2016-2020 Royalty Rate For Webcasters Rises

[davideduardo]

That's the headline on allaccess.com

The costs for Pandora and iHeart Radio will increase measurably, while broadcasters who stream will see a significant reduction.

Partial article in Fair Use from Inside Radio just in:

http://www.insideradio.com/free/sag...cle_834b807c-830b-11e5-a767-4f0fc2f1a846.html

"The new rate for commercial nonsubscription services, both broadcast and pureplay, in 2016 is $0.0017 per-performance. That’s a slight increase from the $.0014 that pureplay webcasters have been paying but a nearly one-third decrease from the $.0025 that most broadcast radio streamers had been paying."

 

[CTListener]

That's the headline on allaccess.com

The costs for Pandora and iHeart Radio will increase measurably, while broadcasters who stream will see a significant reduction.

Partial article in Fair Use from Inside Radio just in:

http://www.insideradio.com/free/sag...cle_834b807c-830b-11e5-a767-4f0fc2f1a846.html

"The new rate for commercial nonsubscription services, both broadcast and pureplay, in 2016 is $0.0017 per-performance. That’s a slight increase from the $.0014 that pureplay webcasters have been paying but a nearly one-third decrease from the $.0025 that most broadcast radio streamers had been paying."

It's being seen as a win for Pandora and the commercial streamers, too, says The Street -- and traders, who are snapping up Pandora stock:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/1339...s-as-royalty-board-hikes-streaming-rates.html

 

[K.M. Richards]

I just posted the Radio World article over on the Internet Radio board:

http://www.radiodiscussions.com/sho...o-station-worth-500-a-year-out-of-your-pocket

The potential losers are the hobbyist Internet "stations" who will be out $500 a year and have to remain non-commercial just to keep that rate. That's going to kill a lot of the independent streamers who have tried to keep formats alive that commercial radio has abandoned.

 

[TheBigA]

The potential losers are the hobbyist Internet "stations" who will be out $500 a year and have to remain non-commercial just to keep that rate. That's going to kill a lot of the independent streamers who have tried to keep formats alive that commercial radio has abandoned.

The irony here is that the music industry at one time said THOSE folks were going to be their best customers, because they didn't have the agendas that big corporate folks have. But at the end of the day, it's all about money, not art, and this new deal promotes those who pay, not necessarily those who play.

 

[CTListener]

The irony here is that the music industry at one time said THOSE folks were going to be their best customers, because they didn't have the agendas that big corporate folks have. But at the end of the day, it's all about money, not art, and this new deal promotes those who pay, not necessarily those who play.

Will it do anything to curb YouTube, on which one can readily find just about all the new or old, hit or obscure, music one could ever wish to hear and pay absolutely zilch for the privilege? Or is YouTube (and parent Google) bulletproof and too big to take down at this point?

 

[TheBigA]

Or is YouTube (and parent Google) bulletproof and too big to take down at this point?

They apparently are paying an acceptable rate. The artists I talk to don't complain as much about the You Tube money. They complain about losing control of their content, and having live performances on there. But it's the whack-a-mole situation there more than something related to Google.

 

[Kelly A]

It's only going to take one artist with some business acumen and gravitas like Taylor Swift, going after Google/YouTube for all the cell phone videos of her songs live in concert. Then the flood gates will open and Google will have no choice but to take those violators down when they appear, or risk a long line of class action lawsuits.

Frankly, I applaud artists that stand up to on-line businesses exploiting their craft. Now that record companies have become irrelevant, the big windfalls from contracts with artists are over. What other choices do they have?

 

[Groove1670]

When you have 100 million people looking at your video do you want to upset the status quo. I think not. You can't buy that amount of publicity. Swift probably makes more money with touring, appearances and endorsements.

On the internet front. $500 a year is small price to pay for a hobby. Has anyone owned a boat before?

 

[CTListener]

When you have 100 million people looking at your video do you want to upset the status quo. I think not. You can't buy that amount of publicity. Swift probably makes more money with touring, appearances and endorsements.

On the internet front. $500 a year is small price to pay for a hobby. Has anyone owned a boat before?

That's what I'm thinking, too. That's under $50 a month, so it's about as expensive as another phone/internet account, and who couldn't afford that? Never mind owning a boat. How about going to sports events, concerts, hunting, fishing, flea markets -- they could all cost you $50 a month or more, easily, and you don't have to be a one percenter to afford another similarly-priced pursuit. I don't see many of the hobby streams disappearing at all.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't see many of the hobby streams disappearing at all.

I don't think they were trying to get rid of them, but it's the message it sends to music lovers at a time when people aren't paying for music any more.

There will be more messages like this to come, because the music industry needs to find some way to replace the revenue they once received from brick & mortar sales.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I don't see many of the hobby streams disappearing at all.

I don't think they were trying to get rid of them, but it's the message it sends to music lovers at a time when people aren't paying for music any more.

