Pandora, Webcasting appear headed for Senate victory
Technology companies are supposed to be wide-eyed novices on Capitol Hill. I've read that they don't spread enough money around or aren't hip to the ways of Washington.
Regardless of whether that's true, this weekend saw Pandora, a struggling music service, whip up enough support among fans of Web radio to help persuade the House of Representatives to unanimously pass the Webcaster Settlement Act on Saturday, according to multiple people associated with the bill. The proposed legislation is designed to give Internet radio stations added time to negotiate a settlement with the music industry on reduced royalty rates.
Lower rates are vital to the survival of Internet radio stations, according to Tim Westergren, Pandora's founder, who pleaded with the public on Friday to call their congressional representatives and demand they support the bill. Webcasters and the music industry are close to reaching an agreement, but if the legislation fails to pass it could push the discussions back months and deliver a financial death blow to some services, Westergren said.
According to one Washington lobbyist, phone calls from the public were one of the factors that helped the legislation pass in the House and now have it headed for a Senate vote within the next two days without any major parties gunning for it.
Two other factors, however, likely played larger roles in getting the bill through the House: the lobbying efforts made by National Public Radio and some 12th-hour deal making to appease traditional radio broadcasters, who were trying to kill the legislation, according to sources.
"You know," said a fatigued Westergren, "it was a nerve-racking day."
In crunch time, Howard Berman came through
Saturday started with lobbyists for the National Association of Broadcasters "making a huge press in the House, blasting every (Congressional representative's) office" with appeals to kill the legislation, according to a lobbyist with knowledge of the events.
NPR, the publicly and privately funded nonprofit organization created by Congress in 1970, has plenty of friends in Washington. The group, which produces Webcasts and supports the bill, e-mailed members of Congress on Saturday, explaining how much it needed the legislation and that a deal on a new royalty rate couldn't be struck without it, sources said.
The real deciding factor came when Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) met with members of the NAB. They told him that they feared their Web competitors would get a deal done first. Under the terms of the legislation, SoundExchange, the body that collects royalties and is part of the Recording Industry Association of America, has until Dec. 15 to negotiate a new rate. The NAB apparently was worried that the deadline didn't give the organization enough time to strike its own royalty agreement.
"Berman said 'Fine, we'll extend the date until Feb. 15, which gives you two more months to talk,'" said one music-industry source with knowledge of the discussions. "There isn't anything in the act that prevents traditional broadcasters from reaching their own royalty rate."
That did the trick, according to the source. Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman confirmed Saturday night that the NAB met with Berman and that the deadline was extended. He said the trade organization has dropped its opposition in both houses of Congress.
This means that unless something unforeseen happens, the Webcaster Settlement Act should pass, according to insiders.
Then what? Internet radio stations must still reach an agreement with the artists and labels about how much to pay them for streaming their music over the Web. Sources on both sides say they are closer than ever before to a number, and should the Webcasting bill pass in the Senate, they predicted that a deal could be reached as early as next month.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Having the tools to be a "real" program director in the hands of the listener is power. In the case of broadcasting. The evil empire's program dictators (no that isn't a typo) of whom I think have been lobotomized, ram the limited play list at us. I can only speak of the format that I enjoy... AOR (album oriented rock) now I guess has been dubbed Classic Rock., has more that 1500 songs that qualify to be in that format. But at most of the evil empire stations their on air library only contains that 1500 or a little more titles. (I know what I'm talking about I've installed music servers in radio stations and work on the technical side of the business.)
There are artists that get little or no air play that really shaped the rock scene. Guess what, Led Zeppelin has more than 3 hits.... Same with the Moody Blues.... And the list goes on.....
The bottom line isn't the artist's getting their fair share.... It's the broadcaster and the record labels fearing for their business model that will not survive in the 21st century.
I can't wait to get "cheap" mobile internet in my car... No more crap morning shows (FM radio was made for Music not talk!), or voice tracked shows.... Just give me music that I want to hear.... Minus the crap! Broadcasting has been on the downward slide from the 90's on.... So, give me Pandora in my car! I see the FM-TV broadcast ban turning into a big cellular mobile internet network.... Cut out the program dictators (all 5 of them) and let us decide what we want...
This may appear to be very thorny in a lot of ways because of factoring in composition rights and phonographic performance rights; and use of the broadcast stream at the destination listening point. This would typically cover the standard scenario rights involving public-performance, re-briadcasting / music-on-hold and personal recording of such streams in the destination country. It may also include whether Internet streaming constitutes parallel marketing or "grey importing" of the content, which can encompass playback of recordings not meant to be marketed in an area occuring in that area.
This discussion may be worth raising regarding the Internet-radio and Webcasting scenarion and I hope that it can be raised.
With regards,
Simon
Anyone else use shoutcast?
- by bdennis410 October 20, 2008 10:01 AM PDT
- Let's accept that sooner, rather than later, the Internet will be the prime delivery mechanism for everything; data, entertainment, including radio and "TV," movies-on-demand including new releases.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)Wireless is the only transmission capacity large enought to satisfy alal the components of demand.
Having said that, regulators and legislators must recognize that Content providers, whether Music and Taslk radio, Tv shows and spewcials, movies, data through cloud computing services, all are part of the process.. and must have the ability to monetize their content through fees, royalties, or other methods that allow content to be encouraged and developed, and sold or provided to consumers , at consumer's option. Some Content will be offered "free" with adfvertiser support - think of today's TV presentations. Recognizing that wireless for "downloads" -think of channel tuning- will provide the most capacity for the most people, is the way to go.
The installed and soon to be installed wired capacity of FIOS -fiber optic- and similar, copper cable, utility cable, all have their place. It's not too hard to envision technology that is "smart" in deciding just how a particular "request for access" will be routed and delivered, even mutiple modes of delivery for the same Content at the same time.