Slashdot Log In
Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 22, 2007 09:05 PM
from the hoping-for-a-better-deal-from-Congress dept.
from the hoping-for-a-better-deal-from-Congress dept.
Pontifex minimus writes "Music royalty collection group SoundExchange has offered an olive branch to small webcasters. They are willing to delay the exorbitant new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board until 2010 for small webcasters in hopes that they can keep Congress from passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Larger outfits, like Live365 and Pandora would not be affected and would have to pay the new rates. '"Although the rates revised by the CRB are fair and based on the value of music in the marketplace, there's a sense in the music community and in Congress that small webcasters need more time to develop their businesses," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange.' SaveNetRadio rejected SoundExchange's offer, saying that it 'throws large webcasters under the bus.'"
Related Stories
[+]
New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio 273 comments
FlatCatInASlatVat writes "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues.'"
[+]
Technology: A Reprieve For Net Radio? 115 comments
Porsupah writes "The Register reports that "Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) have headed the 'Internet Radio Equality Act,' which aims to stop the controversial March 2 decision which puts royalty of a .08 cent per song per listener, retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on internet radio," as imposed by a recent decision from the Copyright Royalty Board. "If passed, today's bill would set new rates at 7.5 percent of the webcaster's revenue — the same rate paid by satellite radio.""
[+]
Technology: Internet Radio Will Go Silent on June 26th 250 comments
Spamicles writes "Thousands of U.S. webcasters plan to turn off the music and go silent this Tuesday, June 26th, to draw attention to an impending royalty rate increase that, if implemented, would lead to the virtual shutdown of this country's Internet radio industry. In March, the Copyright Royalty Board announced that it would raise royalties for Internet broadcasters, moving them from a per-song rate to a per-listener rate. The increase would be made retroactive to the beginning of 2006 and would double over the next five years. Internet radio sites would be charged per performance of a song. A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays."
[+]
Technology: A Reprieve for Internet Radio 108 comments
westlake writes "In the wake of Internet Radio's Day of Silence, SoundExchange has proposed a temporary $2500 cap on advance payments 'per channel/per station.' The Digital Music Association responded immediately in its own press release that it would agree to this, but only if the term for the new arrangement were extended to 2010 — or, preferably, forever. On another front, SoundExchange seems aware in its PR that it will have to concede something more to the non-profit webcaster, if it is to avoid Congressional action."
[+]
Your Rights Online: U.S. Court Denies Webcasters' Stay Petition 264 comments
Michael Manoochehri writes "Reuters reports that a "federal appeals court has denied a petition by U.S. Internet radio stations seeking to delay a royalty rate hike due July 15 they say could kill the fledgling industry." This royalty rate hike, put forth by the US Copyright Royalty Board, will increase royalty rates for webcast music tremendously, in some cases to more per year than many webcasters bring in from revenue. Save Net Radio, a coalition of webcasters, is telling listeners that "We are appealing to the millions of Internet radio listeners out there, the webcasters they support and the artists and labels we treasure to rise up and make your voices heard again before this vibrant medium is silenced.""
[+]
Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy 109 comments
RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"
[+]
Politics: Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the Internet Radio Equality Act is failing fast in the House, with negotiations breaking down over fair pricing for internet radio broadcasters. 'A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position ... SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.'" All very cushy for SoundExchange. Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.
[+]
A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates 94 comments
quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.
[+]
SoundExchange Backs Off DRM for Webcasters 63 comments
Radio Free Europe writes "The big news is not that SoundExchange has repackaged the same royalty proposal that small webcasters rejected in May, but that SoundExchange has dropped its previous insistence that DRM be a part of any agreement. 'On the bright side, it doesn't appear as if DRM is part of the terms this time around. Previously, SoundExchange stated that webcasters who agree to the deal must actively "work to stop users from engaging in 'streamripping'." This began a war of words between the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and SoundExchange, with DiMA accusing SoundExchange of using rate negotiations to push mandatory DRM. SoundExchange's letter leaves the much-maligned streamripping issue out of the discussion, clearing at least that hurdle.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
SoundXchange needs sound leadership (Score:2)
Re:SoundXchange needs sound leadership (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Erhm - who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
they know (Score:4, Insightful)
Retroactive rates (Score:3, Interesting)
Raw Deal For Artists Too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound Exchange will also forbid free and lower cost competition, regardless of artist and publisher intention [slashdot.org]. They will collect their little fees from everyone, in violation of Creative Commons terms. Those who want their royalties will have to join them, which makes it look like they have the artist's endorsement. Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees. In other words, the RIAA monopoly on music distribution will be extended into the future against the will of artists and the public. There is no technical justification for this, it's pure corruption.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The statutory license does not exclude directly negotiated licensing deals as I understand it. No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else. In other words services are free to use Creative Commons licensed material or material under any other license or agreement. If a service exclusively uses such material, it certainly seems that they would be exempt from SoundExchange fees and reporting. If only some of their
Re:Raw Deal For Artists Too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, that's really a raw deal. If SE can just start collecing fees on their behalf without the artists consent, and thereby force the artist's consent, they don't really have a right to the fees. (moral right, i mean, legal rights are screwy)
If the artists are getting fees subtracted, they're already getting screwed, blatantly. In addition to the unspoken usurpation issue.
