Save Net Radio!
So here's the deal. In early 2005, the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board issued a call for participants in a hearing that would determine the royalty fee structure for "Internet transmissions" (later changed to "digital audio transmissions") of copyrighted music, for January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010.
Long (and pretty boring) story short, on May 1, 2007 the CRB issued its final ruling on the matter, i.e., they stuck with the rates determined a little earlier in the year and denied requests by the webcasters for further hearings.
The webcasters say that the ruling would put a lot of the "smaller" companies (read: the ones whose sole business is streaming music on the web) out of business immediately, especially since the ruling is retroactive to January 1, 2006, and that it will have a stifling effect on the whole industry of broadcasting music via the web. AOL, Yahoo!, etc. were complaining too, saying that even though they could in theory pay the new royalties, it would make their (currently quite small) music streaming divisions unprofitable and prevent growth in that area.
SoundExchange, the company that apparently is the main collector of the royalties on behalf of the recording industry, successfully convinced the CRB that more money should be coming to the recording companies from webcasters-- period. Now that a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with 95 (and counting) cosponsors, which would nullify the CRB decision entirely and substitute its own much reduced fee structure, SoundExchange has made public overtures that would soften the blow for "small" webcasters, but keep the original rates for "big" ones (AOL, Yahoo!, yadda yadda). The other side (the Digital Media Association and the SaveNetRadio coalition are the most prominent public representatives) is refusing to back down, for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph.
If you're still reading, thanks for bearing with me. Before writing this, I decided to look at the actual CRB ruling text directly, to make sure I wasn't being swept along on some obviously goofy populist bandwagon. It is full of mind-numbing legal and economic mumbo jumbo, and I only read a small portion of it, but what I did get through didn't do much to change my mind about supporting the actions in Congress to remediate the situation. (I had already called both senators and my representative anyway, but this here is public, right?)
Here's how I look at it. Based on what I've read from indirect sources, the House bill (and a virtually identical bill introduced in the Senate a week or so ago) would make the webcasting royalty structure identical to the one that applies to the satellite radio companies (XM and Sirius), which is a) 33 cents per listener per hour or b) 7.5% of gross revenues received, directly related to the transmission of music. The webcaster can choose which option they want applied to them.
Two people are listening to music. One is sitting in a living room, using a decent laptop with decent speakers, connected to the internet via a wireless router. The other is sitting in a car equipped with an XM radio receiver. They both listen for one hour straight, with minimal, if any, commercial interruptions. Why on earth should the webcaster have to pay more royalty money to the recording companies than XM (which charges 13 bucks a month for sending music to a single receiver) pays?
The only "internet radio" I ever listen to is Pandora (which is way cool and has one of the best web user interfaces I've ever seen, but what do I know) and Otto's Baroque Musick, but both claim (and I have no strong reason for not believing them, especially Pandora) that they will be obliterated if the CRB ruling stands, and I think that is a bad thing.
I know you want to help, so here's what you do. Click here and then click "Call your members of Congress" link toward the bottom of the screen to get the phone numbers of your senators and representative. Calling is the most "impactful" way to communicate with them. It is very easy to do. And then, if you've got a website of your own, you can place a banner on it. I'm about to try to do that now.
Thanks for reading. You're very patient.
Long (and pretty boring) story short, on May 1, 2007 the CRB issued its final ruling on the matter, i.e., they stuck with the rates determined a little earlier in the year and denied requests by the webcasters for further hearings.
The webcasters say that the ruling would put a lot of the "smaller" companies (read: the ones whose sole business is streaming music on the web) out of business immediately, especially since the ruling is retroactive to January 1, 2006, and that it will have a stifling effect on the whole industry of broadcasting music via the web. AOL, Yahoo!, etc. were complaining too, saying that even though they could in theory pay the new royalties, it would make their (currently quite small) music streaming divisions unprofitable and prevent growth in that area.
SoundExchange, the company that apparently is the main collector of the royalties on behalf of the recording industry, successfully convinced the CRB that more money should be coming to the recording companies from webcasters-- period. Now that a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with 95 (and counting) cosponsors, which would nullify the CRB decision entirely and substitute its own much reduced fee structure, SoundExchange has made public overtures that would soften the blow for "small" webcasters, but keep the original rates for "big" ones (AOL, Yahoo!, yadda yadda). The other side (the Digital Media Association and the SaveNetRadio coalition are the most prominent public representatives) is refusing to back down, for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph.
If you're still reading, thanks for bearing with me. Before writing this, I decided to look at the actual CRB ruling text directly, to make sure I wasn't being swept along on some obviously goofy populist bandwagon. It is full of mind-numbing legal and economic mumbo jumbo, and I only read a small portion of it, but what I did get through didn't do much to change my mind about supporting the actions in Congress to remediate the situation. (I had already called both senators and my representative anyway, but this here is public, right?)
Here's how I look at it. Based on what I've read from indirect sources, the House bill (and a virtually identical bill introduced in the Senate a week or so ago) would make the webcasting royalty structure identical to the one that applies to the satellite radio companies (XM and Sirius), which is a) 33 cents per listener per hour or b) 7.5% of gross revenues received, directly related to the transmission of music. The webcaster can choose which option they want applied to them.
Two people are listening to music. One is sitting in a living room, using a decent laptop with decent speakers, connected to the internet via a wireless router. The other is sitting in a car equipped with an XM radio receiver. They both listen for one hour straight, with minimal, if any, commercial interruptions. Why on earth should the webcaster have to pay more royalty money to the recording companies than XM (which charges 13 bucks a month for sending music to a single receiver) pays?
The only "internet radio" I ever listen to is Pandora (which is way cool and has one of the best web user interfaces I've ever seen, but what do I know) and Otto's Baroque Musick, but both claim (and I have no strong reason for not believing them, especially Pandora) that they will be obliterated if the CRB ruling stands, and I think that is a bad thing.
I know you want to help, so here's what you do. Click here and then click "Call your members of Congress" link toward the bottom of the screen to get the phone numbers of your senators and representative. Calling is the most "impactful" way to communicate with them. It is very easy to do. And then, if you've got a website of your own, you can place a banner on it. I'm about to try to do that now.
Thanks for reading. You're very patient.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home