Copyright news anyone? This one relates to the royalty fees being charged to online broadcasters in the US, mainly by the music publishers. The web companies argue that there is a discrepancy between the way web companies and terrestrial radio stations are charged for the use of music, and that that gives traditional broadcasters an unfair advantage.
The debate reached the US Senate this week where the snappily titled Senate Judiciary Subcommittee On Intellectual Property instigated a debate between the webcasters and the publishers on the topic. RealNetworks boss Rob Glaser was most vocal, saying that the current set up was in risk of jeopardising the businesses of those trying to build legal online music platforms. He told the committee: "By clarifying and simplifying the compulsory composition mechanical license and the statutory sound recording performance license, this Subcommittee and the Congress will provide RealNetworks and the entire online music industry with business and legal certainty and dramatically reduced complexity". So there you go.
Word is that the music publishers remain cautious of some of the webcaster's proposals because they reckon that what will be positioned as bureaucratic savings will actually end up cutting the income they receive for their music being played online. However insiders say key players in US music publishing do recognise that something needs to be done if the survival of legit online music platforms is at risk because of the current situation. The MDs of Real Networks et al might be playing hard ball on this, but the publishers recognise reaching a deal with those companies is better than the alternative - a lack of decent online music provision that encourages punters to go the illegal P2P route.