Well What Do You Know?!...

[dbdigital]

Some in Congress have actually been paying attention to the issue of the CRB's misguided royalty rate hike for webcasters.

"Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) today introduced the "Internet Radio Equality Act," which would vacate the Copyright Royalty Board's recent hike in webcast performance royalties and set a flat royalty rate of 7.5% of revenues for 2006-2010.

The bill would also change the rate-setting standard used by the CRB for Internet-radio royalties to a standard similar to that applied to satellite radio and reset the royalty rules for noncommercial radio stations that stream music online."

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

I don't know if this can stall the May 15 deadline but at least there's hope for an equitable resolution to this injustice.

db

 

[vsa]

The previously "disappointed" NAB has come out with a bold response to this bill:

"NAB is reviewing details of Rep. Inslee's bill, which would overturn the Copyright Royalty Board's disappointing decision to dramatically raise fees for companies that stream music over the Internet. We will work with Congress to craft a solution that helps ensure the survival of a fledgling audio platform."

http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_room&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8680

It's always good to see such strong "leadership" by the NAB on an issue which affects every member who has an Internet stream.

It should be added the SoundExchange is also "reviewing" the contents of this bill.

 

[dbdigital]

The previously "disappointed" NAB has come out with a bold response to this bill:

"NAB is reviewing details of Rep. Inslee's bill, which would overturn the Copyright Royalty Board's disappointing decision to dramatically raise fees for companies that stream music over the Internet. We will work with Congress to craft a solution that helps ensure the survival of a fledgling audio platform."

http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_room&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8680

It's always good to see such strong "leadership" by the NAB on an issue which affects every member who has an Internet stream.

It should be added the SoundExchange is also "reviewing" the contents of this bill.

I suspect that this 'working with Congress to craft a solution' will involve the same sweetheart deal that terrestrial broadcasters currently get for playing music, namely paying the publishing fees (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) but not artist fees. It may also involve writing in some clarification on simulcasting content OTA and online.

Those are the only aspects of this webcasting legislation that I can see the NAB even being remotely interested in.

db

 

[4dude]

Good i hope they continue trying..........

 

[captex]

hopefully, this will be the last time anything like this will happen again. i do subscribe to live 365.com for about 4 years and listen at work. and ocassionally listen to terrestrial radio from time to time. i listen more to internet radio to hear songs that are not played on the radio.

 

[dbdigital]

Of course the bill still has to face approval and a vote in the House and then onto a Senate vote before it becomes law. Already SoundExchange has issued a statement objecting to the bill claiming that it is "anti-artist".

db

 

[RadioStarOne]

Would you expect anything less from soundexchange? What a group of crybabies!

 

[dbdigital]

Would you expect anything less from soundexchange? What a group of crybabies!

I don't mind so much SoundExchange crying. I expected that. What worries me is the RIAA lobbying which could result in the bill either being badly gutted or loaded down with so much crap that by the time it hits the Senate floor for a vote it's virtually useless.

Of course, few bills make it through the House and Senate unscathed but this one must remain intact as much as possible for it to be of any help to the art and business of webcasting.

db

 

[William_Yeager]

I have sent letters to the editor of the Cincinnati Post, Louisville Courier-Journal, The (University of) Kentucky Kernel and The Crimson White (The University of Alabama). I will be calling John Yarmuth's office Monday.

If Sound Exchange thinks HR 2060 is "Anti-Artist", what will they think when Live 365 and Pandora declare bankruptcy?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Here is a link for more info:
http://www.savenetradio.org/

 

[dbdigital]

Here is a link for more info:
http://www.savenetradio.org/

As a further follow up, today Senators Ron Wyden and Sam Brownback introduced the Senate version of the "Internet Radio Equality Act". So this issue is moving along at a fairly good pace.

I still say that if the NAB can argue that terrestrial radio should be exempt from paying record label royalty fees because of the value of their broadcasting services then webcasters and satcasters should be exempt as well. Either everyone pays or nobody pays.

After all, HD-Radio with its higher quality digital streams pose just as much a (supposed) threat to the labels as they claimed web and satellite radio did.

db

 

[jcolletta275]

I still say that if the NAB can argue that terrestrial radio should be exempt from paying record label royalty fees because of the value of their broadcasting services then webcasters and satcasters should be exempt as well. Either everyone pays or nobody pays.

After all, HD-Radio with its higher quality digital streams pose just as much a (supposed) threat to the labels as they claimed web and satellite radio did.

db

Two great points. Couldn't have made 'em better myself.

 

[jefflaurence]

So if a terrestrial station is using two HD channels in addition to thier main channel do they have to treat each channel as a "stream" and would they have to pay "per listener"?

Bet they'd squeal about that. Also..it seems that XM and Sirius would have a better accountability handle on their number of paid subscribers..and would part of the sub fees go to pay for these royalties? Isn't that where some of the money is going already?

