Slashdot Mirror
Day of Silence On the Internet
A number of readers sent in stories about Net radio going dark for a day. Not all of it, but according to the Globe and Mail at least 45 stations representing thousands of channels. The stations are protesting a ruling establishing royalty rates that will put most of them out of business on July 15. "The ruling... is expected to cost large webcasters such as Yahoo and Real Networks millions of dollars, drive smaller websites like Pandora.com and Live365.com out of business and leave a large chunk of the 72 million Net radio listeners in the dark." SaveNetRadio has a page where US residents can locate their senators and representatives to call them today.
...am having a day of silence on the net.
It's not going so well so far... argg... must... stop... posting...
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Ya know, this sucks so bad that I had to torrent some music at work to listen to since I didn't have my streams. :(
Can all fish swim?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
... because my porn is downloading so much faster today!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Ok here we go:
.007 cents per song streamed, the new rates go up to .019 centes by 2010. These rate changes are also retroactive to something like the beginning of this year. Also, there is apparently a $500 per channel minimum, in case your station is too small to generate enough revenue.
The Copyright Royalties Board recently (March 2, 2007) enacted new regulations which increase the "royalties" owed by internet broadcasters; instead of paying
From what I understand, the "per song streamed" is calculated not by just how many songs you broadcast, but also how many listeners you had for each particular song. So if 10 people listened to a 30 Seconds From Mars track, it would count as 10 songs, not 1.
Who gets the money? SoundExchange. Under such protest, the generously offered webcasters the gracious offer of being able to pay the reduced rates for a little longer than originally scheduled. How nice of them!
Basically it boils down to the fact that terrestrial broadcasters pay no royalties whatsoever to the recording companies, but the recording industry wants to extort as much money as they can from the internet music business. Which, in turn, will most likely drive most internet radio out of the game.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
- A fee is levied to a broadcaster, per song per listener. The fee also increases every year (as far as I understand, there was a fee previously, but it is being increased).
- The fee is retroactive to January 2006, due immediately when the rate increases go into effect.
- There is a minimum fee of $500 per year.
Because of these changes (which are not applicable to terrestrial or satellite radio broadcasters), many webcasters will be forced to shut down on July 15 because they will not have the revenue to pay the new fees (ie. they will go bankrupt).Instead, the Internet Radio Equality Act proposes a lower royalty fee (0.33 cents per hour per listener) or a revenue sharing agreement.
And to think that Yahoo's music service (Launch) is working just as well as always, today. I had no idea that there was any kind of boycott going on. I have Launchcast streaming all day, every day. Too bad Yahoo wasn't involved.
Then how come I get the following message if I try to listen to any stream?
" LAUNCHcast Is Off the Air - It's a Day of Silence
LAUNCHcast Radio and other webcasters are silent today, from
12 midnight EST to 11:59 pm EST. A recent COPYRIGHT ROYALTY decision will impose punishing fees that could shut down most online radio.
You can do something about it. Go to www.savenetradio.org to find out more, and call your congressional representative before JULY 15th.
Today is only one day of silence -- but if you don't speak up, this could be the only sound we'll hear from online radio. "
Looks like involvement to me...
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Won't work. The issue is that SoundExchange, which is the 'collections agency', has gotten the right to collect money "on behalf of" ALL artists, even those not registered with it. So even playing small-name garage-bands has the exact same price. The payments being foisted on the net radio companies have nothing to do with the actual artists at all.
US NetCasters will either move to a country without those laws
OR
use an SSL tunnel to a server in a country without those laws.
I wonder what they do to Net radio stations with "ALL TALK" or ALL News" format?
Damned stupid over-bribed politicians.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Basically it boils down to the fact that terrestrial broadcasters pay no royalties whatsoever to the recording companies, but the recording industry wants to extort as much money as they can from the internet music business.
One thing I don't understand is why the terrestrial broadcasters don't pay royalties in the US. AFAIK then do in most other counties. They certainly do in the UK. Anyone know?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Because of these changes (which are not applicable to terrestrial or satellite radio broadcasters),
Keep in mind that both XM and Sirius have contracts with the RIAA that requires them to pay a percentage of subscription fees. So no, they're not paying the same fee, but they do pay a significant fee.
