Not That It Matters... But Appeals Court Rejects Webcasters' Challenge Over Copyright Royalties
from the and-ignores-constitutionality-issue dept
Last week, we noted that the DC Appeals court had rejected a challenge to the Copyright Royalty Board's rates set for satellite radio. Michael Scott notes that the same court has also rejected the challenge to webcasting rates. Of course, this is mostly a moot discussion, because just days before the decision, SoundExchange and some big webcasters worked out a deal -- though there are serious questions about how reasonable these rates really are to webcasters. Still, this latest ruling once again highlights just how out of touch the Copyright Royalty Board is with reality. If the current negotiated rates threaten to put a lot of webcasters out of business, and the CRB's original rates were even higher, doesn't that suggest a pretty serious problem both with the CRB and with the appeals process? Separately, it looks like the court had no problem at all ignoring the constitutional questions about the Copyright Royalty Board for a second time. It's as if no one wants to actually follow what the Constitution says...
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
Filed Under: appointments clause, constitution, copyright, copyright royalty board, webcasting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Constitution?
As for the royalty rates, local non-profit radio station has had to shut off its stream because their rates have skyrocketed by 1000% over the past year or two, making it impossible to continue. What's more is that this station is having to pay MORE than other local for-profit stations. Where's the logic in that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitution?
Dammit, don't say that! It's too sad...I'd rather just have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind than have it put right in front of me. Too real.
As for royalty rates, Mr. Coward above Is a fool if he thinks webcasters will be paying less than radio stations of comparable size). Radio stations pay songwriters, but not performance rights (if I have the terms right), webcasters must pay both. Don't be a hypocrite, Mr. Coward; find out what is actually being claimed before making assumptions about it. Or if you actually have some data to back up your position, please show it to us so we can be corrected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suddenly we were ostracised from almost every nation on earth.
So apparently, it's not just the CRB, SoundExchange or Mel who don't believe in constitutions, it's the entire world. Now isn't that a cheery thought?
(Yeah, so this has little to do with the actual topic, aside from a nod at the end, I'm feeling extra bitter tonight, so cope.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitution?
Radio stations pay anyway - no choice.
webradio only pays a higher rate if they get higher income. Since most of the are crying about not having income, how could they be paying more?
So Mr tristan, would you care to back up your assertions with some numbers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
There's still a base rate. Thought for smaller webcasters, the % number is lower. But it's not $0.
webradio only pays a higher rate if they get higher income. Since most of the are crying about not having income, how could they be paying more?
Except that's not true. Most are not complaining about having no income. They're complaining that most if not all of any potential profits are wiped out by this deal.
So Mr tristan, would you care to back up your assertions with some numbers?
Radio stations pay 0% on performance rights. 0. So, your argument is entirely wrong.
They do pay songwriter/composer fees, which equal about 3% of revenue. But webcasters have to pay that as well.
Your assertion that radio pays more is flat out, 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
What are the net numbers? Tossing percentages out there without numbers to show what they truly represent is meaningless.
"Except that's not true. Most are not complaining about having no income. They're complaining that most if not all of any potential profits are wiped out by this deal."
If they are only profitable without paying for the raw materials (music), then they had a bad business model. You are suggesting that somehow they should get a free pass as "music advertisers" and profit from it, offering a service that the music industry isn't looking for (but would be forced somehow to tolerate and support?)
"There's still a base rate. Thought for smaller webcasters, the % number is lower. But it's not $0."
What is that base rate? What is the base rate + composer / song writer fees? Net, what is it costing them per listener hour to run their stations? Without actual numbers, this is a discussion about apples and oranges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
25% of 0 = ouch
I run a rather popular podcast, and have always wanted to add a streaming radio station component, but this makes it impossible, even though I'd be streaming music by bands that I know personally, that I recorded personally, in my own living room.
Meanwhile, I have had one major record label offer to pay me off with freebies in return for playing their music on my podcast. Here's a better idea - just don't sue the people who are advertising your product for free!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not That It Matters... But Appeals Court Rejects Webcasters' Challenge Over Copyright Royalties
My old friend wrote the song 'Fascination' back in the roaring 20's and got ASCAP. ASCAP sends him a check for $4,000.00 every year and no stats. I know that's not a popular song now but it would be nice to know how many times it was actually played.
indies are not considered publishable. We started a publishing company and released a cd and ASCAP said it wasn't real. So songs from my cd get played on internet Radio, but I get no royalties.
