Seemingly, the tech and public interest community aren't the only ones who have problems with [the CMA/S1RA bill](http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/622). Today, the [RIAA sent a letter to the Hill](http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/bainwol-letter-20060912.pdf) asking for changes to the bill. Their issues are different from the ones we've stated, so let's take a closer look:
* **Promotional Uses**: RIAA takes issue with the change in S1RA regarding promotional use of songs, as it will require "*mechanical licenses for interactive streams for the first time.*" There's an exception to the rule, however it requires them to promote the song in a way that doesn't have any other "revenue-producing possibilities." The example they give is a Yahoo! Music promo web page that lists a free song, however, there may be promotional banner ads (not necessarily for the artist or the record company) which may take them out of the exception language. The RIAA also doesn't care for the "*obligation to provide detailed reporting on promotional activities such as to require substantial new
information technology systems, business processes and staff.*" They ask for a deeper carve-out or another way to negotiate around the provision.
* **Recouping Advances**: Here their claim is that S1RA harms the label's ability to recoup advance payments from mechanical royalties.
* **Transition**: Here they're concerned about time--how long it will take to move to the new S1RA-based licensing schemes--to account for payment systems that need to be developed, etc.
Throughout the letter, the RIAA repeats that it's committed to working with the committee to address their problems, but at the end, Mr. Bainwol is sure to be clear:
"*But we will be unable to support the enactment of final legislation until
such matters have been fully addressed.*"
Sounds like the bill that was introduced on Monday and set for [mark up on Wednesday (read: **tomorrow**)](http://judiciary.house.gov/markup.aspx?ID=146) may still be a bit controversial.