Slashdot Mirror


The SoundExchange Billion Dollar Administrative Fee

palewook writes "On June 7th, Yahoo, RealNetworks, Pandora, and Live365 sent letters to US lawmakers emphasizing they owe SoundExchange 'administrative fees' of more than $1 billion dollars a year. These fees would be paid for the 'privilege' of collecting the increased CRB royalties effective July 15th, unless the Internet Radio Equality Act passes Congress. SoundExchange, the non-profit music industry entity, admits the levied charge of $500 per 'channel' is supposed to only cover their administrative costs. Last year, SoundExchange collected a total of $20 million dollars from the Internet radio industry. Under the new 'administrative fee' RealNetworks, which hosted 400,000 unique subscribed channels in 2006, would owe an annual administrative charge of 200 million dollars in addition to the retroactive 2006 rate hike per song played."

14 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Just like a cancer by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA will kill off internet radio, then another piece of the 'music pie', and then another and another until it has nothing left.

    1. Re:Just like a cancer by KKlaus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except... selling albums. Or are you implying that people will stop listening to music? Destroying markets that aren't profitable for you or that you don't control is evil, and our freaking congress of all groups shouldn't be the ones giving these guys cart blanche to do so, but it isn't exactly bad business.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    2. Re:Just like a cancer by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correction: the RIAA will kill off internet radio FROM THE US of A. The RIAA is an american business association which lobbies the US government institutions to implement policies in order for their associates' business to thrive. It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, specially in countries where fair use rights are acknowledged and respected. So the only thing that the RIAA's antics will produce is effectively strangling the US market.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  2. What's not mentioned... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that the politicians want their share of shakedown. Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists? Internet radio will have to pay the piper.

    1. Re:What's not mentioned... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists?


      This is always touted as one of Microsoft's lessons learned - be involved in the government. Part of this is probably due to a belief that the anti-trust lawsuit was a vendetta brought on by more politically savvy sour-grapes competitors. I don't agree. But I do think it was only a matter of time for Microsoft to get involved anyway.

      Microsoft is a large entity with a vested interest in how the market behaves. And the market itself is large enough to touch on almost every aspect of our lives (its what "we" always knew would happen back in the '80s with our little hobbiest microcomputers waxing poetic about the future). With the market so important, Congress is going to get involved eventually... mainly at the prodding of lobbyists from other industries touched by the expanding IT market. It makes sense that Microsoft would decide to have its views put in the ears of Congress as well.

      Does this mean Congress-critters are demanding payouts? I'm not so sure its exactly that (although I would expect it is accurate in some cases). But I am positive you're not going to be well represented if those that would represent your view are unaware of what that view is. Or even worse... people with an opposing view have managed to convince your favorite Congress-critter that reality lines up with their viewpoint (queue this post's theme song).
  3. Only Americans will be silenced by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cheer up, the rest of the world will still have freedom on the internet. It's just us Americans who will be regulated out of having any expression.

    We'll still be able to listen to Russian stations.

    Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?

    1. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by Mistlefoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to the US where it's just the Phone, the TV and your computer.

      Privacy in the US isn't what it was anymore.

  4. no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the RIAA is simply evil beyond all bounds of reason. I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire. Everything they are doing is so bad and so dangerous to the legacy of the late 20th and early 21st century, it really is criminal.

    While I don't advocate someone blowing their office to flinders with a bomb or some other evil terroristic act, I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet (one would think that with all the loosely bound people in the USA, one of them would have freaked out by now and targeted them...)

    What I DO advocate is that the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated organisations be banned and eliminated and the music and film artists and industry re-organise itself along more open and egalitarian lines.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  5. Re:I'm so conflicted by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a second here... that means whoever ends up getting screwed, I win. Rock On. No I think a more realistic way of looking at it is "Whoever wins... we lose". This situation is a lot like the AvP movie in other ways too: I can't bear to watch this either.
    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  6. Re:My heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Of course it's all administrative costs.
    If it would be 99% administrative costs then we have to share a very small part of the remaining 1% with artist! That would make no sense at all.

  7. Creative Non-Violent Protest: Don't Effing Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that every company that the CRB says owes them money should simply refuse to pay and force the CRB and Sound Exchange to thereby spend every penny in their coffers litigating against these companies indefinitely. It will not strengthen the resolve of the CRB or SoundExchange to behave in a manner consistent with their decisions, but will force Congress to mediate an action that will be amicable for everyone. Worst case scenario for SoundExchange and CRB: nobody pays them a single penny and they run out of money paying lawyers to sue everyone who eventually files bankruptcy protection to prevent having to pay them. Best hack ever.

  8. just use internet media outside USA? by Octavio+Paz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As the USA and RIAA, etc continue to crush the USA, isn't the most direct remedy
    for the American media consumer to listen to internet radio from provider outside the USA?

    The US GOV and commercial media can certainly herd the mass, though for the computer literate
    it is possible that they go outside USA while sitting at home in USA?

    Either way, the USA is turning into terrible place with much economic stagnation, not to
    mention that general intellect is simply absent there.

  9. Re:The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah - there's a lot of bad out there. I'm especially aware of it because that's what I do.

    Well then do us all a favor and stop doing it.

  10. The Fee is Per Channel... by Benedick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The fact that the fee is per channel gets me thinking. At Pandora, I have two defined channels. Those channels introduce me to new music, new artists, perhaps artists not represented by the RIAA. Think about that.

    If Pandora has ten thousand listeners like me, that's twenty thousand stations times $500 per station is ten million dollars. That's probably enough to kill Pandora and any other customizable channel internet radio site. But if the internet radio site only had say five channels, that's only $2,500, easily affordable by a commercial site.

    My conclusion from this little exercise is that the RIAA is out to kill customizable channels. They don't want you to learn about music on your own. They only want you to listen to whatever the latest pop sensation is. They want to eliminate choice and the extra expense of having so many artists. If they can make it so all you ever hear is the generic artist of the moment, that's all you'll know and all you'll buy.

    This is all about control. RIAA wants to make sure they control not just your access to their artists but your ability to discover new artists not under their contracts. Internet radio is a growing force and a growing threat to their ability to pick what music you buy.

    I can only hope that they have overreached; that the huge amount of money involved here makes their motives visible to Congress. And that Congress cares. That sure makes it sound like a lost cause, doesn't it?