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.'"

Comments

Opportunity

[Xiroth]

Huh. Big opportunity here for independent artists looking to get heard. Wonder if this'll backfire like...well, just about every other money-grabbing scheme from the RIAA and co.

Re:surprised??? never...

[rolfwind]

Don't do it that way. Have a message playing in between the songs about the looming threat. Have several different messages in between songs about what the people can do. (Maybe key person to contact or website to go to.)

A person is more likely to listen more than 30 seconds of the important message if there is some payoff (more music) and a station is more willing to do something like that than lose all or most of their audience to a competitor who isn't doing the blackout thing.

Re:surprised??? never...

[Znork]

I dont have that much against mandatory royalties on revenue generating activities. If we truly need an 'incentive' for creativity they're more compatible with a free market than monopoly rights. And they're far easier to measure and manage for the least damage/most benefit to the economy.

The first problem with the current setup is that it's put under industry administration (whose interests are vastly divergent with both most musicians and the public, witness the current example), when in fact it's a tax and should be under government administration. That way it'd be subject to the same constraints as other taxation forms; is it reasonably equitably collected, do we get our money's worth from the spending (ie, does it finance as many artists and creators as possible for the money we're willing to spend?), is this a reasonable level of expenditure? What's more, we could actually measure the number of new works and how they change depending on the level of spending so we could finally get real data rather than imaginary numbers made up to support organized con men.

The second problem is that the RIAA corps are excluded. If we need an incentive for creative endeavors, _any_ revenue generating activity using 'copyrighted' material should be subject to the same taxation, wether plays on the radio, sales over the internet or the printing of CD's. Remove the 'copy' aspect of 'copyright' and replace it with a generalized non-transferrable 'incentiveright'. Allow free copying, printing and distribution of materials, let anyone from your local supermarket to online shops freely copy the material, as long as they pay a percentage of any revenue as 'incentive tax'/'royalty', and make sure the incentive actually goes to the creators. And make sure it goes to them in appropriate portions to maximise creativity.

Imagine the possibilities; you could go to the local supermarket and print a CD with whatever tracks you want on it. You could buy an USB disk of the nights music at a club. You could get a complete recording of the show when you exit a concert. Without copyright but with a simple levy on the revenue, whole hosts of new business and value opportunities would open up, while still maintaining a (more measurable) incentive for creativity.

Genuine solution is actually really easy

[DigitAl56K]

When faced with the RIAA monopoly, many people propose a boycott that is unrealistic: People won't stop buying CDs, downloading from iTunes, or the like.

What needs to happen is for Internet radio stations to turn to independent labels. Consumers will buy the music they hear. If Internet radio stations commit to changing the majority of their playlist to artists on non-RIAA labels then the majority of profits will be diverted from the RIAA - they don't get per play royalties and they don't get royalties on purchases. It's a double-whammy. If you look at something like eMusic today, which doesn't carry the RIAA labels, you will quickly find that a little digging turns up more great music than you might actually expect. And it's not just Internet stations that should make the change - everyone can benefit from getting out of this monopoly stranglehold. The RIAA might eventually have to propose competitive terms to survive, artists will be better compensated, and labels which are smaller today will be able to grow faster not only because they will see a greater percentage of royalties, but because the best artists will be less drawn to the RIAA labels in the first place.

Perhaps, though, the RIAA is already starting to feel some bite, and this is why their proposed fees are so high. If you're paying 100% of your revenues to the RIAA, you aren't paying anything to the indie's.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy

[DigitAl56K]

I'd like to follow up my own submission with some further thought. Unfortunately it's either late at night here, or early in the morning, depending on how you look at it, and further thought takes some time ;)

One of the other arguments that is often offered in the case for independent labels is that the music is more authentic, creative, and less 'manufactured'. However, to truly displace the RIAA we should realize that it is necessary to cater to the mass markets that they currently serve. It is difficult to instantly change the listening habits and genre preference of millions of people, therefor an effective program would rely on enough mainstream pop, rap, hip-hop, etc. music to be produced by independents and marketed in a way which reaches younger generations and begins to draw their attention from traditional RIAA artists.

Never in our history have we been so prepared and capable to tackle this problem. Modern music technology and tools in combination with the Internet helps to level the playing field, at least somewhat, such that professional sound is in reach of the amateur through virtual instruments and production software that can be purchased for only hundreds of dollars, while co-ordinated marketing across popular sites contributing to the cause could compete with major budgeting spends by big labels.

If there were enough contributors to undertake such a concerted movement it might be interesting to set up something akin to sourceforge, e.g. a "musicforge", where independent artists collaborated to produce substitutes for mainstream media and served them to Internet radio stations, at least as a beginning, to help drive the change. If mainstream music is really as formulaic as we often claim it to be, in theory reproducing it to a reasonable standard should not be impossible or even very difficult.

Just some thoughts :)

Re:surprised??? never...

[jakoz]

What surprises me is how this is assumed to have an effect on internet radio.

I am a shoutcast fiend. I scan the top stations every day or two. Hardly any of the stations (even the popular ones) play RIAA music.

Why would it make any difference what they charge if it doesn't get played? They should be paying people to get their shit out there to get it on the air. If they don't (and they won't) then something else will be.

I would say that I welcome the coming revolution, except that it's so far underway that I'd be missing the boat. Their content is shit, and everyone except the marketing guys recognize it...

Clear Channel loses big, too

[zeropointburn]

Disclaimer: The company I work for is owned by Clear Channel. These comments are my own views and do not reflect the views of my employers.

  Have you considered who will be paying the most? This year, every Clear Channel station in the top 100 markets will be simulcast streaming. That's on the order of 1,300 stations, +/- 100 or so. Since I've already done the math, I'll clue you in.
  Using an average of one song per four minutes, each station will be playing 131,400 songs per year. That's $144.54 per station per listener. TFA quotes 500 listeners as average; that works out to:

100 listeners: $14,454 --- 500 listeners: $72,270 --- 1,000 listeners: $144,540

At 1,300 stations or so, that means this ruling will cost Clear Channel:

100/station: $18.8m --- 500/station: $94m --- 1,000/station: $188m

I can tell you firsthand they are not making that kind of revenue on their streaming side. Clear Channel stands to lose on the order of $100m this year. Ad revenue might help offset it next year, but we're still looking in the range of $100m or so for 2008 as well. CC most definately did not sign up to lose $150-300m in the next two years; it's really not a good time.

On a side note: If you want to hear something new on a Clear Channel station, call in or email the PD (production director). Tell him or her you want to hear it. Ask them to check CCADS ('seecads'). If it's not available, tell them to request it from Bobby Leach. Offer to lend them your cd, if it's safe for radio play. Call in or email your favorite jock; tell them to bug their PD about getting the track. Get your friends to request it. If you know people in other major cities, ask them to do the same. If you're not asking the impossible, they will listen and your favorite track will get played. As a bonus, if it gets into the system, anyone can request it in any city and they won't have as much hassle.