EBU/UE, accesso flessibile agli archivi audiovisivi

Bel comunicato di oggi dall'EBU sull'incontro avvenuto ieri tra i rappresentanti dell'organizzazione dei broadcaster pubblici europei e Michel Barnier, commissario europeo per i Mercati interni e i servizi, a proposito della questione copyright e delle iniziative che l'Unione sta prendendo al proposito nell'ambito della sua Digital Agenda. Come ogni bravo consumatore di streaming, podcast e altro materiale messo a disposizione dai siti delle emittenti pubbliche come Radio RAI, la questione dei diritti d'autore sui contenuti depositati negli archivi elettronici è fondamentale. E le regole attuali servono solo a precludere una accessibilità - anche regolamentata e a pagamento - che sia davvero ampia e alla portata di tutti. Occorrono chiaramente regole nuove e anche l'EBU sembra favorire i modelli di licensing collettivo che oggi vengono esplorati con maggior interesse. C'è in gioco la nostra capacità, come cittadini digitali, di usufruire di un patrimonio culturale e informativo che è soprattutto "nostro", ancor prima dei "titolari dei diritti". Fermo restando che anche questi ultimi godono di ogni diritto alla equa retribuzione.

Modernization of copyright licensing to benefit EU consumers and creators

The EBU meets Commissioner Barnier to discuss copyright modernization in the digital era

Brussels, 25 June 2010 - On 24 June 2010 the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)*, the world’s leading broadcasting association, met with European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier, to discuss the EBU's proposals on copyright modernization in the context of the upcoming EU copyright initiatives.

The EBU welcomed the Commissioner's initiatives on copyright in the Digital Agenda. Public service broadcasters are investing substantially in quality content which will help to ensure a more inclusive and sustainable digital information society for the benefit of all citizens.

However, today broadcasters need a simplification of rights clearance mechanisms to encourage innovation and ensure that audiences can legally access media content on a range of new digital platforms, therefore facilitating the development of a successful Digital Agenda.

"Our proposals seek a balanced approach that provides 'easy access' for consumers, facilitating the distribution of content across the internal market, while duly protecting rights holders, including artists," declared Jean-Paul Philippot, President of the European Broadcasting Union.

A key element of the EBU's proposals is the extended collective rights management** mechanism for clearing rights for audio and audiovisual media services and its wider application across the EU for traditional broadcasting as well as on-demand media services.

The EBU welcomed the upcoming Commission initiative on collective management which is of the utmost importance to the EBU and its Members. The EBU urged the Commissioner to have provisions on extended collective licensing introduced in the future framework directive on collective management.

"Collective management is indispensable because broadcasters can't go individually to rights holders for a lot of mass use," said Ingrid Deltenre, Director General of the European Broadcasting Union . She went on to say, " For our Nordic Members, the extended collective licensing system, which has been in place for the past 50 years, has significantly simplified the process of clearing rights for archive content, including orphan works . However, our Members still have a total of approximately 28 million hours of unused radio and TV content, representing an enormous part of Europe's cultural heritage."

The EBU pointed out that this situation creates unnecessary administrative costs, and is not in

the interests of copyright users, consumers or creators. This is why, in addition to proposals on books in a directive on orphan works, solutions must also be found for audiovisual archives.

As part of a coherent set of proposed measures, the EBU highlighted another of its key points: the country of origin principle***. This would facilitate EU-wide licensing avoiding multi-territorial application of 27 national copyright rules, on the basis of the principle of technological neutrality, where a policy should not favour a particular technology.

"The more you facilitate the system, the more likely it is that you will have content available on

all platforms nationally and across borders," concluded Ms Deltenre.

The EBU stressed that its proposals respect the contractual freedom of producers of premium content, e.g. films. They must remain free to negotiate their exclusive rights individually with broadcasters and to contractually restrict their licenses to certain territories.

------------

Note to Editors:

* The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) serves 86 national media organizations from 56 countries in and around Europe. It represents its Members and promotes the values and distinctiveness of public service media in Europe and around the world. The Eurovision and Euroradio networks deliver news, sports, events and music to EBU Members and other media organizations. Services to Members range from legal advice, technical standardization and development to co-production and exchange of quality European content.