Okay, here's what I understand of it.
In the beginning. Prior to 1995, you could 'perform' music in public, via digital broadcasting, without paying any royalties on it. I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what you used to have to pay royalties for (Wikipedia says there was "no performance right" for artists, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, I remember performance-rights cases prior to '95; I think it was just a digital thing), but anyway, in 1995 Congress passed a law granting rightsholders control over the digital 'performance' of their works. The upshot of this was that anyone distributing music digitally now had to pay 'performance' royalties for it.
Obviously, trying to pay royalties directly to the owner of each piece of music that you might play on a radio station would be problematic. It would require negotiating a license with each rightsholder, for each work, for every station. The paperwork and negotiations would be crippling. So a provision was made for so-called 'statutory licenses,' basically blanket licenses that you buy from an organization who takes the proceeds and divides them up among artists. (Blanket broadcast licenses like this aren't a new thing, but this extended them to digital broadcasting.) In return, you can play whatever you want, without worrying about negotiating individual contracts. The cost and rate structure of these licenses is set, theoretically, by the U.S. Copyright Office.
Enter SoundExchange. The RIAA [1] has a division/subsidiary/department-of-evil called "SoundExchange", which is designated, by the U.S. Copyright Office, as the sole supplier of "statutory licenses" for digital music. So if you wanted to run an internet radio station or other digital broadcast, and weren't going to stick to just playing independent artists who have relinquished some of their rights to public performance, you needed to go to SoundExchange and buy a license. While philosophically objectionable to many (including many artists!) because of the metrics they use to distribute the fees, SoundExchange had licensing terms that weren't horrific, including some that were based on a percentage-of-revenue (I've heard 10-13% quoted). So if you were running a small-time internet radio station, the fees wouldn't break the bank. This has been the status quo for a while now.
The Rubber Stamp. The current controversy started a while back, when SoundExchange proposed, and the Copyright Office approved, a dramatic rate hike. Among other things, the new rates eliminated the percent-of-revenue model, replacing it instead with a per-song-per-listener model, combined with a minimum per-channel fee, and a bunch of other onerous terms (including making the fees retroactive to some point in the past, which would instantly force any station without large cash reserves out of existence). The bottom line was that under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills. The effect as far as I can tell, would be to make Internet radio much like terrestrial broadcast radio: dominated by a few corporate-backed players (e.g., Last.fm), with a small number of channels playing basically the same thing. The new rates, if nothing happens to forestall them, go into effect around the middle of next month.
[1] Okay, allegedly it's "independent" now. Riiight...
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Because it has long long been considered to be more profitable for broadcasters to play the songs for free with the thought that listeners would buy the music, attend concerts, get a t-shirt, etc.
So much so that there have been many, many "payola" scandals, including in the past year, where the broadcasters are paid kickbacks (through tickets, cash, gifts) to play particular songs and artists.
The fact that this system would probably work out for the music industry when it comes to internet music is being ignored -- as has long been noted here on slashdot.
3. There is a minimum fee of $500 per year. Actually there is a minimum fee per channel to collect the fees per year. So if you go to Pandora and listen to 1 song all year, it costs them 500.33 for that. Its bizarro rates. No other format that broadcasts music is being charged the new rates. If you have a terrestrial radio station, you are exempt from the net rates also. Even if you decide to broadcast on the net. Etc. CBS lined up for their free legislation pie when it bought last.fm which isn't US based.
How is this even legal? If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money. How do they define a song anyway. If I start up my own internet radio station, and it has no music, then I probably shouldn't have to pay them. However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them? What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show? What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free? Does this count as an internet radio station?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I am a friend of a terrestial FM station's president. He also streams his content, for free. Him and I were discussing this issue just last week.
/AC for a reason.
He can afford paying the royalties, if he must. The smaller shops will pay about the same.
Here are the issues as he pointed out.
