Slashdot Mirror
Congress Passes SWSA
signer writes "Congress has passed the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (House of Representatives link). Webcasters have until December 15th to negotiate Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments, and they have the option of changing their status to non-profit and gaining a delay until June 30, 2003 to pay owed royalties from previous years. RAIN (www.kurthanson.com) has details."
IS this settlement good or bad for the webcasters? Personally I'm of the mind that radio by defination is free promotion, the webcasters should be charging for it.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
they'll all be non-profit.
Here is the text in case RAIN can't shine:
In a stunning victory for webcasting, both the Senate and the House of Representatives unanimously passed aImage: Bill text revised version of H.R. 5469 late last night that clears the way for copyright owners to offer webcasters a percentage-of-revenues royalty rate, essentially allowing the parties to mutually agree to override the CARP decision of last spring.
The Senate passed the bill at 10:32PM ET and the House passed it at 2:44AM. It now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The bill was actively supported by virtually all players on both sides of the debate this year, including the Photo: Sen. Jesse Helmsrecord industry, artist representatives, large webcasters, small webcasters, college radio representatives, and religious broadcasters.
In what was viewed as a surprise by some observers, the legislative staff in the office of retiring Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) (pictured) apparently played an active and valuable role in crafting what the parties concluded was a much better piece of legislation than the one Helms blocked at the last moment late last month (here).
Rates and terms removed from legislation
The key difference between the bill that the House passed in October and the revised bill, renamed the "Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002," is that Congress did not establish any definition of "small webcaster" or set any royalty rates in the final version of the legislation.
Rather, the bill grants both sides the right to enter into a voluntary agreement "without fear of liability for deviating from the fees andLink: SoundExchange terms of the July 8 order" (i.e., the Librarian of Congress's modified CARP decision).
Specifically, the bill does so by permitting the receiving agent of royalty payments (i.e., SoundExchange) to negotiate on behalf of all copyright owners, whether they are members of SoundExchange or not, for the period beginning October 28, 1998 (i.e., the passage of the DMCA) and ending December 31, 2004.
Under the new mechanism established by this act, the voluntary agreement envisioned would be submitted to the Copyright Office, published in the Federal Register, and subsequently made available to all qualifying webcasters.
However, the bill grants the receiving agent that authority to make a settlement with the small commercial webcasters only until December 15th -- so the clock is ticking for both sides to "paper the deal." (CONTINUED)
RAIN Vendor Guide Ver.3.0 Special issue coming soon: Most indicators seem to be pointing (finally!) toward a more-successful 2003 for both broadcasters and webcasters. To help you in your planning process for next year, RAIN's upcoming "Planning for 2003" issue will showcase products and services that will help you reduce your expenses and increase your revenues in 2003!
Link: ABC Radio Networks
Link to Backbone
Link to: Bean Bag Entertainment Link to BRS Media Inc. Link: Compuone.net Link: DiMA
Link to DotFM Link: Hiwire Link to IM Networks Link: Interep Link to Interep Interactive
Link: International Webcasting Association Link to Measurecast Link to The Media Audit Link to Radio Web Stuff Link to Sabo Media
Link: Stream Madness Link to Surfer Network
For YOUR firm to be included, call RAIN at 1-312-527-3869 or e-mail kurt@kurthanson.com
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
Royalty payments from noncomms
suspended until next June
The version of the bill passed last night also suspends ALL royalty payments due from noncommercial webcasters until June 30, 2003, giving both sides time to work out a new voluntary royalty structure.
Furthermore, the bill adds a new definition of "noncommercial" that permits webcasters who are currently for-profit entities to file for nonprofit status and take advantage of this option as long as they have a "commercially reasonable expectation that such exemption shall be granted."
This provision seems to permit any "hobbyist" webcaster to make a choice of whether they would like to be a for-profit business or a nonprofit. The bill gives the parties involved until May 31, 2003 to negotiate their voluntary license.
Stronger non-precedential language added
The bill contains new and very strong language intended to prevent the deal negotiated in Sensenbrenner's office from being used as precedent in future CARPs.