For more information about the EBU: http://www.ebu.ch

The copyright proposals, detailed in a study, can be found at: http://www.ebu.ch/copyright

** Extended collective licensing: rights holders of a particular category of works are represented by a collective organization. Broadcasters and other users of works can clear all the rights of that category with the organization, even for works of rights holders who are not a member of the organization. All non-represented rights holders retain the right to opt out of the collective agreement and prohibit the use of their works.

*** Country of origin" rule (the law applicable to a service provider is that of the Member State in which the business providing the service is based), which applies to satellite broadcasting, should be extended to cover all audiovisual media service communications, on all platforms, including the Internet.

Web radio: accordo con i discografici; e Pandora limita

Il sito Paid Content (grazie a Francesco per la segnalazione) fa il punto sull'accordo raggiunto tra le case discografiche americane e le stazioni radio via Internet o i servizi di musica free tipo Pandora, che in base alla nuova regolamentazione del 2007 avrebbero dovuto versare royalties molto onerose ai titolari dei diritti dei brani musicali trasmessi. Gli accordi prevedono la possibilità di versare dei fee in funzione dei brani diffusi o, in alternativa, in base alle revenues complessive (un balzello piuttosto salato: il 25%). La nuova convenzione, che dovrebbe favorire le entità "pureplay" - i business esclusivamente musicali - permettendo loro di tirare avanti, era stata contestata da aziende come RealNetworks, che forniscono anche altri servizi e tecnologie. Real in effetti continua a dirsi non soddisfatta del patto. Quanto a Pandora, facendo i suoi calcoli ha deciso che d'ora in poi chi usufruisce del servizio gratuito non potrà ascoltare più di 40 ore di musica al mese. Oltre questo limite gli utenti saranno tenuti a versare, ogni mese, 99 centesimi di dollaro, o passare direttamente al servizio a pagamento Pandora One.

Labels, Online Radio Stations Agree On New Royalty Rates; Pandora Will Limit Listening


After years of uncertainty, so-called “pureplay” internet broadcasters finally have a copyright deal that should give them enough breathing room to stay in business. The agreement announced today between the record labels and the online radio stations offers an alternative to the higher royalty payments imposed in 2007 by the Copyright Royalty Board—providing a form of revenue sharing and more detailed reporting in exchange for lower per stream rates. Earlier this year, settlement talks faltered at the last minute when the two couldn’t get past the idea of charging companies like RealNetworks based on their overall revenue, rather than streaming music alone.
This still doesn’t help Real, the company says, since it isn’t “pureplay” but Pandora, the poster child for the idea that the new rate could kill businesses, is pretty pleased even though founder Tim Westergren says the rates are “quite high” and that the free service’s top listeners face limits.
Westergren told readers of the Pandora blog that users of the free version will be limited to 40 hours a month; he estimates that will effect about 10 percent. They will be able to pay an opt-in fee of 99 cents when they hit the limit in a given month: “In essence, we’re asking our heaviest users to put a dollar (well, almost a dollar) in the tip jar in any month in which they listen over 40 hours. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable—the same price as a single song download.” Or they can upgrade to premium Pandora One.
For its part, the music industry isn’t letting go of the earlier ruling. John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, stresses that this is an experimental formula and that the rates “the rates the CRB set were appropriate and fair.” The nonprofit collects royalties for copyright owners. This, Stimson said in a statement, “gives certain pureplay webcasters the opportunity to flesh out various business models and the creators of music the opportunity to share in the success their recordings generate.” These rates are extended through 2014 for small pureplay webcasters, and through 2015 for the others; it’s retroactive to 2006 for all.
The final settlement includes three rate classes, each starting with a $25,000 minimum annual fee that can be applied to royalties owed and with a minimum percentage of all their U.S. revenues up to 25 percent:

—Large pureplay webcasters: Pay the greater of either a per performance rate or 25 percent of total revenue; agree to provide “more comprehensive reporting” about the sound recordings used than currently required.

—Small pureplay webcasters (those earning $1.25 million or less in total revenues with a cap on music streamed): Through 2014, they will have the option of paying the greater of a percentage of revenue or a percentage of expenses, and “in certain circumstances” can have less stringent reporting requirements in exchange for a “proxy fee.” That option could keep the paperwork down, something that can be intense for smaller operations.