1. He is going to have to pay 10x what he would have in the past.
2. The artists don't even know the cut they are going to get.
2a. The artists are beginning to catch on.
I have a feeling that the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) that represent terrestrial radio is partially behind this. Recently, they've seen competition increase significantly with MP3 players like the iPod, satellite radio, and Internet radio. The NAB is already trying to limit their competition by lobbying against the merger of the satellite radio companies, Sirius and XM, which are both taking massive losses. I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind an attempt to kill Internet radio.
I don't know about you guys, but I've completely stopped listening to regular radio. To me, regular radio has degenerated into commercials and the same 10 songs in repeat. Now I listen to my iPod on my commute to work. I'm very sure that many people are doing the same.
Terrestrial stations pay the publishers and composters of the music they play, but are not required to pay the record label or the artists.
The basic reasoning behind this is that it is a mutually beneficial situation where airplay increases record sales for the label and tour attendance for the artists.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
Radio silences YOU!
I know I know, I can't believe I just posted that, I also can't believe it's not butter.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Not sure if it is or not, but it is perfectly possible for copyright holders to bypass SoundExchange and negotiate (lower) royalty rates directly with the Internet Radio stations.
And that, friends, is ultimately the solution. If Internet Radio stations would just drop music that hasn't been made available to them at reasonable, practical, rates then (a) they'll continue to survive and (b) SoundExchange will need to review its rates or face oblivion. The only way it would benefit SoundExchange and its members to continue to charge high rates is if they don't want their music played on Internet Radio stations at all.
The real question here is why the various groups representing Internet Radio aren't doing this.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In solidarity, I won't download any illegal music torrents for 24 hours. I'll keep my uploads going, though.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I still listen to radio: two little college stations that, between them, have played three songs I've heard on mainstream radio, and that's after two years of listening. (Thomas Dolby's "Airwaves", Kate Bush's "Running Up That Hill", and the Pixies, "Where Is My Mind", for the record. Neither radio station will accept requests for "Where Is My Mind" because both say, and I quote, "We play that ALL THE TIME: we've aired that six times in the last eight years!") As a result, I've found out about 30 dozen, conservatively estimating, new bands I would never have heard on Clear Channel. Rock on.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Basically, SoundExchange collects royalties for everyone, RIAA member or not and no matter what license is used for the song release. So even Creative Commons works get royalties collected. Now, I do not believe they are an RIAA member, but there is a rep from each of the Big 4 on the SEx (I love it already.) board. You have to pay fees to collect your royalties from them, but you can apparently come up with your own deals to bypass them; however, you are still required to inform them I believe.
Now here is my question. If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works? Something about this systems seems a bit screwed up.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
How is this even legal?
It's called a compulsory license, and it's a pretty well-understood legal structure. Interestingly, this is what makes allofmp3.com legal in Russia. The terms are just different.
The goal is to make it easier for broadcasters to secure rights to the material they're broadcasting, as they can choose to make use of the compulsory license, rather than negotiating a deal with each artist individually. This is, of course, assuming the fees are fair. And note, this doesn't preclude broadcasters from securing rights from the artists themselves... it's just a pain in the ass.
If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money
a) The bands are "affiliated" with them because the government chose SoundExchange as the arbiter of the royalties. Complain to the CRB if you don't like that.
b) The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC.
However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them?
If the song is under valid copyright, yes, unless you've secured rights from the copyright holder directly.
What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?
Presumably you've already secured rights.
What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free?
Well, you own the copyright in that case, don't you? So you're free to do what you wish with the material.
In the end, compulsory licensing, as a concept is a very very good idea. Assuming reasonable royalties, it reduces overall costs for broadcasters, since they only end up dealing with a single entity.
The problem comes in when the CRB and SoundExchange agree to modify the rates in a fashion which is clearly discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty clear that SE is acting in the interests of the entrenched music oligopoly. And the CRB has apparently chosen to kowtow to those same interests.
