Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Net Radio Wins Partial Reprieve

Posted by Zonk on from the axe-is-still-pretty-close dept.

Joren writes "Just a few hours after our last discussion on this topic, Wired News is reporting that Internet radio broadcasters have won a temporary reprieve from the new rates. Apparently the details are still being worked out. 'A coalition of webcasters have worked out a deal with the recording industry that could temporarily stave off a portion of crippling net radio royalties set to take effect Sunday, according to people familiar with the negotiations ... For now, the parties involved in what's described as ongoing negotiations have agreed to waive at least temporarily the minimum charge of $6,000 per channel required under a scheme created by the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB. The deal, brokered late Thursday, is not final and could change. One person involved in the talks described the situation as a reprieve, and said that internet radio won't be saved until a workable royalty rate is set.'"

5 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. SoundExchange changed its mind? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    SoundExchange had previously said the new royalty rates are "etched in stone". Are they finally feeling the pressure from critics and lobbyists, or is this only a temporary setback for them?

    1. Re:SoundExchange changed its mind? by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "They must know, at a certain level, that internet radio is good for them."

      Really? heard a saying a numbetr of years ago, which I shall paraphrase: "Never underestimate the power of a human being to stare at reality full on and yet still ignore it". I dont' believe for one minute that the people who pull the strings for SoundExchange see the internet as anything but a threat, which they either need to eliminate or control. The reality of internet music distribution may have been explained to them ad nauseam, but that doesn't mean they will believe it.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:SoundExchange changed its mind? by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This is all business. Maybe it's time to stop looking at either side as evil or stupid and simply consider the upsides of any potential outcomes.

      First, consider SoundExchange's (SE) position. They represent the mainstream creators (MSC). Now while there are many layers between SE and the MSC, ultimately SE does represent the MSC. Their concern with the streaming is that they consider it an easy way for listeners to capture, digitally, the audio that is being streamed. It can then easily be moved onto a digital player. Additionally, they see many of the internet radio stations making money off of their artist's work - with their content - and they want a piece of the action. You may say that the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial radio don't have to pay these fees, but that is a different model and a much different market - and what SE and the law decide for these radios doesn't really matter to the topic at hand.

      So - consider that the SE decides to charge WAY TOO MUCH for the music for it's artist, forcing a lot of non-profitable or barely profitable streamers off the net. What will the consumers of that music do now? Will they just bring a radio to work? Buy an Ipod? Or maybe they will find streamers out there who play totally independant music that isn't part of SE.

      So consider the upside here - if you are a MSC hater, a DRM hater, then this may breathe life into the indy bands out there by forcing MSC off of streamers and introducing those who prefer their music through the tubes to these new bands. Rather than villifying SE, maybe you should cheer them. Because - if you are REALLY sure that MSC sucks and it's being forced down people's throats and they only listen because they have no alternative, then the audiences for the streamers will grow, not shrink, when they switch over.

  2. no surprise there by starbuckr0x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If the "axe" as we're calling it is so close, then these companies are really going to need time to adjust accordingly. Those who can't afford to play ball with the RIAA are going to start looking at their other options (if they haven't already done so!), such as memberships, commercial partnerships, etc.

    I can actually see this dragging out longer. Can you imagine the amount of paperwork they're burried in?

    --
    -50 DKP for lame post!
  3. the EFF or such... by dAzED1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the EFF or such could/should help set up a coalition of independent artists, one that had an exceptionally small fee to sign up ($10 or so - enough to prevent people from spamming the records, but little enough to not be prohibitive to real artists), and then any internet radio stations could play any of those songs. If small-time artists actually had a choice, then hey. If artists agreed to allow their songs to be played for free (even if just for a set amount of time), then net radio stations could register with the service (for a fee that is actually low, like $20 or so) and hey...they have the license covered.

    hell, I'd almost like to start some such thing myself. Might be more effective if I just give someone else money to do it though. There's certainly enough people who want such a thing...there's a market for it (if even just 1% of the anti-RIAA chickenhawks on /. actually donated to it, it would be viable).

    And as someone who has played in clubs for years because I love playing, and has turned down a couple contracts because I didn't want that sort of life - yes, damnit, there are musicians that would give their songs away for free, or close to free. That's precisely what happened to almost all music for the history of mankind until just a few decades ago.