Performance Rights Act (HR 848) Approved, on way to passing

The House Judiciary Committee approved the Performance Rights Act (HR 848) today, with 21 in favor, 9 not in favor.

It includes these rates that apply only to over the air broadcasts:

Any station that makes less than $100,000 annually will pay only $500 annually for unlimited use of music.

Any station that makes less than $500,000 but more than $100,000 annually will pay only $2500 (half of the amount in the original version of the bill) annually for unlimited use of music.

Any station that makes less than $1,250,000 but more than $500,000 annually will pay only $5000 (unchanged since the bill was introduced)) annually for unlimited use of music.

The bill also includes a statement of "Parity for all radio services" which establishes a “placeholder” standard to determine a fair rate for all radio services that will encourage negotiations between the stakeholders

As I've mentioned before compared to AM/FM broadcasters, Webcasters currently get a really bad deal: A webcaster with 1.25 million in revenue would be paying about $140,000 while an over-the-air broadcaster would only pay $5000. A webcaster with $250,000 in revenue would be paying $25,000 a year while an over-the-air station would pay 1/10th that.

SomaFM joined over 300 other broadcasters in signing a letter to Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith [PDF] asking them to amend the Performance Rights Act to extend small broadcaster protections to small webcasters.

On the webcasters side, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California spoke passionately and convincingly of this need to extend small broadcaster royalty limits to small webcasters. Unfortunately, a specific webcaster inclusion was not put in this version of the bill, so we'll need to do more lobbying of Congress to get it included in the final bill.

In related news, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009 was also introduced. The text is basically the same as the WSA 2008, the biggest difference being instead of a specific date for submitting deals for publication (a deadline which has already passed) the new bill gives 30 days from enactment to finalize deals.

Webcasters deserve the same deal as over-the-air Broadcasters

The terrestrial broadcast performance royalty bill, officially known as "The Performance Rights Act" (H.R. 848) [alternative link], will also be considered by the House Judiciary Committee today. Unlike webcasters, the rate would be $5000 a year for stations with revenues up to 1.25 million dollars. A webcaster with 1.25 million in revenue would be paying about $140,000 a year to play the same music.

Doesn't seem fair does it?

If this indeed passes, and there is a good likelihood it will, then we need to demand that webcasters who broadcast non-interactive radio streams should also get to pay those same rates.

Here's the relevant text from the bill:

SEC. 3. SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SMALL, NONCOMMERCIAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND RELIGIOUS STATIONS AND CERTAIN USES.

(a) Small, Noncommercial, Educational, and Religious Radio Stations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 114(f)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that has gross revenues in any calendar year of less than $1,250,000 may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $5,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.

(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that is a public broadcasting entity as defined in section 118(f) may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $1,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.'.

Rusty speaking at SXSW on DMCA issues

I'm speaking at SXSWi on "Rewriting the DMCA: How to Improve Section 114":

``This panel will discuss the ugly bits of the Section 114 compulsory license for digital/internet music usage, and what parts are in it for historic reasons that don't apply in todays world; as well as changes that both users of the licenses (webcasters) and content providers (artists, labels) would agree to.``

Tuesday, March 17th; 11:30 am - 12:30 pm Room Hilton E

Billboard: No Deal Reached For DIMA, SoundExchange

Billboard is reporting No Deal Reached For DIMA, SoundExchange:

The fact that the two parties did not reach a settlement comes as somewhat of a surprise. In the weeks leading up to the deadline, representatives from both parties expressed confidence a deal was imminent. However that changed early in the week, prior to the deadline, when talks fell apart during a conference call with all involved, according to sources. Exactly what issue sparked the fallout is unclear.

Doesn't this always happen at the last minute with SoundExchange negotiations with the internet broadcasters, both small and large?

"Pandora has threatened to shut down completely if it was forced to pay the full royalty rates, which raised the fees due to SoundExchange and other rights holders in some cases by 300%. RealNetworks previously said it would consider severely limiting the streaming radio options currently available to subscribers."

