Mr. Speaker, the 1995 Digital Performance Right and Sound Recording Act that created a performance right in sound recordings for digital transmissions did not specifically address the issue of webcasting or Internet radio broadcasts. As a result, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains provisions that authorize eligible webcasters to accept a compulsory license, thereby enabling them to operate over the Internet without negotiating licenses in the marketplace. A compulsory license essential allows an individual or entity to use copyrighted works like music and movies at an industry-negotiated or government-mandated rate. Because webcasters and members of the recording industry could not agree to a rate, a statutorily authorized arbitration panel, called a CARP, was convened at the U.S. Copyright Office to determine what the rate would be. The arbitrators issued a decision on February 20, 2002. The copyright holders in the recording industry thought that the rate was too low, and the webcasters thought that the rate was too high. Pursuant to his authority under the Copyright Act, the Librarian of Congress, based upon a recommendation by the Register of Copyrights, decided on June 8 to reject the suggestions of the webcasting CARP. On June 20, he issued a final decision which lowered the rate further. Some webcasters believe that the rate is still excessive.
Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Speaker, the 1995 Digital Performance Right and Sound Recording Act that created a performance right in sound…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on webcasting and copyright rates.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
I am no stranger to this debate. In the aftermath of 9/11, I stood on this floor to advance the USA PATRIOT Act. I still believe, as I did at the time, in its necessity to protect our country from terrorist attacks. In 2015, after abuses…
I appeal the decision of the Chair. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The terms of House Resolution 842 are unambiguous and so, consistent with the ruling of the Chair on September 16, 1977, to permit an appeal in this case would be tantamount to…
the chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead-wrong on all of the issues that we have been debating.
It is my intention to raise a point of order that this resolution requires a two-thirds vote. I will argue the point of order when it is made, but I need to know when the proper time is to raise the point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore…





