With the nation recently focused on the ubiquitous War on Terror, less charged issues are falling to the wayside. But recent court decisions relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act continue chipping away at individual freedom. An arbitration panel has
finally ruled on how much Internet radio stations will have to pay to broadcast music online. The New York Times reported that "recording companies and Internet radio operators were mandated by a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to come to terms on royalty fees for artists." But the new fees have done little but complicate the Internet world.

First, it means less media diversity for consumers. The New York Times reported that Clear Channel Communications "which owns more than 1,140 radio stations, 381 of which had been streaming, decided to cease Internet broadcasts until it had found a
solution that would 'insure the legal and financial viability of the product.'" While Clear Channel may be a market research-driven product, some of its stations do offer talk shows and varying viewpoints that would conceivably have been available to anyone with an Internet connection. But not anymore.

Second, it means that many small broadcasters and hobbyists will shut down because they simply can't afford these royalties. The DMCA was passed in 1998, and any Internet broadcaster can be held liable for retroactive royalties dating back nearly four years.
The New York Times cited Chris Merrick, a station manager at the eclectic KBOO-FM in Portland Oregon that has shut down its web streaming. He told the paper, "I'm trying to protect KBOO from financial damage. The issue for everyone is wait-and-see." But while we twiddle our thumbs, the potential for evolving and improving the online product stagnates - the very opposite of the innovation a capitalist system is supposed to encourage. The Los Angeles Times profiled Vic Fusco, who hosts "Swing City" on WGBB-AM on Long Island. He told the paper, "I have a little
tiny radio show on a little tiny radio station. Our signal doesn't even reach all of Long Island." He continues simulcasting over the Internet, but added, "I don't make any money off the show. This is entirely a labor of love, I like the music and I want other people to hear the music. I think I'm doing a service, and I don't think I should have to pay them [recording companies] to do a favor."

Third, the ruling threatens small college-based broadcasters. Radio station 106-VIC on the Ithaca College campus in Ithaca, NY is threatened with extinction. It is available on 105.9 FM over FM cable (but you have to subscribe to Time Warner to have this
option) and is occasionally simulcast on the college's cable television station, ICTV. Outside of those two options, the best way to listen to the radio station is over the Internet. Since it's a college station, students enjoy letting their parents back home and
friends at other school log on and listen to them. With the pending royalties, VIC may not return in the coming academic year. This scenario is identical at college stations across the country that will have to evaluate whether there is money available in otherwise
tight budgets to pay for streaming. This remains true even if the royalties are discounted for college and nonprofit broadcasters.

The Los Angeles Times also points out that "broadcasters have long argued that, simply by giving music airplay, they're already generating hundreds of millions of dollars in sales for the record labels." This should hold true for Internet radio stations as well. Without these forums, there won't be places for stardom to be born. Plus, consider Internet radio streaming costs. The New York Times reported that, "unlike on-air broadcasting, in Web radio the station's costs rise as the audience grows. That is
because the station has to pay for additional bandwidth, or network capacity, every time it streams music to another listener." Until bandwidth costs come down, it is arguable that the Internet broadcaster is paying to broadcast music already, and should not be subjected to the royalties in place.

Finally, the costs associated with Internet broadcasting and the AFTRA union are lodged in a fairy tale. While this fee is not mandated by the DMCA, the New York Times reported that, "under the current three-year contract, AFTRA members are to receive 300 percent of their normal radio station fees if radio
commercials are also broadcast on the Internet." This ridiculous demand also does what the DMCA has done: stifled and shut down any moneymaking opportunities to be found in the Internet broadcasting world.

For those who believe the DMCA is essential to prevent Napster-like creations and rampant pirating on the Internet, consider this point made by London's Financial Times, "Napster was shut down without recourse to a single new piece of legislation; the Copyright Act, written far before the microprocessor, was equal to the task." The unintended consequences of the DMCA continue, and Congress should consider repealing it without delay.