While I still don't think Pandora will completely shut down, they'll have to drastically change their service to a paid subscription service or one with audio ads every 2-3 songs.

Muzak Files Chapter 11 to Refinance Debt - NYTimes.com

Muzak Files Chapter 11 to Refinance Debt - NYTimes.com:

"Many of Muzak’s biggest creditors are music companies that license songs for use on Muzak playlists. While the company is known as the creator of elevator music, its business is now more focused on creating playlists for use in retail stores, installing professional sound systems and providing other services."

So even industry giant Muzak is being crushed by the high cost of licensing music.

Does the New Administration change anything for radio royalties?

It seems that the RIAA, Recording Academy and MusicFirst think the new administration will be more on their side than the old administration:

Neil Portnow, CEO of the Recording Academy said last night at the Grammys:

“When it comes to protecting a musician's intellectual property and the right to earn a living, The Academy says, "Yes, we can!" And with a new Congress, we will champion the passage of pending legislation to ensure, that just like in every developed country in the world, all music creators are compensated for their performances when played on traditional radio.”

Historical datapoint: he DMCA was passed under the Clinton administration, and the DMCA is what has placed huge royalties on internet radio. The Performance Rights Act of 2009 will add those same royalties on over-the-air broadcasters that internet broadcasters now pay. While on one hand, I think it's great that there is equality for over-the-air (often referred to as terrestrial) broadcasters, but I'm concerned that rather than one fair, small royalty placed on everyone will actually end up being one really large royalty levied on all broadcasters, terrestrial and internet.

SoundExchange Offers Settlement To Webcasters

Billboard is reporting that SoundExchange has made a new settlement offer to webcasters: but it's not the results of negotiation, it's a unilateral offer, and it's ultimately won't work for webcasters like SomaFM.

I'm quoted in the Billboard article saying:

"'We're disappointed with the offer,' says Rusty Hodge, founder of SomaFM. 'It effectively is worse that the previous [one]. Basically SoundExchange has done nothing to comprise with webcasters at all.'"

This hasn't been a negotiation. This has been a series of offers that gets worse each time. The original SWSA passed in 2002 was better than the current offer. The offer made about 18 months ago was the same as the current offer except that there were less strings attached; and because at that point, the offer only applied to SoundExchange member artists.

The current offer is just the same old offer with more restrictions and limitations. There has been no compromise. Every counter-offer webcasters make is met with a less-desirable offer from SoundExchange.

The really big issue for SomaFM is the traffic limits of 5 million monthly aggregate tuning hours. While that number sounds big, in January, we did did about 6.2 million. 5 million monthly tuning hours equates to 6720 average concurrent listeners. And the SoundExchange offer technically applies to US-only listener hours, which is about 50-55% of our listeners, so we're still technically under the limit. But this means that as we grow in the future we're going to hit that cap, and we'll be forced to limit the number of listeners we have.

The big RIAA labels are threatened by independent internet broadcasters and want to make sure that we're constrained to a niche market.

We're very disappointed with this so-called "offer".

The RIAA is still out to kill off independent webcasters like SomaFM.

Wasn't internet radio killed last year?

KG Writes in:

I thought internet radio was killed last year. What gives?

SomaFM and most other internet broadcasters have technically been operating "out of compliance" (that is, we're not paying the royalties we are supposed to be paying). At some point, we can't keep doing this... someone will sue us for copyright infringement. SoundExchange has informally agreed to not sue any broadcasters who continue negotiations with them, that's why stations are still on the air. Other large services like iMeem and Last.FM have made direct deals with the large record labels, in most cases resulting in the "Big 4" record labels owning a part of those companies. (And with that ownership comes influence over the music they feature.)

So making a deal with the big record labels is not acceptable for most broadcasters who strive to be independent in the music they broadcast.