—Pureplay webcasters that provide bundled, syndicated or subscription services: Will pay per-performance fees that are the same as those contained in an agreement cocluded earlier in the year by SoundExchange with the National Association of Broadcasters.

—Update: Real spokesman Bill Hankes explained the company’s situation via e-mail: “None of the settlements are a good fit for our diverse business. Our goal is to arrive at a rate that is feasible for both free-to-the-user and bundled music services. We’d like to reach an agreement that makes sense, but if that proves impossible we are prepared to adhere to the rates established by the Copyright Royalty Judges.”

Radio e royalties, un anno dopo il CRB

A un anno dall'entrata in vigore delle nuove tariffe della Copyright Royalty Board per le royalties che le emittenti radio su Internet devono corrispondere ai proprietari dei diritti, il Boston Globe fa un primo bilancio della situazione. La radio su Internet non è morta, ma gli operatori più piccoli sono in oggettiva difficoltà.

Internet radio firms say royalties limiting choices
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | March 14, 2008

For Barry Cedergren, the decision to stop broadcasting nightclub music over the Internet was a matter of simple arithmetic. Much as he enjoyed playing music online, a big increase in music performance royalties made it too expensive for him to continue operating Mobile Beat Radio.
"It was going to cost us tens and tens of thousands of dollars just in fees to play this music," he said. Cedergren launched Mobile Beat Radio from his home city of Minneapolis in January 2007, two months before a panel of federal judges approved a big increase in the performance royalty paid by Internet broadcasters every time they stream a song, prompting him to immediately shut down his site.
Cedergren's story is the nightmare scenario painted by many Internet radio companies who have claimed that the royalty hike would kill online broadcasting in its cradle. In fact, Internet radio is far from dead. Online broadcasters like Pandora and Live365 still serve millions of listeners. But the higher rates have driven away many small online broadcasters who say they can't afford to stay in business. And even industry leader Pandora says it's in trouble. "We're at the very end of our tether," founder Tim Westergren said. "There's a very good chance that we will shut down."
Critics of the royalty system say the result is decreasing musical diversity on the Internet. They warn of an online music industry dominated by the same giant media companies that presently dominate traditional radio broadcasting. And they point to CBS Broadcasting Inc.'s recent takeover of the Internet radio operations of Time Warner Inc.'s AOL as a harbinger of an Internet radio market rendered bland and predictable.
(continua)

Lo stesso bilancio lo troviamo, in forma più approfondita, sulla Radio and Internet Newsletter di Kurt Hanson, mentre il Houston Chronicle pubblica un editoriale che invoca una legge che cambi la situazione delle royalties riguardanti la musica trasmessa via etere. Oggi negli USA i diritti vanno agli autori dei brani e agli editori, non ai musicisti che li eseguono e questo secondo il Chronicle deve cambiare.

For much of the past century, American musicians have been denied the right to get paid for their work when it is used to generate audiences and profits for radio station owners. Songwriters and music publishers receive royalties, but the performers who bring the music to life have been unfairly excluded.
While U.S. radio broadcasters raked in more than $20 billion in 2006 for media conglomerates, the industry's representatives claim closing the royalty loophole would constitute an onerous tax on the industry.
The United States is the only developed Western nation that does not allow its musicians to collect payments for recordings played over the radio airwaves. That puts it in the unsavory company of culturally authoritarian nations, including China, North Korea and Iran.
(continua)

La radio degli altri viola il copyright?

Non sono tra coloro che affermano che il copyright andrebbe abolito, ma le pretese della Performing Rights Society presso una corte di Edimburgo mi pare veramente forzata. La PRS, sorta di SIAE britannica, ha accusato Kwik-Fit, catena locale di officine di riparazione, di ripetuta violazione del copyright. Secondo la società per la tutela del diritto d'autore, nei garage Kwik i meccanici ascoltano la radio a tutto volume e clienti e altri lavoratori possono ascoltare la musica. In pratica, sostiene la PRS, si tratterebbe di esecuzione pubblica di brani musicali, per i quali si devono pagare le royalties. Il giudice della seduta preliminare ha acconsentito che la causa proseguisse il suo corso.
La prossima volta dite al tassista di spegnere l'autoradio. Non si sa mai.

Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios

A car repair firm has been taken to court accused of infringing musical copyright because its employees listen to radios at work.

The action against the Kwik-Fit Group has been brought by the Performing Rights Society which collects royalties for songwriters and performers.
At a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh a judge refused to dismiss the £200,000 damages claim. Kwik-Fit wanted the case brought against it thrown out.
Lord Emslie ruled that the action can go ahead with evidence being heard. The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.
It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright. The Edinburgh-based firm, founded by Sir Tom Farmer, is contesting the action and said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace.

Playing music

The PRS lodged details of countrywide inspection data over the audible playing of music at Kwik-Fit on more than 250 occasions in and after 2005. It claimed that its pleadings in the action were more than enough to allow a hearing of evidence in the case at which they would expect to establish everything allegedly found and recorded at inspection visits.
Lord Emslie said: "The key point to note, it was said, was that the findings on each occasion were the same with music audibly 'blaring' from employee's radios in such circumstances that the defenders' [Kwik-Fit] local and central management could not have failed to be aware of what was going on." The judge said: "The allegations are of a widespread and consistent picture emerging over many years whereby routine copyright infringement in the workplace was, or inferentially must have been, known to and 'authorised' or 'permitted' by local and central management." He said that if that was established after evidence it was "at least possible" that liability for copyright infringement would be brought home against Kwik-Fit. But Lord Emslie said he should not be taken as accepting that the PRS would necessarily succeed in their claims.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

Caro-copyright: una speranza per le Web radio?

Giornate al cardiopalma per il partito della Web radio. Prima una corte d'appello distrettuale di Washington aveva negato la moratoria chiesta dalle associazioni di settore per evitare il pagamento delle nuove tariffe previste per la trasmissione via Web di musica protetta da copyright. Poi, a quanto sostiene il San Jose Mercury News, dalla stessa SoundExchange, l'organismo incaricato di fungere da collettore dei soldi versati dalle stazioni Internet, arriva una possibile ancora di salvezza: la raccolta delle "fee" non inizierà finché sono in corso le discussioni con la controparte su possibili accordi speciali. In Congresso, nel frattempo, prosegue il suo iter una proposta di legge che dovrebbe assicurare alle Web radio un regime di franchigia.

July 13, 2007
Net radio’s executioner halts ax in midair
Posted by John Murrell at 10:08 am

(http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/07/net_radios_executioner_halts_ax_in_midair.html)
This hearkens back to those dramatic serials in the early days of radio in which the protagonist was left in peril at the end of each episode, only to escape the next week and battle against new threats. Seemingly out of chances to block Sunday’s imposition of crushing new royalty fees, thousands of Internet radio broadcasters, large and small, looked to be on the verge of shutting down or scaling way back (see “Weekend forecast: sunny Saturday, Internet radio doomsday Sunday“). Late Thursday, a reprieve came from the only entity able to offer one — SoundExchange. The licensing body said it would not begin collecting the new fees Sunday and would hold off while negotiations continue. Wired reports that the talks have already cleared one contentious issue off the table, at least for now — the minimum charge of $6,000 per channel required under a scheme created by the Copyright Royalty Board. With the large webcasters streaming thousands of personalized “channels,” the fee would cost them millions.
Even though Net radio remains on the razor’s edge, subject to the good graces of SoundExchange, webcasters were encouraged by the development. “It was getting pretty close,” said Tim Westergreen, founder of popular service Pandora. “I always had underlying optimism that sanity was going to prevail, but I was beginning to wonder.” And while crediting consumer outcry for SoundExchange’s new flexibility, SaveNetRadio.org is still hoping for a legislative solution to ensure the continued health of the medium.

No alla discriminazione delle Web Radio

Leonardo Chiariglione in persona riporta sulla lista di discussione della sua iniziativa Dmin.it (un ambizioso progetto per lo sviluppo di un framework interoperabile per la gestione del diritto d'autore digitale), un intervento della Information Technology and Innovation Foundation sulla questione del nuovo tariffario che la Copyright Royalty Board, CRB ha imposto alle Web radio americane che trasmettono via Internet musica protetta da copyright. In un lungo documento curato da Daniel Castro, l'ITIF invoca alcuni radicali cambiamenti alle regole appena entrate in vigore, con particolare riguardo alle tariffe, alle eventuali esenzioni dal pagamento di royalties e all'introduzione di un sistema più flessibile e meno penalizzante nei confronti dei nuovi canali online.

