IMPORTANT MUSIC NEWS

Greetings from Bruce, Steve, Ernie and Charlie:

Hope all is well with you. We're writing to you on a matter of deep concern to musicians, artists, and listeners. This is NOT, we repeat NOT, an "urban legend."

On March 2, 2007, The Copyright Royalty Board (a body created by the US Congress) approved royalty rates that will simply bury any small webcaster, and create a heavy burden even for big broadcasters like Yahoo, AOL Music and Pandora. These rates will also cripple public and college radio stations who stream their broadcasts on the Internet. How high will these rates be? Around 100% of a small webcasters revenue, give or take a few points, in most cases. Think that's impossible to pay? It sure is.

One thing you can do to protect your right to hear eclectic independent radio and discover new artists that will take less than five minutes of your time is to write your congressional representative today. And pass the word to anyone you know that loves or makes music.
Tell your representative:
"I do not support The Copyright Royalty Board's (CRB) March 2nd decision to substantially increase royalty rates. Not only will it impact my choices, but the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) manipulation of these rates, and the CRB's indifference will hurt working artists, damage small record labels and force law abiding small webcasters, already paying a large portion of their revenue per month in royalties, out of business. This decision will also damage hundreds of small businesses providing goods and services to working artists, small record labels and small webcasters.
I respectfully ask that you evaluate the CRB decision and do whatever is necessary to establish a reasonable royalty rate for all the parties involved."
You can read an entire article on this from CNN here:
http://www.publicradiomail.org/ct/Ip3LOT71xzQF/
This message also appears on our band blog at:
www.myspace.com/halbandnj
On behalf of all smaller artists, radio streamers, and music lovers, we thank you for your help. And don't forget to purchase a few of your favorite locally produced CDs by smaller artists as well. The majors get all the advantages, and pay for little. The little guys pay up front for everything and get no breaks, except for what others grant them. You can help rectify the balance.
The guys in Home At Last

- - -

EFF Takes On Viacom Over YouTube

By Susan Butler, N.Y.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped into the legal fray between Viacom and YouTube. The group filed a complaint today (March 22) for MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films against Viacom for "misrepresentation of copyright infringement." The group claims that YouTube removed a satirical video of "The Colbert Report" after Viacom allegedly claimed that the video infringed its copyrighted material.
MoveOn and Brave New Films created a video called "Stop the Falsiness," which they intended to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary on Colbert's portrayal of the right-wing media and parodying MoveOn's own reputation for political activism.
The short film, uploaded to YouTube in August 2006, includes clips from Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" as well as original interviews about show host Stephen Colbert, which the creators intended to be humorous. Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central, allegedly demanded in March that YouTube take "Stop the Falsiness" down, claiming the video infringed its copyrights.
Earlier this month, Viacom sued YouTube and Google for copyright infringement in a federal court in New York, asking for more than $1 billion in damages. The media giant claims that the services offer unlicensed content.
MoveOn and Brave New Films, in their suit filed in the federal District Court in San Francisco, ask the court for an injunction and a declaration of rights. They claim that their video does not infringe any rights; they are entitled to create and make the video available to the public under their First Amendment right of free speech and under copyright principles of fair use. If a work is considered to be a "parody" of a copyrighted work, then that work would be a fair use of another author's copyrighted work.
EFF attorneys Fred von Lohmann, Jason Schultz and Corynne McSherry are
representing MoveOn, while Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig is representing Brave New Films.
Viacom could not be immediately reached for comment.

- - -

Publishers Sue XM Satellite Radio
March 22, 2007



By Susan Butler, N.Y.

A group of music publishers sued XM Satellite Radio over the XM + MP3 service late today (March 22). EMI Music Publishing, Warner/Chappell Music, Sony/ATV Music and Famous Music claim they want to "put an end to the pervasive and willful copyright infringement" of their compositions distributed over the service to "iPod-like devices controlled by XM."

"We've read that XM paid Oprah $55 million to develop content," says David Israelite, president/CEO of the National Music Publishers' Assn. "Yet they haven't paid one penny to creators of music for copies on these devices."

XM has argued in the past that it functions only as a radio broadcaster, licensing the compositions from performing rights organizations ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. "The lawsuit filed by the NMPA is a negotiating tactic to gain an advantage in our ongoing business discussions," says a spokesman for XM in a statement. "XM pays royalties to writers and composers who are also compensated by our device manufacturers. We are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and that we will prevail."

The publishers claim that the service does not merely broadcast recorded songs; it delivers perfect digital copies of songs for its customers to copy to the devices, create extensive libraries of the songs and replay them for as long as the listeners pay XM's monthly fee. Yet XM has not licensed the right to reproduce or distribute the recorded compositions, publishers claim.

The suit, filed in the federal District Court in New York, comes one month after a judge in the same court handed major labels a partial victory in their case against XM over the service. In January, federal District Court Judge Deborah Batts denied XM's attempt to dismiss the labels' lawsuit. The two suits could be consolidated so the same judge would preside over both claims.

Israelite says that negotiations began with president/CEO Hugh Panero over a year ago. "XM's final, best offer was far from adequate," says Israelite. He declined to provide specific details of the offer, citing a confidentiality agreement between the parties concerning details of the discussions.