We have continued to negotiate with SoundExchange (the agency that collects the royalties) over the last year, and are close to a settlement. Originally, one problem was that a SoundExchange settlement would only cover their members, and not apply to all music as the CRB ruling did, unless congress acted to codify any settlements. HR. 7084 which was recently signed into law, does exactly that: it tells the CRB that they have to codify any settlement internet broadcasters and SoundExchange agree to. This is the only way we can get the royalties reduced to a reasonable level.

Internet radio is running on borrowed time. But even without a deal, big, venture-capital funded services like Pandora will likely survive in a slightly altered form: they'll have to make deals with all the major labels which will cause them to lose some of their independence. But small stations like SomaFM will be put out of business: either by lawsuits from the RIAA if we continue to operate without paying the royalty fees or more likely by just not having enough money to continue our operations after paying all these royalties.

H.R.7084 passed in the Senate!

9/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

Good work everyone!

Zoe Lofgren supporting the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008

Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) on the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008. It passed in the house, but still needs to pass in the Senate, and the NAB is opposing it.

Don't forget: we still need to get it passed in the Senate!

NAB opposing Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008

According to CNET: NAB, the National Association of Broadcasters, is opposing the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008:

(CNET quoting a NAB representative) "NAB has concerns related to Congress attempting to fast-track a bill introduced less than 24 hours ago that could have serious implications for broadcasters, webcasters, and consumers of music. NAB spent more than a year trying to work out an equitable agreement on webcasting rates, only to be stonewalled by SoundExchange and the record labels. We will continue to work with policymakers on a solution that is fair to all parties."

I don't get it, you'd think this would be in AM/FM's interests as well, as it will let NAB negotiate a deal and have it codified as well. This doesn't limit deals to a single, specific organization.

Can Payola can save Internet Radio?

Doug Perlson writing in Silicon Alley Insider thinks that Payola can save Internet Radio from the high royalties that we currently face.

From strictly a financial-gain perspective, he may be right.

But for broadcasters looking for a long-term sustainable business, and not a short term financial gain (such as getting bought out by a larger company), this approach will not have success.

First off, "Payola" is not illegal in the net-radio space. In fact, it's already happening lots of places. The big labels have equity positions in several of the largest webcasters. You don't think those labels are influencing what gets played? Of course they do.

SoundExchange (the agency that collects the royalties for internet radio) is even encouraging this behavior, suggesting that stations work with labels to play the music that labels will let them use without royalties... except those deals are always more complex than that. (Basically, they give the labels control over what gets played. "You can use this particular music for free, only if you give x number of plays to these other tracks.")

I'm happy that some of the larger guys, like Pandora, have demonstrated their opposition to this. But many others, who are proponents of "direct licensing deals" are already playing the Payola game.

Music should be chosen on its artistic merit, not because of a opportunistic financial decision.

Payola, while technically illegal, has still been happening at AM/FM radio stations (under the guise of "independent promotion"). Many FM radio stations were so reliant on "promo money" that it was a significant part of their annual operating budgets- especially in mid and smaller markets. And while this practice has come under fire and largely discontinued just recently, many variations on the game sill exist, and you're fooling yourself if you think that labels have stopped using money to influence program and music directors.

Many people (including myself) believe that this is what has caused consumers to turn away from commercial radio: programmers were playing what they were paid to play rather than choosing the best material to play. So commercial FM became the land of the safe, proven hits of the past and the crap that the labels were paying to get played.

The people who say this would work for net radio have never been on the receiving end of the music promotion industry. There are tons of crappy records that labels (big and small) would happily pay to get played on the radio. But listeners are smart, and have plenty of options to choose what they want to listen to. They'll just start "tuning out" if this happens.

SXSW Panel Idea proposals

I have proposed a couple panels for SXSW, which have been

Making Music Sound Better Online: Improving Flow and Presentation: Most music services present music like a jukebox, not a professional DJ. Songs stacked serially, not flowing together for various reasons: tonal balance, loudness levels, speed and intensity. We discuss improving that presentation: automated mixing and segue tools; "harmonic key mixing" tracks; improving sound quality of MP3s and alternative Codecs; audio processing systems keeping subjective loudness and tone consistent.

