Copyright Office Publishes Final Webcasting Rates

Ghaleon writes: "The Copyright Office just released the final rates for webcasting. Looks like the rates are lower than the CARP recomendations, though I'm no webcaster so I'm not sure if these rates are good or not ..." nbrimhall points to a bit more at soma fm as well. Update: 06/20 21:54 GMT by M : See our last story for background information. The final rates are nothing to cheer about: most webcasters will not be able to afford them. Update: 06/21 03:13 GMT by T : An anonymous reader points out the continuing coverage at kurthanson.com, including reactions from Reps. Boucher and Inslee.

webcasting

[Anonymous Coward]

-- was going to start webcasting, BUT, my forte and interest is talk/politics/news. Good for two reasons now it seems, one, much lower bitrate needed, cheaper and more streams, and no copyright fees! hehehehehe

good luck music broadcasters, go indies and free radio!

Naturally

[martissimo]

The RIAA in this article [com.com], blasted the decision as too low

guess they just cant accept that a few webcasters might be able to come up with business model that actually allows them to survive.

I'm surprised they're this low...

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

Considering how corrupt the current broadcast radio industry is, I'm surprised that online broadcasters are able to license any song to broadcast, whenever they want. With conventional radio, stations play what the labels pay them to play. I can really see these new guidelines thinning out the more amateurish broadcasters, and leaving the more polished, better set-up ones intact. Personally, I wouldn't mind having some sort of radio subscription service for my favourite anime stations...

Re:What's with the complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, their access to a given area is less exclusive. There's only so much space on the FM band, therefore a station on the band doesn't have to compete globally and is likely to realize more profit per-song than an Internet radio station. Also, many (the majority of?) Internet radio stations are non-commercial streams, whereas typical radio is mostly commercial and therefore can better afford payments.

This is great news.

[EpochVII]

And heres why: only unsigned bands will be able to get on U.S. net radio stations. Seriously, fark the RIAA. The other good news is all the streams with copyrighted music will be overseas, either hosted there or run by foreigners, it doesnt really matter. Either way more people will be looking overseas to give the finger to the U.S.

This really does make me sad, though. Hopefully this will jumpstart artists to move to more independent labels.

How will they know?

[Buran]

I've listened to the occasional Net music stream, but never served one. But I wonder -- how are they going to know if you've run a Net music service on your personal connection? Business DSL? etc.? It seems like this is a "don't ask, don't tell" situation.

Not all is lost

[kaden]

It is sad that stations like Digitally Imported [digitallyimported.com] are quite possibly going to become an endangered species. They brought me music I'd never have encountered on FM radio, or most likely have been lucky enough to find on file sharing services. However, many public radio stations that offer streaming audio will remain, such as WQXR FM [wqxr.com] will likely remain, as they already pay royalties. So it is at least almost guaranteed that there will be some free, non-commercial radio in the internet's future. Now if only we could get NPR to pony up the cash for a few public, all-trance stations :-)

Sigh.

[nostriluu]

I just paid somafm money last week. Not that I regret it, they are a terrific station that plays music I wouldn't hear elsewhere.

It just doesn't make any sense to have the internet, which creates a worldwide marketplace and communications medium, limited by the same old forces that want to create artificial economies of scarcity because they can't see past their "today's spreadsheet," prejudged view of the world. But they're succeeding, and they'll continue to dominate what we can see and do. It may create stability in some people's minds, but it's not natural.

What about non-RIAA music?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been trying to work this one out - does this apply to EVERY webcasting station, or only those broadcasting music that the RIAA has its fingers in? Will stations that only play unamerican music survive? (pun intended)

Tag's Trance Trip off the air

[djneko]

Reposted from digitally imported's forums [di.fm]

I don't know how it will affect DI, but if anyone was listening to Tag's Trance Trip, he shut off just before 3pm Pacific Time.

He was in tears thanking everyone.

Last song on the air was "Days go by" by Dirty Vegas

The anarchy of the net can prevail though. As streams drop off the air (every shoutcast stream may be affected), we must trade the files via FTP and P2P networks if we are to stop the music cartels. Blank cds are cheap, hand out cds full of mp3s with information about what has been done to our beloved streams.

As the streams are shut off, open up the archives and distribute them. Show them how much worse it will get when they block off one avenue of our expression.

Our culture should not be locked away from us and sold back to us.
------------------

The ideas contained herein are free to republish by anyone not affiliated in any way shape or form with the RIAA and MPAA

Re:This is already hitting us...

[NaDrew]

Tag was actually crying as he thanked all his friends and supporters before shutting it down.
I just don't understand companies that try so hard to persecute their best customers. This is so sad.

Re:This is great news.

[H310iSe]

...this makes me so f...angry. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? So my question is, is the partent post true? can broadcasts simple go offshore (from America) and continue to broadcast for free? What If I stream a channel to an offshore site, can they then distribute it (basically an offshore co-location, um, without the co.) If I run a shoutcast server from my DSL line in the states, will they come and sue me?

