Slashdot Mirror
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.
Isn't the whole point to kill off 90% of internet radio?
~
They've already got the net radio groups between a rock and a hard place. They haven't started collecting yet but they're pushing for DRM and baiting with reduced rates for small broadcasters.
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.
..I almost hope they succeed in killing off "legit" Internet Radio. The Internet could really use a nice dose of the good old Pirate Radio culture.
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.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The summary of the article reminds me of this priceless Idiocracy quote:
"Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2izZYZVhEA
I rest my case.
I still can't believe SoundExchange has the right to do what they're doing. 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.
In the music industry anymore there are so many middlemen and markups that everyone is being charged way too much and it seems like the profits are going to everyone except the artist. I feel that internet radio playing music under copyright shouldn't be free, but the ad revenues should go directly back to the artists and not the scum (like SoundExchange) that are trying to make something from nothing. There are advertisers and such along the way that actually provide a valuable service which increase the overall cost, but other than that the music industry has reached the point of ridiculousness.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
When the answer is simple (complex). You either rely on the whims and foresight of another (bad business strategy) or you chose your own route. The RIAA holds its control over the net radio market by a hair. Simply because no-ones really challenged them, on their own ground.
Begging is going to get you very little, but working directly with the very labels and artists in an organized fashion and you'll be able to by-pass the RIAA in this regard (largely) altogether. Setup a foundation to be a industry friendly clearing-house to handle limited blanket licensing in terms the industry finds acceptable. Most labels want protection (from piracy and misuse) but also want exposure. With a little will (and funding) I think there would only be a few majors that would hold out. The same ones that want the market to be smaller in the first place. Which really would be a win-win. RIAA exclusive labels/artists could limit their exposure and practice the same kinds of influence they've become accustomed to. Smaller or more open labels and artists could continue to gain exposure and change the very markets the RIAA is trying to limit.
Quack, quack.
No. The royalties are collected for all songs played, even those from independent labels. Independent artists have the option of registering with SoundExchange so they may receive royalties collected on their behalf, less SoundExchange's fee.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.
OK, do you know how much over-the-air commercial radio stations pay to the RIAA for recording royalties? It *is* $0.
It seems to be a little known fact, but regular over-the-airwave radio, since its inception, has only had to pay songwriting royalties (i.e., those collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) for any songs they broadcast, but have never had to pay recording royalties ("mechanicals", in the trade). Why? Because it was always seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement: the radio station gets to sell advertising time over free use of the recordings, the copyright holders of the recording get free exposure which helps them sell records.
The whole point here is that they *do* want different rules for internet radio...that the RIAA thinks internet radio *should* pay mechanical royalties over-the-air broadcasters don't, and they've been doing this for over 12 years now, and it most definitely *has* hurt internet radio.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.