One thing I want to discuss on this panel is broadcast audio processing, and the FM "loudness wars", and why "loudness" doesn't really matter for internet audio but why consistent audio levels are really important. (It's one of my pet peeves, and there are a lot of big services that don't get that right now.)

Rewriting the DMCA: How to Improve Section 114: This panel will discuss the ugly bits of the Section 114 compulsory license for digital/internet music usage, and what parts are in it for historic reasons that don't apply in todays world; as well as changes that both users of the licenses (webcasters) and content providers (artists, labels) would agree to.

Many people agree that certain aspects of Section 114 are obsolete. Others think the DMCA should provide more protection and compensation for creators. Some want to simplify the rules, and others think it doesn't go far enough.

Imagine we could re-write Section 114 today, knowing what we now know. How would it be different? What would be the same?

Internet radio sites push for lower royalties for artists

Austin American-Statesman:

Internet radio sites push for lower royalties for artists

"Satellite and cable radio stations pay royalties at a rate of less than 15 percent - far less than Internet sites - Kennedy said. Traditional AM/FM radio stations are exempt from paying royalties.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has sponsored one of the Internet radio bills, said the royalty fee schedule improperly imposes the highest rates on the newest forms of technology.

'We are allowing the royalty process to serve as a tax on technology and that is discrimination against innovation,' he said."

Lots of information in the full article, the above was just a brief quote.

Radio And Internet Newsletter reports: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT WEBCASTING ROYALTIES

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT WEBCASTING ROYALTIES:

"At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee this morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) revived the issue of Internet radio performance royalties by proposing to add the Internet Radio Equality Act as an amendment to an unrelated copyright bill. Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), while expressing his support for webcasters, countered by suggesting that the committee examine the issue in June in the context of broadcast radio performance royalties.

[RAIN will] have more details as they emerge. You can also check the SaveNetRadio website here: http://www.savenetradio.org."

I guess it may be time to go back to Washington DC again. Perhaps this time we can get some traction on that bill.

SXSW Panel: The Trials and Tribulations of Using Music Online

Be sure to come by the panel I'm on at SXSW: The Trials and Tribulations of Using Music Online.

This panel will discuss the usage of music for various online formats, including (but not limited to) podcasting, blog MP3 postings, internet radio, and vlogs (or other video). This session will address the different copyrights, licensing, and royalties associated with different types of use. Learn how and why you need to get copyright and/or licensing clearance for the music you use, and which clearances you need for which uses in order to operate legally. We will also discuss copyright royalties, royalty payments, and royalty collectors, including SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

Should be fun. If you've never met Richard Bengloff (who heads up A2IM and is on the SoundExchange board and will be on this panel), he's a great guy who is amazingly knowledgeable about the music business, and genuinely cares about artists and content creators. Rich and I don't always agree, but I learn something every time I talk to him.

I can't wait. The other folks on the panel are all great as well (Brian Zisk and Chris MacDonald) as well as our moderator Elise Nordling (who besides programming and hosting Indie Pop Rocks works for IODA, an online music licensing company).

Room 10
Tuesday, March 11th
3:30 pm - 4:30 pm
South by Southwest, Austin, TX

CRB sets satellite radio royalty rates.

and guess what? They're lower than internet radio!

AP is reporting:

``Satellite Radio will pay a performance license rate of 6 percent of certain revenue this year for sound recordings played over its network, according to Copyright Royalty Board decision`` and ``also will pay a performance license rate of 6 percent of gross revenue subject to the fees for 2008, which will then increase by 0.5 percent annually before reaching 8 percent in 2012.``

Just to put that into context, Net Radio up until 2006 paid 10-12% of their revenue. And of course, unless we get a deal from SoundExchange that's codified by Congress, most net stations are going to pay what amounts to 300-600% of their revenues. That's right: 3-6 TIMES their revenues.

