Wow, congress did something right for once.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/818316.asp

It still puts amateur webcasters out of business, since there's still (apparently) a clause intended to do so:

Alternatively, webcasters would pay 5 percent of their expenses for the 1998-2002 period and 7 percent over the next two years, if that amount was greater. (emphasis added)

But that's probably not a huge deal. Of course, it might be possible that that's incorrect, considering the poor writing in that article:

The deal only applies to webcasters who will have taken in less than $1 million in total from 1998 until the end of this year. The revenue cap increases to $500,000 in 2003 and $1.25 million in 2004.

Huh? How does a cap increase from one million dollars to half a million dollars?

“The chairman had a method to his ham-handedness,” said California Democratic Rep. Howard Berman.

without any reference to the chairman except to say that he made a change that won praise. Seems someone at Reuters doesn't like him.

I believe there's also a $500 MINIMUM payment.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

“The chairman had a method to his ham-handedness,” said California Democratic Rep. Howard Berman.

---

Without any reference to the chairman except to say that he made a change that won praise. Seems someone at Reuters doesn't like him.

---

I think this is what the chairman did (its referred to a paragraph before the ham-handedness comment).

In reply to:

---

Judiciary Committee Chairman James Senenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, changed the bill to guarantee direct payment, winning the praise of Democrats who had opposed the bill

---

Which I think would have made a lot of musicians happy as that way any payments don't simply go to the Record companies general slush fund, which was the way it would have worked before.

In reply to:

---

"deal only applies to webcasters who will have taken in less than $1 million in total from 1998 until the end of this year. The revenue cap increases to $500,000 in 2003 and $1.25 million in 2004."

Huh? How does a cap increase from one million dollars to half a million dollars?

---

You have misread the article, the comment about the cap is not linked to the immediately prior sentence, its actually linked to the paragraph further up the article
(this paragraph in fact):

In reply to:

---

Under the terms of the deal, small webcasters would pay 8 percent of their revenues for broadcasts between 1998 and the end of 2002, increasing to 10 percent over the next two years, or 12 percent if the station’s revenues exceeded $250,000.

---

So, what they are saying, is that the "revenue cap" between the 10% rate and the 12% rate, is being gradually raised from $250,000 total revenue earned since 1998, to $500,000 in 2003 and then $1.25 million in 2004.

What that doesn't explain, is are the revenue "cap" figures quoted, cumulative revenue since 1998?
If so, then the cap is actually reducing over time on a "annual basis".

I also wonder if the article is getting confused between the two revenue "caps" in this article:
the "10% to 12%" revenue cap rate cutover point (revenue wise)
and
the revenue cap at which this deal does not apply at all [i.e. over which you are no longer a small webcaster].

So that in 2004, you must earn less than 1.25 million cumulatively measured since 1998 in order to get this deal, which if true means that beyond 2004, this will become unfair to those who have been webcasting for a while as after 4 or more years, their total revenue (or expenses) cannot exceed 1.25 million, and when it does, you are up for the per listener per song levy.

Which puts a big requirement on the broadcaster to track listener numbers for each song they play.

Sorry. I should wait to post until a few hours or days after forcefully ejecting food from my body in the future.

That's all quite obvious now.