Wow -- SoundExchange Does Something Reasonable, Says It Won't Enforce New Webcast Royalties Yet

from the now-here's-a-change dept

Fri, Jul 13th 2007 12:23am — Carlo Longino

On Thursday, an appeals court denied a stay of the new (and significantly increased) royalty rates webcasters would have to pay to stream music online. However, as pointed out in the comments on that post, a Wired blog reports that SoundExchange says it's won't enforce the new rates as discussions/negotiations with webcasters continue. The founder of streaming service Pandora says that this development came about as a direct result of Congressional lobbying by webcasters and their listeners -- and hopefully those efforts will lead Congress to take a look at the proposed legislation that would establish much more realistic royalty rates. However, this shouldn't be seen as a victory for webcasters. It's not clear if the SoundExchange reprieve applies to webcasters that aren't part of the Copyright Royalty Board hearings, or what will happen if negotiations don't produce an acceptable outcome for SoundExchange and its RIAA friends -- a demand for retroactive payments would seem the most likely outcome. In any case, internet radio won't die Sunday night; hopefully the reprieve will give a reasonable solution a chance to surface.

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

Companies: soundexchange

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

me, 13 Jul 2007 @ 2:52am

not yet ?
shuuuuuuure, it won't enforce them. yet.

but i bet they'll start gathering data from day one, and later on they'll use it as "evidence" for suing. It's the classic R.I.Ass A. business model these days. Or should i call it racketeering model ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 13 Jul 2007 @ 5:51am

You can bet on retroactive...
payments being a part of any action that take later on once a "deal" is worked out. Even if the rates change they will try to claim those outregous rates for the period between July 15 and whenever the new "deal" is worked out.

And since the recording industry likes to claim they are doing this in the name of the artists I wonder if the artists have a hand in these negotiations. I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ray, 13 Jul 2007 @ 5:54am

and it keeps adding up
It really doesn't matter when they start enforcing the royalties, since the order was that they be paid retroactive back to January 2007. The longer they wait, the larger lump sum the stations will owe and the more of them will go under due to the cost.

Let these guys know where we stand. Let them know that, if they do this, we will turn off our radios, and tell everyone else to turn off theirs. And let the advertisers in our area, the local radio stations and anyone else that will listen that we WILL NOT listen to anyone that uses such methods.

I, for one, have plenty of mp3 and CD's to listen to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 13 Jul 2007 @ 6:53am

Problem
Congress is going to look into the proposed legislation!? I can see a great outcome...for the thugs, I mean SoundExchange and RIAA (they have more $ and more pull).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 13 Jul 2007 @ 6:57am

Re: and it keeps adding up
And let the advertisers in our area, the local radio stations and anyone else that will listen that we WILL NOT listen to anyone that uses such methods.

All that will do is hurt local radio stations and local businesses who advertise on the radio stations. And obviously the royalty companies still get paid whether or not the radio stations suffer.

I do like Pandora radio though, I listen to it everyday commercial free. I hope they don't go under because of unrealistic royalties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CharlieHorse, 13 Jul 2007 @ 7:03am

it's just a matter of time
what is happening is that the internet as a whole is encouraging free and open competition for products and services - it is the free-est of our markets currently - and this scares the bejeebers out of riaa companies 'cause they know that their business model sucks in the "internet age" and cannot compete on a level playing field. they will be buried by true marketplace competition, so they are lobbying hard to get (ala microsoft) congress to grant them monopoly-like status.

as for soundexchange, they are only doing this in a thinly veiled attempt to head off likely congressional legislation which will tie their hands and force an equitable compormise.

while I hate to see the "government" get involved in what is normally a free market issue (if we had a truly free market we wouldn't even be having this discussion), in this case I fully support the proposed legislation (Internet Radio Equality Act) as I don't believe that soundexchange will ever agree to anything reasonable - their goal is unquestionably to have total control (fiscally and programmatically) over all these stations and if the stations won't submit, then they will do everything to shut them down.

so, please contact your legislators and urge them, respectfully, of course, to please support the Internet Radio Equality Act.

*stepping down from soapbox now*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 13 Jul 2007 @ 7:07am

Just another case of big corporations lobbying big government to keep the money in their hands and out of the public's.

Can't have any innovation unless it's from big corporations or big government. So much for "Freedom", it's just another nail in it's coffin.