Il documento è troppo lungo ma volevo riportare una sintesi delle tre raccomandazioni di Castro e delle sue conclusioni. In pratica ITIF chiede tra le altre cose:

- norme che assicurino la parità di trattamento tra stazioni radio terrestri e Internet (in pratica si chiede che se le radio via etere sono esentate dal pagamento di copyright tale esenzione debba essere estesa alle Web radio, o che viceversa paghino tutti una cifra più giusta);

- la creazione di un nuovo database dei contenuti e delle tariffe (che devono essere modulabili anche in base alle richieste degli autori);

- la conservazione di una copia di questo database presso la Library of Congress;
- misure (canoni annui per stazione e non per singolo canale trasmesso dallo stesso sito, possibilità di negoziare le royalties direttamente con gli autori) che tutelino le Web radio più piccole e non commerciali dal predominio dei grossi operatori.

Il documento completo può essere prelevato a questo indirizzo.

Recommendation 1: Promote Innovation by Eliminating Technology-Specific Policies
To ensure that Internet radio competes on a level playing field with terrestrial radio, Congress should uniformly apply the performance copyright for sound recordings to all broadcasts. Terrestrial radio should not be the only technology exempt from paying royalties for performances of sound recordings. The sound recording copyright should either be eliminated for all radio or extended to all radio, but Congress should eliminate the disparity between competing technologies. In addition, Congress should ensure that the statutory license include the right to make ephemeral copies of sound recordings. Charging an additional fee for the ephemeral copies discourages broadcasters from using more efficient technology that requires these copies. To encourage innovation, future legislation should ensure that the statutory license includes this right at no additional cost

Recommendation 2: Adopt Competitive Pricing for Statutory License Royalties If Congress decides to apply the sound recording performance royalty to both Internet radio and terrestrial radio, it should change the way in which royalties are set. Every song is not the same, but by creating a statutory license with a single rate for all music, Congress has essentially eliminated competitive pricing for sound recordings. To correct this but still maintain the benefits of a statutory license, Congress should create a new system where sound recording copyright owners can establish separate royalty rates for each sound recording. Congress should mandate that SoundExchange, in conjunction with the Library of Congress, create a national online catalogue of all sound recordings and allow copyright owners to determine the statutory license rate for each of their works at or below a statutory rate. The database would also allow copyright owners to specify separate royalty rates for commercial webcasters, small webcasters, and noncommercial webcasters. Legislation should cap royalty rates so as to limit a broadcaster’s potential liability for broadcasting a song.
...
The Library of Congress should maintain an open version of this database as a valuable public resource.

Recommendation 3: Enable Small and Noncommercial Webcasters to Negotiate Separate Royalty Rates
The new statutory rates do not sufficiently address small or noncommercial webcasters (like NPR). Congress should modify the terms of the statutory license to accommodate these webcasters so they can continue to function and copyright owners can continue to receive royalty payments.
...
The current decision to require a $500 annual fee per channel imposes an unnecessary burden on broadcasters with numerous channels. If broadcasters provide an aggregated report of usage from all channels to SoundExchange, it would be more appropriate to charge a minimum fee per broadcaster rather than per channel. These changes will allow small and noncommercial webcasters to compete and innovate while ensuring that copyright holders receive adequate compensation.

Conclusion

Internet radio offers benefits to listeners, musicians and the economy; however, the recent CRB ruling reflects a broken system that Congress needs to fix. Internet radio represents the future of broadcast music and it is time for Congress to act to ensure its long-term survival. Implementing these changes will ensure that radio technologies can fairly compete, innovation can thrive, copyright owners can receive fair compensation, and Americans can continue to listen to quality music.

