You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: SoundExchange: Internet Radio Bill Bad for Artists

News

SoundExchange: Internet Radio Bill Bad for Artists

More money for mega-corporations, and musicians writing checks to pay back royalties they have already received: That's the picture SoundExchange, the RIAA's royalty collection arm, is painting of proposed legislation to regulate Internet radio royalty payments. The bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, April 26, in an effort to protect Internet radio stations from the Copyright Royalty Board's new rates that include annual royalties that could potentially be more than the stations make.

John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange, commented "The true beneficiaries are the mega-multiplex services like AOL, Yahoo!, Microsoft and Clear Channel, which will benefit from rates substantially lower than those set by the Librarian of Congress in 2002."

The bill was sponsored by Jay Inslee (D-WA), and it proposed that Internet radio stations should pay royalties in-line with Satellite radio stations. In that model, stations are given the option of paying US$0.33 per listener hour, or 7.5 percent of their annual revenues. Like the CRB's new royalty scheme, Rep. Inslee's bill would make the new royalty payment plan retroactive to 2006.

In contrast, the CRB's new payment plan is based on pay-per-performance that exceeds the hourly revenue most Internet radio stations can generate.

SoundExchange claimed in a statement that big corporations in the Internet radio business would receive a US$50 million windfall from Rep. Inslee's bill - A number presumably pulled from the amount that SoundExchange planned to collect from Internet stations. The statement also claimed that musicians would be forced to repay royalties they have already received for 2006, although there is no wording in the bill that would require repayment. There is, however, the possibility that the contract SoundExchange has with artists requires repayment if the royalty terms are altered.

Mr. Simson added "The idea that this bill would help small webcasters or artists is ludicrous since less than 2 percent of all royalty payments in 2006 came from small webcasters."

He also contended that SaveNetRadio, a Web site dedicated to preserving Internet radio, may actually be a front for big companies trying to manipulate royalty payments in their favor. "Because the bill is so heavily favored to enrich the big webcasters, it raises questions as to who is really behind the SaveNetRadio Coalition," Mr. Simson said.

Despite Mr. Simson's arguments, it appears that without some type of intervention the future of Internet radio in the U.S. is in question. Many small stations are facing the prospect of shutting down to avoid cost prohibitive royalty payments - which translates to fewer opportunities for artists to be heard, and smaller Internet radio playlists in iTunes.

6 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

jimothy said:

member since 04 Jun 2004 with 612 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Uh huh, because the RIAA doesn't cater to mega-companies, now do they?

Quote this post ↓

jfbiii said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 109 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Well gee, Mr. Simpson, maybe if your dumb ass had attempted to work out a fair deal in the first place instead of trying to utterly crush internet radio, it wouldn't come to this.

No sympathy for fools.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Spin spin spin.

SoundExchange positions themselves as the Good Guys, looking out for the poor, exploited recording artist.

They tsk-tsk that the "save internet radio" movement is a front for filthy-rich media conglomerates like Clear Channel, AOL, and Yahoo. Meanwhile, their outfit is a front for the RIAA, a group controlled by the Big Music labels, who make millions on hit records and then pay the people who create them pennies on the dollar.

In other words...SoundExchange is also a front for filthy-rich media conglomerates, the kind who exploit their own artisits, fight tooth-and-nail against an emerging new market for their products, and think the smart way to defend their turf by suing their own customers.

Screw those guys.

Quote this post ↓

macbones said:

member since 15 Jun 2004 with 23 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Well,

I really can't see why they deserve more royalty than satellite radio. In fact, I can't see why they deserve more than regular radio (zero). I like the 7.5% of revenues option.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Come on the whole copyright system is a mess. Our Founding Fathers gave a fourteen year grant of exclusive rights. It is now up to over a hundred. The public, or the interent radio stations, do not even get to have a say in setting the rates. That is because there is a hundred thousand dollar fee to appear before the copyright board. That is to pay all those big industry lawyers.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

And the RIAA wonders why illegal downloading and later the iTunes Music Store took off. Give people what they want at a fair price and everyone wins. When customers feel screwed, they will look elsewhere.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.