I certainly hope they like the world they are creating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LarryV, 13 Jul 2007 @ 7:41am

Perhaps this is not a Problem, but an Opportunity.
This actually sounds like the time for a GPL/OSM (Open Source Music) movement. Perhaps a good Music-Oriented version of the GPL could be developed, and newer artists could release their music under that, (Through peer-to-peer networks???) and then the WebCasters could Webast from that music stockpile. The open artists would get the exposure, the 'casters would still have something to 'cast, and the "Establishment Media" would rust in the doldrums. What's not to like???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bothersome, 13 Jul 2007 @ 7:49am

listen to the world
Internet radio won't die despite RIAA's strong-arming the US market and putting the small guys under. We're talking about the internet here. Other countries provide streaming content outside the reach of RIAA. When the US broadcasters had a day of silent protest, the rest of the world kept right on providing content. You may not get your favorite songs repeated at 4 hour intervals, but you will get access to commercial free music and perhaps learn to like other artists you didn't know existed. Screw RIAA. Listen to a station in Germany, Canada, Australia or even the award winning freshair.org.uk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brandon, 13 Jul 2007 @ 8:01am

Re: Perhaps this is not a Problem, but an Opportun
isn't that called 'Creative Commons'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2007 @ 8:21am

Re: listen to the world
There is other music outside the US but the recording industry is throwing its weight around (using the WTO as its hammer) and there are RIAA equiivlents all over thw world.

Just because we only hear about strong arming in the US does not mean that it is not happening elsewhere.

If the RIAA had its way it would get a cut of broadcasts from internation sites (mind you the RIAA would have nothing to do with this internation music but would expect to get a cut of it anyway) as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
andy, 13 Jul 2007 @ 11:02pm

the true irony
i was writing a story about this topic and spoke to a pr shill at soundexchange. the part that ended up irking me the most wasn't the exorbitant internet radio fees, but that royalty fees would actually be foisted upon terrestrial radio.

according to the shill, new rates would be set for satellite, internet and terrestrial, which have typically been set at $0.0000 per song per listener... because, up to this point, the industry has seen terrestrial radio as a vessel to market new music.

not only were radio stations not being charged anything to play the songs, there was that whole payola scandal where labels were getting busted for paying radio stations to play certain songs... this new idea says that money should be flowing the opposite way.

confused? me too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
andy, 13 Jul 2007 @ 11:03pm

Re: the true irony
to be clear, terrestrial royalty rates are the ones that are typically free... said the pr guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen, 14 Jul 2007 @ 3:14am

OK Anonymous cowered is right there are many stations outside the US Canada ,UK, Australia etc Most of the UK seem a little more resilient with the 40th anniversary of the marine broadcasting act here a lot of the stations would tell the RIAA bully boys where to stick it we fight for radio freedom. And yes a lot of stations here joined in the day of silence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon @Imvite, 16 Jul 2007 @ 3:58am

Irony is the word of the day
Stop radio from playing songs, and you get less sales.

Stop people from getting access to music and you get less sales.

Stop people from wanting to purchase music and you get less sales.

Stop competing with every other form of entertainment and you get less sale.

Like Ouborous eating it's own tail.

Jon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jon ingle, 30 Jul 2007 @ 7:43pm

Royalties
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jon ingle, 30 Jul 2007 @ 7:48pm

Royalties
Allsouthernrock.com a virtual stream nonprofit radio station plays independent artists only. Brad Schnabel has the bands sign a waiver letter that frees him from paying royalties. He asks for $595 donations from members to pay for his "server",( his computer.) He operates out of his wife's house. He draws unemployment and uses at least half of the donations for his own personal gain. This is wrong.
Can you do anything to put a stop to the dishoest piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Lee Corber (profile), 23 Sep 2007 @ 3:49pm

vampires and the RIAA
Friday, September 21, 2007 Vampires and the RIAA Ever notice how vampires operate? They suck your blood all the while making you think that they are doing you the favor. It really does appear that the RIAA and its net representative, Sound Exchange, operate under the same principle. The RIAA has the Copyright Royalty Board under its thumb and appears to dictate web policy to that board, the RIAA tells webcasters what they will pay or else they go to jail or get sued. This seems to be coercion to me. So, in effect, the RIAA sets royalty payments unilaterally, sucks the funds from the webcasters and makes them think that the RIAA did them the favor. If the RIAA had its way, there'd be no webcasting at all. Each note of music would have to be bought from one of the RIAA's constituent members. No more free music of any kind, no more fair use would exist, nothing without payment. Pay through the nose, then give up your nose. One thing that webcasters forget as victims of this policy, they could put a stop to it fast. Just stop webcasting music. When the public starts complaining to Congress to do something about it, perhaps the RIAA can be controlled by reason and not avarice. Victimizers often forget that if they destroy the victim, their victimization ceases and they have no source left from which to suck. Unfortunately, the so-called musical performance artists contribute to this victimization by profiting from the RIAA's activities, whether vicariously or otherwise. You can't take your profits with a clear conscience when the agency collecting for you is known to be set on destroying the source of those profits. Musicians can create music without an audience, but do they really want that? Just some thoughts. BRIAN LEE CORBER, CORBERLAW@AOL.COM, Panorama City, California 91412-4656, 818-786-7133.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skint muso, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:41am

fairs fair
most ISP's & digital companies make huge profits from artist & labels. There's loads of digital music parasite corp's that cant make zilch without stealing from artists & the music industry. if you dont want to pay for the music in your business don't use it & stop whinging. Now with the music industry going bust, because digital companies are stealing their lunch, is the time for terrestial radio to start paying royalties to labels. fairs fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]