Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Reprieve for Internet Radio

Posted by Zonk on from the i-can-keep-getting-my-soundtrack-fix dept.

westlake writes "In the wake of Internet Radio's Day of Silence, SoundExchange has proposed a temporary $2500 cap on advance payments 'per channel/per station.' The Digital Music Association responded immediately in its own press release that it would agree to this, but only if the term for the new arrangement were extended to 2010 — or, preferably, forever. On another front, SoundExchange seems aware in its PR that it will have to concede something more to the non-profit webcaster, if it is to avoid Congressional action."

2 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. "non profit broadcaster?" by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1, Troll

    If you want to broadcast not-for-profit, i don't see any reason why rightsholders should have to subsidize your fantasy by giving you a lower rate. Can somebody who disagrees with me tell me why, exactly, they believe that I am wrong? I really see no other way around it. We don't insist that PBS be allowed to rebroadcast monday night football simply because it's not for profit. Why should some webcaster, no matter what his scale, be allowed to suck away listeners from people who pay a market value for the content if it's the *same* content, if not even better since we can assume that it would be without or with fewer ads?

  2. Re:Why SoundExchange? by westlake · · Score: 0, Troll
    Does anyone have any information as to what part of the law empowers SoundExchange to collect royalties for artists who do not have an explicit agreement with them?

    SoundExchange collects and distributes all royalties under the statutory license.

    If you can think of a simpler way to encourage a broadcaster to take a chance on the no-name band, a simpler way for the no-name band to be receive payment for every broadcast, let me know.