OK, now other than working around this utterly stupid law, what else can we do? Maybe if they try to drag a thousand internet radio broadcasters to court to demand payment it would make such a stink that they'd back off? We know the RIAA hates bad publicity.

Other alternatives? How about private internet radio 'clubs' where you have to be a member to listen? Does that exempt them (I know bars don't have to pay RIAA (yet) when they play a song, nor do dance clubs). Other than civil disobediance and lobbying what can we do?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Civil disobedience

[ryanwright]

It's time for civil disobedience.

It's time for someone to setup a streaming radio app that works similar to P2P. Something that can't be shut down.

This is total bullshit. Commercial stations don't pay $500 per day. Why should Somafm?

I know the guy running Soma watches Slashdot. What can we do to help, short of giving in and paying these mobsters? I'll do what I can for you, but I'm not sure what to do aside from continuing to sign online petitions and send letters. I sent one to my rep in congress on this subject. Received a worthless form letter in reply that refused to take a position on either side. The punk.

I have 1Mbps of upstream bandwidth. Maybe it's time to put my private 15GB MP3 collection up on the various P2P networks? So far, I don't let anyone but my family access it, but I'm thinking it's time to reconsider...

I know at least some of you bastards in the industry are reading this. Get a clue: The public won't stand for this greed. Swapping music on the Internet is only going to increase because of this. You people need to change your attitude, and fast - you can't prosecute us all.

Re:INteresting Rates - existing fm stations pay mo

[Kizzle]

You Knew this was comming, most cd's tell you public performance is prohibited, now webcasting is officially public performance

Believe it or not internet radio stations pay licensing fee's just like regular radio.

Re:The end result

[sulli]

So let's get that alternative contract out there. SOMAFM, if you're reading, WRITE ONE and make it available to the labels you broadcast! This could become the default.

Re:Still gonna knock most hobbyist webcasters out

[Anonymous Coward]

This sucks for Americans, but does this affect web casters based elsewhere? What are the laws in Canada or Europe?

As usual, Americans think that because something happended in the USA it affects the whole world.

The RIAA's Response? Feed us more!!

[EchoMirage]

Even more disgusting, but certainly not suprising, is the RIAA's response [riaa.org] to the announcement, saying, "[the rate] simply does not reflect the fair market value of the music as promised by the law."

Who's up for burning RIAA at the stake?

Re:Civil disobedience

[Bobzibub]

hmmm.. I was thinking about this...
Suppose you set up a p2p system where each node streams 1/nth of a 'channel' or 'station'. n could be about 16 (16 'subchannels') which would bring down the load on each peer to 128/16 kbps, well within the means of every cable modem.

Peers could be easily written in Java and spend their time discovering other peers. Your XMMS/winamp/whatever client connects to your local java client which requests and assembles n 'subchannels' into a stream. Peers do not reveal *their* sources, only other peers. That way, the true source is obscured, but more importantly, more nodes are brought in.

Broadcasters stream to many nodes with a special arrangement/agreement. (push) Everything else is pull.

Your java client requests a channel/subchannel from some known server or requests a node where to get a channel/subchannel . They stream to you.

The underlying protocol would be based upon sending files, not a true music stream. These could be caputured by the local client if wanted. Information could describe overlap of two music files, messages, artist info, etc.

1) low bandwidth for nodes ==> many nodes.
2) dynamic hierarchy. Loose a node and the system will be able to adapt.
3) difficult to find the true source.
4) access to the files streamed.
5) Of course it would stream Ogg! ; )

What do you think?

Cheers,
-b

Unsigned artists

[emmons]

The ruling states that the charge applies unless the station has an agreement with someone who has broadcast rights (the copyright owner) to the music. So, concievibly, someone could set up a company which would sit between independent artists and the webcasters and set up the agreements.

Actually, I kinda like that idea...

Re:Civil disobedience

[WEFUNK]

It's time for civil disobedience.

It's time for someone to setup a streaming radio app that works similar to P2P. Something that can't be shut down.

Not just another P2P app, but let's start seeing more P2P devices and infrastructure as well, like wireless multi-hop networks. That way even the physical network will be tough to regulate or shut down.

It might only work for densely populated local areas at first, but if you can get around the security issues this is the logical next step in the evolution of the internet.

The technology and the demand for streaming content is out there, if the RIAA and MPAA etc. kept shooting themselves in the foot, inventors and consumers will find another way to get what they want.

Re:This is great news.

[lpret]

Another loophole is that there can be direct agreements with artists that will bypass this entire payment scheme. So stations like GrooveSalad, which uses mostly unsigned, or very unknown signed bands, will be able to make an agreement with SomaFM to allow their music to be played without royalty fees. Since most of the internet radio phenomenon is about new and unsigned bands (as the parent poster noted) his really only enhances the sound and helps the underdog band even more. Perhaps...