One example: "It is the intent of Congress that any royalty rates, rate structure, definitions, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements, included in such agreements shall be considered as a compromise motivated by the unique business, economic and political circumstances of small Photo: Capitol buildingwebcasters, copyright owners, and performers rather than as matters that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller."
Another example: "Nothing in the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002...shall be taken into account by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its review of the determination by the Librarian of Congress of July 18, 2002, of rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings and ephemeral recordings."
Such language apparently satisfied the concerns of terrestrial broadcasters (e.g., the NAB and the National Religious Broadcasters) about the early version of the bill.
...
RAIN Analysis
...
Victory!
An amazing combination of influences has come together to craft a solution that should Photo: Kurt Hansonallow webcasting to move forward to a healthier 2003 and beyond, with benefits for copyright holders, webcasters, and consumers alike.
This is NOT a victory of webcasters over record labels (or, for that matter, vice versa). It is a victory for common sense, as all parties involved will benefit from a healthy webcasting space.
The record industry has apparently come to realize that webcasting should not be lumped in with CD burning and file sharing as one of their enemies, but rather that the new medium has the potential to offer real benefits for them if everyone quits acting as if they're adversaries.
And everyone else seemed to work together as well: Broadcasters did not flex their political might in Washington to try to quash this bill (and thus kill a potential new set of competitors), and Internet-only webcasters didn't use the negotiations to try to get themselves a leg up over broadcasters.
And record labels and recording artists -- the two factions that share in royalty payments -- used the bill to clarify the functioning of SoundExchange in a manner that had benefits for both sides.
Congress paid attention!
Finally, it's amazing to me that such a bill was able to get the attention of Congress -- and unanimous passage! -- during a lame duck session designed to focus on critical "homeland security" issues.
I'd like to think that last May's "Day of Silence" and the resulting press coverage (and support from listeners) played at least some small role in making this an issue that Senators and Congressmen were willing to pay attention to.
Now we can move forward
And now, let's see if copyright holders and webcasters can't execute those envisioned voluntary licenses and then start working together to, among other things, help break new artists, promote genres of music that have not gotten their fair share of terrestrial radio airplay in the past, and help sell records! - KH
...
Look for more details on this bill and industry reaction later today in RAIN.
IS this settlement good or bad for the webcasters?
There is an annual minimum royalty of $500, which means that the smallest of small webcasters may not be able to afford it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The folks at somafm have some interresting links and comments too.
Honestly, how would you feel if something you put hours, days, and even weeks of effort, heart, and soul was being played FOR-PROFIT by a pay radio station by someone without your permission?
Whether non-profit p2p and netradio is stealing or not can be debated -- but when someone takes an artist's hard work and plays it over the internet with the sole purpose of making money, it is blatant thievery of intellectual property and disrespect of copyright, which does have a right to exist to spur innovation in an economy that is, was, and shall be capitalist.
I've lived in North Carolina for more than 20 years, and this may be not only the first time Jesse Helms and I agreed on something, but the first time I wanted to stand up and applaud him for following through on it.
Clearly, the apocalypse is coming. Someone tell the FBI...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
like college radio and the NPR music stations (e.g. WXPN).
Problem, though, is that it could hurt the small, independent, for-profit stations. I can see Sh*tchannel using the royalty issue as a way to round up the last of the independents into their corporate droneness.
Guess this means I can start looking into streaming my music on the Web again. Now, if they could only relax the FCC rules on what you can play and when. (Not talking about obscenity but about the stifling rules on playing an artist more than once in a time period. I mean, if payola is legal now [with Sh*tchannel demanding $$$ from the record companies], then maybe we should toss out the rest of those 50s-era radio rules too.)Non profit status = special license = jurisdiction = control
Well, I don't really care where the music comes from.
Even if you don't understand the foreign languages,
there are tons of webradios elsewhere
that will not suffer from these problems
(i.e. don't have to do massive advertisements to afford casting good music).
- Antenne Bayern (Bavaria, Germany) - click on "Live h\"oren"
- FFH (germany)
- HR XXL (Germany)
- BBC (UK)
Does anybody have some links to good webradios in Italy, spain, mexico etc.?? Please post!Like most slashdotters, I have a busy, active lifestyle. And when I read about these new political events, I need to know up front: should I be please that the little guy is finally getting a break, or should I be pissed off that the MegaCorps(tm) are gorging themselves with another piece of the public pie?