I mean, imagine this conversation with a coworker,
"Oh, hey, I picked up your paycheck for you."
"Um.. thanks..That explains why it wasn't there when I went to pick it up."
"No problem. Here's what's left after my 'picking up fee'"
Parent
The scorpion and the frog (Score:5, Insightful)
The global music media corporations know that all the fighting new technology and RIAA extortion is not in their best interest. But they can't help it. It's what they do. They're on auto-pilot self-destruct. They're smart guys, they know this. They just can't do anything about it.
Their entire perspective is based on the not-unrealistic assumption that they are the focal point of the best music in the world. The best groups, the most talented artists have and will continue to come to them in order to distribute the recordings. They don't believe that anyone interested in a musical career would not come to them, on their terms. That's the key to their entire 'take it or leave it' approach. Because they honestly believe that no one will leave it.
What may happen is a transformation of media from a centralized distribution to a scattered and disorganized collection of xenophobic subcultures who aren't interested in sharing their music or media works. Should this happen, the media corporations most likely won't notice it. They sell primarily to young people and the percentage of people who are young is rapidly growing. So their market is growing. The fact that their sales of CDs are stagnant is truly amazing. Most likely, it's not true.
I encourage people to gradually disassociate themselves from the products of the global media corporations. Yes, it is true that you will miss great music. You will suffer the occasional social embarrassment of not knowing (actually not knowing, not pretending to not know) who the latest stars are. I'm not going to claim that it's worth it or a self-righteous thing to do. I'm just suggesting, all the celebrity media, let it slide away. There are other things more important. Concentrate on them instead.
Parent
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Insightful, because you hit the nail right on the head. The small Internet broadcasters aren't going to take a deal that would make it uneconomical for them to grow bigger later on. The prospect of just scraping by with no hope of future growth is not a good deal for them.
This sounds very much like the mafia letting someone get into the business on the condition that they don't move into bigger territory later on.
Per-play royalty on singles? (Score:3, Interesting)
What if, in order to release a single, studios (et al) had to give up broadcast rights to that song. Anyone who obtains a legitimate copy of the song can broadcast it whenever and however he/she likes, be that internet, radio or birthday party. The label/artist/whomever still controls all rights to sell/distribute the song, and the rest of the songs on the album that aren't marked as singles.
I know this clashes with the "make money from every angle" that the industry wants, but it seems like a reasonable trade (to me).
Re: (Score:2)
Pity peoples families are at stake (Score:2)
Re:Pity peoples families are at stake (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry that may sound harsh but that's how it is. If my employer goes bust because nobody wants our services anymore, then I lose my job. Do you think there's people out there who say: "Let's go to these guys, cos their employees starve"? Not buying their products is the only way we can fight back and stand up for our rights.
Parent
can internet radio play free music? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:can internet radio play free music? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:can internet radio play free music? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it would work by allowing a broadcaster to search the site for artists that are willing to offer their music under certain terms, select those of interest, copy the broadcaster's specific information in to a form pre-filled with the terms, have the broadcaster digitally sign the contract (if I recall correctly Clinton signed a bill making a digital signature legally binding the same way as an old fashioned analog signature is binding) and then submit the contract to the artists who could log in and review the contract and sign it or not...or perhaps digitally sign all of them at once, or all of them with particular terms at once. Then once the contracts were signed a PDF would be generated and given to each party to print out and file.
There would, of course, also be a mechanism for either party to amend the terms of the boiler plate contract, although doing so would flag the contract as one needing special attention.
