News Blog

In an appeal to the coveted youth vote in the upcoming presidential elections, MySpace and MTV announced Thursday that they have joined forces for a series of "one-on-one dialogues" with all the major candidates from both political parties--televised and Webcast events in which presidential hopefuls will answer questions from MySpace members and MTV watchers. Formally, it's a collaboration between MySpace's "Impact" political channel and MTV's "Choose or Lose" election effort (which it has been operating since the dinosaur days of the 1992 election), and it's the first collaboration that the News Corp.-owned social networking site has had with the Viacom-owned pop culture conglomerate.

The conversations with individual presidential candidates will be held town-hall style on college campuses, webcast live on the MySpaceTV video platform (previous coverage here) and MTV.com, and broadcast later that evening on MTV as well as the MTVU college campus television network.

"These dialogues are not going to be a debate," Ian Rowe, MTV's vice president of strategic partnerships, said in an interview with CNET News.com. "They're going to be one-on-one, unfiltered conversations between a group of young people who are sitting inside a college campus auditorium (and) an audience online (that) will have the ability to submit questions in real-time." Rowe added that this will be a totally interactive experience. "They'll be able to literally respond to what the candidate is actually saying during the conversation. Even if you don't have the opportunity to physically be in the room, you can participate tangibly in the conversation."

MySpace had initially announced its plans to hold presidential town hall events in May, but no further developments were provided at the time. The social network also plans to hold a mock election early in 2008.

The first of the MTV-MySpace dialogues has been confirmed for September 27, with Democratic candidate John Edwards in the key primary state of New Hampshire. Future events will individually involve Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and Bill Richardson; and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Sam Brownback. The only missing candidate of note is arguably former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican whose surprising second-place finish in the Iowa straw polls suddenly catapulted him into the label of "dark horse."

If the prominence of blogs in the political process was the major digital media development of the 2004 presidential election and the "paper trail" of YouTube videos was what marked the 2006 midterms (recall former Sen. George Allen's "macaca moment"), it appears that "interactive" conversations with presidential candidates, thanks to new media platforms, are coming to define the '08 campaign. Earlier this summer, CNN and YouTube collaborated on a formal Democratic debate in which YouTube users could submit video questions in advance of the event. In the MTV-MySpace "dialogues," these questions may be submitted live--through either the MySpaceIM instant messaging platform, e-mail, or text messaging.

"We're offering participation through all the tools of new media," said Jeff Berman, MySpace's general manager of video operations. Representatives from both companies hinted that further details will become available throughout the next few weeks.

Gen Xers too busy to relive the glory days, when Lollapalooza was actually alternative and cool, can enjoy it from the comfort of their laptop couch.

The now heavily sponsored concert festival, taking place August 3-5 at Grant Park in Chicago, will be Webcast live from AT&T's Blue Room Web site.

The Webcasting service starts at 12:30 p.m. central time on Friday and features some good, though mostly adult-alternative, bands. Included in this year's lineup are Pearl Jam, Ben Harper & the Innocent Criminals, Amy Winehouse, Modest Mouse, Patti Smith, The Black Keys, Spoon and Interpol.

The armchair traveler really wanting to go all out could also do their virtual post-concert noshing at Alinea's photo gallery.

Did I mention that grunge icon Eddie Vedder now looks like a hip accountant?

As we reported earlier this week, many Webcasting services kept streaming without incident after feared new music royalty fees took effect, as talks with the record industry about alternative arrangements seemed to be proceeding on a favorable track.

How quickly things can change.

Now a new spat appears to be brewing between the Digital Media Association (DiMA), a lobby group representing large Webcasters like Pandora, Yahoo, RealNetworks and AOL, and SoundExchange, the group that collects and lobbied for the new payments on behalf of musicians and record labels.

The issue? Whether Webcasters should be required to cloak their streams in technologies designed to prevent "streamripping" as part of an agreement to cap the administrative fees they owe to SoundExchange.

Recall that large Webcasters have balked not only at the heightened per-song, per-listener royalty rates imposed earlier this year by federal copyright authorities but at a minimum $500 per channel administrative fee that they say would cost the three largest services, which allow users to create thousands of distinct "channels," more than $1 billion in the first year alone.

At a closed-door congressional meeting and in a subsequent press release last week, SoundExchange offered to cap that annual fee at $50,000 per Internet radio company, provided that the Webcasters agree to provide more detailed reporting about their music streams and "to work to stop their listeners from engaging in 'streamripping'"--that is, turning music streams into more permanent libraries. DiMA issued a statement over the weekend saying it was prepared to accept the cap, to provide the more detailed reports and to "research, identify, review and evaluate the prevalence of 'stream-ripping.'"