Frankly, I can't tell by reading this summary. I'm forced to read the article and background information to form an opinion of my own, rather than sharing in the poster's rage (or satisfaction) at this travesty of justice (or victory for freedom)..whatever it is.
Please slashdot...let me know what I should think.. maybe an icon next to the story?
I've googled myself to death in recent weeks looking for non legal-speak about how non-profit, free-format college radio will be effected by all this stuff. Now that the revised legislation is passed, what gives?
A lot of alumni from my alma mater were upset when our radio station stopped webcasting. That was a MAJOR connection for us. Where will students/administration go to get answers? Will it be affordable (less than 4 digits)?
-Foo
I fully understand having to pay royalties for playing music that is copyrighted, but I am wondering if I play music that the owner of the music licenses me to play do I still have to pay RIAA? Maybe one of the legal eagles out there can answer this for me.
Thanks,
washingtonpost.com's story quotes several small webcasters praising the compromise bill. According to the article, the bill "does not establish specific royalty rates for webcasters. Instead, it authorizes the music industry's principal royalty collector, SoundExchange, to negotiate binding royalty contracts with small webcasters on behalf of all artists and record labels." Strange footnote: Sen. Jesse Helms had a big stake in the bill as he successfully protected small religious webcasters from the royalty axe.
ComFM
// TODO: fix sig
You'd thing after paying taxes to support a Congress to make 'laws' like this, they could spend a little to make it readable by the general public, which will have to hire laywers and subsequently be priced out of webcasting right there.
If this benefits the little guy, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I can't tell. 'Course it's Friday and I haven't had my Dr. Pepper yet either.
I don't don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I am done buying CD's. Honestly. I have put off making this decision for a long time, but honestly, it's long overdue. For me, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I can only hope a lot of other people feel the same way.
The sad thing for the RIAA is, that I really used to buy quite a lot of cds. By the time graduated high school I had nearly 100, and this mostly bought out of my own cash. Even as a poor colloege student I always buy my favorite bands cd's, but not anymore. Sad really, looks like I'll never own that new Pearl Jam. Oh well, I'll support the band by continuing to go see concerts and buying t-shirts and posters. The RIAA will never see another dime of my hard earned money.
1) Web radio dies, or goes "underground" and just becomes a lot less popular, and a lot more scary to be involved in. (due to the new-found illegality thanks to this bill)
2) Web radio stations start playing works by independent (non-RIAA-affiliated) artists en masse-- thereby avoiding having to pay the RIAA a red cent.
Actually, there's a third that is somewhere in between: 3) Web radio stations start playing only "mixed" versions of RIAA tunes, claiming that by producing a "modified, derivative work" it is legal. Then this gets hashed out in court, or worse in Congress...
As I see it, though, (1) is by far the most likely. Lots of the SlashDot types might be interested in indie music... but remember, lots of the listeners of these online stations are/were regular Joe-Blows. They want to hear Queen and Sting and Madonna and Eminem and Snoop Dawg, not (insert obscure indie band name here).
Le sigh... But if outcome #2 was the case... that would be very nice.. and might even spark a nationwide change in buying habits (i.e. people would start buying more indie music, leaving the RIAA bit by little bit... of course, this would only affect the mostly young and relatively Internet-literate (not necessarily computer-literate, but they're familiar with the Net and much of its underlying tech) folks who use Web streaming...)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I'm almost ready to go with a free Internet station that I'd do strictly out of love of music, and wanting to offer something different. I wouldn't make a penny off the stream, except the occasional voluntary PayPal donation.
So what does this mean for me? If my revenues are zero, do I owe zero? A lot of the stuff I'd be playing would be from obscure artists who would likely not get a PENNY from RIAA extor^H^H^H^H^Hroyalties anyway.
Or is there a mandatory minimum, as I remember reading of in previous proposals?
--- Why yes, I am the webmaster of Microsuck.com
Can someone explain why there is a deadline for negotiating the percentage-of-revenue royalties?