Perhaps it is time to start turning up the heat on Congress again to do something?

It's still Payola

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the past, the radio industry was plagued by payola scandals: Stations took money from record companies in exchange for airplay. Now, a group representing recording artists is seeking to turn the pay-for-play strategy on its head: It wants radio stations to pay artists and their record labels when the stations play their music.

What they don't mention is that record labels who want to promote artists will be able to waive these royalty fees if stations agree to feature their artists and releases. Suddenly, we have a legal form of Payola available again.

While I agree that it's only fair for broadcasters to pay reasonable royalties for the sound recording of the music they use, I don't think that exemptions should be allowed on a track by track basis.

With BMI, ASCAP and SESAC (who license the underlying composition of the song) you can't "opt out" of paying the royalty; you have to pay it no matter what. It should be the exact same way with the sound recording royalty.

SaveNetRadio Press Release on SoundExchange's proposed rates for Cable radio services

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The SaveNetRadio Campaign today expressed surprise and hope upon learning that SoundExchange has formally proposed that cable radio services pay royalties between 7.25% and 7.5% of their revenue to sound recording copyright owners and recording artists. This proposed rate, effective from 2008 to 2012, is virtually identical to rates endorsed by more than 140 cosponsors of the Internet Radio Equality Act, but rejected by SoundExchange and the Recording Industry Association of America.

"Perhaps this agreement means that SoundExchange agrees that 7.5% of revenue is a fair rate; they just prefer that the rate not be legislated," Jake Ward, a spokesperson for the SaveNetRadio campaign said. "The Internet radio industry has never asked for more than royalty parity and an opportunity to grow their businesses to the benefit of artists, consumers, and even record labels. Perhaps SoundExchange's agreement that cable radio should pay 7.5% of revenue is a precursor to an equivalent offer for Internet radio services. It is hard to imagine that recording industry interests would continue to reject Congressional legislation and webcasters' efforts to set fair royalty rates while simultaneously agreeing to the same standard for cable radio services."

The Internet Radio Equality Act -- H.R. 2060 and S. 1353 -- would vacate the March 2nd Copyright Royalty Board's decision and set a 2006-2010 royalty rate at a competitive level with royalties paid by cable and satellite radio services (7.5% of revenue.) The bill would also change the royalty rate-setting standard used in royalty arbitrations, so that the standard applied to webcasters would align with that applied to cable and satellite radio.

For more information on the SaveNetRadio coalition visit http://www.savenetradio.org/

Internet Radio Hearing this Wednesday: Call your Senator and ask them to attend!

Just found this out a bit late:

This Wednesday morning (tomorrow), the Senate Commerce Committee will meet to hold a hearing on the future of radio in the United States. Representatives from broadcast radio, music industry, and Internet radio will testify before the committee about the current state of the radio industry and how royalty fees and other issues, like competition and innovation, affect the future of the industry. This is an unprecedented opportunity for Internet radio to explain its value to Congress, and we need your help to make sure they are listening.

Call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your senator's office. If you don't know your Senator's name, just tell them your state, and they'l connect you.

Or look up their direct number on the senate site.

Here's what you should say:

• I am a constituent, and an Internet radio listener calling to ask that as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Senator attend Wednesday's hearing on the future of radio.
• Internet radio has been a revolutionary force in the music industry since its creation and now empowers artist, consumers, and music lovers of every kind. The Copyright Royalty Board's unprecedented and ill informed decision to increase royalty fees for Webcasters by more than 300% has threatened to bankrupt this important industry and we need the Senator's help.
• The real future of radio for music lovers, artists, and the music industry as a whole is online. To save this industry and allow it to prosper, there must be parity and equality between webcasters, satellite radio, and broadcast radio. Today Internet radio pays a recording royalty fee more than twice that of satellite radio, and terrestrial radio pays none at all. To fix this unfair and inexplicable inequality, please cosponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act, S. 1353, pending in the Senate today.

