Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walter Morton who wrote (4506)	5/22/1999 3:13:00 PM
From: chris431	Respond to of 18366

What was that about greed, RIAA, & SDMI: From: RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, Respondent. Digital Cable Radio Associates, et al., Intervenors. No. 98-1263. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Cite: 1999 WL 317036 (D.C.Cir.) "When the parties in this case failed to reach an agreement during the six- month negotiation period, RIAA filed a petition with the Copyright Office seeking arbitration. . .the Librarian convened a copyright arbitration royalty panel. Before the panel, RIAA sought a rate of 41.5 percent of the digital services revenue. The three music services appearing in the case, Digital Music Express, Digital Cable Radio Associates, and Muzak, L.P., urged a rate of 2.0 percent or less. . .the arbitration panel recommended a royalty rate of 5.0 percent of the services' gross domestic residential revenues and certain terms for payment and accounting for payments. . . The Register rejected the rate set by the panel. . . and recommended a rate of 6.5 percent. " Ironically, the one issue the court did send back for further examination is one which could basically reverse all the other holdings in regard to RIAA itself. "We do agree, however, with RIAA's next argument that, even if the Librarian has the authority, the imposition of terms here was improper. The problem in this case is that there is no evidence in the record to support the terms imposed on RIAA." I found it ironic b/c the CNET articles makes it sound as though this one aspect was unimportant in relation to the general outcome. Chris