If a stream on the net is a hobby stream it should certainly be exempt. IF a streamcaster is makng money with the stream and the music is the draw to get people to listen..like terrestrial broadcasters they shoud have a fee to pay to compensate the artists right? But a fair rate..not one that would serve the competition and put the small webcaster out of business..something that is affordable. That would seem fair..but to over price a viable stage for the record companies to showcase their talent would be crazy..So then this hypothetical scene:

A record company opens it's own website that allows a streaming program of it's new releases, and some of it's old releases etc..do THEY have to pay? And if so..who get's that money..themselves? I am smelling a lawsuit here..and a distinct conflict of interest.

 

[Chuck]

So if a terrestrial station is using two HD channels in addition to thier main channel do they have to treat each channel as a "stream" and would they have to pay "per listener"?

That would sure be a lot of fun to figure out, wouldn't it? Listener accountability and reporting is one of my really big gripes about the proposed requirements. I don't have a big problem with the concept of paying something for web streaming, but it needs to be reasonable. The reporting requirement is the real hidden killer. It could very easily become a full time job for someone and not many stations are going to be able to justify the cost of adding a staff person to do it. I don't believe that very many people (other than huge corporations) are getting rich off of Internet radio. The guy with a station in his garage sure as hell isn't going to retire on the profits.

Bet they'd squeal about that. Also..it seems that XM and Sirius would have a better accountability handle on their number of paid subscribers..and would part of the sub fees go to pay for these royalties? Isn't that where some of the money is going already?

As I understand it, XM and Sirius already pay. Perhaps they have cut their own deal and will be exempt from the changes. If the new rules cause their costs to go up, guess who will pay for it? It’s the consumer, naturally. I suspect that the satellite guys are pushing the limits of what most people will pay right now. Any increase in the subscription price might result in fewer subscribers.

I don't think our government has admitted it yet, but we are in an oddly imbalanced period of hyperinflation. Your dollar is nearly worthless on the world market. Compared to 1960, prices, your dollar buys about 10-15% of what it did back then. The exception is consumer electronics and clothing, which thanks to people in China are quite a bargain. When gas gets to $12.95 per gallon, maybe the satellite companies won't have any problem raising their rates to accommodate Sound Exchange.

If a stream on the net is a hobby stream it should certainly be exempt. IF a streamcaster is makng money with the stream and the music is the draw to get people to listen..like terrestrial broadcasters they shoud have a fee to pay to compensate the artists right? But a fair rate..not one that would serve the competition and put the small webcaster out of business..something that is affordable. That would seem fair..but to over price a viable stage for the record companies to showcase their talent would be crazy..So then this hypothetical scene:

A record company opens it's own website that allows a streaming program of it's new releases, and some of it's old releases etc..do THEY have to pay? And if so..who get's that money..themselves? I am smelling a lawsuit here..and a distinct conflict of interest.

Let's just say that there is something that smells fishy....

 

[4dude]

Yes maybe your right.......

 

[jefflaurence]

And..what about the sat-casters' webstreams..are they having to pay the "rate" as well? What about talk shows that use partial music tracks as bumper music..how much and for how many listeners? Pay per potential listeners? hardly fair...Jeez..let the webcasters showcase record company product and be grateful for having the exposure..Back in "the day" record companies were paying stations to get stuff played..how things have changed huh?

 

[Chuck]

And..what about the sat-casters' webstreams..are they having to pay the "rate" as well? What about talk shows that use partial music tracks as bumper music..how much and for how many listeners? Pay per potential listeners? hardly fair...Jeez..let the webcasters showcase record company product and be grateful for having the exposure..Back in "the day" record companies were paying stations to get stuff played..how things have changed huh?

I think the record companies are still paying stations both above the boards and under the table. Wasn't there a big Payola scandal just recently? It is even OK to pay a station to play a song if the payment is acknowledged on the air, and it is my understanding that it is done all the time as a sort of infomercial.

I think the record industry needs to get a grip and realize that broadcasting in all its forms (terrestrial, satellite and web casting) is their friend. It is free promotion. Maybe broadcasters should insist that RIAA be billed for their air time. That is what broadcasting has to sell...

 

[dbdigital]

I suppose this should be filed under "What Do You Know Part 2".

SoundExchange, in response to a request from key members of Congress, announced today that it has made an offer to extend the rates and terms of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act through the end of 2010.

The rates, as you recall, are these: small webcasters would pay royalty fees of 10% of all gross revenue up to $250,000, and 12% for all gross revenue above that amount. The proposal includes both a revenue cap and a usage cap to ensure that this subsidy is used only by webcasters of a certain size who are forming or strengthening their business.

http://www.soundexchange.com/news/documents/SWSA Extension Release.pdf

Of course, the proposal doesn't address the issue of radio stations who webstream and it doesn't remove the CRB from regulating webcasting rates.

db