Exactly.

It's a perfect example of regulating a business before it has a chance to establish itself. The difference in this case was that the regulations are so severe that they ammount to outlawing the business, turning the markeplace into a business district so exclusive that nobody can afford to set up shop there.

What really amazes me is the absolute silence of all those talk radio guys who constantly moan about Big Government and Big Regulations. I mean, why isn't Rush on this case? These laws came down from Bill Clinton's friends in Hollywood, fergoshsakes. A bunch of Democrats! Guys who don't do anything unless whole buildings of lawyers get involved! Big-gov lovers who hate free enterprise so much that they believe the only rights worth having are the ones you "clear" (see here and here).

I'm sure its because none of these guys want to bite the hand that milks them.

I should have included links to earlier stories on the subject. Here's a list, with the most recent stories at the top:

• Hollywood Steps Up Its Assault on the Net While Webcasting Death March Claims KPIG

• Why are so many Internet radio stations still on the air?
• CARP Put to Death, but DMCA Still Sleeping
• Silent Mayday
• Saving Cyberspace
• Finishing the Third Wave
• Arbitron Throws the Book at CARP
• A Tale of Three Cultures
• Bizarre vs. Bazaar
• The Choice
• Run Streaming
• The Promise of Radio Paradise: An Open-Source Challenge to Commercial Radio

Licensed radio stations have neverbeen required to pay "performance" fees to artists. For many years they have paid small fees to BMI and ASCAP for the right to use compositions. That money is supposed to go to composers.

When the DMCA was being written, the dot-com madness was getting into full swing. Hollywood had lawmakers fearing the possibility that unlicensed Internet broadcasters could stream "perfect" copies of CDs to everybody, and decided to characterize those streams as "performances" for which charges would be made by the stations to the listeners. Lawmakers agreed. The DMCA passed unanimously.

It's a ludicrous Act that got railroaded through, and once it was in place the RIAA stepped in and engineered the rest of the process. Webcasters, small and without any political clout, got run over.

You can bet that if similar fees were proposed for over-the-air radio by the Copyright Office, the NAB would have raised a stink to the heavens. Actually, that's what they want to do now that they understand that these fees apply to them as well as to the little cloutless webcasters. But they know the cause is fairly lost, which is why they've issued this motion for a "partial stay."

And, quite honestly, most of over-the-air broadcasters still don't understand the Net or care much about it. They just don't want to be charged for having sent streams on it over the last few years.