SoundExchange Backs Off DRM for Webcasters 63
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.'"
No Choice. (Score:2, Informative)
SoundExchange, while being a subsidiary of the RIAA is still authorized to collect all compulsory royalties due whether or not they are due to RIAA members.
That seems to be the size of it [slashdot.org]. Locking out competition, rather than finding and promoting excellence is what the RIAA member companies are all about.
Agreement reached says SaveNetRadio.org (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the press release [savenetradio.org] (pdf)
And more on their homepage [savenetradio.org]
Note: it looks like this is just one detail that has been agreed upon but negotiations are ongoing.
Re:They know exactly what they are doing. (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus Christ, every time this damn conversation comes up, it's clear no one here has any idea how this actually works...
SoundExchange was selected by the Copyright Royalty Board as the default arbiter for royalties paid under the compulsory licensing scheme. There is *nothing* stopping an artist from selecting a different arbiter, and registering it with the CRB, at which point any compulsory licensing fees will be handled by that group. There is no "monopoly" here, because there is no business. At best, SoundExchange covers their operating costs. But there is no profit to be had. This is not a commercial venture.
they can block all but RIAA members and force membership.
No, they can't, and this statement makes it obvious you're just making things up as you go along.
Any artist, *any one*, can register with SoundExchange, in order to receive their share of the royalties, and they can do so *for free*. Further, internet radio stations don't become "members" with SE. They simply pay their compulsory fees to them. And SE has no choice but to accept those fees, and pay them out to artists who have registered with them. Such is the arrangement between SE and the CRB.
The fact is, the only thing discriminatory about this setup is the fee structure, and SE is *not* responsible for determining that. The CRB is. It just happens that the CRB is effectively rubber stamping the rate structure proposed by SE, that's all. In fact, the compulsory licensing mechanism, *as a concept*, is a very very good idea, otherwise radio stations would have to negotiate with each and every artist in order to secure broadcasting rights. The problem is that the CRB has been hijacked by industry interests... 'course, that's just business as usual in Washington, so I fail to see how that's surprising.
Re:SoundExchange should be before the RICO judge (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to educate yourself before spouting off and making yourself look like an idiot.
Broadcasters have *always* had the option of negotiating broadcast licensing deals with artists directly. The compulsory licensing scheme exists for one reason, to make it easy for radio stations to broadcast music without having to deal with each and every artist.
Re:How to Run a Company into the Red (Score:3, Informative)
That's because they aren't a fucking for-profit business.
SoundExchange is a non-profit organization charged with dispensing licensing fees to artists, fees charged based on a compulsory licensing scheme set up by the government. A scheme that is *optional* (the broadcasters can always deal with the artists directly, if they're willing to shoulder that cost burden). Further, they are simply the *default* collecting agency. An artists is free to register a different one with the CRB if they like.