I read the article, but does this date only apply to the copyright holders of the content webcasters were streaming in the past? Ie, does the date only apply to negoating the roytalties with the copyright holders of content you streamed in the past, and does this prevent you from negoating custom roytalities with copyright holders in the future? (I can't imagine it would.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
Probably not percentage of revenue, but were you to use Led Zepplin's "The Lemon Song" playing on a jukebox as part of your stand's self-promotion, it would probably be wise to come to a flat-fee licencing agreement with the rightsholders in order to protect yourself. This is not meant to be funny. Don't mod it +1 Funny. Don't!
What happens to classical stations now?
;) )? Like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and other artists whose name doesn't begin with B?
The music companies might put out an argument "Well, since we sell Beethoven and Bach CDs, you owe us", but realistically, what do you guys think will happen to those who only play music too old to be copyrighted (at least, until Congress ups the copyright time limits retroactively again
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I'm not normally a Sade fan, and I remember holding some disdain for her music in years past (80's). But after hearing some of her recent stuff (downloaded via Gnucleus), I bought her album and went to her concert with my wife.
Exposure sells and it's the RIAA who are scared because maybe we don't want to buy the crap they are carpet bagging... maybe we will hold out for something better. They don't trust themselves.
One hit wonders shouldn't sell any records because the rest of their albums suck. While good musicians and artists who sweat blood to make amazing albums are still left behind. If the internet could do anything, I think it would even things out so real musicians would make the money they deserve and fluff bands get downloaded for the song that's good and passed over for concerts and cds.
Good music will always sell.
.nosig
So what the hell is this putting off till 2003 for? If you have no money because you're a Non-Profit, then you should make them pay $0. peroid. Hell, the least they could have done is forced the RIAA to PAY Non-Profits for the free advertising to pay for newer and better equipment for all the free advertising.
Why on earth do non-profit stations have to pay royalties? What the hell's up with that? I mean, come on. Isn't the idea of being non-profit that you won't have to pay excessive fees because you're not making any money? How do they expect non-profit webcasts to pay excessive fees just to broadcast songs to all twenty of their listeners? It's not like there's big money in webcasting...
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
--I established my criteria on forwarding cash to "entertainments" a long time ago and have stuck to it. Once the media copy cost more than I made in one hour, I ceased purchasing new. This happened for me around the transition time from 8 tracks to cassettes. Once a "live" event cost more than two hours labor to me, I stopped attending. This is music, movies, sporting events as well. Saved me thousands now over the years. And by a long time I mean back when live concerts and sporting events where like 3$ to attend some places. IMO, there isn't a single one of them people worth more than that. entertainers and sports gods and their management packaging teams just aren't worth what they think they are worth. they make the money by people paying them, but to me they aren't worth it. this is just my personal opinion, anyone's mileage may vary, but really, some of those people being multi zillionaires? for that stuff, "entertainment'? It's just not that important. Entertainments are "amusing" they aren't necessities or all that valuable.
Now this is just my formula, won't work for anyone else, but I just got tired of seeing the waste and greed when I worked live music and a little film/television industry work.
"Artists" and "executives" and etc. I saw where huge amounts of the money was going, screw them greedy people.
As to the broadcasting-the netcasting-simple solution, it's called stop supporting them, if it was me with a station, I wouldn't play any stuff that required royalty payments to them. It would have to be free for use by order of the creator/copyright holder, or a different contract that was much more reasonable, but none of the full price riaa stuff.
I agree, it is all part of our evil republican plot. We are going to systematically murder every non white, non christian, non conservative...
Come on!
Sheesh...
--Joey
That silence you just heard was the sound of 20,000 smalltime webcasters going offline.
Too bad The Onion took down this article, I think it explains the hypocrisy pretty well. At least Google still has the cache: RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music
...if it sells. If Britanny Spears suddenly wants more money and etc. They can let her go and push the next hot piece of ass. By selling sex rather than music, the RIAA can use an artist like a mass produced commodity instead of a rare talent like the good ones are.
They don't really even want good music because the people that write it could increase their demands. There are more pretty faces than talented musicians...
