New Webcast Royalty Rules Will Line SoundExchange's Pockets With Billions In 'Administrative Fees'
from the there's-greed-then-there's-greed dept
There's been plenty of backlash against the new royalty rates for webcasters, set by the Copyright Royalty Board at the suggestion of SoundExchange, a group spun out from the RIAA to handle royalty collection. The royalty rates themselves were ridiculously high, and would make it untenable for many small webcasters to continue, while taking a huge bite out of bigger players' revenues. Now, four of those bigger companies -- Yahoo, RealNetworks, Pandora and Live365 -- have sent a letter to lawmakers pointing out that not only do they have to pay the inflated royalties, they have to pay SoundExchange more than $1 billion a year in "administrative fees" for collecting them as well. The new royalty deal levies a charge of at least $500 per "channel" on webcasters, which SoundExchange says is to cover administrative costs. For somebody like Real, that adds up quickly, since it says it served 400,000 unique channels to its subscribers last year. Furthermore, since they're not royalties, there's a good chance they'll just line SoundExchange's pockets rather than be distributed to artists. This isn't particularly surprising, given SoundExchange's track record (nor its affiliation to the RIAA), but further illustrates how one-sided this royalty deal is. It was crafted only to benefit SoundExchange, and not the artists it purports to represent -- and it certainly doesn't do much for webcasters, other than decimate their industry. Hopefully the webcasters' letter will give a boost to the bill that's been introduced to overturn the CRB decision and set much more reasonable royalty levels.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
it won't happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My understanding is that the $500 collected also go into the royalty pot and that SoundExchange is a non-profit organization.
Now, please don't misunderstand my take on all this. As an indie artist the new royalty rates sicken me. The new rates threaten to do away with the great webcasters that grant us indies the exposure we need. The community support and word of mouth is worth far more to me than a bump in royalities.
If you want some insight into how SoundExchange works, take a look at an email thread between myself and John Simson, head of SoundExchange (links to my blog).
I also have an email into John asked specifically about the $500 "base line" fees and where that money goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The royalty is for stations that play licensed music.
NOT for stations that do not play licensed music...such as those that play *only* indie music.
It'd be "Real Nice"™ if you understood what the hell you were talking about before posting.
The only affect this will have on the indie artists is that *they* will get *more* airtime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RIAA is not really concerned with collecting royalties. They are concerned about control of the music. The RIAA has the traditional channels like radio stations and even satellite radio under control. There isn't much chance of an artist outside the RIAA syndicate becoming popular or cutting into the cash cows they have assembled.
Webcasters are another story. Their great sin is giving indies exposure. If rates are low it is fairly easy to set yourself up as a webcaster, so the hope of ever controlling them is pretty low. The only solution is to make it prohibitively expensive to set up a new operation. This keeps the number of webcasters down to a number the RIAA can control. If the RIAA gets its way it will soon be as hard to hear an indie track on a webcast as it is to hear one on a commercial radio station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simson's email to you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when will I be outlawed ???
other than in my comp
i am not boycotting or proposing a boycott, that is a useless waste
i only buy used cd's
the comp comes with a dvd player [software] so again, i only buy used dvd's
i only have basic cable TV, no movie channels
actually, i haven't been to a theater to see a movie since Ghost...1990....17 years !!!
i had been going to about 5 or more concerts a year, but CLearChannel and LiveNation shut down the venue i went to..now i wont go to any more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess Again
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds like a violation of the 14th Amendment
You cannot deprive of life, liberty or property un-equally.
The clause does seem to only applies to State Governments. Still this sounds and smells like UN-equal treatment of the law.
It burns me raw to see loosers trying to win back success thru legislation; if I cannot compete, then I will get the legal/legislation system to grant me an advantage.
Protectionism is the last gasp of a loosing side.
Now cornered, the feral animal will fight with the most fervor.