A clever extension of this would allow the artist to upload his/her music to the contract generation site so that as soon as the broadcaster signed the contract it could buy copies of the artists tracks and download them immediately.
Creative Commons licenses sound good at first, but no actual signed contract explicitly changes hands. The above system would solve that problem without being an aggregator itself; it merely facilitates the two parties reaching an explicit signed agreement.
Finally the good part: SoundExchange would have to keep track of all of these exceptions to the statutory licensing.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
collectively, we should probably start to wake up [myindiradio.com].
Re:can internet radio play free music? (Score:5, Funny)
Godot
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's how screwed up the system is.
A rhetorical question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The good side is that internet radio will be killed off. The MAFIAA tells me that would be a good thing, and they are on the side of artists, so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_radio [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline [wikipedia.org]
RIAA are stupid enough to try to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. They have decided that they want it to have it all, their way. For them its "My way or the highway". Unfortunately,
Show me the money... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Show me the money... (Score:5, Interesting)
The barrier to entry for recording and publishing music is incredibly low right now. This means that the number of competitors to the big music industry is increasing at a very rapid rate. How does a company, or group of companies, compete when the market they have dominated suddenly has thousands and thousands of competitors with the ability to deliver their product just via the same methods as the big companies? Worse, how do you compete against those who are willing to create products and give them away? Smart companies will see the trend and will ask themselves, "how can I make this work for me?" The big music industry isn't sure how to compete and so they are fighting the trend and lashing out any way they can.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A: Because the **AA isn't happy with just a fair cut of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie, and don't want ANYONE else to have a piece.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. They intend instead to kill off independent and small web radio stations, and therefore to maintain their monopoly. This isn't obvious to you?
someone explain something to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
There was an article some time ago that ALL internet radio stations, regardless of content, had to pay SE on a per-song basis. I really don't understand how they have the power or the right to do something like that?
For example if I setup a radio station that played only freely-available, royalty-less music. How does SE get away with charging me money to play said music? Is the RIAA that powerful that they can manage to dictate legislation that way? have i missed something obvious?
What I would be curious to know is, if I wrote a computer program that generated random music (lets ignore the technical feasibility of that and assume its possible) and make a radio station that played that (and only that) could SE force me to pay them royalties? If that is the case, how is that even in the most bizarre parallel universe either fair or just?
Perhaps even a simpler argument was if i were an artist and ran an internet radio station solely playing my own music, can SE force me to pay them royalties? It just seems really stupid to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Fairness is for dirty commies; in America, the law comes from capitalism :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, apparently you missed the memo.
You became our bitches while the Russians exported spies and polonium to you as a waste facility. I'd say you lost
-nB
(please be kind I was attempting to be funny, how's your PM became our bitch? rather than the generic "you", better?)
Re:someone explain something to me... (Score:5, Informative)
As is the case for music, the royalty is under a statutory license. That is, rather than have everyone suffer the huge headaches and transactional costs of negotiating rights for each piece of music individually, everyone can pay a fee set forth by law and get a license automatically, regardless even of whether the copyright holder agrees. (Because his copyright doesn't apply to people who pay the statutory license; that's how the law is written) Everyone is free to make their own arrangements, but in practice few bother to do so since it is really a huge pain in the ass.
The Copyright Office was empowered to perform certain administrative tasks related to this, and one thing that was done was to name designated agents to whom the statutory license royalty can be paid so that the payor will be in compliance with the law. Currently, the only one is SoundExchange.
If you have a separate agreement with the relevant copyright holders, you don't need to pay SoundExchange. If you are playing a recording to which you are the copyright holder, or a recording which is in the public domain, you don't need to pay SoundExchange.
Is the RIAA that powerful that they can manage to dictate legislation that way?
Yes. The industries involved in copyright matters have been dictating legislation from the beginning of the 20th century on. This is nothing new.
Parent
Worse than you imagine. (Score:5, Informative)
No free alternatives are allowed. [slashdot.org] It is obvious that people would flock away from these fees if they could, so they won't be given the chance. This will be enforced the same way the current ban on terrestrial broadcast is enforced. Because internet broadcasts are not carried over a limited publicly owned spectrum, there is no technical justification for this system, it's purely anti-competitive - designed to perpetuate the RIAA member companies into the future when they would naturally die off.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Legally, they can't force you, but they will probably give it a good try. I'm sure their lawyers are busy coming up with wording for their letters that leaves the impression that you have no choice but to pay without actually stating that. Probably something along the lines of making threats that if you fail to pay this fee, you could be brought up on
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcast (Score:4, Insightful)
they shouldn't be paying a penny more than the terrestrial stations, which has always been a simple composition mechanical.
soundexchange's first round of performance royalties in june '02 killed some 40,000 bedroom broadcasters overnight.