Fortuantely there are enough people that aren't attracted to sex_idol-pop to allow other artists to flourish.
MTV has a lot of fault in this. No one can tell what you look like on the radio...
--Joey
This is slightly OT, but I realised something disturbing a few hours ago and it does relate to the radio/webcasting debate in a roundabout way.
:(
I've got a friend coming into New York tonight, so I figured I'd check out a few local venues to see who's playing, what's going on and all that. One of my favorite music venues is Irving Plaza. (flash site) I like going to random shows, I like supporting local music and I like circumventing the RIAA as much as is possible.
Chck out the link above - see what's in the lower left-hand corner of the homepage under the Irving Plaza logo? "Clear Channel Entertainment."
Fuck.
I. Can't. Get. Away.
Triv
Wait, are you saying that Memo I got from falwell wasn't real?! Shit! Quick! Help me hide the bodies!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
From France: Radio Zinzine (english page)
so forgive me for being naive about this but it would seem to me that congress should not be able to mandate the prices for a service. I dont understand how congress can actually set the amounts that should be paid by webcasters.
Take insurance for example - they can make it a law that you must actually carry insurance - but they cant make a law telling me how much i have to pay for it (although they should regulate the prices due to the fact that we are forced to carry a product sold by a private company)
Just because they *can* pass crap like this doesn *not* make it right.
This country is so ass-backwards these days I am amazed at the things that congress get away with without any repremands.
Your comment has caused an interesting thought...
:)
Where does personal use and promotional use differ, I mean, what if you really, really like "the Lemon Song" (god knows why, I like Led Zepplin, but....) so you have an endless tape of it playing at your lemonade stand for your own enjoyment...
Now, somebody who has the ability to cause you problems drives by and hears said song playing, this person decides that you ARE using this song for promotional purposes...
Who is right in a court of law? Unfortunately the person who is coming after you is going to have more money, and this would most likely result in you being found to be guilty.... In the words of Metallica, "Sad but true"... Uh, oh, was that "Fair use"???? Hope so...
The law clearly states:
It says GROSS REVENUES, not anything about broadcasts or listeners.
This means that if you only have 20 listeners, you probably aren't making any revenue. If you are a small-time band broadcasting for yourself, you can make it so you make no revenue on the broadcasts. (make revenue on sales of the songs, not the broadcastings).
The second part says if you don't spend any money other than your regular web hookups (like your DSL, cable, T1, etc.) then you don't have to pay based on expenses.
The final part is just a protection that personal income isn't part of the broadcasting.
That's why (almost) everyone likes it. RIAA doesn't mind because they can get you for copyright if you broadcast their songs. Small webcasters don't mind IF they make no revenue. The only people who need to worry are:
Some people's children...
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
And I'll tell you why. The solution that they originally proposed involved charging the webcasters based on the number of listeners. Even though most of them were not making money, they would still be forced to pay royalties.
The new legislation will charge them a percentage of the money they make! So if you're a small webcaster who is NOT profiting from the streams, you wouldn't have to pay.
Better watch out for those unsanitized telephones, then.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I never understood why Payola was bad to begin with. It's just a different business model. There's plenty of room for Payola stations and ad-based stations and combinations thereof. I suppose misrepresenting the fact that you got Payola is immoral, but Payola in and of itself doesn't strike me as bad... unless it is accompanied by "take the money or take a bullet" which I understand it was in some cases.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The agreement on the surface seems reasonable and fair: 8% of gross income or 5% of non-bandwidth-related expenses, whichever is greater.
However, the retroactive minimum fees are killer!
It will cost a minimum of $8,500.00 for a long-lived webcasting station to legally get back on the air. A fee of $2,000.00/year for years 1999-2002, plus a prorated fee of $500.00 for 1998 (the DMCA did not take effect until October 1998). Many small time radio stations and hobbyist stations cannot afford this!
I'm glad the law gives college radio stations and other nonprofits extra time to work this out.
If stations five years ago had known about the killer retroactive fees that would be coming due now, very few of them would have continued webcasting after that fateful day in October 1998!
To me, the solution is to forgive the retroactive fees, in exchange for agreeing to pay the new fees for years 2003 and beyond.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!