So, I called my people in Congress. Levin hasn't taken a position and wouldn't say when he would (I'll take that as "no"). Stabenow put me on voicemail and promised to call back (funny, "no" again). Dingell, ah there's the funny part. I talk to the aide, he hasn't heard about the bill. I tell him H.R.2060 and he's able to look it up. Then says they are not familiar with the bill. I ask when it'll be voted on and the aide says the bill is still in committee. I ask, "how can I find out who is on the committee?" His reply, "Dingell is chair of the committee." Sounds like the bill is doomed.
I received this yesterday:
"Dear Dr. XXXX:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your communication about internet radio.
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) recently announced new statutory royalty rates for certain digital transmissions of sound recordings for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Implementation of these new rates marks the expiration of a previous royalty rate agreement specifically designed to benefit "small" web casters.
I support an artist's right to be paid what they deserve for their song, book, picture, artwork, television show or movie. However, the CRB's action to move royalty payments from a percentage of revenue to a flat per song fee will threaten the further existence of internet radio. By moving to a flat fee system internet radio stations will only be allowed to play either a limited number of songs or strictly use unsigned or up and coming musicians. For a small internet radio station to survive they will need a significant increase in revenue to be able to play the variety of songs current available on-line.
I firmly believe that the way consumers view and listen to music is drastically changing. We are in an age where people can download, watch and listen to almost any show, movie or song when they want. The internet allows people to experience new music and shows and gives individuals a forum to express and share their hobbies, their work experiences and what music they enjoy. At a minimum the same rules that apply to FM/AM radio should apply to online radio stations. Finally, there is a Congressional effort led by Representative Jay Inslee to overturn the CRB's decision. I will monitor that effort closely.
Thank you for sharing your views on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have any questions or comments. To receive additional information about issues that are facing Congress, Maryland, and the Nation that may affect you and your community, please visit my website at www.dutch.house.gov and sign up for my periodic e-mail newsletter.
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Member of Congress"
That's the payoff that comes from being able to afford lobbying. This money, which isn't yours, gets channeled to you and unless someone pays a fee to you to be able to collect their money from you, you get to keep it. Win win! You can finance more lobbying, off of the backs of people who may disagree with your entire viewpoint, hence one possible reason why they're indy.
Gotta love how it all works, huh?
That's the model for Terrestrial Broadcast, where you have a limited geographical catchment.
Internet Radio.. Well, I'm sure that there's a few million pretty eclectically oriented people out there that'll match your music tastes exactly.. Maybe just a few tens of thousands in the world.. But that's enough to keep a small radio station going.
Who knows, that could slowly grow to be the next "Popular Music" in time. Every popular 'Formula' expires in time. Then it's up for grabs who engineers the next one.
Given enough groups of 'eclectic', small stations that serve a few tens of thousands, there's a good chance that one of those will hit the next 'magic formula' that could well knock the current record labels on their behinds. Stuck on the outside of the next "Rock and Roll" as the younger business model steam rollers them into history.
And being as they're broadcasting on the net.. They can reach the world, not just a hundred miles or so from their broadcasting station.
Personally, I'm all for a small station that fits my needs.. I no longer listen to the 'big boys' as they just don't cater to what I like.. It'd be refreshing to hear new, good stuff rather than listen to my existing collection over and over again..
" Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important, and I am pleased to tell you that I am a cosponsor of this bill.
As you know, on March 2, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) dramatically raised the performance royalty rates for webcasters. The CRB eliminated the percentage of revenue fee that many small webcasters used to determine their performance royalty. The move from a percentage of revenue to a per-song rate hits small webcasters the hardest. Royalty rates would increase over 300% for the largest webcasters and as much as 1200% for the smallest webcasters. This kind of rate hike would mean the end of many Internet radio stations that would not be able to stay in business under the crushing new royalty rates. Therefore, I have cosponsored H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act. This bill would render the CRB ruling ineffective and would reinstate the percentage of revenue royalty payments. This bill has referred to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Judiciary.
Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. I will continue to be a strong voice for you in Washington.
Sincerely,
Mike McIntyre
Member of Congress"
"Straddling the sword of technology..."