Details on the hearing:

Full Committee Hearing on the Future of Radio

Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building

Witness List

Mr. Mac McCaughan, Musician and Cofounder, Merge Records
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Mr. W. Russell Withers Jr., President, Withers Broadcasting Group
Mt. Vernon, Illinois 62864

Mr. Tim Westergren, Chief Strategy Officer & Founder, Pandora
Oakland, California 94612

Mr. S. Derek Turner, Research Director, Free Press
Washington, DC 20001

Ms. Carol Pierson, President and CEO, National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Oakland, California 94612

Ms. Dana Davis Rehm, Senior Vice President for Strategy & Partnerships, National Public Radio
Washington, DC 20001

More Details

Radio Royalty Update

Official Internet Radio Royalty Update: both sides still "in discussions". Nothing has changed there. The Internet Radio Equality Act is feeling doomed as congress is more interested in a long term copyright change.

I think what Congress is hoping is that everyone can keep "negotiating" long enough for them to pass the next set of laws. That forces net radio into an uncomfortable position- we're potentially assuming some huge royalty obligations.

I think we still need to put pressure on congress. But I think we've lost their ear.

More Bullshit from RIAA via SoundExchange

RIAA has SoundExchange issue press release to try and trick congress into thinking the royalty situation has been solved. Nice work guys.

The reason many people are signing is because they fear lawsuits from the RIAA. RIAA representatives have been calling webcasters and telling them if they didn't sign by Sep 15th, they would be operating in violation of the law. That's the only reason they signed. It's like a Sporano's episode.

The only way that webcasters can escape the high royalty rates is by signing this current agreement and only playing SX affiliated label music. This means less independent music, and more big label music. Which is exactly what the RIAA wanted.

This agreement is useless to SomaFM because it doesn't even cover half of the music we play.

Here's the release:

Small Webcasters Embrace SoundExchange Offer on Discounted Rate - September 18th, 2007

Individual Agreements Allow Small Internet Operators Subsidized Rates Through 2010

Contact Richard Ades or Gregg Perry 202.640.5894 news@soundexchange.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. - SoundExchange announced today that significant numbers of small commercial webcasters have signed agreements that allows them to continue operating through 2010 with essentially the same terms they have enjoyed under the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (SWSA). These agreements - sent in late August and signed individually with each webcaster - guarantee the same rates through 2010 that qualified small webcasters have received since 1998 for the use of sound recordings owned by SoundExchange members. The agreements are retroactive to January 1, 2006, which is the beginning of the current rate period, and continue through December 31, 2010, at which time new rates will be set either through negotiation or by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB).

"Giving small webcasters more time to build their businesses with below-market rates is something Members of Congress wanted us to get done, and we have," said John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange. "We hope that these small webcasters will continue to provide innovative kinds of programming and a rich diversity of music."

Twenty-four small webcasters have already signed the agreements with others indicating they are in the process of signing. Some opted not to sign the agreements because their business models benefit more from the regular commercial rates (due to their size and the difference in minimum payments). Others did not sign because they operate via webcast aggregators who handle payments on their behalf.

Qualified small commercial webcasters who accepted the offer are now able to stream sound recordings of any and all SoundExchange members at subsidized rates. SoundExchange represents more than 28,000 recording artists and 3,500 record labels, including all the major recording companies. As part of the agreement, small webcasters (defined as those earning $1.25 million or less in total revenues) would pay royalty fees of 10 or 12 percent of revenue. The agreement also includes a usage cap to ensure that this subsidy is used only by webcasters of a certain size who are forming or strengthening their businesses.

"It's a sacrifice our members are willing to make at the request of Members of Congress and in order to give the smallest webcasters below-market rates for an additional limited time," added Simson. "This is a great deal for someone who wants to start or build a webcasting business."

# # #

Gee. 24 webcasters signed this. If you're a webcaster and signed it, I'd like to hear your reasons for signing it.

