Slashdot Log In
A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Aug 16, 2007 03:05 PM
from the knows-whereof-he-speaks dept.
from the knows-whereof-he-speaks dept.
quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.
Related Stories
[+]
Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It 123 comments
Pontifex minimus writes "Music royalty collection group SoundExchange has offered an olive branch to small webcasters. They are willing to delay the exorbitant new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board until 2010 for small webcasters in hopes that they can keep Congress from passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Larger outfits, like Live365 and Pandora would not be affected and would have to pay the new rates. '"Although the rates revised by the CRB are fair and based on the value of music in the marketplace, there's a sense in the music community and in Congress that small webcasters need more time to develop their businesses," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange.' SaveNetRadio rejected SoundExchange's offer, saying that it 'throws large webcasters under the bus.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: U.S. Court Denies Webcasters' Stay Petition 264 comments
Michael Manoochehri writes "Reuters reports that a "federal appeals court has denied a petition by U.S. Internet radio stations seeking to delay a royalty rate hike due July 15 they say could kill the fledgling industry." This royalty rate hike, put forth by the US Copyright Royalty Board, will increase royalty rates for webcast music tremendously, in some cases to more per year than many webcasters bring in from revenue. Save Net Radio, a coalition of webcasters, is telling listeners that "We are appealing to the millions of Internet radio listeners out there, the webcasters they support and the artists and labels we treasure to rise up and make your voices heard again before this vibrant medium is silenced.""
[+]
Politics: Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy 109 comments
RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"
Firehose:RIAA, Can You Hear Me? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a weird and twisted way.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but how many times can you listen to "A Walk in the Black Forest" [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but this might just weaken their case a little bit. The whole premise of the RIAA has been that Net Radio hurts the artists. If you can show, with some accounting integrity and verifiability,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody interested in Canadian co-location services?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget... (Score:2)
What? And give up their carrot-and-stick game? (Score:4, Informative)
Except it isn't about income... (Score:5, Insightful)
When that has been dealt with the income issue will be revisited. Raising income is a lot easier when your monopoly is still intact, maintain the monopoly and the income will come anyway. Currently it is the monopoly that is being defended and any plan which does not include maintaining the monopoly is a bad idea, even when it increases revenue.
The RIAA doesn't want a fair rate structure (Score:2)
Revenue isn't the issue here, DRM is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I corrected that for you.
They don't want it to work yet. While DRM is useless, politicians & the general public wont see the real harm in it. If a politician knows anything about DRM.. he/she will probably just know that most DR
don't be silly (Score:2)
if we have a problem: sue sombody!
problem solved, end of story
Summary reminds me of a priceless Idiocracy quote (Score:5, Funny)
"Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2izZYZVhEA [youtube.com]
I rest my case.
The important question... (Score:2)
"They're... what plants crave?"
And in France? (Score:2, Interesting)
Make rates based on time listened (Score:2)
Solution: Avoid RIAA Music (Score:2)
I say let them raise the rates and then spread the word that inter
Re:Solution: Avoid RIAA Music (Score:5, Informative)
No. The royalties are collected for all songs played, even those from independent labels. Independent artists have the option of registering with SoundExchange so they may receive royalties collected on their behalf, less SoundExchange's fee.
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
They do if they play music.
And, by the way, no "radio" stations pay these royalties, only web stations. You probably knew that, but if you didn't, you do n
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you...I pointed this out upthread. Even with all of the anti-RIAA sentiment on /., the fact that over-the-air radio
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't. I over-stated the rules in my earlier post, as was pointed out here [slashdot.org] An independent artist could negotiate deals with webcasters and I suppose notify SoundExchang
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely correct. I stated as much elsewhere, but you put it better. If a station wanted to, they could negotiate deals with independent (r
Re: (Score:2)
to pass on (minus handling fees). That's one of the major sticking points here, they're tied to the RIAA but
claim to be acting on everyone's behal
He obviously doesn't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Still beggin their masters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Begging is going to get you very little, but working directly with the very labels and artists in an organized fashion and you'll be able to by-pass the RIAA in this regard (largely) altogether. Setup a foundation to be a industry friendly clearing-house to handle limited blanket licensing in terms the industry finds acceptable. Most labels want protection (from piracy and misuse) but also want exposure. With a little will (and funding) I think there would only be a few majors that would hold out. The same ones that want the market to be smaller in the first place. Which really would be a win-win. RIAA exclusive labels/artists could limit their exposure and practice the same kinds of influence they've become accustomed to. Smaller or more open labels and artists could continue to gain exposure and change the very markets the RIAA is trying to limit.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently registered broadcastbroker.{org,net,co.uk,org.uk} with exactly this in mind. Please get in touch if you're interested in taking this further.
