Breaking news from Washington:

The judges of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) having reviewed several submissions from a number of parties have now DENIED ALL MOTIONS for ANY rehearings to address the concerns of Internet radio webcasters.

Selected excerpts from the Order Denying Motions For Rehearing follow, emphasis mine:

Having reviewed all motions, responses to those motions, and written arguments, the Judges now deny all such motions.

[..]

Such exceptional cases require the movant to show that an aspect of the determination is erroneous, without evidentiary support, or contrary to legal requirements. The parties made no such showing.

Such motions should be granted only where (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence is available; or (3) there is a need to correct a factual error or prevent manifest injustice.

The parties that request a rehearing in this motion do so based upon categories (2) and (3). We find, however, that none of the moving parties have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or a clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant a rehearing.

So according to the CRB, their decision, which will effectively wipe out almost all of U.S.-based Internet radio - thousands of small webcasters, college radio streaming, NPR on the net, and services like Pandora to name a few categories - is NOT a manifest injustice. Wow.

[..]

While some parties purport to offer new evidence that was not presented during the proceeding, we are unconvinced that this evidence was in fact newly discovered after the proceeding. Indeed, it appears that all evidence discussed in the motions had either been discovered during the proceeding or could have been discovered during the proceeding, with reasonable diligence. Therefore, we cannot grant the parties’ motion for rehearing based on new evidence.

[..]

In absence of an adequate showing for new evidence, the parties’ arguments in their respective motions amount to nothing more than a rehash of the arguments that the Judges considered in the Initial Determination. As such, the motions do not present the type of exceptional case that would warrant a rehearing or reconsideration. Therefore, we deny the parties’ motions for rehearing or reconsideration.

CRB translation: SoundExchange told us you would say this will kill you, and you did say it. And now you’ve said it again. Yadda yadda… Got anything new?

[..]

Other parties request that the Judges stay the implementation of certain of the rates and terms established in the Initial Determination until all administrative appeals and judicial review are complete.

[..]

Moreover, Section 803(c)(2)(E)(ii) of the Copyright Act states that “[t]he pendency of a motion for a rehearing under this paragraph shall not relieve persons obligated to make royalty payments who would be affected by the determination on that motion from providing the statements of account and any reports of use, to the extent required, and paying the royalties required under the relevant determination or regulations.”

[..]
Moreover, Congress determined that these rates would go into effect, notwithstanding any pending motions for rehearing. Finally, Congress set forth the remedy that would apply should those rates later be determined to result in an overpayment or an underpayment of royalties. The provisions of these sections are clear and we will follow the statute. As a result, the motions for a stay are DENIED.

CRB translation: Don’t blame us for refusing to hear your pleas. Blame copyright law. And blame Congress. Not our problem.

CRB to Internet radio: Pay SoundExchange now.

Pull out your wallets, go get a loan from a bank,

or fold up your tent and die. We really don’t care.

Download: CRB Order Denying Motions for Rehearing (pdf)

h/t: Save Net Radio.org