Slashdot Mirror
New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio
FlatCatInASlatVat writes "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues.'"
they want to kill the little guys off and just have the field to themselves.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Why? It is like all issues of abuse, Patents abuse, music / video media abuse, software patents etc Let them do it, then what happens? Nobody uses their product. Then what? They start to backtrack. Let the system just eat and destroy itself from withing then come the meltdown a new dawn of change comes. Let them get their way and see how long it lasts, all it takes is people to stand up and say enough. Do you really need the shit they produce? No you dont NEED it.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
"New Royalty Rates Could Kill (Legal) Internet Radio"?
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.
-Robert Heinlein "Lifeline"
Didn't everyone say it would kill Internet radio the last time they raised the rates? Did it kill them?
5 1
Let me see... that's right... "Internet Radio Day of Silence". here's the story:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/01/05232
Back in 2002! Did it kill them?
Nope.
Go away and quit crying wolf.
The RIAA has a responsibility to bring more money for the music artists. Unfortunately they misread "going above and beyond to help the people you represent" as "going above and beyond anything... hey Bob who is it we say we're representing again? Yes, we are only here to help 'music artists'."
:woot:"
"Hey Bob, you hear my youngest started playing the recorder in Kindergarten today? I filled out another WTF1337 form today and we should start seeing the revenues next month.
Turning coffee into code.
Right?
Streaming audio isn't a crime.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Unlike conventional radio stations, more listeners costs the station more money. Imagine what would happen if local radio and TV stations were charged extra based upon the numbers of viewers and listners.. I doubt that would fly.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Note that at this rate of repeated extensions (>1 year/yr), there will never be any new out-of-copyright music except for works released to the public domain by their creators' consent.
Revive the Constitution.
'US Copyright Office' -> Move your servers to a place that is outside of US jurisdictional where the copyright laws are not controlled by large media companies. Last time I checked US law does not effect the rest of the world.
RIAA, I am very puzzled. I used to find out about new recordings that I might want to buy, by hearing them on the radio. For quite some time now it seems that Radio stations, AM and FM, all seem to play the same tiny group of music, over and over. I never hear the music I buy, and play at home, played on the radio. When people started using the Internet to make small "Internet only" stations there were enough of them so that I once again had a way to find out about new stuff. How would I ever buy it if I did not know that it existed? This morning I read: "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most Internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision -- for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! -- is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues." I am puzzled. It seems to me that you are killing the best, largest, and only way for me, and others, to find out about new music from the artists that you say you are representing. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you are doing this. I can't buy it if I don't know it exists. I like Bluegrass, Swing Band, 1950's oldies, Traditional Country, Traditional Western, Western Swing, some Jazz, and several other types of music. I hear a very small portion of this, once in a great while on the radio. But so rarely that it is not worth sitting through the usual tiny, bland, group of stuff that is normally played. Most of it is just not played anywhere except on the Internet. Please let me know how you think I am going to find out about the music you want me to buy.
73 49 111 01001001
If it were your music, and you made a living from it, you'd want your share, wouldn't you?
With copyrights lasting 50 years after an author's death (in the US) it makes no difference to those who are in the grave. And for those who are still alive, they have no incentive to create new works, which was the original intent of copyright law.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
and apply these fees to terrestrial radio also. This would then effectively kill ALL radio. A radio station that claims 10,000 listeners at any given time would owe 1.5 million per year. And retroactively collected should put about 80% of stations out of business. Terrestrial radio would be in big trouble because they have to claim more listeners to get the advertising dollar, but being popular would work against them. So, people, let's be fair and give them what they want and tell them to be careful what you wish for, wishes sometimes do come true!!
The answer to that should be self-evident. People are cheapskates. They will sit and whine about the expense of things, but then will refuse to donate money to individuals who actually try to make a living by the cheapskates' suggestions. Just shows the "I want it all free" crowd are hypocrites and don't really want anything more than "free".
You get what you pay for.
By the way "Utopian Socialist", I have an outdoor structure I need built. Come on over and build it and I will give you some writing in exchange.
This might well force internet radio to take up more and more independent artists
that would otherwise get turned down by the dispensing recording industry,
never see the light of day - and be a great way for indies to get on the air
to a large audience without having to compete with the established artists for
time.
As soon as they see their "mind-share" eroded by people outside their
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola payola system the recoding industry will turn around
and offer payola or even demand to be put on and lobby for laws to get "equal time".
No, there are incentives aside from making money. For example, look at /. -- all of us here are posting creative works, in the form of our posts and responses in these threads, but none of us are making money from it. The incentive of socializing is enough for us. Other natural incentives include fame, art for art's sake, non-copyright-based economic incentives (e.g. commissions, the fine arts market, being first-to-market, etc.), scholarship, etc.
