The New Webcasting Compromise

arkham6 writes "According to a story on Yahoo, it appears that the RIAA and negotiators for webcasters have reached a tentative deal for reduced rates for 'small' webcasters. However, it appears now that the artists themselves are going to jump into the fray because the record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists."

Comments

Artists may be OK

[tomasdore]

There's a slightly more positive take on the artists' financial share over at ye olde favorite, SomaFM :

"More info as soon as we know more... we're trying to get the final wording on the bill, but we understand that the provisions (added at the last moment) that take money away from the artists were removed before the vote was approved."

It's over?

[madumas]

According to their site, SomaFM will resume broadcoast soon !! yay!
0.70$ per song per thousand listeners seems to be reasonable for small webcasters.

More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit Orgs

[jigokukoinu]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27474.html

They list some specifics that state if your revenues are less than 250k you have a specific rate' mhile 250k-500k is another tier.

Mhere exactly would non-profit orgs sit?

/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artists

[utahjazz]

Quoth Yahoo news: The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.

They're trying to deduct their expenses for setting up the royalty payment system, not avoid paying artisis altogether.

Yeah, OK, it's still evil.

-These are not the sig your looking for.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[leviramsey]

Turn the band into your business and it might be successful. A few ands have taken that route and succeeded.

Perhaps none moreso than Metallica (aka E/M Ventures and Creeping Death Music).

A way to promote and share

[epeus]

Over at mediAgora the details of just such a promotion and payment system are under discussion.

Re:How much will this really cost small webcasters

[rbruchal]

I believe that the $0.07/listener/song (70 cents per thousand listners per song) was the original flat rate; the new rate is a percentage of revenues:

"By a voice vote, the House approved a deal that would allow smaller "Webcasters" to pay a percentage of revenues or expenses to the musicians and record labels whose songs they use, rather than a flat per-song rate set by the Library of Congress (news - web sites) in June."

The Aritsts Do Get Paid.

[thumbtack]

The Future of Music Coalition, The Recording Artists Coalition, AFTRA, NARAS, The American Federation of Musicians, and the International Managers all jumped into the fray on Monday and the text got put back in that pays the artists directly.

The Bill Passed the House on Monday Evening.

Full Text of the Bill as Passed in the House (pdf)

You lowballed the numbers, chum.

[dave-fu]

Quoting the bill...
`(I) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions made by an eligible small webcaster during the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1998, the minimum fee for the year shall be $500.

`(II) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions made by an eligible small webcaster in any part of calendar years 1999 through 2002, the minimum fee for each year in which such transmissions are made shall be $2,000.

`(III) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions made by an eligible small webcaster in any part of calendar years 2003 and 2004, the minimum fee for each year in which such transmissions are made shall be $2,000 if the eligible small webcaster had gross revenues during the immediately preceding year of not more than $50,000 and expects to have gross revenues during the applicable year of not more than $50,000.

Isn't that beautiful? To webcast a talk radio station will cost you $2,000 a year. If your station doesn't play a single RIAA-owned song, that will cost you $2,000 a year.
Ain't life grand?