Vuoi trasmettere via Web? Allora paga

La radio cerca di adeguarsi a Internet interagendo col mezzo. Parallelamente nascono tantissime iniziative di Web casting puro, una tecnologia che consente in teoria a tutti di mettere su una stazione radio. Non sentite le sirene e gli allarmi che suonano in casa dei detentori del copyright sui brani musicali? Certo che lo sentite, da anni le case discografiche americane riunite nella RIAA si sono armate per combattere il fenomeno peer-to-peer, il download illegale (un CD che costa 30 euro è legale, invece), le stazioni radio sul Web.
Adesso la RIAA ha annunciato anche le tariffe applicate alle royalties che le Internet radio devono versare per trasmettere brani musicali. Lo segnalano due blog specializzati Radio and Internet Newsletter e Techdirt, riportati puntualmente da Zacharias Liangas su DXLD. E sapete che c'è? Sono royalties che sembrano studiate apposta per strangolare le stazioni piccole, gli indipendenti che vogliono farsi sentire. Il solito sistema che costruisce il suo bel muro e fa pagare un bilglietto di ingresso talmente elevato che alla fine possono entrare solo i più ricchi, per diventare ancora più ricchi con la pubblicità o con pasciute subscription fees. Non sono di quelli che non vorrebbero pagare mai, anzi sono sulla stessa barca di quelli che usano carta e penna per vivere. Però mi piacerebbe pagare il giusto e avere molta scelta e poter pensare che chiunque, su Internet, se ha qualcosa da dire, o una musica da far ascoltare, possa farlo senza ipotecare la casa. Per la bella faccia di certi "cantanti" e delle loro simpatiche dipendenze psicotrope, poi.

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has announced its decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA . RAIN has learned the rates that the Board has decided on, effective retroactively through the beginning of 2006. They are as follows: (A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays.)

• 2006 $.0008 per performance
• 2007 $.0011 per performance
• 2008 $.0014 per performance
• 2009 $.0018 per performance
• 2010 $.0019 per performance

http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml
ulteriori approfondimenti su:
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030507/index.shtml


RIAA PUSHES THROUGH INTERNET RADIO ROYALTY RATES DESIGNED TO KILL WEBCASTS
(from the "broadcasters-must-be-a-special-boys-club" dept)

It's been quite some time since we last heard about arguments between internet webcasters and SoundExchange (a group spun off from the RIAA to handle royalty collection). Back in the summer of 2003, there was even a lawsuit over the royalties being set, that were pretty clearly designed to put smaller, independent webcasters out of business. From the RIAA's point of view, this is perfectly typical. They still view the world (especially the internet) as a broadcast medium. Therefore, they want a small number of "professional" content producers who create the content for everyone else. Then they can just sign a few ridiculously large licenses with those large players, and "the people" get to consume it. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet as a communications medium -- a medium where people express themselves back and forth to each other, rather than a place we go sit back and "consume." While the fight had gotten quiet lately, the good old RIAA was hard at work making sure that things were happening in the background. A bunch of folks submitted stories this weekend noting that late Friday (making it less likely to make news) the Copyright Royalty Board announced that it was adopting the royalty rates SoundExchange put forth and making them effective retroactively to the beginning of 2006 -- meaning that many small independent webcasters are now facing a tremendous royalty bill they're unlikely to be able to afford (thanks to everyone who sent this in). That last link goes through the impact of all of this on various players -- and it's not pretty. The new rates pretty much decimate a large portion of the industry. And, it's only going to get worse, as the royalty rates increase at incredible rates ("2007's rate is a 37.5% increase over 2006; 2008 and 2009's annual increases are about 28% per year; and 2010 adds another 5.5% increase.") Of course, this is utterly backwards and damaging to the industry itself. A webcaster (especially the smaller, independent ones) is a great means of promotion for artists. It tends to attract more loyal and well- targeted audiences, who are more likely to want to later go out and buy a CD, a t-shirt or attend a concert. It lets the industry better promote material from a wider range of artists. However, in the industry's desperate need to charge for every single use, they're effectively killing off yet another wonderful promotional vehicle. The industry continues to think that it needs to do this because it wants to own all distribution and promotional avenues in order to be able to continue to take its large cut. However, that's no reason for the Copyright Royalty Board to put in place these artificial barriers that only serve to protect the recording industry's outdated understanding of its own business model.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070304/223155.shtml