And in any event, the purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest, where the public interest is tripartite, and consists of 1) wanting more original works created and published; 2) wanting more derivative works created and published, and; 3) wanting no or minimal (in scope and length) copyright laws.
Which brings us to the life+70 term (which is what it actually is in the US, at least for some works). For the vast, vast majority of creative works, they'll never make money at all. For the tiny minority of works that will ever make money at all, the vast, vast majority of them will make virtually all of the money they'll ever make within a year or two of release in a given medium. For example, let's take movies: When a movie comes out the opening weekend is absolutely critical. It'll make a lot of money that weekend, less the following week, even less the week after that. After a few weeks, it'll be gone from first-run theaters. After a couple of months, it'll be gone from pretty much all theaters. Whatever money it made from the box office during that period is basically all it will ever get in the theatrical medium. Then it comes out on pay-per-view. I have no idea who actually uses ppv, but apparently someone does, and again, when it first comes out, that's when it makes most of the money it will make from ppv. As the weeks drag on, it pulls in less and less. Eventually it drops off of ppv. Then come the sales to movie rental shops and the public, in the form of DVDs. The first week that the DVD is out is when most of the people who have been wanting to buy a copy of the movie will get it; people who have wanted to rent it (rather than use ppv) will get it then too, resulting in most of the rental store orders to have been placed early. But again, as the weeks drag on, sales drop off. A little bit more money can be squeezed from licensing the movie to the cable movie channels, and after that, to regular tv channels. And you can go through the same cycle in the foreign markets. But then, that's basically it. You have gotten 99.44% of all the money you will ever make from this movie. Most of that (box office, ppv, dvd sales) took place in the first three months or so. (Newspapers and some tv shows have the shortest periods, while books probably have the longest, but even for books, it's a couple of years)
So the issue is, if all that the remaining years are worth is the paltry 0.56% remaining money to be wrung out of it, which is true for the vast, vast majority of movies that ever make any money at all, since so very few ever have the lasting popularity to keep making a significant amount of money over the long run, is it important that the copyright lasts so much longer?
If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay her a million dollars, then that certainly has an incentivizing effect, but it is rather costly. If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay a thousand dollars, then that has incentivized her just as much, but in a much more cost-effective manner!
Well, for creative works, we need to provide the least amount of incentive we can in order to get the most works we can -- basically we're looking for how to get the most bang for our buck. If a five year copyright would get nearly as many movies made as a 95 year copyright (the term length most commonly applicable in the US for movies), then surely the five year term is a better bargain. Adding more incentives -- by lengthening the term -- might get a handful of extra films made, but are they worth the cost to the public of having to endure such long copyrights? Probably not. So don't just look at the incentivizing effect, look also at whether or not it is worth it, and just how much of an effect there actually is.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head. Non major label acts (ie. local and indie label acts) are a threat to the big 5 and the RIAA. The largest 2 reasons that CD sales have declined in the last decade is because a. quality and variety have diminished and b. paying $12-$19 for crap is a further deterrent. Wider and alternative channels to get music they don't control (and artists they are not actively screwing out of royalties) has great potential to become a massive competitor were it ever to gain traction. So the obvious plan of course is 'don't let it gain traction'. When the RIAA gives their gripes against digital distribution it usually comes down to two things about the format. 1. Users can just listen to what they want, when they want. Which is akin to playing from a CD. 2. "Perfect" digital copies can be made which obviates the need to purchase CDs or official distributions. Do either of these apply readily to Net Radio? (Pandora maybe 'slightly' to the first point since you have some control over which artist, but still not completely a replacement for owning the CDs). The answer is NO. So why are they against this just as they are against MP3s? Make no mistake about it. When it comes to the net radio stations, this is less about protecting the playing of their big acts than it is keeping uncontrolled competition out. They've had a sweet (corrupt really) deal going on for a long time. The artists largely get screwed BY THE LABELS (that fact doesn't get enough press) and they have a cartel lock over what actually makes it to the consumer. They will actively hunt and kill anything that is a threat to this. This is just the latest hunting trip.
"New Royalty Rates Could Kill (Legal) Internet Radio (in the USA)"
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Big opportunity here for independent artists
Good thing the RIAA convinced the government to make their "partner" company SoundExchange the collector for mandatory and automatic royalties on all internet music.
Your independent artists will have to be sure to cut their SoundExchange check if they stream their own music online. Theoretically, they'll get the money back, less handling fees, shipping fees, processing fees, breakage fees, promotional fees, break-even fees, interest fees, interesting fees, and so on. Actually, they'll just get a bill for more.