I wrote last week about the copyright office's recent ruling that puts ringtones under the same compulsory license terms as the broadly defined phonorecord. I also pointed to the publishers, who aren't exactly thrilled with the new structure of ringtone licensing.

The EFF take a bit deeper look at the rift between the RIAA and the publishing associations on this issue. The RIAA is overwhelmingly supportive of the new structure, a point which reminds us all that the interests of the record labels are not always in balance with the interests of the music publishers.

"The RIAA argues that extending the compulsory license best serves public policy goals, regardless of the narrow interests of certain copyright holders (publishers) who might want to hold back innovation. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, the RIAA is not so quick to embrace compulsory licenses; like the composers who decried the player piano and the compulsory mechanical license in 1909, the major record labels recoil in horror at compulsory licensing of sound recordings for digital and Internet uses. But make no mistake: the RIAA recognizes that a little compulsory licensed "piracy" can get copyright owners and artists appropriately compensated while leaving lots of room for innovation in both new technologies and new distribution channels."

The RIAA has repeatedly rejected any sort of compulsory licensing schemes that would make legal, trackable P2P services possible.

[via EFF:Deeplinks]