Internet radio compromise on the way?

It's looking ever less likely that Congress or the courts will act swiftly enough to save Webcasters from the doomsday that they argue will result from imminent new fees. But there are signs that Internet radio players and a group representing artists and record labels may be moving closer to a detente.

A few weeks ago, we reported that the increased royalty rates set to kick in July 15 were poised to create a burden not only for small major Webcasters but for the largest ones as well. Because the fee hikes also include a $500 minimum payment per "channel," the three largest Webcasters alone--Yahoo, RealNetworks and Pandora--said they would owe more than $1 billion in the first year alone because of the thousands of unique "channels" their services offer.

Now, with the deadline for the fees creeping ever closer and the outcry from Webcasters still at a fever pitch, relief may be on the way.

SoundExchange, the nonprofit industry group that lobbied for the changes, told CNET News.com on Thursday--and finalized in a press release (PDF) on Friday--that it has offered the Digital Media Association (DiMA), which counts the major Webcasters among its membership, a $2,500 cap on that annual requirement.

"We certainly don't want anybody to get unduly hurt by the minimum fee, but there is a value to music and a cost to administering the digital royalty program, and we wanted to ensure that everyone was treated fairly--artists, webcasters and record labels," John Simson, the organization's executive director, said in a statement.

According to DiMA executive director Jonathan Potter, however, there was a catch that wasn't mentioned in SoundExchange's press release. Namely, SoundExchange presented a written offer to apply that reprieve only through 2008, whereas the new U.S. Copyright Royalty Board rates extend through 2010.

"Any offer that doesn't cover the full term is simply a stay of execution for Internet radio," Potter said in a statement released Friday afternoon. Indicating that SoundExchange's public statement caught him by surprise, he added that he would have preferred not to be issuing such a statement at all and to be continuing negotiations directly with the music industry group.

SoundExchange has already attempted to extend an olive branch to smaller Webcasters that claim the new rules will wipe them off the map. In late May, it floated an offer to freeze through 2010 the "below-market" rates they have been paying since 1998.

But SaveNetRadio, a group lobbying against the changes, has argued the approach could stunt the long-term growth of smaller firms if it is based on keeping revenue below certain government-imposed caps.

Update at 6:45 a.m. PST: SaveNetRadio spokesman Jake Ward said Monday that the group was encouraged by SoundExchange's recognition that the per-channel payment could be crippling to many Webcasters. He said the ideal solution, however, would be to base the royalty rates on a Webcaster's revenues, as two congressional bills propose--and not, as the copyright officials decided, on the number of songs played and listeners.

[rickhal]

Internet Streaming Radio

It is hard to believe that this assault on web-casting is still on. You'd think that the US copyright board and the music industry in general would welcome another venue (especially one that is a new channel to the end consumer) for getting new music out to the people. Common sense would seem to dictate that this would be good thing for all involved. However, greed always wins out apparently. So, putting all internet streaming radio out of business altogether is the order of the day. Our representatives are not too interested (I have written to a few of them on this subject) given that there is not too much lobbying on behalf of the streaming web-casters (I.E. not enough palms getting greased). Sad, very sad.

[pchesels]

No more music for me

As far as I am concerned, I will not indulge in music any more. I used to be a happy american who loved his music but then one day the Music associations became greedy and sue happy. As they continue to persecute the very people who pay their salaries, if enough people get together and fight them or do not buy ANY music, then they will eventually realize that the people have spoken and are tired of paying for mostly crappy music. Maybe they will come up with some better artists and music. Stand up people and fight! do not buy any more music. Let the artists who think that these fees are just, not make any money at all. None of these people are better than any of us. Remember that.

[opendev]

Do It Right

It might make an impact if and only if the people who spend their time pirating music would actually take a legally just stance to publicly show their distaste for the industry as pirating does nothing but add fuel to the fire.

It is illegal no matter how you try to justify it and you can not hope to change or defeat the industry as many may argue by using piracy.

If you want to make an impact do it legally, as I have said before -- two wrongs do not make a right.

We have the internet, you have access to massive amounts of information and resources which are usually publicly or freely available to you -- the end user.

So use it!
Don't abuse it.