Internet Radio: Saved

[zircon]

SoundExchange Gives Small Webcasters A Break

SoundExchange, the non-profit organization which collects and distributes digital performance royalties, today (5/22) offered to allow small webcasters to continue to operate under the now expired Small Webcaster Settlement Act (SWSA), with some minor modifacations. Through 2010 the small online radio stations can work under terms which include temporary below-market royalty rates so that they can have additional time to build

their businesses. This offer is only for small webcasters and defers the new rates set by the CRB on May 1, 2007, retroactive to January 1, 2006 and effective through 2010.

Today's offer comes as a direct response to a request from the House Judiciary Subcommittee On Courts, The Internet And Intellectual Property to initiate good faith private negotiations with small commercial and noncommercial webcasters with the shared goal of ensuring their continued operations and viability. As suggested by the Subcommittee, SoundExchange is proposing that the subsidy be based on a percentage of revenue model and is proposing the same rates that prevailed under SWSA: small webcasters would pay royalty fees of 10 percent of all gross revenue up to $250,000, and 12 percent for all gross revenue above that amount. The proposal includes both a revenue cap and a usage cap to ensure that this subsidy is used only by webcasters of a certain size who are forming or strengthening their business.

Long story short... internet radio (small and non-commercial, anyway) is safe, as many people have predicted. The government was not going to let the entirety of internet radio to get shut down. There are also negotiations for even reducing the payout rates to SoundExchange further.

[Fritz the Cat]

Um....yay?

[kamoh]

Long story short... internet radio (small and non-commercial, anyway) is safe, as many people have predicted. The government was not going to let the entirety of internet radio to get shut down. There are also negotiations for even reducing the payout rates to SoundExchange further.

A temporary semi-solution to screwed-up problem.

A complete reversal of decision would certainly be more nice, especially since if you want to play ascapped stuff and the like you'll still have to pay-per-listener. Or am I getting this wrong?

[zircon]

Fritz; Prior to this, pending (passed) legislation was going to go into effect that would basically shut down the vast majority of internet radio stations, including di.fm and sky.fm.

It's a good enough solution. The main problem is simply the way royalties are structured in the US. For example we have no system in place where the producer gets compensated. No public performance license for movies shown in theatres. No compensation for recording artists via radio airplay (only songwriters).

[Thin Crust]

Has anyone ever heard of the Final Fantasy channel on http://www.aolradio.com? It's free and although it has some commercials, it's still enjoyable to listen to. It has stuff from FF1-FF12 as well as Advent Children, FF Unlimited, FF N Generation (Whatever that is), FF Tactics/Tactics Advanced, The Black Magus, but none from The Spirits Within. It’s pretty easy to set up. All you do is install it and the Final Fantasy channel is under the soundtracks category. There is also a Video Games Scores channel there as well. That has stuff from Halo to Mario.

[Zero Rei Maru]

Fritz; Prior to this, pending (passed) legislation was going to go into effect that would basically shut down the vast majority of internet radio stations, including di.fm and sky.fm.

It's a good enough solution. The main problem is simply the way royalties are structured in the US. For example we have no system in place where the producer gets compensated. No public performance license for movies shown in theatres. No compensation for recording artists via radio airplay (only songwriters).

Doesn't sound like a good solution to me. The RIAA is still getting royalties that does not belong to them. Nothing is fixed, just delayed and or lessened. That's what it looks like to me.

[zircon]

That's oversimplifying. Here's how digital royalties are structured (ie. for net radio airplay):

* 50% goes to the holder of the sound recording copyright. If you are signed to a major label, they will probably own this. If you're an independent artist... they won't, you will hold it

* 45% to the performing artist on the track - directly to them

* 2.5% to background instrumentalists (studio musicians)

* 2.5% to background vocalists

I don't really see what is particularly unfair about this. The songwriter also receives royalties, but under a different law, so that's in a separate category. Even if you signed a crappy deal and your label ended up with the sound recording copyright, you still get 45% as the performing artist, which is definitely not bad. The average label deal only has the artist getting ~13% of album sale royalties, for comparison.

[Zero Rei Maru]

By RIAA, I meant SoundExchange. Sorry.

Ok, let me get this straight. SoundExchange, which is owned by the RIAA, is collecting royalties from internet radio, right? Even from free music right? Play an OCRemix on internet radio, and you have to pay a royalty. Play any free song, you have to pay royalties.

