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?

What? And give up their carrot-and-stick game?

[leventhal]

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.

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.

In a weird and twisted way..

[Anonymous Coward]

..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.

Summary reminds me of a priceless Idiocracy quote

[DimGeo]

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.

Still beggin their masters...

[msimm]

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.

Re:Solution: Avoid RIAA Music

[multisync]

Can't a web radio station continue to operate without paying royalties as long as they stick to independent labels?

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.

Re:I have a good amount...

[QRDeNameland]

Why? If they are playing copyrighted music, why should they not follow the same rules as the commercial stations?

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.