Where is the RIAA protecting my copyrights? How is that fair? I can't belong because I'm an indie. They discriminate.
This is what you get when you pay the government for a copyright to protect your work. I paid the government the money for the copyright. I secured the governments services to protect my copyright. They failed by giving the protection of my work to a private company that only understands profit.
Since we pay a fee to the government to protect our copyright then the government is the only entity who can legally police my copyright, not a private firm. The entire setup is like the mob and needs to be RICO'd. My bumper sticker reads: RICO the RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple solution
And furthermore, why do some business establishments feel the need to have music playing over the loudspeaker system ? Their taste in music is terrible and it can be very annoying. So why waste good money when it just bothers the customers ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deal Breaker
This is a deal breaker for smaller or non-profit stations who may webcast for a hobby/to friends or as a reg'd 501(c) .org
Something needs to be done about this GREED that has prevailed over this industry for a while now. Make the entry into this easier and competitive. Oh wait.. that's right, they DON'T want you broadcast their artists/music at all. well good luck to them ALL when the bottom falls out from all the gunshots in their feets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is to funny ..... I can see the future ....
Some web based stations shut down ....
The Copyright Royalty Board has to increase fees again to maintain the same level of profit for the industry....
More web based broadcaster shut down ....
Someone comes along and does an end run around the Copyright Royalty Board with artists that want to be heard online with no fee ...
A central database of fee to play and free play is created....
YouTube signs up, allowing free play songs in videos
and links back to the artists sites....
Formerly unknown artists start making more than the label promoted ones....
YouTube drops the record labels and refuses to pay them anymore ....
Most web based broadcaster switch over, and new webcasters spring up, and radio stations add additional webcasts of these artists .....
The Copyright Royalty Board slowly looses it power and control ....
The big record labels play less and less of a role ....
Business evolution in action .... big ole GRIN
Most of the pieces for this scenerio are already out there all that is needed is an independant set of standards for this to occur. The standards would include accounting, billing, contracts, databases of music and allowable uses and fees, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Deal Breaker
Foot .... one
Feet .... multiple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
Err, webcasting rates are not based on income alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
The problem is that the other 99% of the music industry would love free advertising to try to compete with the 1% that is backed by the big 6 labels. The problem is that you can't set up an internet radio station to play the other 99% because the dollars will never work thanks to the cartel forcing the 1% to collect for the 99% (but never "find" them), even if you never play music from the 1%.
See the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hit from both ends
This means fewer people listening to the radio (or more important from a business standpoint) fewer people listening to the ads. For years radio stations have worked to get people to listen to the radio at work, and to have businesses play their stations as background.
So radio stations are getting hit at both ends. They have to pay higher rates, and at the same time they are having a very significant audience eliminated. How is that good for the music industry? It encourages more talk radio rather than music, and it restricts the audience for music.
This is what happens when you have so many royalty boards and collection societies. Common sense is out the window, the market has been so distorted that it is becoming non-viable, and no one in government cares as long as the industry's campaign contributions keep rolling in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
See the problem?
it's not a problem. it was engineered to stop the free streaming of independent music and it's working very well.
your problem is that you can't just listen to top40 radio and buy CD's at walmart. the sooner you hippies get in line, the sooner all this internet nonsense will stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
It seems to me that talking about basis of the rates is entirely appropriate because the actual "numbers" will vary for each individual station. I'm not particularly interested in individual stations, I'm interested in the overall picture and using percentages is a good way to talk about that. Of course, I can see how the record industry wouldn't want people talking about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
No one des it... Bush, the police, Copyright Royalty Board ... everyone.
Stop whining and start being more American!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing New
> what the Constitution says...
This is hardly new or limited to copyright. The U.S. government hasn't been following the Constitution since the early 20th century, when the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a person's mere existence affects interstate commerce, thereby effectively repealing the 10th Amendment and expanding the Commerce Clause to the point where the federal government has jurisdiction over absolutely everything, which is direct contravention of the text of the Constitution and the Founders' explicit intentions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
Yes, I see made up numbers.
Even if I work from your numbers, I would say likely that the 1% actually sells 99% of the music.
See the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]