Of particular concern to SoundExchange and the thousands of artists and labels it represents is the lack of compliance by most small webcasters, including many that have complained the loudest about the CRB decision. Indeed, in their letter Representatives Berman and Coble noted that, "In return for compelling sound recording copyright owners to make their works available, the qualifying services agree to meet the terms and conditions of the compulsory license, which, inter alia, requires the periodic filing of statements of account and the timely payment of statutory royalties to the copyright owners whose works they have elected to perform."

In order for the process to work, small webcasters need to register with the copyright office, comply with all reporting requirements to SoundExchange and not avoid paying royalties that are lawfully owed. "The artists and labels are acting in good faith today, giving small webcasters a break. In return they expect the integrity of their music and their copyrights to be respected. That includes proper tracking and reporting of how their music is used, and that they are properly compensated," said Simson.

said by RadioDoc :

Most of those "scofflaws" (nice bias there, Tom) are already registered and are paying royalties to both the composers and the performers via Shoutcast, Live365, 1.fm and other consolidators and relays. Only the puniest hobby sites running off their own servers have "avoided paying". Those generally have zero revenues so there is no actual loss to anyone.

Also, this new "offer" (10%-13%) is still 50% higher than what satellite radio operators pay (7.5%), and they are an order of magnitude bigger than even the biggest net broadcaster, revenue-wise. Why do you support that discrepancy?