SoundExchange slams IRE act
p2pnet.net news:- Proposed legislation to nullify the March 2 ruling of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), “would gut the fair market rates set by the CRB and result in musicians having to return royalty payments they have already received,” says SoundExchange executive director John Simson..
His comments are particularly interesting given that, according to SoundExchange distributions in the First Quarter, 2006, the reserve for unregistered artists and labels was at $5.7 million, more than ten time higher than the amount it was bandying around when it supposedly started trying to find people before the royalties for webcasts before March 31, 2000, were forfeited on December 15 last year.
The Internet Radio Equality Act, “designed to undo a ruling by a panel of copyright judges that would require Internet broadcasters to pay an increased royalty for the music they transmit,” says the Hollywood Reporter, was launched last week.
“The legislation would annul the March 2 decision by the Copyright Royalty Board that would require webcasters to pay a per-song royalty, arbitrarily setting the rate at 7.5% of revenue and changing the rate-setting standard used by the CRB to determine Internet radio royalties,” it states.
“In effect, the bill would drive down copyright payments for musicians and other copyright holders.
“On April 19, the CRB refused a request by webcasters to reconsider the ruling because the offended parties added nothing new to their arguments and that the judges made no error in their decision.”
Jonathan Potter, executive director of DiMA, representing webcasters, said the bill was “Internet radio’s last best hope,” says the Hollywood Reporter.
But it would, “arbitrarily reverse the painstaking work of the CRB, the three-judge panel created at the request of the webcasters three years ago,” declares SoundExchange, an RIAA spin-off, “still clearly controlled by all those RIAA alumni,” as entertainment attorney Fred Wilhelms sums it up.
Rock-star Bryan Adams was among high profile performers who signed a letter organised by Wilhelms to protest the CRB ruling, and saying they don’t want to see rates hiked for streaming Net radio.
But, “The CRB executed its charge fairly and objectively without preference to any interested parties, and fulfilled the intent of Congress to issue appropriate market-based rates for webcasters. In return, webcasters receive the benefit of using millions of commercially released sound recordings that are the basis of their businesses,” said Michael Huppe, General Counsel of SoundExchange. “The rate for 2010 reflects only an 8 percent annualized increase in rates since 1998 whereas Internet radio has experienced dramatic audience and revenue growth,” says SoundExchange lawyer Michael Huppe.
The new law would charge radio stations the same fee irrespective of whether they’re broadcasting via satellite, cable or the internet, offering them the chance to choose to pay 7.5% of revenues, or 33 cents per hour per listener.
_Also See:
SoundExchange – Internet Radio Bill Would Strip Artist Payments, April 27, 2007
ten time higher – ‘Missing musicians’ owed $5.7 mil?, April 28,l 2007
Hollywood Reporter – Internet radio royalty fight in House, April 30, 2007
sums it up – SoundExchange: Show us your work!, April 30, 2007
rates hiked – Bryan Adams slams Net radio hike, April 17, 2007
May 1st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I notice in all this that no mention was made that the independent and small internet radio sites had no representation within the meetings to determine the rates. It was settled between the big boys behind closed doors.
Since the big players have the money, that seems to be the only reason they were allowed in the determination. It was said at the time that it would kill internet radio for the small players. With backdated royalty rates whom no one else has ever had to do, it is a shady deal just on that reason alone. Not to mention the increase that was planned. Raising rates above and beyond what terrestrial broadcasting radio sites have to pay on a commercial basis is just beyond my understanding unless it has one objective. If that objective is to shut down any competition then it achieves its goals.
Lack of competition is never good for anyone except for the established players. It comes to mind that a few years ago brings a good example of this lack of competition and what can result. ClearChannel is a big player in the broadcast radio business. Having purchased a station in a city, it then set up its off site handling of programming and broadcasting. When a civil emergency required the notification of the local citizens; well guess what? No one could be found on the station premises to ask for the public announcement to be spread to their listener base. They had no one there but the night watch man, everything else being done remotely from far away. Now one of the requirements of broadcasting for obtaining license from the FCC is the requirement to give a certain amount of time to public service announcements free of charge as a condition to have that license. It is one of those requirements that the broadcast industry has been turning a blind eye towards as air time is money. Definitely, a civil emergency qualifies as a public service.
The restriction to the big boys has brought the public other unwanted aspects such as payolla. Its why you don’t hear new music and instead you hear the same tunes replayed hour after hour with only a few new songs per month aired. Those new songs are liable to be older hits being recirculated yet again. No where in there do you hear the fresh new music, the indie, or new styles just coming out.
SoundExchange had set this up to follow the close out just like in broadcast radio. The internet radio is a threat to them, allowing the indy to get exposure. Heck anyone with some bandwidth and a few programs can set up their own on-line radio station and play whatever their heart desires. That is certainly competition, even if they aren’t playing the cartels’ products. No wonder they were happy with the setup and the raise coming.
It was all dirty politics and it would remain that way without the changes we’ve seen recently in Washington, little though they be.