Net Radio Appeal On Royalties Rejected

Station writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has rejected a request to reconsider its March decision to impose an onerous royalty schedule on Internet radio broadcasters. '"None of the moving parties have [sic] made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision.' The recording industry and its royalty collection organization SoundExchange are jubilant over the ruling. '"Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet radio industry — large and small, commercial and noncommercial — so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres," said SoundExchange head Simson in a statement. Noble words, but after today's ruling — which will take effect on May 15 unless the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to hear an appeal — there probably won't be much of an Internet radio industry left for SoundExchange to work with.'"

Comments

Dammit!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Internet radio was the only radio left that didn't suck.

The whole point is to kill internet radio.

[isaac]

The whole point of this ruling *IS* to kill internet radio which poses the greatest threat to the vertically-integrated, homogeneous pop music environment that is the lifeblood of the RIAA. Without alternative venues for independent artists, the major label combine gets to pick the winners in the market. (Nevermind the detriment to the market itself - this is about controlling the whole pie, not the size of the pie.)

Sometimes I find myself wishing the RIAA got everything they ever wanted, if only to see how their market collapses. Then I realize it's already happening.

-Isaac

Re:The whole point is to kill internet radio.

[isaac]

So it's still possible to have music on Internet radio, just not RIAA music.

No. It's possible to have music on internet radio IF you as a webcaster have negotiated directly with the copyright owner for every piece of music you play. Otherwise, you're paying a license to SoundExchange, period. They administer the statutory license.

Creative commons is about all that's left, since negotiating with individual artists (and songwriters) for every track is likely to be cost prohibitive. A nice guy might try to undercut SoundExchange by striking deals with indie labels and artists and then brokering these licenses to indie webcasters, but that would require a pretty enormous up-front investment for uncertain return - especially since you could rely on the RIAA and SoundExchange pulling out all the stops to shut you down.

-Isaac

Re:The whole point is to kill internet radio.

[TooMuchToDo]

What happens when Apple decides to be that broker? They've already positioned themselves to be the next media goliath, and they're going to continue to get bigger (just like Google). And somehow I don't think Mr. Jobs is going to have a problem putting an investment up to do the same as SoundExchange, since at this point it would just be people and code (the rest is already built out a la iTunes).

You hear me Mr. Jobs? Keep up the good work.

Don McLean

[lilomar]

So, bye, bye, Miss American pie...

Pandora

[mark0]

They clearly have no idea how much Pandora has done to sell me their product. I have actually purchased CDs I would never have known existed were it not for internet radio. They're killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

Re:Pandora

[garcia]

They clearly have no idea how much Pandora has done to sell me their product. I have actually purchased CDs I would never have known existed were it not for internet radio. They're killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

They aren't trying to sell YOU their product. They are trying to sell their product to people with no true music taste. They want to sell them *whatever* they put out regardless of its quality. The only way to do this is to 100% control the delivery method so that they can control every aspect of the market from the beginning (ala American Idol).

People that are looking to self-determine the path that their music tastes follow aren't likely to participate in a culture created entirely for them and that doesn't help the RIAA's mission at all.

Re:Pandora

[jonwil]

3 things:
1.There is this belief among the RIAA that internet radio is a vehicle for piracy (i.e. people saving the songs and getting free copies)
2.Internet radio often plays non RIAA music too
and 3.The music that people listen to on internet radio and go and buy (even when its RIAA owned music) is not the music the RIAA wants you to buy.

Re:Look on the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

it will be consumed by spam first.

boundaries

[TheSHAD0W]

This will only work against people and companies inside the United States; I predict that internet radio will still thrive, and the rest of the world will drive America's music tastes.

Re:boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what irritates me about these stories. Why the panic?

Internet radio will just move off-shore, and continue unaffected. I see it said again and again on Slashdot, but it doesn't seem to sink in. The internet does exist outside the US. And there's links between the different countries!

Re:boundaries

[Windrip]

Community radio cannot move offshore.

The RIAA looks forward to...

[haakondahl]

Working with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, who are of course exempt from paying royalties. What wholly-owned subsidiaries, you ask? Why, the very ones that the sustenance of this ruling has made possible.

Re:The real question

[Jahz]

So, why should there be no royalties for Internet radio when both play the same music? Good job knowing what you're talking about. Internet radio stations already had to pay royalties. This new ruling means they will pay far more expensive royalties. So expensive that it would cost more than terrestrial radio without nearly the same audience or revenue.

From TFA:

[zaydana]

One thing that really surprised me after reading these comments first and then the article, is that stations can't just move to independent music. From TFA:

5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?

This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music.

I guess that means that this is about more than just the RIAA controlling the industry - its about putting them out of business. Of course, me being an Australian, I understand that they can't really do that because there are many other countries where it costs a bit more to buy yourself a politician.

And just for the record, one of my favorite stations is located in Switzerland anyway.

That's fair

[grasshoppa]

I've come to the conclusion that there is little I can do to stop the overwhelming tide of corporate interests or otherwise greedy minded individuals who control the world. That is, until even the sheeple of the world get annoyed. I figure that'll be about the time they interfere with american idol in some way or another. Or Grey's Anatomy. Until then, those of us with good intent are going to be continued to get kicked to the curb any time a large corporation with deep pockets want something.

They say real life is nothing like school. They are wrong on one point: The bully still wins. Standing up to the bully gets you little more than a bloody nose and some sympathy.

UNRIAA?

[msimm]

I hear a lot of comments along the lines of A) use creative commons B) go off shore c) direct negotiations with artists.

I run a radio program. Both (depending on how many artists you'd like to feature or how often you'd like to update that) are unrealistic.

Assuming independent artist *do* want to be heard (and I'd contend that they do) I think all that's missing to make this a powerful vehicle is any real organization behind it.

Want to bad mouth the RIAA? Create something fucking better. I'd bet with enough exposure a lot of small/mid-sized artists and record labels would love to provide cohesive, clear (protective) rights for some kind of limited/promotional broadcasting.

When I started my radio program I immediately began contacting artists, managers and labels directly. They didn't want to provide carte blanche permission. This is an industry and artists/(managers)/labels get taken advantage of. But they were more then eager to provide limited broadcast rights with proper guidelines that could easily be generalized pretty much across the board.

If we like being lead by the balls by an organization we don't feel is treating us with respect, perfect that's *exactly* what we've got. But if you're fucking tired of this? Show them or stop whining.