OiNK Admin Found Not Guilty

via Torrent Freak: OiNK Admin Found Not Guilty: "the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty"

I love this quote:

“In many societies he’d be an innovator, a creator, a Richard Branson. His talent would be moulded, not crushed by some sort of media organization,” he said.

One of the most important things about Oink was that it indexed a huge number of rare, out of print vinyl releases. Oink was full of music that was impossible to find through any other ways.

I look forward to the future when the big record labels learn to embrace services like this, entering into licensing deals which will make more music available to more people, rather than trying to shut down a service that facilitates the distribution of otherwise impossible to find music.

Yahoo Launch wins appeal ruling over license fees

Newsday: Online radio service wins ruling over license fees:

"In short, to the degree that LAUNCHcast's playlists are uniquely created for each user, that feature does not ensure predictability,' the appeals court said. 'Indeed, the unique nature of the playlist helps Launch ensure that it does not provide a service so specially created for the user that the user ceases to purchase music."

This bodes well for Pandora as well, rumors were circulating saying that the RIAA was going to go after Pandora claiming it was an interactive service as well.

Interactive services, or "Music on Demand" services, are not covered by the DMCA/CRB compulsory license, and have to be individually negotiated with the copyright owners. The original suit dates back to 2001 and originally was settled in Yahoo Launch's favor.

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

Other deals on the horizon?

While the NAB has a deal in place, others, including small commercial webcasters, religions and non-commercials, Pandora and possibly Real Networks (Rhapsody) also failed to come to a deal in time by the deadline of Feb 15th. DiMA, part of the Save Net Radio coalition and the organization representing clients like AOL, Yahoo and other large webcasters, has not announced a deal either.

There was some talk that because the 15th was a Sunday and the 16th was a holiday, that the real deadline is the 17th so there might still be a deal made.

NAB and SoundExchange make deal.

Radio Ink and other journals are reporting that NAB and SoundExchange have made a deal:

"The new agreement keeps the per-performance rate structure but reduces the rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board for 2009 and 2010 by about 16 percent and establishes rates for 2011-2015. This year's rate is $0.0015 per streamed recording, moving up to $0.0025 in 2015. The CRB rates were $0.0018 for 2009 and $0.0019 for 2010."

For a station that plays music 24/7, and assuming 10 songs per hour, this equates to about $11 (in 2009) scaling to $18 (in 2015) per concurrent listener per month (or AQH persons) for their internet broadcasts... or in listener hours, 1.5 cents (2009) to 2.5 cents (2015) per listener hour per month for internet streams.

For a station doing 150,000 hours a month (205 average concurrent listeners per month) that would be around $2250 a month in SoundExchange royalties. 150,000 hours a month is typical of a lot of larger-market FM simulcast netcasts, to that's a typical number.

But we have way more listeners on net than that, and do more like 3 million listener hours (counting only US listeners). So SomaFM would be paying over $45,000 a MONTH at these rates. (Actually more, because without commercials, we play more songs per hour than an AM/FM station does.)

The only way this makes sense for broadcasters is if they're predominately talk or they're getting waivers in exchange for airplay of tracks.

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!

NAB drops opposition to HR 7084

I just got a call from Dennis Wharton at NAB, who told me that the NAB is now supporting the bill.

From what I'm reading on cnet and a few other places, NAB was concerned that they wouldn't get their own deal in time and didn't want to have web-only broadcasters get an unfair advantage over them. But a compromise they asked for was simple: extend the date of the bill to Feb 15th, 2009, and they're all for it.

No problem! The date extension is useful to other groups as well who are trying to negotiate deals, and the only possible opposition of the date extension would possibly be SoundExchange- just because they want to see this settled ASAP and not to continue dragging on.

Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 passes in the House!

Thanks to everyone who called their representatives. The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 has passed the house, now it's onto the Senate. We'll need to call them in the next 24 hours and ask for the support of "HR 7084, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008" (it's still called HR even though it's in the Senate).

Look up your Senator's phone number and call them. You can leave a voice message after hours.

All you need to say is "Please support HR 7084, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, in the Senate. I support internet radio and want to see a fair royalty agreed upon."

The Senate will resume Monday morning, September 29th, and will consider this in the morning. If we leave messages this weekend, we can show that there is considerable grass roots support for it, and it will greatly lessen the impact of the NAB's opposition to it. And calling on Monday as well is a good thing to do; as there is a good chance it won't be passed first thing.