There will be more messages like this to come, because the music industry needs to find some way to replace the revenue they once received from brick & mortar sales.

It should be noted that the CRB has reserved the right to make annual adjustments. If there is sufficient pressure about streaming exerted by the music industry, who's to say that $500 might not become $750 in 2017 and $1000 a year later?

 

[TheBigA]

According to RadioInk:

"SoundExchange, which collects and distributes the money paid by webcasters, was seeking an increase in the rates to about 25 cents to 30 cents. So, it's no surprise they are unhappy with Wednesday's outcome."

 

[b-turner]

I really think this boils down to how much satisfaction the person gets by having an internet stream. Certainly there is more to it than just the Sound Exchange rate. Still comparing most hobbies against 'streaming', it is certainly in the ballpark if not well under for many hobby interests. A nice meal in a restaurant can eclipse this. A person that goes out for drinks once or twice a month can rack up this much.

I think for many, it's not a hope to make money streaming, nor to reach the masses as much as just being out there. It seems most of the internet is more about being out there rather than the number of visitors or ways you can get the money back.

The point is well taken that the constant outlay of cash is typically met at some point with some financial obligation that was unexpected, so the hobby streamer might be viewed as much more temporary than long term, assuming they just don't lose interest altogether.

 

[davideduardo]

Will it do anything to curb YouTube, on which one can readily find just about all the new or old, hit or obscure, music one could ever wish to hear and pay absolutely zilch for the privilege? Or is YouTube (and parent Google) bulletproof and too big to take down at this point?

Youtube is on-demand and pays at a different rate.

 

[johndavis]

That $500/year is just Sound Exchange, and it only applies if you're incorporated as a 501c3 non-profit. Then there's the PROs that you need to pay.

I've been running a couple of streams for a couple of years. Using someone like Stream Licensing to file the reports and pay the bills makes it easy and inexpensive for the small number of listeners that I get. It's a hobby. As of right now, it's not clear if I could afford to continue the arrangement that I have.

If you're going to tell me that I need to incorporate, file with the IRS, compile the stats and file them with Sound Exchange and do my own deals with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC to qualify for the $500 rate, then I'm going to turn off my computers and go ride a bike. It's cheaper and the exercise would be better for me.

I don't blame the bigger players for striking the deal that they did. In the grand scheme of things, if my stations disappear from the internet, life will go on for everyone just fine.

 

[Kelly A]

In the words of Freddie Mercury.. "Then get on your bikes and ride!"

 

[CTListener]

In the words of Freddie Mercury.. "Then get on your bikes and ride!"

Or find an online stream located in a country that isn't interested in turning its internet scofflaws over to the US, right? Do the fees apply to overseas streamers in the first place, and are all of them compliant? How have enforcement/punishment efforts gone when dealing with a stream originating from Belarus or the Faeroe Islands?

 

[davideduardo]

Or find an online stream located in a country that isn't interested in turning its internet scofflaws over to the US, right? Do the fees apply to overseas streamers in the first place, and are all of them compliant? How have enforcement/punishment efforts gone when dealing with a stream originating from Belarus or the Faeroe Islands?

I have had two emails today offering me streaming services out of Argentina with a server located in the always-delightful Paraguay. The wording is such that it appears that there is "minimal" licensing. I am sure that there are plenty of places in the world streamers could locate. But if they have a domicile in the US, and particularly if they generate revenue, I am sure the RIAA et. al. will soon be after them at the revenue side; that's how they got Al Capone, too!

 

[TheBigA]

I am sure the RIAA et. al. will soon be after them at the revenue side

I have several friends who streamed from outside the US, and at one point, they geo-fenced because of the difference in royalty rate. That led me to believe that the streamer is liable for the rate in which the listening takes place, regardless of origination. I'll check with them again on this.

There are all kinds of crazy things related to royalties. The RIAA says that there is no reciprocity in royalty payments for foreign artists because of the lack of radio royalty in the US.

 

[davideduardo]

That $500/year is just Sound Exchange, and it only applies if you're incorporated as a 501c3 non-profit. Then there's the PROs that you need to pay.

I've been running a couple of streams for a couple of years. Using someone like Stream Licensing to file the reports and pay the bills makes it easy and inexpensive for the small number of listeners that I get. It's a hobby. As of right now, it's not clear if I could afford to continue the arrangement that I have.

If you're going to tell me that I need to incorporate, file with the IRS, compile the stats and file them with Sound Exchange and do my own deals with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC to qualify for the $500 rate, then I'm going to turn off my computers and go ride a bike. It's cheaper and the exercise would be better for me.

I don't blame the bigger players for striking the deal that they did. In the grand scheme of things, if my stations disappear from the internet, life will go on for everyone just fine.

Good post. In other words, the hobbyist streams are in jeopardy due to the complexity of incorporating as a non-profit (which include annual filings, a BoD, etc) and the non-profits will have increased expenses unless they have underwriting or deep pockets.