The usage cap is also a joke: if you average more than about 6900 concurrent listeners- about the audience of a single commercial station in a mid-sied market.

There are thousands of small webcasters. And only 24 have signed on? That tells you just what a huge problem this really is.

RIAA blocking IREA, holding up any settlements

I've heard "off the record" now from several sources that the RIAA has been the party behind a large mis-information push about the Internet Radio Equality Act.

One example is claiming that the biggest internet radio services are giant corporations. With the exception of Yahoo and AOL, most of the largest internet broadcasters - in terms of listeners - are all independent operations.

As Bill Goldsmith at Radio Paradise says:

SoundExchange has been challenged many times, by numerous people (including myself) to give ONE example of a webcaster currently online in the U.S. who could operate successfully under the CRB rate structure. They have never done so, because there are no stations that meet that criteria.

Instead, the RIAA brings up misleading statements of how most webcasters are all billion dollar corporations who could easily afford these rates, yet won't state facts. (I've asked members of the SoundExchange board as well as their news department to name the 20 major webcasters and gotten no response.) WHY? Because they can't name them because they don't have the facts to back it up.

Additionally, the RIAA is holding up settlements that could be enacted (and congressionally codified). Independent artist representatives on SoundExchange's board support a settlement that's favorable to independent internet broadcasters, but since the majority of the SoundExchange board is controlled by the RIAA and the musician's union (which represents session musicians performing on RIAA label recordings), nothing is happening.

Why?

It should be obvious. The RIAA wants to force all webcasters to make direct deals with the Big 4 labels, because that's the way the Big 4 labels get control back. They want to control what you hear over the air.

Don't let this happen.

Get on the phone right now and call SomaFM's home town representative, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office at (415) 556-4862 and ask Speaker Pelosi to demand that the RIAA come to a fair settlement with small webcasters. Remind her that otherwise, the RIAA will end up forcing small webcasters out of business through impossibly high royalty rates. Also remind her that the majority of the "Big 4" labels represented by the RIAA are foreign-owned, and will be putting American companies out of business.

Call her office now. You can leave messages after hours.

Rep. Mike Doyle on Mashups

Rep. Mike Doyle (Pittsburgh) thinks that Congress should explore ways that music "mashups" could be legally sanctioned.

Here's your chance, said Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat whose district includes Pittsburgh. "You always hear about big powerful interests coming to Washington and writing legislation behind the scenes. How would you design a bill?" The question was directed to the congressman's lunch companion—Gregg Gillis, who under the nom de laptop Girl Talk creates digital hip-hop tunes that mash up hundreds of songs. Gillis, 25, has been gaining fame for his feverishly inventive creations. But while his last CD made the best-of-year list in Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, he can't sell it on iTunes and lives in fear of a ruinous copyright lawsuit by a label representing one of the dozens of performers he's sampled without permission.

Full article here

SoundExchange starts new lobbying organization

SoundExchange starts new lobbying organization: the Music First Coalition to go after over-the-air broadcasters and remove the exemptions they were granted in the copyright act.

Mark Kadesh is the executive director of the Music First Coalition, a new lobbying coalition started by SoundExchange to go after over-the-air broadcasters for more music royalties.

Mark Kadesh, previously the Chief of Staff for Senator Dianne Feinstein, recently joined Bartlett Bendall, and they've changed their name to Bartlett, Bendall & Kadesh.

You can see why Senator Feinstein hasn't been too receptive to internet radio issues; her former chief of staff seems to have been in bed with the RIAA lobby.

And SoundExchange is one of Bartlett, Bendall & Kadesh's clients, as is the RIAA, MPAA and NBC Universal as well as Universal Music Group.

