Copyright Board Lawyer Responds On Pandora's End

mattnyc99 writes "A month ago we talked about the impending death of streaming music site Pandora thanks to a very backwards fight over royalties. PopMech follows up with an article that, besides noting how insane it is that Pandora has to pay record labels for the bad songs that users skip, also gets the (three-member) Copyright Royalty Board to try and defend itself about why the government is determining royalty rates for the music industry. Quoting: 'It was uninvited,' says Richard Strasser, senior attorney for the Copyright Royalty Board. 'I don't think anybody was jumping up and down with joy in the government that they have this responsibility, but the former systems just weren't working out.'" No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.

simple explanation

[ObjetDart]

No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.

The explanation is pretty simple. If you follow the history of the battle over internet radio royalties, you'll quickly see that it is all about stream ripping. The music industry is convinced that millions of people are "stealing" music by recording streaming radio with free tools like streamripper.

They initially attempted to get congress to pass legislation to force all internet broadcasters to use DRM in their streams. When this went nowhere, that's when they began the royalty assault. The plan is to simply force internet radio broadcasters out of business with exhorbitant royalties. Looks like it's working, too, with the demise of Pandora.

Re:The ISPs are hitting internet radio too

[st0rmshad0w]

Check your math. kbps is kiloBITS. Not bytes. Still adds up fast though when you start thinking about multiple streams.

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[computersareevil]

1. An FCC license.
2. Commercial broadcast hardware.

Have you priced either? Very effective at excluding undesirables...

Because it wouldn't fix anything

[Weaselmancer]

Thanks to Soundexchange. [wikipedia.org]

You have to pay royalties to the RIAA for any music you broadcast. Even if the artists you are playing are not RIAA members. They can, however, become RIAA members and get their precollected royalties, of course.

And no, I'm not bullshitting you. It's actually law. Here's the original Slashdot thread about it. [slashdot.org]

Re:Pity

[Anonymous Coward]

Just switch to www.last.fm.

Re:Pity

[Adambomb]

You present the problem that many find themselves in, but thats merely because you're working off the assumption that there isn't much non-riaa controlled music out there (there's lots, its just not as easy to browse). Granted, it's not publicized as well but there are a lot of good suggestions in this older thread [slashdot.org].

People often forget the option of searching for independent groups for genres they enjoy and paying the group (good) without it going anywhere near the RIAA (also good). Remember if you find yourself saying "oh it's just too much effort keeping track of who is RIAA and who isnt technically", this is a STRATEGY of the riaa not a failing of the independent artists who remain unaffiliated in any way.

Sound Exchange

[tobiah]

If you go to the SoundExchange website, they have a list of thousands of musicians for whom they collected revenue but have not contacted them for payment. Their right to those funds expires after a certain period of time, and SoundExchange would keep 50% in any case.
In most case musicians would prefer to have their music broadcast as widely as possible. It is possible to opt out of representation by SoundExchange, but then the guidelines are written so that they have to waive ALL rights to revenue from that track. They can also make exceptions for particular webcast sites, which is made quite difficult and challenged aggressively.
One exception is polka music, a group representing American polka music negotiated a broad agreement with SoundExchange that polka stations don't have to pay any revenues.

I don't think that's correct

[Weaselmancer]

From the initial story: [dailykos.com]

Even if you do own the copyright to your own recording of your own song, SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you don't want them to do so.

If you could please provide a citation where a contract overrides Soundexchange's legalized extortion? If it exists I'd like to see it.

Re:Pity

[Ledgem]

You raise a good issue, and I'm somewhat surprised that nobody responded to you with this solution yet: go to a used CD store. You'll get to own the physical product, you'll likely pay much less, and none of the money goes to the RIAA. I often shop at a Japanese used CD and book store called Book Off - I've purchased many CDs from their $1-3 section, and they were all in like-new condition. There is only one downside to buying in this manner, and that is your purchase doesn't directly support the artist. No money goes to them, and your purchase does not boost their sale statistics. You can try to show your support in other ways if this is vitally important to you, of course.