2010's next round will simply finish off the rest.
- js.
and since when (Score:2)
Arse backward business model (Score:2)
Shouldn't the music industry and artist PAY the over-the-air/internet radio station?
current:
1. make music
2. charge broadcasters for pay-per-play royalty
3. free marketing and advertising through broadcasters
4. sell music license to listeners
5. profit
So in an essence, music industry is making profit over alr
The Business Angle (Score:2, Insightful)
Free/donation based internet stations play the same music advertising driven stations play, but without the annoyance of commercial interruption.
Free/Donation based stations usually have the goal of generating just enough revenue to cover their expenses, while advertising driven stations hope to generate a prof
This is what they call an offer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds great for everyone, you ask me...I get to play music I love, people get to hear music they may never hear outside the drunken haze of a goth club, and the artists get free exposure, along with links and ads to their music if you wanted to buy it.
I know this model works because I was (and am) a live365 subscriber for years, and have bought at least two dozen albums based solely on the music I heard on particular stations, music to which I would not otherwise have been exposed. In fact, rips of those albums are a large part of what I spin today on my own station.
And as for that, today, with mirrorshades radio, I have artists sending me music asking to get put into rotation, and listeners, writing to tell me how great this track or that was and that they just grabbed it off iTunes. I know at least one guy who went to the VNV Nation concert here in Atlanta after hearing them on my station -- he'd never heard them before, and what's that mean for VNV Nation? A ticket sale they wouldn't have otherwise had, not to mention whatever swag he probably bought while he was there.
Artists get increased exposure and sales. Listeners get music and choice. I (and my fellow broadcasters) get to play to whatever niche market we choose. Everyone gains, and no one loses, except for the RIAA, hawking their antiquated and outmoded business model.
I've said it before but I'll say it again -- there ain't no Benjamens in the net radio trade. We broadcast for love of the music and artists enjoy the exposure. I was lucky enough to get free hosting for my stream, allowing me a great deal of versatility, but many small broadcasters turn to live365 and similar hosts for cheap, reliable broadcasts, for which they pay their dues and offer free advertising in exchange.
If the majority of people who use live365 as their broadcast platform could afford the rates that soundexchange is demanding, they wouldn't be on live365 to begin with -- they'd have their own dedicated servers with no ads and listeners limited only by bandwidth. As is so often the case, the Big Guys are beating up on the only segment of the population that can't defend themselves.
Stop treading on us, and let the music play.
I love the 80's (Score:2, Insightful)
That was successful and in the music industry's mind all these internet radio stations are just a new version of pirate radio.
The only flaw in their thinking is that while before they were hijacking the airwaves and breaking the FCC's laws, Now they are not breaking any laws and aren't hijacking an
obligatory questions (Score:2)
- Where does this money go to?
- In how far is this reasonable to artists broadcasting their own works?
I am starting to believe all these companies (mostly ran/supported/requested) by the RIAA/MPAA/... are there only to stiffle creativity and to push their products down my throat. Someone please correct me or are there really people trying to tell other artists to join or "something bad might happen with your creativity" ? Maybe ignorance is bliss.Better analogy (Score:2)
It's like going to a flea market, kicking everyone in the balls, and then buying a few moldy baseball cards from that one guy in the corner so you can claim you're a legitimate patron.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
dad, have you been drinking again?
$500 Minimum Rate -- Not THAT Awful (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know what payment royalties current webcasters must pay? For the all the crybabying and hubabaloo I've seen very little in terms of comparison. Please link me some rules!
Of course, the real fucked up situation is the fact that we have to pay SoundExchange, the biggest scam organization on the planet. They were spun off from everyones favorite RIAA in 2000 as an independent entity responsible for collecting and distributing broadcast dues. But these fuckers will never give a dog damned dime to My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult, no matter how many times I play their discography. The money we pay them doesnt do jack shit for the authors and artists we play. I'd like to see their profit margins and executive salaries, so I can complete the trifecta and cackle myself to death. These guys are the worst of the worst, and should be aborted like a bad mistake. The fact that we pay mafioso organizations like this at all is just criminal. Frankly I'd much rather track down every artists I play and give them $5.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)