Re:What about non-RIAA music?

[Sloppy]

It doesn't really have anything to do with the RIAA directly. These are compulsory license terms and fees. What that means, is that these are figures that broadcasters get to forcefully impose upon copyright holders, and there is nothing the copyright holder can do about it. If he wants more money, or he doesn't want you to broadcast his music at all, you can tell him "tough shit" and do it anyway (legally), as long as you follow these rules.

Effectively, all that means is that it sets the upper bound.

Where RIAA comes in, is that they are big business and won't negotiate with you "little people", so these rates and terms aren't just the upper bound, but they're the lower bound also. This is the only offer on the table when you are broadcasting their stuff.

For non-RIAA music, such as that garage band that played at the bar last weekend and then had a few beers with you, they are probably very happy to negotiate with you and offer you other terms. So instead of you paying these rates, you'll be able to work out something better. Maybe they'll even let you play their stuff free, because they want people to hear it.

IMHO, it's pretty fair. The ball is in the musicians' court now. They need to either commit to working for the corporations (who can push them pretty hard and effectively when they want to (e.g. you have probably heard the name "Britney Spears")), or work for themselves (and offer pleasant terms to underground supporters who will push thme in a different way). Choose wisely, dudes.

Appeal is still possible

[robkill]

This ruling can still be appealed in the US Court of Appeals (DC Circuit). I expect an appeal, simply because the cost of royalties for webcasting is ridiculous, even for commercial, big-corporation radio stations that simulcast. Bill Rose of Arbitron, the Nielsen of the radio industry, spells it out beautifully here [senate.gov]. Even for the big boys the royalty rate would be about %25 of their advertising revenue. Hopefully the webcasters can hold on for another appeal.

I just mailed CNN about their (AP) story

[Old time hacker]

This is a message that I just mailed to CNN after reading the AP story on their site. You can send a quick email to your favorite news outlet, making sure that they do not just reprint the AP story.

I realize that you are not responsible for the contents of AP stories that appear on your website, but I think that you ought to (at least) read the story before featuring a link to it on your home page (www.cnn.com).

The 'Victory for Internet Radio' is a victory like the 'victory' that America had at Pearl Harbor in WWII. On the face of it, this was a disaster for the US Pacific Fleet, however it galvanized the US into action which led to the defeat of Japan -- a true Victory for the US.

I suggest that the final CARP rate setting deterimination has already caused Internet broadcasters to stop broadcasting, and more will follow over the next few weeks.

However, unless this determination gets overturned by the courts (probably unlikely given that it is people without money (internet radio) fighting people with money (RIAA)) I predict that alternative internet radio business models will arise. These models will be based on independant artists licensing their creative works at zero cost to internet radio stations (via an independant licensing agency) in return for airplay. This airplay will generate CD sales and thus the artist gets paid.

Where does this leave the RIAA? In bed with the small number of commercial AM/FM broadcasters who see their market share dwindling.

I know where I would invest my dollars. Do you?

I agree, my friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to SomaFM alone, I've purchased WELL over 30 CD's in the past year and a half. Everything I bought is stuff I never EVER hear on the radio. And surprise surprise, none of it is "big label" shit.

Thanks to SomaFM, the following bands are a little bit richer:

- Boards of Canada
- St. Germain
- DJ Shadow
- DJ Food
- Hooverphonic
- Global Communication
- The Starseeds
- Cujo/Amon Tobin
- The Herbaliser Band
- Jaffa
- Wagon Christ
- Cibo Matto
.
.
And the list goes on. In many cases I own SEVERAL of the above band's CDs, as well.

Thanks to SomaFM I've probably purchased more music than at any other given time in my life. And now, that will end.

FUCK YOU, RIAA. We know that the REAL war is not only against webcasters, but ALSO against the small label bands like the ones I've listed above. You'd love to see every one of them disappear.

Re:NO ITS NOT. NICHE WEBSCASTING DOESNT COST SQUAT

[Alsee]

The smaller streaming and hobby sites will most likely have to pay NOTHING, ZIP, NADA.

And where, pray tell, does it say that?
It says .07 and .02 for for non-profits. No where does it say ANYONE can pay zero.

Posting false information could explain why you are posting at zero rather than 1. I could post this at 2, but that would be a waste.

-

This just in from the Conspiracy Theory Dept....

[jejones]

Anyone care to bet on whether, once the per-listener/per-song fees are finally in and all the appeals over, the RIAA will fire up scads of tasks to suck down webcast streams and run the meter up as high as they can?

(For that matter, over in the Unintended Consequences Dept., look for changes to webcasting software to force the streams to start on song boundaries and do something--maybe pop-up windows à la NetZero--to make sure there's a human at the other end actually listening. Once the per-listener/per-song fees are in place, webcasters will really not like you if you forget and leave XMMS running while you're on your two-week trip to Australia...)