A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates

quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.

Comments

Not the point.

[Hsensei]

Isn't the whole point to kill off 90% of internet radio?

Re:Not the point.

[caffeinemessiah]

Isn't the whole point to kill off 90% of internet radio?

True, but this might just weaken their case a little bit. The whole premise of the RIAA has been that Net Radio hurts the artists. If you can show, with some accounting integrity and verifiability, that an alternative scheme would allow for both higher royalties *and* the existence of net radio, then a reasonable judge (or congress hopefully) would be less willing to summarily grant the ridiculous new royalty rates. In other words, it forces the RIAA to stop banking on the "it hurts royalties" argument and bring up the less obviously-in-the-right issue of DRM (which I also think is a flawed argument, btw).

Except it isn't about income...

[AVee]

It is all about control, not about net income. So killing 90% of the web radio stations is better than a higher income because it is easier to control a few radio stations and because those pesky small independent stations will be the first to go down.
When that has been dealt with the income issue will be revisited. Raising income is a lot easier when your monopoly is still intact, maintain the monopoly and the income will come anyway. Currently it is the monopoly that is being defended and any plan which does not include maintaining the monopoly is a bad idea, even when it increases revenue.

Revenue isn't the issue here, DRM is...

[Fallen Kell]

We already know that the reason for the extremely high rates are because the RIAA really wants this simply to have DRM used on the streaming stations. That was already proved in recent negotiations over the rates. Since the RIAA's lobbying efforts in having the FCC mandate DRM onto the medium failed, they are now trying to do the same thing by forcing licensing fees that are extremely high on the stations.

He obviously doesn't understand

[overshoot]

He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.

Yeah, but would his proposal accomplish the RIAA's main objective, which is killing off Net radio?

Understand the audience

[zzatz]

Not the radio listening audience, the audience for the open letter.

The author isn't trying to persuade the RIAA to be fair, that's impossible. That's why he wrote an open letter; a letter to the public ostensibly addressed to, but not really intended for, the RIAA.

The music business and its RIAA front will not change their agenda. They've given Congress their marching orders, accompanied by bales of money. Politicians understand that voters often vote for the candidate with the largest budget for ads. And it's not just the direct campaign contributions, it's that most of the music business is owned by media companies, the companies that own the TV and radio stations, newspapers, and even web sites that politicians advertize with. Why do you suppose that newspapers NEVER challenge the RIAA spin on any story?

The letter is intended for the public, and voters in particular. Politicans need cover before standing up to the RIAA. When voters write and call, that helps counter the RIAA fundraising. Float a fair and reasonable proposal, and shift the burden to the RIAA of explaining the RIAA plan.

Write or call your elected officials. Many would like to do the right thing. Give them hope that doing the right thing won't end their careers.

Re:I have a good amount...

[cayenne8]

"While you do have a reasonable point when considering independent material which is placed on the internet specifically to be openly available to everyone, there is a distinct problem when dealing with copyrighted material. Additionally I feel that the root of your post deals with SoundExchange making money off of material that isn't specifically theirs which I do agree is a problem. I do feel however, that your post deals with the issue in the incorrect manner."

Wait a minute. Are you saying that ANY streaming audio (video too?) on the internet is subject to paying SoundExchange? What if I am streaming my own personal music? What about if a band I'm in, streams out songs (assuming unsigned band)? Can I be reading this correctly? I find it hard to believe that if I stream audio that isn't copyright protected...I have to pay anybody squat....

The real victims...

[pravuil]

I listen to this station a lot (Radio Kansas). They have several local programs that can't be heard anywhere else. It's wonderful programming but the funding comes from community support (i.e.: contributions). As stated on their online streaming service:

Music rights holders and streaming radio stations continue to negotiate fees and documentation procedures. The additional paperwork may include data on listener usage and musical performances that our current system simply cannot provide. We will restore our stream when we can do so in accordance with the new rules.

The problem is that this type of music isn't what the majority wants (even though people in general should take more interest in the Arts). Half the time, what the majority wants isn't of any real value anyways. For a non-profit to be put into a position where they would have to consider data-mining, it would seem that they are forced into a position where they won't be able to afford it. The other tragedy is that it doesn't just affect the music that they broadcast, it's the news as well. Due to all of this action, it is forcing the entire radio stream to be taken off the internet which limits the scope of where NPR news can be broadcasted. You can go to the NPR website but regardless it does limit the scope of viewers who would be potential supporters and contributors to the originating station. The radio stations had a system that worked well with the RIAA before. Why does the RIAA have to complicate everything when they just need to keep it simple?

You can still use your radio and surf for other local stations comparable to the content you are used to but living in Miami, Orlando, Wichita, Kansas City and Denver I had a hard enough time finding a decent station that carries similar programming. There is one exception and that is if you are a regular listener of any Clear Channel stations. At least they can guarantee the same crap anywhere you go.

Re:Solution: Avoid RIAA Music

[multisync]

I shouldn't HAVE to be required to participate in that racket- which is all this is.

You don't. I over-stated the rules in my earlier post, as was pointed out here An independent artist could negotiate deals with webcasters and I suppose notify SoundExchange that they do not wish royalties to be collected on their behalf (or maybe the webcaster would advise SoundExchange of which artists they have deals with, I'm not sure exactly how it works).

It would be a lot of work for independent artists who either represent themselves or are signed with small labels. Not to mention the workload for webcasters who are doing everything themselves. Again, I have no doubt that the whole point is to make it difficult for these two groups, as they pose a threat to the RIAA's business model.

Perhaps if anything good comes out of this, it would be that independent artists could band together and form collectives to negotiate fair deals with independent (non-RIAA controlled) webcasters, similar to BMI and ASCAP which are, I believe, non-profit groups made up of artists, not a shadowy front for the recording industry like SoundExchange.