Slashdot Log In
Internet Radio In Danger of Extinction in United States
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 20, 2007 07:57 AM
from the not-my-streaming-soundtracks-noooo dept.
from the not-my-streaming-soundtracks-noooo dept.
An anonymous reader passed us a link to a Forbes article discussing dire news for fans of Internet radio. Yesterday afternoon saw online broadcasters, everyone from giants like Clear Channel and National Public Radio to small-fry internet concerns, arguing their case before the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). The CRB's March 2nd decision to increase the fees associated with online music broadcasting will have harsh repercussions for those who engage in the activity, the panel was told. "Under a previous arrangement, which expired at the end of 2005, broadcasters and online companies such as Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL unit could pay royalties based on estimates of how many songs were played over a given period of time, or a 'tuning hour,' as opposed to counting every single song ... [They] also asked the judges to clarify a $500 annual fee per broadcasting channel, saying that with some online companies offering many thousands of listening options, counting each one as a separate channel could lead to huge fees for online broadcasters." There was also a previous provision for smaller companies that allowed them to pay less, something the March 2 decision did away with; in the view of the royalty holders, advertising more than pays for these fees, and they're ready for higher payments.
Related Stories
[+]
New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio 273 comments
FlatCatInASlatVat writes "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues.'"
[+]
Internet Radio May Stream North to Canada 73 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With U.S. copyright royalties threatening to kill Internet radio in the U.S., Michael Geist explains why webcasters considering a move to Canada will find that the legal framework for Internet radio trades costs for complexity. There are two main areas of concern from a Canadian perspective — broadcast regulation and copyright fees. The broadcast side is surprisingly regulation-free, but there are at least three Canadian copyright collectives lining up to collect from Internet radio stations."
[+]
Net Radio Appeal On Royalties Rejected 298 comments
Station writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has rejected a request to reconsider its March decision to impose an onerous royalty schedule on Internet radio broadcasters. '"None of the moving parties have [sic] made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision.' The recording industry and its royalty collection organization SoundExchange are jubilant over the ruling. '"Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet radio industry — large and small, commercial and noncommercial — so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres," said SoundExchange head Simson in a statement. Noble words, but after today's ruling — which will take effect on May 15 unless the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to hear an appeal — there probably won't be much of an Internet radio industry left for SoundExchange to work with.'"
[+]
Politics: Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the Internet Radio Equality Act is failing fast in the House, with negotiations breaking down over fair pricing for internet radio broadcasters. 'A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position ... SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.'" All very cushy for SoundExchange. Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
ditch corporate music (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of their arrogance the music industry wil now have 0 revenue where before it could get something.
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish that were true. Sadly not enough people are motivated enough to make anything near that reality possible. Plus the RIAA has their hooks in many different industries now (blank media for one). How many people do you know personally that actually say "I'm making an effort to no longer support the RIAA"? I don't know any, sadly. I think I'm the only person I know that tries to spend my money on music not controlled by them and even that is impossible to do all the time.
While I think the steps they are taking is having an effect on the public, I don't see it killing their profits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Until music is sold without DRM in mp3/flac form for reasonable prices
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but plenty of people are still buying CDs.
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
The RIAA doesn't like that model, though. It lets tiny garage bands into the same market with a 10MB file, there's no massive production, shipping, and marketing costs required. The RIAA wants to continue deciding which bands succeed and which do not -- it is hard to convince a puppetmaster to give up puppeting.
Careful With Your Blanket Statements (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps that has been your experience. Mine has been considerably different. I've currently got about 600 "real" CD's (I did a purge about 10 years ago, otherwise it'd be about 1000), and I'm willing to wager that, on at least three quarters of these albums, more than half of the tracks are much better than mediocre.
Then again, I don't buy CD's willy-nilly just because I heard one song I liked on the radio. Look hard enough and you find thirty second clips for nearly all albums somewhere online.
You might buy crap albums, but just because you do doesn't mean all albums are "engineered" that way. Like there's a group out there that tells bands, "Okay, now, we're up to three good songs - radio engineering standards dictate that you half-ass it for the rest of the tracks."
Re:Careful With Your Blanket Statements (Score:5, Insightful)
As an "enlightened music listener" you should be MORE likely to examine the lesser known works. Otherwise you're not enlightened - you're a sheep, just like the masses, going wherever you're pointed. Enlightened appreciators will look at the sketches because art is progression.
I've been a musician for 25 years (guitar primarily, with classical training and jazz aspirations), and I, too, would consider myself an enlightened listener. It's a matter of looking for the gems. I've ordered 36 albums this past calendar year from overseas (I'm in Canada) because the stuff typically on the shelves here doesn't draw me strongly. If you put in the time, you'll find PLENTY of great albums.
Identification problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
. .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What you are saying is true for bands from large music companies.
OTH, a regional band in my area named Blue October's CD's are almost like a compilation of greatest hits. Maybe it's because they are still fresh/young and have someth
esp. if minimum payment (Score:4, Informative)
"Radio Broadcasters propose that music-formatted stations pay a fee ranging from as little as $500 per annum for small stations in low revenue ranked markets to as much as $8,000 per annum for large stations in high revenue ranked markets"
The term "Creative Commons" is not grep'd in the document so I assume it didn't come up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
David Byrne [nytimes.com] agrees with you -- he believes that thanks to the Internet, artists don't need the music labels as much anymore, which means if the RIAA wants to stick around, it better find a way to adapt to the times.