Summary & Background

H.R. 7084 contains technical amendments to the Small Webcasting Settlement Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-321) which will permit commercial and noncommercial webcasters to negotiate royalty rates and terms other than those determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) in its May 2007 decision. That decision was the basis for legislation introduced last year and is currently subject to a legal challenge at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has, thus far, upheld the market rates and terms set by the CRB.

The principal purpose of the legislation is to facilitate a reduction in Internet streaming rates, something H.R. 7084 will permit to be voluntarily negotiated by willing parties rather than imposed by Congress. Essentially, this bill will allow SoundExchange, the organization which collects royalties on behalf of the music industry, to reach a settlement with the Digital Media Association, the national trade organization for the online audio and video industries.

The internet radio royalty issue is NOT settled, as some news sources have reported

The Internet Radio proceeding has not been settled. We are still trying to get a settlement with SoundExchange which can be approved by the CRB judges.

This ruling only applies to Section 115 of the copyright law, and covers "interactive streaming music and limited digital downloads," and it's only the royalties that cover the "composition" of the recording, not the sound recording. Interactive streaming is defined as music on demand, such as Rhapsody or Napster, and not services like Pandora or SomaFM.

Basically, this settled things for Rhapsody, iTunes, Napster and a few others; it doesn't affect streaming radio stations at all. :-( Our issue is with SoundExchange over the "sound recording" part of the copyright royalties, we already have a suitable agreement with the licensing agencies that handle the "composition" (BMI, SESAC, ASCAP).

Attorney David Oxenford discusses this in his blog:

While many press reports (at least some of which have already been pulled) have concluded that this is a settlement of the Internet Radio royalties proceeding - that is wrong. The Internet radio royalty proceeding involves Section 114, not Section 115, of the Copyright Act. Section 114 deals with a royalty paid to the performers, not the composers.

And it's not about paying the RIAA. The RIAA was on the other side of the table from the music publishers. Because Sound Recording copyright owners have to pay the composers when they release tracks (on CD or digitally). So in this case, the RIAA is the buyer, where as with internet radio, the RIAA is in the position of the seller (at least they claim to represent 80% of the sellers).

Internet radio is still in trouble. This did not solve things.

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.

Save Net Radio Press Release

INTERNET RADIO MAKES A COMEBACK IN THE SENATE The Grassroots Movement to Save Internet Radio from Extinction is Reinvigorated by Senate Judiciary Committee – Brownback Offers Industry Saving Legislation

Save Net Radio Press Release

WASHINGTON D.C. – Legislation introduced in the House and the Senate last year to bring parity and equality to the new radio market made a comeback today during a Senate Judiciary mark-up. The Internet Radio Equality Act (IREA), which would establish a flat rate for performance royalty fees paid by cable, satellite and Internet radio providers, was offered as an amendment to the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913) by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) during a scheduled mark-up of the intellectual property legislation today.

The amendment, which was later withdrawn, signals the renewed efforts of Net radio webcasters to reverse an unprecedented 2007 rate increase by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) that threatens to bankrupt the industry. Expressing his “strong support for internet radio,” Chairman Leahy welcomed future consideration of Internet radio royalties.

“It has been more than a year since the CRB raised the cost of webcasting to an untenable amount,” said Jake Ward, spokesperson for the SaveNetRadio campaign, “and all we are is a year older. Last year, more than two million people called on Congress to take action, and 150 Members in the House and Senate heard them and signed on in support of the Internet Radio Equality Act, but we still don’t have a solution. In the past year, rates have been set for net radio’s direct competition, satellite and cable radio providers, at a rate three and four times less than their proposals to Internet radio. It is disappointing and absurd that while Net radio is fighting for its survival, the industry has been put at an even greater disadvantage. This is unacceptable and hardly the good faith negotiations the House Commerce committee directed SoundExchange to participate in more than nine months ago.”

“Senator Brownback has been a staunch ally of small businesses and independent artists whose livelihoods depend on Internet radio since this fight began a year ago,” Ward continued. ”The offering of the amendment today and Senator Brownback’s leadership and dedication to equality should serve as a reminder to other Members that Internet radio and its tens of millions of supporters are not going away quietly. We should all be in this together. This continued battle is perlexing but we are committed to fighting for fairness – fairness for artists, fairness for independent labels, and fairness for webcasters. In the coming weeks and months, SaveNetRadio will be directing our formidable grassroots to support legislation that ensures artists are fairly compensated while leveling the playing field for webcasters.”