Wide Response? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, as a talking point:
Consider if the ripping of CDs was not done, as it currently is, in a small casual fashion. What if the entire Internet community made a concerted, extensive, and prolonged effort
Understand the audience (Score:4, Insightful)
The author isn't trying to persuade the RIAA to be fair, that's impossible. That's why he wrote an open letter; a letter to the public ostensibly addressed to, but not really intended for, the RIAA.
The music business and its RIAA front will not change their agenda. They've given Congress their marching orders, accompanied by bales of money. Politicians understand that voters often vote for the candidate with the largest budget for ads. And it's not just the direct campaign contributions, it's that most of the music business is owned by media companies, the companies that own the TV and radio stations, newspapers, and even web sites that politicians advertize with. Why do you suppose that newspapers NEVER challenge the RIAA spin on any story?
The letter is intended for the public, and voters in particular. Politicans need cover before standing up to the RIAA. When voters write and call, that helps counter the RIAA fundraising. Float a fair and reasonable proposal, and shift the burden to the RIAA of explaining the RIAA plan.
Write or call your elected officials. Many would like to do the right thing. Give them hope that doing the right thing won't end their careers.
The real victims... (Score:2, Insightful)
I listen to this station a lot ( Radio Kansas [radiokansas.org]). They have several local programs that can't be heard anywhere else. It's wonderful programming but the funding comes from community support (i.e.: contributions). As stated on their online streaming service:
Barack Obama has this to say about the RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Date: Aug 11, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
To: f@1c0bird@gmail.com
Thank you for conveying your strong feelings about the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) and their contrib
Re:I have a good amount... (Score:4, Informative)
I still can't believe SoundExchange has the right to do what they're doing.
In the music industry anymore there are so many middlemen and markups that everyone is being charged way too much and it seems like the profits are going to everyone except the artist. I feel that internet radio playing music under copyright shouldn't be free, but the ad revenues should go directly back to the artists and not the scum (like SoundExchange) that are trying to make something from nothing. There are advertisers and such along the way that actually provide a valuable service which increase the overall cost, but other than that the music industry has reached the point of ridiculousness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If they are playing copyrighted music, why should they not follow the same rules as the commercial stations?
Most of the sites that I've been to have some form of advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
and if they aren't playing copyrighted music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if Joe Sixpack just wants to stream music off his site...for free? No revenues collect at all? No ads, just doing it for fun?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have a good amount... (Score:5, Informative)
OK, do you know how much over-the-air commercial radio stations pay to the RIAA for recording royalties? It *is* $0.
It seems to be a little known fact, but regular over-the-airwave radio, since its inception, has only had to pay songwriting royalties (i.e., those collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) for any songs they broadcast, but have never had to pay recording royalties ("mechanicals", in the trade). Why? Because it was always seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement: the radio station gets to sell advertising time over free use of the recordings, the copyright holders of the recording get free exposure which helps them sell records.
The whole point here is that they *do* want different rules for internet radio...that the RIAA thinks internet radio *should* pay mechanical royalties over-the-air broadcasters don't, and they've been doing this for over 12 years now, and it most definitely *has* hurt internet radio.
Re: (Score:2)
If commercial radio stations aren't paying any royalties or fees, then the Internet radio stations should be given the same consideration.