Well a 'compulsory license' means that the copyright-holder is compelled to grant the license if the other party meets the statutory terms of the license even if the two parties have not discussed it, and even if the copyright-holder doesn't want to. So the word "compulsory" there only describes what happens automatically if the royalty is paid (and whatever other terms I haven't looked up are met). So the copyright-holder is compelled to accept the statutory royalty ... but are they forbidden (by some other part of the law) from accepting less?
(What I've seen so far on Slashdot and DailyKos makes it sound as though the RIAA is claiming that all compulsory license performance royalties for Internet radio go through them, but the phrasing suggests that negotiated license royalties are A Different Thing (implying that negotiated licenses can still exist). Is RIAA erecting obstacles to negotiated licenses other than the inherent nuisance of having to negotiate them and cut separate checks? If not, then having a bunch of small labels and independent artists all adopt a standard alternative license with language that says "we will automatically grant licenses under these terms" would cut out the negotiation step.)
(no subject)
i believe that the amounts are all compulsory. all songs, regardless of source will pay set $%/ear
(no subject)
(What I've seen so far on Slashdot and DailyKos makes it sound as though the RIAA is claiming that all compulsory license performance royalties for Internet radio go through them, but the phrasing suggests that negotiated license royalties are A Different Thing (implying that negotiated licenses can still exist). Is RIAA erecting obstacles to negotiated licenses other than the inherent nuisance of having to negotiate them and cut separate checks? If not, then having a bunch of small labels and independent artists all adopt a standard alternative license with language that says "we will automatically grant licenses under these terms" would cut out the negotiation step.)