsure because I have seen cases where the RIAA intervened on behalf of the artists in royalty disputes involving the record companies. On closer reflection, it may be that the artist has to be tied to one of the big record companies to begin with to receive their help! >U.S. Copyright law says online-streamed music must pay for performance > rights. The price we are to pay has been in arbitration for most of the > last year. Last week the results were announced and they are hideous. The > proposed fees will cripple webcasting's future. The RIAA and copyright > office don't care if you're making money or not. I saw these proposed rates from the link Sherelle provided - geeez! I hope the powers that be come to their senses before the deadline. If not, this could become a real mess on a number of fronts. Hopefuly a few brilliant lawyers on white horses will rush in to save the day. I wouldn't be surprised with all the publicity this issue is receiving lately. A good example of how bureaucrats in government can make bad law that cripples innovation and free trade to the point where everyone (including the RIAA and those it represents) is going to be damaged in the end. Kakki
