These reaction comments on yesterday's news that the Copyright Office had rejected the CARP-proposed royalty rates for webcasting are taken from official press releases, press interviews, and from statements on company websites.

More comments from webcasters and industry players can be found in RAIN here.

	Digital Media Association: "When Congress enacted the Internet radio statutory license it intended to promote a new medium and promote artists' welfare. Today's decision by the Librarian offers hope that the final royalty will be more in line with marketplace economics than was the arbitrators' proposal. If so, then the result will accomplish Congress's goals."
	National Association of Broadcasters: "NAB is pleased the Librarian of Congress has rejected the rates and terms recommended by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel for the use of sound recordings for webcasting. We are hopeful the Librarian's final determination will result in rates and terms that reflect market reality."
	Recording Industry Association of America: "The Librarian has rejected the arbitration panel’s determination, but we do not know why or what decision the Librarian will ultimately make based on the evidence presented. Since both sides appealed the panel’s determination, anything is possible. We look forward to the conclusion of this process on June 20th, and to the day when artists and labels finally get paid for the use of their music.”
	SoundExchange: "Given the complexity of the issues, I am not surprised by the Librarian's decision. I remain confident that we can find creative solutions to enable webcasting to thrive while providing recording artists and those who invest in sound recordings a fair and equitable royalty in return. Over the past three years, webcasters have paid for bandwidth, rent, hardware, software and other business expenses. It is time that they finally start to pay the Artists and record companies whose creative output is the most important component of their business. "On behalf of our members and the thousands of artists we represent, SoundExchange will continue our discussions with webcasters to see if long term solutions can be reached in the marketplace."
	American Federation of Television and Radio Artists: "We hope and still believe we will be able to reach solutions so Webcasters can grow and reach an audience and artists can be compensated for their work."
	Arbitron: "We are pleased about today's decision and we are eager to hear what the Librarian of Congress will decide on 6/20. We are hopeful a decision will be reached that will enable the webcasting medium to continue is growth and reach its potential as an advertising medium"
	Beethoven.com: "While we at Beethoven.com are pleased that the Librarian, based on the record, has rejected the rates and terms proposed by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), we understand that this is not the end of the issue for Beethoven Radio and other webcasters. "On June 20, 2002, the Librarian of Congress will make a final determination as to the royalties and terms that webcasters will have to follow. Until then, we can't be sure that the results of this process will ensure our ability to survive and continue bringing classical music to the Internet."
	Live365.com: "Live365 is encouraged by the Librarian's rejection of the proposed royalty rates. Live365 participated in the CARP and filed a Petition to modify the CARP determination. "We are hopeful that the Librarian will set new rates based upon a percentage of revenue alternative and will lower the per performance royalties as set forth in our petition. We are very interested in getting a corrected rate that will permit the Industry to build, grow and flourish. "Live365 truly believes that if the mechanism for measuring royalties is correctly set it will benefit the artists, other copyright owners, and the Internet Radio broadcasters."
	Digitally Imported: "Indeed, we all prevailed in the first step! The Day of Silence, all the support from listeners, the media coverage that followed, the voices reached the right people - CARP’s Rejected! "The US Copyright Office will now consider the case and issue a final decision on Webcasting royalties within 30 days. While we have weathered the storm so far, it’s not quite clear sailing yet. The Office could decide to make only 'cosmetic' changes to the CARP proposal! So in light of today’s development we’ll be revising our Save Our Stations page over the next few days. Be sure to keep an eye on it to find out how you can continue to help save Internet radio. And thanks once again for all of your support so far!"
	SomaFM.com: "We hope this means that the Librarian has realized that not all current parties were properly represented at the CARP hearings, and the proposed rates and reporting requirements were unreasonable and did not represent a market rate. "Webcasters want a royalty rate that is fair and equitable to all sides. The rejected proposal would have killed the market by wiping out most if not all of the industry. "We do not know what will happen next. This ruling may mean that another CARP hearing will be held, this time we hope it will be more accessible to small Internet broadcasters. (Previous CARPs required all participants to share the costs associated with it, which came out to about $300,000 for each participant.) "The battle is not over yet!"
	IM Networks: "Today was a good day for the Webcasting community. This is a stay of execution for a vibrant, promising industry and we can only hope the Librarian of Congress, in making his final decision, will take into consideration Congressional intent to promote webcasting and allow flexibility for all of us, including the smaller, niche webcasters."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

BY PAUL MALONEY
Following yesterday's U.S. Copyright Office announcement that the proposed rate "must be rejected," many in the industry speculated what the Office might do next in the next 30 days. Based on conversations with several legislative assistants over the past several weeks, some webcasters wondered if the possibility exists that the entire arbitration process might begin again.

According the experts in the field, it is very unlikely that the US Copyright Office will order a new arbitration to determine webcast royalty rates. More likely, they say, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters (right) and Librarian of Congress Dr. James Billington will themselves modify the CARP-proposed rate, which they rejected yesterday, 90 days after it was announced.

"Philip Corwin [pictured] is a Washington, DC digital music lobbyist whose clients include the owners of the Kazaa and Scour Exchange peer-to-peer networks. He told The Washington Post Newsbytes (here) "he would be surprised if the matter was sent back to arbitration." He told the paper, "There's not going to be any new information developed on the record, what's the point in making everyone spend all that money on lawyers and all that time and everything again?"

In fact, the Copyright Office, in their announcement, cites the language of that statute that indicates new arbitration isn't even under consideration.

According to the law, "If the Librarian rejects the determination of the arbitration panel, the Librarian shall, before the end of an additional 30-day period, and after full examination of the record created in the arbitration proceeding, issue an order setting the royalty fee." (17 U.S.C. Section 802(f))

Moreover, appeals to the Billington's (right) determination would be subject to appeal within 30 days by "any aggrieved party who would be bound by the determination." Then, according to one expert, an appeals court, should they find the Librarian acted "in an arbitrary manner," can modify or vacate his decision, set a rate themselves, or begin another round of arbitration.

But what if the Library of Congress -- which must base a decision on the record -- feels there's not enough material? Some experts believe, the Copyright Office feels that the power to send a decision back for further review by arbitrators is implied in the statute (as this is exactly what happened in the case of the cable television royalty determination). The Courts have rejected decisions due to an insufficient record, so apparently the Library of Congress believes it is in their power to get more evidence through arbitration where necessary.

For instance, it's possible the Librarian could need more evidence on the question of "a fair percentage of revenue rate."

Webcasters have waited since the passing of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 for a determination of a royalty rate, and operated their businesses without knowing how much they would owe. When webcasters and copyright owners failed to reach an agreement on royalties, a DMCA provision kicked in and a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel was formed. That panel determined a rate after months of deliberation and testimony -- a process from which small webcasters insist they were "shut out."

This feedback cites editorials by RAIN publisher Kurt Hanson here and here, Shaw Pittman attorney David Oxenford here.

"Grow the industry for the benefit of all..."

"Legitimizes this young industry..."

"An advertisement embedded..."

"Charge TV stations to play their commercials?.."