This past Tuesday, the Library of Congress rejected a proposal by CARP
(the Copyright Arbitration Royal Panel) which proposed a rate for
internet-based music broadcasters to adhere to. They didn't however
rule out internet music royalty collections alltogether, as a final
decision on rates and such is yet to be determined in June.
While a number of web broadcasters are crying that these royalties
would "shut them down for good," I strongly believe there is
justification in charging a fee, as there is in the radio and
television mediums. In radio, however, only commercial stations pay
royalty fees, while non-commercial, non-profit, and educational
institutions are exempt. The mere notion to charge non-profit
organizations who do not sell their content is ludicrous, as royalties
were originally set up because commercial radio stations essentially
"re-sell" the music (their 'content') to advertisers. To put it
bluntly, commercial radio stations are basically making money off of
other people's songs.
It is by this justification of royalty payments that commercial
"electronic" or "web" organizations who sell the content should, by all
means, pay all applicable fees, and clear distinctions need to be made
as to who is providing educational non-profit fair usage. A number of
"internet petitions" circulate around about this issue but there's a
lot of smoke being blown around by various groups on each side who have
strong financial interests in the matter. In the end, be wary of these
petitions, always question the motives of each group involved, and
voice your opinions to your representative (if you have one) in
Congress.