Their current and past clients include:

ALDRICH CONTEMPORARY ART MUSEUM
AMGEN, INC
APPLIED DNA SCIENCES
BICKEL & BREWER
BLACK WARRIOR - CAHABA RIVERS LAND TRUST
BOND MARKET ASSN
CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE
CITY OF CALERA, ALABAMA
COALITION FOR FAIR & AFFORDABLE LENDING
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
EASTERN HEALTH SYSTEM INC
EQUIFAX
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF ATLANTA
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP
FINANCIAL SERVICES INSTITUTE
FIRST DATA
GENENTECH, INC
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
INTEL
LINCOLN CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS
LOVE TERMINAL PARTNERS
MAINE MEDICAL CENTER
METLIFE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MORGAN STANLEY
MOTION PICTURE ASSN OF AMERICA
NATL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
NBC UNIVERSAL
OPTIMAL GROUP INC
PMI GROUP INC
RESOURCES LEGACY FUND FOUNDATION
SOUNDEXCHANGE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
SOUTHEASTERN ECONOMIC ALLIANCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
WESTERN UNION

(Source: US Senate Registrant/Client List and Senate Identification Numbers)

They also list their current clients on their web site, which includes the RIAA.

There is some lively discussion about this over at the Slyck Forums.

tricky lawyers and new media

Fred von Lohmann (on a mailing list, quoted with permission):

The history of the 20th century makes it clear, time and time again, that new media businesses are built by "tricky lawyers" helping their clients to plant a business in the lacunae and DMZs of copyright law. Broadcast radio, cable TV, jukeboxes, VCRs, MP3 players, are just some examples. In many of those cases, the legal rationales were far more outlandish than the DMCA rationales being invoked by Web 2.0 companies (in several cases, the lawyers lost the battle, but the businesses won the war).

Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement

`` General Alberto R. Gonzales today highlighted the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to protect intellectual property rights, and announced a comprehensive legislative proposal entitled the “Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007,” before members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy.``

The Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would:

Increase the maximum penalty for counterfeiting offenses from 10 years to 20 years imprisonment where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury, and increase the maximum penalty to life imprisonment where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death;

• Provide stronger penalties for repeat-offenders of the copyright laws;
• Implement broad forfeiture reforms to ensure the ability to forfeit property derived from or used in the commission of criminal intellectual property offenses;
• Strengthen restitution provisions for certain intellectual property crimes (e.g., criminal copyright and DMCA offenses);
• Ensure that the exportation and transhipment of copyright-infringing goods is a crime, just as the exportation of counterfeit goods is now criminal.

David Byrne on Net Radio

David Byrne and Danielle Spencer wrote a good article on the importance of internet radio.

I do want to clarify something that Danielle Spencer wrote:

While traditional terrestrial radio does pay songwriter/publishing royalties for the musical work itself, in the U.S. they don’t pay performance royalties for the sound recording under the rationale that airplay promotes the songs, which benefits the copyright holders. (This determination was mostly due to the radio industry lobbying congress not to collect these royalties.)

This is not historically accurate - this is the version of history that the RIAA likes to propagate! When the original copyright laws were written, Congress realized it was granting a legal monopoly to the copyright holder. So in order to balance out that government-given monopoly it also added provisions for fair use and public rights, such as copying for personal use, exemptions for libraries, and exemptions for radio broadcasters. Fair Use is These public rights are an important part of the American way. We are one of the few countries in the world that have it fair use and other public rights defined in our law. Like freedom of the speech, it is a foundation of our culture. But the RIAA wants to change this, and they're doing it by chipping away at the law.

Can you imaging the outrage if over-the-air radio suddenly was forced to pay huge amounts of money to play music? Music radio would go away, and become all talk radio. Payola would return in a new form: the only music you would hear on the radio is music that the record labels granted permission for broadcasters to play. The labels would then control the music that got played over the air to the public - which is something they have always wanted to do anyway.

Many people, including myself, think that this is all about control and not money. The labels want to control what music the public hear- they want radio to only be an extension of their marketing efforts. So if they can't bribe stations to play the music they want them to play, they went for legislation that says stations have to pay for everything other than the music the labels want them to play.