RIAA ‘Misrepresented’ Audio Flag Progress, NAB Counters

Wharton denied NAB walked out of talks with RIAA. RIAA’s “very aggressive push for a legislative mandate sacrificed the goodwill of our private, voluntary discussions,” Wharton said. In late Sept., “an informal meeting was held to determine how we might move forward in expanded private discussions involving CEA, NAB and RIAA,” Wharton said: “Representatives of all 3 organizations attended this meeting, in which RIAA made it clear that they would prefer to ’take their chances’ on Capitol Hill instead of engaging in broader discussions involving CEA and other stakeholders. CEA and NAB remained willing to meet.”

CEA has long insisted that the multi-industry Copyright Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG) was the best forum for discussing an audio flag proposal. The Assn. always has been and remains “willing to meet with RIAA to discuss voluntary industry resolution of these important issues,” a CEA spokesman said: “Although we continue to believe that the CPTWG is the best venue for these discussions, we were delighted that RIAA finally agreed to talk with us in September. Like NAB, we were disappointed that RIAA discontinued our discussions to instead pursue aggressive anticonsumer legislation.”

Wharton gave us a copy of a July 21 letter in which NAB Pres. David Rehr complained to RIAA Chmn. Mitch Bainwol that Bainwol had told a June 27, 2006, House Telecom Subcommittee hearing NAB and RIAA were near a deal on “usage rules” for audio flag. “We are not,” Rehr said: “In fact, an approach to content protection that is focused on device limitation is not one that we support. Our opposition was made known in response to legislative approaches you pursued in the Senate Commerce Committee.” Still, Bainwol wrote 9 House Commerce Committee members 4 days later, again saying NAB and RIAA had reached “general agreement on the rules related to implementation of an audio flag.”

Meeting March 23, 2006, in N.Y., broadcast and recording industry executives “agreed to a number of general guidelines and principles, among them the need for confidentiality surrounding our talks,” Rehr told Bainwol. “We all desired the ability to freely express ideas, opinions and options, and to do so in a manner that would not be marginalized by having those concepts aired externally. We also agreed that we would not pursue legislation and that we would work toward an industry consensus. It is with that understanding that our participants engaged in a discussion of usage rules, as presented by your industry representatives. We understood that these proposals would ultimately be handed over to the technical working group. The technical working group would then assess the practical reality of these proposals. We engaged in the discussion of usage rules in the spirit of openness and against the backdrop of confidentiality.

“Our industry discussions have been on hold as you have pursued legislation on Capitol Hill,” Rehr’s letter to Bainwol continued: “It remains our desire to work toward a solution through private negotiation. Clarifying the misconception on the usage rules is important for when those discussions resume.” Talks remain in limbo.