Following a March 2, 2007, decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), a division of the Library of Congress charged with establishing performance royalty rates for “digital radio” broadcasters, to increase rates for webcasters by an unjustified and unprecedented 300 to 1200 percent, a national coalition of webcasters, independent artists and Net radio listeners began petitioning Congress to take action. The Internet Radio Equality Act (S. 1353/H.R. 2060), which would set the rate for all digital radio – cable, satellite and internet radio – at 7.5% of revenue, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sam Brownback (R-KA) and in the House by Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL).

In November of 2007, SoundExchange 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. The following month, the Copyright Royalty Board, citing market constraints and a desire not to disrupt the industry, further reduced the royalty rate for satellite radio to 6% of broadcaster revenue –increased incrementally to 8% over the next five years. Cable and satellite radio generated $2 billion in 2006 while Internet radio produced less than $150 million. Under the current CRB ruling webcasters would pay an average 30% of revenue in royalty fees – and as much as 150% in some cases.

SXSW Panel: using music online

Elise Nordling (IODA and Indie Pop Rocks! on SomaFM) hosted a panel on using music online, and all the steps you have to go through for podcasting; using music synchronized with video; videos and sound recordings of concert footage and of course internet radio royalties. A podcast of the panel will be available next week, but here are some pictures:

Elise Nordling, Brian Zisk, Rich Bengloff, Rusty Hodge, Chris MacDonald"

Rich Bengloff of A2IM and Sound Exchange board member talks with Rusty Hodge from SomaFM"

Rusty Hodge answering questions after the panel"

Here's what we learned from this panel: there is so much confusion in the legal use of using music online. Most people don't even know where to begin. Everyone wants to use music (and license and even pay for it) but it's not being "sold" in a way they can deal with it.

We could have done a whole day on the different sub-topics. People want to know. There are lots of people who want to use music online, and legally can't or don't know how to. So they end up just doing it illegally.

Note to music industry: start selling your product in a way that people want to buy it. Or they won't bother to buy it!

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

Ray of Light For Internet Radio?

Jason Thomas at Crawdaddy Magazine has a great article on the state of net radio, here's a snippet:

The original laws were crafted in a time when technology was seen as having a limitless possibility to change everything about our lives, and much of the very things that the DMCA creates rules for were in states of infancy. Given the way the saga has unfolded over the last 12 years, the only way that harmony is going to be reached is either tossing out or amending the DMCA and, in doing so, re-evaluate exactly how the changes in technology have played out in the forms of digital media. There is little chance of fixing the tangle of existing legislation and Copy Right Board rulings, especially given the fact that webcasters have evolved into quite divergent forms with distinct business models, organizations and revenue/profit streams. Treating them the same would make little sense, and would open the door to fighting amongst themselves over a single rule that applies to them all as they have different interests. That is exactly what SoundExchange is hoping for.

I encourage you to ">read the whole article.

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).

Motion for stay pending appeal filed

DiMA and SaveNetRadio.com have filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. If granted this will push back the looming July 15th payment deadline.

PDF of Filing

emergency stay filed

WASHINGTON, May 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An emergency stay filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could delay the looming D-Day for Internet radio. The motion, filed by the Digital Media Association in conjunction with National Public Radio, and the Small Commercial Webcasters, formally requests the court delay the implementation of a "radical and arbitrary" recording royalty rate increase imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board May 1. Legislation that would repeal the rate increase is pending in the Senate and the House, but may not be brought to a vote in either chamber before July 15th, the day the first payments for the newly increased rates for webcasters are due. "July 15th, D-day for Internet radio, is fast approaching," SaveNetRadio spokesperson, Jake Ward said, "and we are hopeful that today's motion for an emergency stay will afford the Internet radio industry crucial time to rehear this case. We have every confidence that Congress will continue to give the Internet Radio Equality Act the attention it deserves with the urgency it requires, as evidenced by the over 100 cosponsors who have signed on H.R. 2060 since its April 26th introduction. SaveNetRadio and the millions of webcasters, artists and listeners we represent urge the Court to give this motion full consideration."

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.