There is of course much public criticism of the RIAA in this process, and I can understand and appreciate much of it, but my experience doesn't validate the malevolent intent applied by many to their role. For example, I testified as the RIAA's expert witness (yes, I am prepared to hear more about how I sold my soul) but at no time in the process did they even once suggest how I should testify or ask me to say anything other than what I thought was the truth. I thought the RIAA's attorneys exceptionally good and fair. They simply asked me to tell the truth as I saw it and to explain the technology and economics behind webcasting. My testimony is, I believe, a matter of public record.

Finally, to those who believe the only standard is parity with radio which pays nothing to sound recording owners, I must point out that the United States is a global exception in this regard and my guess is that this is attributable primarily to the warped role our media plays in our extended, non-parliamentary election process, with broadcasters wielding exceptional, disproportionate power. As a result, they get a break in the US like nowhere else, and I don't think it should be used to model a fair system for webcasting.

At a Sunday LA Pho I once asked John Parres how much he thought webcasters should pay for the use of music. He offered an off-the-cuff opinion that it should be about 85% of their revenues, and while I won't hold him to the exaggerated number I know he was making an important point: Artists deserve money from those who build businesses on their art, and now that we have a law that says the artist should get half the money we shouldn't be cheap in setting the rate.