As it turns out, SoundExchange wanted more than just an inquiry on the streamripping issue. On Monday, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson sent a letter to DiMA informing it that it had "mischaracterized" the group's offer. In exchange for the cap, the group is calling for Webcasters to "agree to implement technology related to streamripping...provided such technology is feasible and is available on reasonable terms."

That request--a copy of which was provided by DiMA to CNET News.com--drew a retort on Wednesday morning from DiMA Executive Director Jonathan Potter, who accused SoundExchange of backtracking on its original offer. He said in a statement: "SoundExchange has demanded enforceable technology mandates that are unreasonable, unworkable and way off-topic. They seek to leverage this absurd fee to impose mandates that they have unsuccessfully sought elsewhere."

SoundExchange spokesman Richard Ades blasted DiMA's latest characterization of the issue.

"What we have in the letter is the same exact terms that we discussed at the roundtable in front of members of Congress," he said in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon. "For him to say that we're backtracking is political posturing and misrepresenting the truth. It's just totally disingenuous."

So where do we go from here? DiMA said it's still prepared to meet with SoundExchange soon to sort out the differences, and Ades said SoundExchange is also drafting a response.

It's important to note that the large Webcasters represent only one portion of the debate. Negotiations with small Internet radio outfits and noncommercial entities like National Public Radio have been occurring on separate tracks and so far appear to be progressing on a smoother course.

For more on the Net radio conflict, check out our FAQ.

Update at 2 p.m. PDT: SoundExchange has provided CNET News.com with a copy of its written response to DiMA, which contains something of a scathing rebuke.

"Late on Friday night you sent me a self-serving letter which did not accurately portray the offer we made at the roundtable," SoundExchange's Simson wrote. "You then accepted your own offer and released that to the press before I even had a chance to read it, much less respond to it. And now you accuse us of backtracking when you clearly know that is not the case."

Simson's letter said SoundExchange is also still waiting on DiMA to come through with multiple "promises," including DiMA's proposal for what to do about the fee structure and access to "proprietary company materials." It also said the group already arranged a "last minute" meeting with its board members and DiMA representatives in New York this week and had offered another "specific date and time" to meet next week.

July 15, the start date for new and retroactive royalty payments by Internet radio DJs, has come and gone without any apparent catastrophe, thanks in part to last-minute signs that Webcasters may be edging closer to harmony with the music industry.

The consensus among the small and larger Webcasters I've been surveying Monday seems to be that nothing much has changed in their operations--for now, at least. Further unscientific checking of Internet radio streams available at individual Web sites and through Apple's iTunes drove me to a similar conclusion: from NorCal hip-hop to office-friendly Top 40 to Christian metal, what I've been hearing is business as usual.

And in case you missed it this weekend, public broadcasters and royalty-collection body SoundExchange have reached a temporary accord that should allow public radio's music stream Webcasts to remain unchanged for at least the next three months while further talks continue.

That's not to say there has been any mass return of the hundreds of low-budget Webcasters who have reportedly taken their streams offline since the new fees were announced. Or that changes won't be necessary in the near future for stations that remained up and running.

Negotiations are expected to pick up again this week among various Webcasters and SoundExchange. While that process plays out, SoundExchange has said it expects Net radio outfits to follow the rules and pay what they owe--although it has also presented a few alternatives, including an offer to small broadcasters which, if accepted, would not raise their required payments above historic levels.

SoundExchange is continuing to receive new payments from Webcasters, spokesman Richard Ades said in a telephone interview Monday, although he declined to specify from whom or how much they entailed.

The Digital Media Association, which represents larger Webcasters, has requested a meeting with SoundExchange at a yet-to-be-determined location (either New York City or Washington) on Tuesday or Wednesday. DiMA said representatives from six major Webcasters--RealNetworks, Pandora, Yahoo, MTV, AOL and Live365--planned to attend.

At issue for the companies is the level of royalty fee increases set by a federal panel called the Copyright Royalty Board, which cover the time period between 2006 and 2010. For larger Webcasters, the fee increases could raise their required payments by as much as 300 percent, while for smaller outfits, the fees could climb by as much as 1,200 percent, according to the advocacy group SaveNetRadio, which opposes the new requirements.

In recent days, DiMA and SoundExchange have also been attempting to reach agreement on another point of contention in the rules: a minimum $500 "per channel" payment justified as necessary to cover SoundExchange's administrative costs. Large Webcasters had argued that without a cap on those fees, services that allow users to create thousands of distinct "channels" would owe more than a billion dollars in such fees in the first year alone.