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Informative)
Classic Radio (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Classic Radio (Score:5, Informative)
For Internet radio ONLY, they ALSO have to pay a 'reproduction' fee, since internet radio is SOOOOO much different than regular radio according to congress. This fee goes to... you guessed it, directly to the RIAA, not the songwriters or artists. That's the fee they raised to obscene levels and what is threatening to kill internet radio.
Fair huh? No? Call your congressman.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/? alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid= custom [congress.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Support for NPR comes from the following...
There's usually some commission, retailer, foundation, company, etc whose business is essentially getting a "
Denial, RIAA style (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Denial, RIAA style-sideline story (Score:5, Interesting)
Me too! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also ready for higher payments!
That means I automatically get them, right?
Watch out, other countries (Score:2)
Outsourcing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:2)
I guess it's good news for the internet hosting business at Russia, China, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As the adage says, if you outlaw Internet Radio (Score:5, Informative)
But, on a second thought, that is exactly what the Media Cartel want. They don't matter where you are getting it, as long as the only way to be legally exposed to new content is through their channels. They couldn't care less if you and a couple of technologically wealthy people are going around their blockage, but they will do everything on their power to prevent both the average people and the *artists* to get in touch with each other without them.
This is not about giving people no options. It is about giving *artists* no option. People are attached to their favorite artists and will follow them wherever they go.
Some useful links... (Score:5, Informative)
The DJ of my favorite internet radio stations, Radio Paradise [www.radioparadise], has a very informative blog [saveourinternetradio.com] concerning this issue.
Also, if you're interested in taking action, check out Save Net Radio [savenetradio.org].
It will sort itself out... (Score:2)
Re:It will sort itself out... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make the presumption that the labels want internet radio to succeede and their profits from internet radio to be maximized. What if what they really want is for internet radio to go away?
Why would they want to do this? Because right now the labels act as the gatekeepers to the radio. That is why musicians sign horrible contracts with them. You want a hit record, you need to get on the radio. You want to get on the radio, you need to sign with a big label. If internet radio takes off, suddenly you'll have new outlets which the labels don't control. In the long run, maintaining this control is more important then any profits they might make of internet radio.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I read it, and the panel that awarded the fees basically took the content industries' recommendations for the new fee structure verbatim, with only one exception (they also wanted a 25% add-on to the fee for any broadcas
What was that song again? (Score:5, Funny)
Profit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Royalties for broadcasting over public airwaves, or on the Internet are a really dumb idea. The artist already got paid with the CD sale. The artist gets 'free' advertising.
Go on tour and make your money. Use CDs as promotional material.
Two scenarios (Score:2)
Scenario #2 - no-one is making money off of Internet streami
Counterproductive (Score:3, Insightful)
In the long run, this move by the RIAA is hurt its own interests. The current situation is actually pretty good for them. They're getting paid (though perhaps not as much as they would like), their music is reaching the ears of potential customers, and the broadcasts are at bitrates good enough to expose people to music while low enough nobody wants to fill their hard drive up with an archive of it.
So what are Internet radio listeners going to do if this succeeds? Sure, some might switch to a more RIAA-encouraged form of entertainment, but a lot will just change the station. Once the RIAA wipes out the stations promoting their music, that leaves the ones playing independent and international music. "Drive your customers to discover competitor's product" is generally not the missing "2. ???" step that leads to profit.
No, it's not counterproductive... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what they want. They don't want the venue to exist, so they'll get the government to tax the hell
out of it so it'll go away. I wouldn't mind
Speaking as a musican (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think to apply the same (or at least similar) royalty fees to these Internet Radio Stations is pretty unfair. As a composer and a musician, I despise that I have to agree with Clear Channel on this one, because I think that they are RUINING terrestrial radio if in fact they haven't ruined it already. I side with Internet Radio as an artist because it is exactly the freedom from some of the industry regulation that makes it possible for someone without Warner Brothers or Sony behind him/her to get exposure. There's no friggin' way I'm going to get my music played/heard on a Clear Channel station or in a Warner Brothers movie soundtrack without EVERYBODY getting a piece of the pie. On the other hand, if I find a niche Internet Radio Station, I can submit my stuff and get it heard by a smaller, but hopefully more targeted audience and perhaps eventually generate some revenue from licensing deals with them or CD sales.
I guess my point is, while it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon as an artist and hope for the "big score" of more royalties, doing so would choke the "small time" Internet Radio Stations and make it once again a field of only "heavy hitters" with whom I stand little chance of getting heard. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think keeping things affordable with regard to royalties is exactly what's making it fertile ground for emerging artists and what's keeping Internet Radio a viable alternative for people looking for something more diverse and different than traditional radio.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Golden Eggs (Score:3, Funny)
"And our projections show that if we choke the goose hard enough we'll get more eggs."
RIAA free radio? (Score:5, Informative)
Anybody see a reason why this wouldn't work?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what the US needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovation killing patents, overly-restrictive copyright, anti-science and anti-education political agendas, trade barriers.....all the right ingredients to kill our economy.
Maybe after a decade of being the "world-losers" joe-sixpack will figure out that new leadership is needed....and maybe voting only pro-choice or pro-life is too simplistic a strategy to keep our country competitive with the rest of the world.
-ted
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well it had to happen sometime (Score:5, Informative)
If you had bothered to read the article, or the previous article two weeks ago when the decision was announced (I know, I know, this is slashdot), you would have found out that previously they paid royalties similar to that of airwave broadcasting based on tuning hours. The move to per song/per listener is a considerable change in the fee formula that will drive many smaller broadcasters out of business. Its interesting that if I own a bar with non-live music (juke box/radio) I pay per listening hour regardless of how many patrons are in the bar that particular night, but if it is the internet, I have to pay per ear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well it had to happen sometime (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See my other comment, broadcast and in