Experimental Fees Settle Royalty War For Internet Radio 270
S-100 writes "SoundExchange has reached an agreement for royalty rates with a consortium of Internet radio broadcasters. The parties are ecstatic that the issue is finally resolved, and that the new rates are below the previous 'death to Internet radio' levels that had previously been imposed by the CARB. According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased. One unheard-from group is less likely to be pleased: small Internet radio broadcasters. Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."
$25,000 barrier to entry (Score:5, Interesting)
According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.
A great opportunity for upstart talent... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps now is a good time for all the upstart talent out there to be heard before getting their work corrupted by the recording industry. Small broadcasters should set up their own organization to collectively promote new talent by sharing their newly found content with each other for broadcasting. All that would be needed is some sort of vetting system to ensure the work isn't already owned by someone other than the artist that created it.
Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think "COOP", not "Compete" (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at it this way. You and 99 of your friends can now have all-you-can-eat streaming music for US$250/yr + costs, as long as your costs are US$100k (royalties are 25% of costs or revenue, whichever is higher) - running it as a coop means no revenue.
Even better, you can offer it to everyone!
Sounds like a great way to have a large, legal, on-demand music collection.
BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:NO (Score:2, Interesting)
More like the question: Is this the end of Live365? Because I like this one particular community-run station (not naming names here to avoid inviting a lawsuit) that runs on there, and requiring $25,000 will be the death of it unless we can unearth enough money to save it.
Re:What about public domain music? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ambiguous, too (Score:4, Interesting)
It should also be said that this "special deal" is opt-in, and not compulsory. Webcasters are still free to adopt the rate structure established earlier by the CRB, however it was those rates that caused the revolt by webcasters in the first place, since those rates are so high that a typical small station could end up owing over 100% of revenues to Sound Exchange.
Solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some way to stream anonymously...P2P style, but untraceable? A freenet type thing for pirate internet radio, and that way, ANYONE could broadcast. Not a way really to make money, but, if someone wants to play DJ. You could set up nym email accounts, and communicate with your public, and still avoid identification.
Jamendo...anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.jamendo.com/en/ [jamendo.com]
Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? (Score:5, Interesting)
So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."
Perhaps -- On the other hand, people who make music available without royalty (thus staying outside of the CARB system) -- such as Creative Commons licenses, or even non-CC licenses which simply explicitly allow On-Air radio stations that aren't part of CARB to play them -- might find themselves with a boon as they will then be the only music that small radio stations will be able to play.
If I was a small (or even not-so-small) musician that wanted my music to get play, I'd probably release my music on a license that allowed people who haven't signed up for CARB to play my music royalty free, but had standard fees for stations that had paid the CARB $25K minimum (I mean, why give up royalties that have already been allocated to me?).
That way, smaller stations can play my music, and the larger stations (that really make money) can give me my fair share of CARB royalties if/when I get big enough to attract the attention of the larger stations.
Re:What about public domain music? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is probably the most important (and most likely to be overlooked) point in the whole issue. Artists cannot opt-out. Even artists who have never heard of SoundExchange and have never received a check *from* them are generating revenue *for* them.
This might just be a good issue around which to construct a test case for the judicial system. With good legal counsel close at hand, create a station which exclusively plays content that is offered under a suitably free license (http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/, http://www.danosongs.com/ [danosongs.com], insert your better suggestion ___ here), or where your station has a separate agreement with the artist, or where the artist is not receiving royalties from SoundExchange (and perhaps thinks he/she should be on the basis that SE has collected them from broadcasters).
Publicize, grow, attract attention belligerently.
SoundExchange *seems* to claim to represent all of these scenarios under the "no opting out" doctrine. There is no music "outside of their catalog" as they have no catalog, just an "all your music are belong to us" clause.
In the first two cases, open licenses and individual agreements *should* trump SE's doctrine. If so, then it's time to set about creating a clearinghouse method for mass producing "individual" agreements.
In the third case, SE is ripping off artists in a sense, and shouldn't be able to get away with it. Many small indie artists haven't a clue about SE or how to get royalties from them. Yet SE *keeps* royalties for artists who don't know how to claim them. Existing under a "no opt out" charter is reason enough that the onus should be on SE to notify artists & rightsholders of royalties they have coming.
Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully, Copyright law has a 'loser pays' rule which means that, once you show that you there's a CC licensed version of your song, it's up to the RIAA lawyers to prove (on the balance of the probabilites, with a tie being in your favor) that you were playing a non-CC version of that song.
If they fail to do so (and they're likely to fail if they're suing on false pretenses), then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.
Re:$25,000 barrier to entry (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about public domain music? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:$25,000 barrier to entry (Score:3, Interesting)
Because USC 17.112 explicitly makes an exception to anti-trust law to allow the negotiation of a statutory rate structure for compulsory licensing of phonorecordings for digital distribution,
Lets try and make a list of industries that have anti-trust exemptions.
(google the name + anti-trust exemption to verify)
1. Sports
2. Unions
3. Music/Movies
4. Freight Rail
5. Freight Ocean Liners
6. Insurance
7. ??
After some googling, I discovered there's an entire book on the subject. [google.com]
Maybe making an exhaustive list isn't the best idea after all.
Re:worksforme (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's broader than that--90% of everything is crud [wikipedia.org]
Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Social corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a third option that doesn't seem at all bad. The smaller independent radio stations can form a co-op where each station pays their own independent fees but together they will do more than $25k per year. That way everyone wins.
Yes this sucks, but I don't think it is really as limiting as the doomsayers believe.
d
Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fsck yes!
Mind the giant lasers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7Q4E66O7A [youtube.com]
Re:What about public domain music? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, in order to be able to actually obtain the royalties paid to SoundExchange for playing your music, you have sign a contract agreeing not to undercut them by licensing your music for radio play any other way. (Yes, this is evil - especially as SoundExchange is the statutory licensing organisation, so even if you don't sign up the radio stations can pay money to them to play your songs.)
Re:$500, not $25,000, apparently (Score:1, Interesting)
This is part of what makes ./ (Score:4, Interesting)
You really do need to deal.
And you've been here a while too. I see your posts, from time to time and that's actually something given all the users we've got passing through now.
If there is a gaffe, it's corrected in the comments and that's just how the site is. We've got at least as many users not reading the article, hosing up the summary, not reading the comments, making ASSumptions and god knows what else!
There is kind of an unspoken agreement that the object of interest is the interest, not the meta-surrounding it and ./ Don't get me wrong, we like meta --look at my contribution this morning!
Bottom line is the site is not devalued for this kind of editing gaffe. We use ./ as a rolling point of discussion and as a loose community where lots of good ideas abound, along with a lot of shit too. The shit to signal ratio varies, but is usually tolerable at best.
So then, harping on the editorial quality seen on the front page here is theraputic, but futile --as is my post, quite likely!
And if people use ./ the way it is meant to be used, they find your comment and realize that there is actually some value to vetting what they see on the front page. Call it a healthy reminder that we need to do a bit of digging ourselves. I like it that way actually.
Cheers and greets! Haven't exchanged words with you in a while.