Sirius Satellite Radio, part of the $13 billion proposed merger with XM, settled similar claims with labels over its S50 portable device last year. Israelite says that Sirius has not yet settled with publishers; he expects negotiations to start up again soon.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are Famous, the Viacom-owned independent publisher, and 26 other publishers owned by EMI, Warner/Chappell or Sony/ TV. Although Universal Music Publishing Group and BMG Music Publishing are not named as plaintiffs, they are also part of the suit since it was filed by the NMPA on behalf of its members.

"In these types of cases, you find some representative plaintiffs," says Israelite. "This suit is really a fight for the entire publishing industry."

The publishers seek a maximum of $150,000 per infringement, listing in the complaint more than 200 songs as a "small fraction" of the compositions infringed. They include "Let It Be," "My Heart Will Go On," "Me and Bobby McGee" and "Like a Prayer."

"We don't want to hold back the technology, we don't want to prevent consumers' choice of how to acquire music," says Israelite. "But we must be sure that our creators are compensated properly when copies of their music are made."

Debra Wong Yang, former U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles and now a partner with
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, is lead attorney in the case for the publishers.

- - -

U.K. Court Blow For CDWOW
March 20, 2007

By Roger Pearson, London

London's High Court today found that popular cut-price online music store CDWOW was in contempt of court and ordered the service to pay damages for breach of copyright.

Mr Justice Evans-Lombe ruled that CDWOW had "no tenable ground of defence" to accusations of parallel importing. CDWOW had been accused of copyright infringement by importing CDs from the Far East into the United Kingdom.

The High Court copyright claim, a class action, was brought against CDWOW's parent Music Trading Online (HK) by the British Phonographic Industry on behalf of its members. The BPI first launched legal proceedings against CDWOW in 2002.

CDWOW signed undertakings that it would not import CDs from outside the European Economic Area, just days before that case was due to be tried. It was the breach of these undertakings which formed the basis of the contempt proceedings, the BPI said in a statement today.

CDWOW was today ordered to disclose its trading records to the BPI by April 20, and to pay £150,000 ($291,000) to the trade body by April 17 as a contribution to its costs, and was refused leave to appeal.

Evans-Lombe deferred consideration of any further penalty to be imposed on CDWOW for breaching the agreement until after an enquiry into damages. The full amount will be decided at a hearing in early July.

Sources say CDWOW could be liable for costs up to £4 ($7.78) per CD or DVD involved, meaning the ultimate damages could potentially run into millions.

The BPI will "be using this judgment to ensure that no other company unfairly undermines legitimate retailers in the U.K. that are trading successfully and respecting the law," comments BPI general counsel Roz Groome in a statement.

The judge rejected claims by CDWOW that damages should be assessed only by reference to a group of 33 "test purchases," which were examined for the purpose of the case. Each of the 33 tests proved positive, with non-EEA product delivered into the U.K.

CDWOW claims that the breaches were a result of human error in their Hong Kong warehouse, where it says EEA products are stored separately from non-EEA products.

In reference to the BPI's contempt of court claims, Evans-Lombe pointed to "strong evidence that CDWOW was committing widespread breach of the undertakings... when the contempt application was launched" and that "CDWOW had taken no effective steps to ensure compliance with the undertakings even after an application for contempt had been served".

Speaking afterwards, the company's founder Henrik Wesslen pledged to continue providing the cheapest possible CDs and DVDs to customers.

"We knew the verdict was always going to be a negative one because we held our hands up to a number of incidents, even though it was not intentional," he said. "However, this is a harsher verdict than we would have hoped for and we will be taking this further to fight this injustice."

Wesslen added, "At a time when the record industry is losing vast revenue to piracy, it seems ludicrous that they can set out to destroy a section of the market that is actually making them money."



- - -

News From Live 365 -
IMPORTANT: Visit www.live365.com/broadcasterchoice for changes that immediately affect your broadcast.
Dear Live365 Broadcasters:
Recently, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) made an initial ruling of alarmingly high new royalty rates for Internet radio for the 2006-2010 period. The ruling increased sound recording royalties by 140% over the next 4 years and included a $500 minimum fee per station per year. The CRB is now rehearing our arguments against these unrealistic fees, but we must keep the pressure on.
With around 10,000 stations the previously released rates would mean an additional $5 million per year owed by Live365 and our broadcasters. Should this decision stand, most small webcasters on Live365 would be driven out of business and listeners would lose diversity in radio programming and choice in radio content.
We've created a special broadcaster webpage that has tools and information to help. This new page includes congressional addresses and contact information, sample letters, a broadcaster story submission form, details on changes we will be making to the Live365 services, and more.
Please check it out at www.live365.com/broadcasterchoice.
Though the CRB is rehearing our arguments, you still must make your voice heard by the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Call, write, e-mail, and/or visit your Representatives and Senators today!
We will continue to fight for a realistic ruling and will work with our broadcasters, audiences, partners, and DiMA to appeal with the DC Court of Appeals if our motions are not granted.
You, Live365 Broadcasters, are our voice. Our voice must resonate to be heard and to save Internet radio. We've weathered this storm before and will do so again! Sincerely,

Jason Stoddard
Director, Broadcasting
Live365 Inc.