The recordkeeping requirements for 2003-2004 are tougher than those that have been floated by the Copyright Office, including "the start date and time of each transmission of each sound recording" (!).
The bill establishes in legislattion the concept of "third-party participation revenues," which may put the record industry in a stronger position in their future efforts to try to get a percentage of rep firms' commissions as part of their royalty income.
Despite language in the bill, some parties may try to use the rates contained within it as precedent in future CARP proceedings.
Pro: Language in the bill helps resolve some issues that could potentially be in dispute between record labels and recording artists regarding the operation of SoundExchange.
This bill genuinely helps a certain class of webcasters: Most of those who would otherwise be bankrupted by the royalty obligation that comes due on October 20th.
Con: If the bill passes, Congress may feel they have "fixed" all issues involved in webcasting. (For example, all parties involved want to see a change in the procedures of future CARPs. This bill addresses none of those concerns.) The truth is, this bill only addresses the needs of one small segment of webcasters - those that fall in a certain size range and have a certain business model.