PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Sep 30, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 30, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 - Allows a receiving agent (designated by the Librarian of Congress to collect royalties that ultimately are disbursed to sound recording copyright owners and performers) to enter into agreements with webcasters that establish royalty terms for the performance of sound recordings over the Internet. Provides that such agreements, which may be effective for a period of up to 11 years following January 1, 2005, are to be binding on all copyright owners of sound recordings and other persons entitled to payment, in lieu of any determination of compulsory license rates by the Copyright Royalty Judges. Terminates the authority to negotiate settlement agreements under this Act on February 15, 2009. Declares that nothing in this Act (or any agreement entered into under this Act) shall be taken into account by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its review of the May 1, 2007 determination of royalty rates by the Copyright Royalty Judges.
People & committees
Rep. Inslee, Jay [D-WA-1] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-435.
Became Public Law No: 110-435.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10186)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10186)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10278-10279)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10278-10279)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 7084.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10278-10281)
Mr. Berman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.7084 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.7084 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.7084 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.7084 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.