I suppose it was an oversimplification, and I guess I didn't really make my point clear. Sorry.

[RedFusion]

That's sweet news. I've been around to the website, and heard numerous advertisements about it, but never really knew the whole movement could have had such a positive response. Great news indeed.

Don't know where I would be if di.fm and other radio stations shut down. Of course, there's always OCR...

[zircon]

By RIAA, I meant SoundExchange. Sorry.

Ok, let me get this straight. SoundExchange, which is owned by the RIAA, is collecting royalties from internet radio, right? Even from free music right? Play an OCRemix on internet radio, and you have to pay a royalty. Play any free song, you have to pay royalties.

I suppose it was an oversimplification, and I guess I didn't really make my point clear. Sorry.

SoundExchange is not currently owned by the RIAA. The RIAA formed it, but it then became a public organization - there are members on it from many independent labels as well as major labels now.

Also, SE can only collect royalties on works that have been registered with SE. In other words, you have to go to SE (as an artist) and explicitly give them the exclusive right to collect on your behalf. If you don't, they have 0 right, and are not legally able to. Thus if your station plays all underground/indie stuff, you have nothing to fear, since none of your material was registered with SE. The initial ruling (and SE itself) only impacts stations who play copyrighted music that is also registered with the organization, which is primarily going to be more mainstream stuff.

[Soma]

I know this is a little off topic but I would rather not make a new topic. Does anyone know the name of the website where you put in bands that you like and it lets you stream music from other similar artists? it's a great way to find new music, but i can't for the life of me remember the name of it. Thanks

[Bahamut]

I know this is a little off topic but I would rather not make a new topic. Does anyone know the name of the website where you put in bands that you like and it lets you stream music from other similar artists? it's a great way to find new music, but i can't for the life of me remember the name of it. Thanks

Pandora.com ?

[Lyrai]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/23/0112232

They rejected it.

[Zero Rei Maru]

SoundExchange is not currently owned by the RIAA. The RIAA formed it, but it then became a public organization - there are members on it from many independent labels as well as major labels now.

Also, SE can only collect royalties on works that have been registered with SE. In other words, you have to go to SE (as an artist) and explicitly give them the exclusive right to collect on your behalf. If you don't, they have 0 right, and are not legally able to. Thus if your station plays all underground/indie stuff, you have nothing to fear, since none of your material was registered with SE. The initial ruling (and SE itself) only impacts stations who play copyrighted music that is also registered with the organization, which is primarily going to be more mainstream stuff.

See, this is pretty much the opposite of what I've heard. Weird, huh?

[Airwalker]

See, this is pretty much the opposite of what I've heard. Weird, huh?

You know, I read that too a while ago. It was from the FAQ of SoundExchange. It still is there today.

Do I need to be a member of SoundExchange to receive satellite subscription royalties?

No. SoundExchange was ordered by the U.S. Copyright Office to pay anyone whose sound recordings have been performed by digital cable and satellite television subscription services (Muzak and Music Choice). In order to be paid by SoundExchange, you must provide the proper payee information. (See Forms) SoundExchange is currently the sole entity designated to collect these royalties.

What about webcasting?

"The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

The italic bold words are those that made people worry.

[zircon]

"Compulsory" is a scary word, and looks bad taken out of context. Did you know that whenever you create and distribute a song, anyone can get a "compulsory mechanical license? from you to cover your song and then sell their own copy, paying you a mere 9.1 cents per song per copy? This concept predates the RIAA, I might add.

In other words, in the US, we allow people to play and use music under statutory laws without permission. This is a concept that greatly benefits the public. Imagine if a cover band had to ask the original band for permission to use their songs for all performances and all records. It would be a legal and financial mess. Likewise, no radio station (terrestrial or otherwise) would have the legal resources to chase after all the song and sound recording copyright owners to get their permission to broadcast songs.

No, that would be stupid. It makes more sense to allow people to broadcast and transmit this copyrighted material (making it available to the public). Except, if they do so, they must pay some sort of fee, to compensate the artists whose songs are being played. The amount of the fee is the issue of contention here.

I was actually unaware that you didn't have to directly register with SE for them to collect on your behalf. Nonetheless, this doesn't really affect my point. As stated on the SE site itself, as an artist, you can negotiate your own terms with any broadcaster you want. Thus, if X station wants to play me, I can say to SE "Don't collect from these guys, please."

[Citan]

Major webcasters to face billions in new fees?