The RIAA will go down swinging so watch out for the wild punches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sounds like a violation of the 14th Amend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even crazier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Record label sued for playing music it *owns* the rights to."
It'd definitely bring attention to the idiocy of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SoundExchange
To assert that the new rates are a boon to SoundExchange is just patently inaccurate--the beneficiaries are the very artists whose music drives internet radio to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundExchange
Wake up and smell the roses (or something else that smells)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beneficiaries
Yeah, Right. There must be a Kool-Aide prize for this one.
The RIAA wants to control the artists this way so that only a small number of them get played - which is what the recording industry de-volved into. The indies want to break out of that and RIAA doesn't like it.
Therefore the birth of SoundExchange - the RIAA's evil spawn. They are like a damn horror movie. They've never really been in there for the artists, just the industry, which means a very different agenda.
Did you read the docs on their site? Man, it reads like evil propaganda complete with ultra-cynical talking points about how they are doing this for the good of those deserving, starving artists. They don't really support the claims but the lies have a really sick feel, like maybe I should just go and hurl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death of College/NPO/Independent Radio
If Congress doesn't act, then on July 15th all of this will dry up... probably indefinitely until someone reigns in the greed machine.
"beneficiaries are the very artists whose music drives internet radio to begin with" ... my ass.
In order to get their supposed royalty fees from SoundExchange (who will collect with or without said artist's permission), the often-times non-English speaking Japanese artist must jump through considerable bureaucratic hoops for the IRS in order to even qualify to receive their royalty, and because they are a foreign national, are subject to a 30% tax rate on income received... So when it's all said and done, some of the "starving artists" will at least be able to buy themselves a hamburger from their tax-raped miniscule royalty percentages, if they filled out all the proper forms of course, at the expense of losing the very vehicle that gave them exposure to begin with. Yeah, sounds like progress to me.
..hope to still be steaming in 2 weeks time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"SoundExchange is a nonprofit organazation (unlike the RIAA), which means that any money that comes to the organization from Webcasters goes directly to artists and labels, not to the Porsche down payments of SoundExchange employees."
Finally a charitable organization where all the employees work for free! Even the Red Cross and the United Way have to pay their employees! I mean no seven figure salaries, no wives and brothers-in-laws padding the payrolls. These people at SoundExchange are truly dedicated and selfless individuals and are to be greatly admired and exalted!
I'm just breathless(from rotflmfao)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound Exchange
The conversation was very close to the following:
JV - I understand that Sound Exchange is mandating a payment schedule for internet radio broadcasters.
SE - That's right.
JV - I will be programming and streaming a station that will carry music that is composed and performed by myself. Will I be subject to royalty payments.
SE - You should be.
JV - Then, lets say that I make the mandated payment to you. When will I expect a full refund or payment back from Sound Exchange?
SE - There would be probably be no payment due to you.
JV - Why not?
SE - Since you're a small station and have limited listeners, you probably wouldn't qualify.
JV - So, I would pay you for the privilige of letting people listen to my own music. Why should I bother?
SE - By registering and paying, you exhibit your support for the music royalty system.
JV - That brings me to my second question. I also want to have a talk only station. You don't have any regulations for that, do you?
SE - Listen, you can use every trick you can think of; but if you even hum a bit of music, you're liable for all payments, and you will be shut down.
JV - Then it's the "music police" who will be listening, right.
SE - That's not funny. You people think you can get away with anything. We will use all methods available to enforce our regulations.
JV - Can I have a list of all the people involved in Sound Exchange.
SE - It's on the website. (hang up)
I plan to have streaming stations that will do what is talked about in the above conversation, and would prefer that I pay any performers, or artists directly. I'm appalled that the attitude of the 'broadcast attorney' who talked with me assumed that everyone was trying to scam the world; and I'm also appalled that they are attempting to force artists to pay them when they guarantee that the money will never be coming back to them.
Thanks
John Vacek
vacek_john@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]