Over the weekend, DiMA said it sent a letter to SoundExchange accepting a recent offer to cap the fees at $50,000 per company per year. The organization said it would also investigate whether it's necessary to implement stricter safeguards against "streamripping"--that is, converting Webcast music streams into more permanent digital libraries. But the deal is not yet final, as a number of other issues still needed to be worked out, SoundExchange's Ades said Monday.

On the small Webcaster side, attorney David Oxenford said Monday that his clients--which include Accuradio, Radio Paradise, Radioio, Digitally Imported Radio, and 3wk Radio--are still streaming music as usual. They are continuing their negotiations with SoundExchange on a more informal path, with ongoing conversations but no formal meetings or timetable scheduled, he added.

Any agreement with SoundExchange that ultimately emerges--involving his clients or anyone else--would have to be ratified by the copyright panel or another governmental body, Oxenford said in a recent blog entry.

This Sunday may not be doomsday after all for the smaller Internet radio stations that feared the onset of new royalty fees would kill off their operations.

But contrary to some published reports traversing the blogosphere on Thursday and Friday, SoundExchange, the nonprofit group charged with collecting the payments, has not made any sort of blanket pledge to delay enforcing the contentious new Webcaster payments established earlier this year by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board, according to spokesman Richard Ades.

"There is a misunderstanding, and SoundExchange is making it very clear that everybody is expected to comply with the law," Ades told CNET News.com Friday.

The CRB ruling at issue requires Internet radio operators to pay additional fees to SoundExchange, which passes them on to artists and record labels, retroactive to 2006 and through 2010. Webcasters opposed to the new rules say the changes could drive up their mandatory payments by as much as 300 percent for larger entities and 1,200 percent for smaller ones, arguing such increases could put them out of business.

Here's where it gets complicated.

... Read more

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.

If you depend on the sounds of Internet radio to get you through your workday, don't be surprised if your headphones pipe out little more than dead air next Tuesday.

In protest of the elevated royalty fees Webcasters are poised to begin owing to the record industry next month, Internet radio operators are planning to stage a "day of silence."

So far, Live365 and AccuRadio.com have agreed to cease their music programming on June 26, save for brief audio public service announcements sprinkled throughout the day, according to a Wednesday report by Kurt Hanson of the Radio and Internet Newsletter,. So has the online presence of KCRW, the Southern California-based public radio station.

UPDATE at 6:03 a.m. PDT on Friday: SaveNetRadio, an advocacy group opposed to the copyright judges' action, has posted an updated list of protest participants (PDF), which now also include Yahoo, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, MTV Online, and more than 30 other stations.

Smaller Webcasters staged a similar protest five years ago in response to a similar rules change by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board.

At issue are fee hikes that the Internet radio community says could bankrupt its services, particularly those run by smaller operators. SoundExchange, the non-profit collection entity that lobbied for the changes, has repeatedly argued the changes are fair and necessary to ensure artists are compensated adequately.

Opponents of the changes are still hoping for a reprieve before the July 15 date on which the royalties are scheduled to kick in. They are continuing to pressure politicians on Capitol Hill to pass bills that would overturn the royalty rate increases and align them with those required of other digital services, such as satellite. Some groups have also asked a federal appeals court to delay the rate changes.

Can Justin.TV compete with Queen Amidala?

ValleyWag is reporting that actress Natalie Portman is shopping a project to broadcast a continuous video feed of her work and personal life. The actress reportedly met with venture capitalists in Silicon Valley to seek funding for the project.

Portman isn't alone in looking for new online outlets. Dave Networks, for instance, is building Web sites for stars--said to include Will Smith and Jessica Alba--that that would let them own, distribute and "monetize" their own content.

Many celebrities have documented their lives on television and in movies; and unofficial tapes of starlets and other Hollywood types frequently pop up on the Web (though not always with the approval of the actors in question). It's not that surprising, then, that someone would just start doing the broadcasts themselves.

Blog community response:

"And why not stream video yourself? If you're Brittany or Lindsay or Paris, you either spend all of your time trying to get on TV or in the newspaper, or you find yourself hounded by photographers and video-cameras trying to put you there anyway. Why not take control of the process? And if you think no one would subscribe to an all-Natalie channel, I expect that you are quite wrong."
--Mathew Ingram

"She hasn't even announced the project, and who knows whether it'll ever come to light. But just wait till Paris hears about this idea. Welcome to the new fame, the arms race to ubiquity."
--Reel Pop

"Is this really a sad way for Hollywood to revive the mystique it once held over all of us? I think that may be closer to the truth. I hope she can hang with the big dogs, because once she enters the lifecasting dome, it's survive or be eaten alive."
--Technically Speaking