Leave it to those bigwigs at the Copyright Royalty Board and SoundExchange to get all existential on our asses about the true value of that new Mariah Carey jam. The Daily Swarm is reporting (via Digital Media Wire) that SoundExchange has honed in on Last.fm, the internet radio/social networking website, alleging that the site may not be in compliance with royalty requirements for the songs it uses. An audit will assess the "only a couple of thousand dollars a year" that Last.fm paid under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act, despite selling out to CBS for more than $200 million shortly thereafter. It is this Small Webcasters act that has kept much of internet radio functioning due to pressures from the Copyright Royalty Board. If Last.fm is indeed found to be ducking charges, the real loser will be the truly "small" webcasters for whom the act is designed to protect.
However, more questions sit at the center of the debate, as examined in detail by DC attorney David Oxenford. In plain English, Oxenford argues that the copyright holders (record companies) assume that the success of sites like Last.fm are based solely on the music they provide, and they should be compensated as such. What they fail to realize, he notes, is that, if this were true, internet radio would be thriving and anyone could do it. Really, it is the "community aspects" of sites like Last.fm or iMeem that serve as the main draw. When these success stories are eventually bought out for unreal amounts of money (in an effort to expand the service), the record companies will eventually be paid their share if the successes continue.
And so the question remains: is there an "intrinsic value" to music or should it be judged only as a tool that leads to "revenue"? It all might seem like a load of industry mumbo-jumbo, but as a fan and a listener, it is quite terrifying that when these court precedents about who owns what and how much it is "worth" finally come down, they will dictate how and when we hear music.
