The Performance Royalty Debate

I'm going to miss this as we'll be setting up for the Bay Area Takeover day party at SXSW, but if you care about the state of radio royalties, go check out this panel.

south by southwest festivals + conferences: "The Performance Royalty Debate
Room 12AB
Thursday, March 13th
11:45 am - 1:00 pm


The United States is the only territory in which terrestrial radio is exempt from paying performance royalties to performers. A coalition of groups is seeking to reverse this anomaly and bring US policy in line with the rest of the world. This legislation faces strong opposition from the broadcast lobby. What are the issues at stake, and what are the chances that Congress will make it law?"

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.

musicFIRST makes some proposals for over-the-air royalties

Radio Ink: According to the document obtained by Radio Ink, the coalition is proposing changes to the law that would do away with broadcasters' royalties exemption and have small commercial stations -- "small" is not defined -- pay a flat royalty rate of $5,000 per year, while noncoms and college stations pay $1,000 a year.

Inside Radio has an op/ed piece by John Simson that has a lot of the usual rhetoric we hear from SoundExchange, but this part was very interesting:

Most over-the-air radio is owned by big conglomerates that centralize playlists. They build multi-billion dollar businesses around artists’ music. People who create that music should receive a fair portion of those revenues.

We want to be fair to smaller radio stations, too. For some this payment may be the difference between being profitable and having to struggle. This is why we are in favor of accommodations for smaller radio stations, college stations, talk radio and religious broadcasters. Small radio stations may not be able to pay like the big conglomerates, and we want to accommodate them. We hear them. We hope they hear us.

I'm happy to see SoundExchange is realizing that the diversity of independent radio is valuable. While Simson doesn't say that directly, by making a jab at large conglomerates with centralized playlists he's giving a nod to the independent programmers and station operators out there who are exposing listeners to new and interesting music, not just playing the same old proven hits that everyone knows already.

John goes on to say:

Sometimes Washington, D.C. rhetoric trumps the truth; the musicFIRST Coalition isn’t trying to put radio out of business like the NAB would have you believe. We want us all to march to the same drumbeat, one that won’t be easy to achieve, but that we hope is going to be fair.

One thing John doesn't mention is the international reciprocal rights that this would give US sound recording copyright holders. Currently, US rightsholders don't receive any money for airplay in non-US countries (that do charge broadcasters a royalty for sound recording performances). So while non-US stations are paying these royalties, even if they only play US recordings, all their royalty money goes to the pool of non-US rightsholders.

Once the US establishes a performance right, those collected overseas royalties will be distributed to the appropriate US-based rightsholders.

That's really the big issue here, and I'm convinced that it makes sense.

As long as those performance royalties are reasonable, of course!

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/

Washington Post: Web Radio Seeks Resolution

Good article in Washington Post:

SoundExchange has already proposed a fee schedule that is lower than the Copyright Royalty Board's rates for commercial webcasters whose annual revenue is less than $1.25 million, and Ades said about 30 companies have accepted it. SoundExchange and the Digital Media Association also agreed in August to cap the total amount of per-channel fees that a Web service would have to pay, an issue that was of particular concern for webcasters such as Pandora that have millions of channels set up by individual users.

Still, webcasters say that even if there are favorable results to the negotiations, they are hoping for long-term legislation that will force all radio platforms -- including traditional AM/FM radio, which does not currently pay any royalties to SoundExchange -- to pay the same rates.

Read entire article

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.

Can Internet Radio survive under current legislation?

No, it can't legally in the US.

We still have a long way to go to get legislation passed. Congress seems to have lost interest in us, and is satisfied now that a few very small webcasters have taken the so-called "offer" from SoundExchange (that only covers big label and SX-member artists, not useful for independent broadcasters!)

Meanwhile, attention has turned to the new bill which will put a royalty on over-the-air broadcasters as well. Alas, that royalty will be "penies on the dollar", well below the 10-12% paid in the past by webcasters, and way below the rates set by the CRB last March.

Paul Gathard at Daily Tech says it well:

Becoming a pirate internet radio station is no way to run a business or to live in peace and harmony with the law. The risk is far too great for rewards that are elusive at best for even well funded statutorily licensed internet radio stations.

If you have a passion for the medium and the music, the answer is new legislation. If you have an overwhelming desire to build an internet radio empire, the answer is new legislation. If you simply want to listen to your favorite internet radio station any time you want, the answer is new legislation. There will be few options or choices for any internet radio ambitions unless the current CRB ruling is overturned and a new law crafted.

Read the whole article...

CNN: SoundExchange spent $50,000 lobbying

CNN:

SoundExchange spent $50,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby against Senate and House bills that would nullify the new payment system set by a three-judge copyright panel in March, according to a disclosure form posted online Sept. 7 by the Senate's public records office.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they only spent $50k. And doesn't this money belong to the artists?

Press Release: Webcasters Stand Firm

(Released in conjunction with SaveNetRadio and the stations listed below)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Webcasters Stand Firm

Deal With Us In Good Faith or No Deal!

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO, CA. – Thousands of webcasters stand firm by rejecting the most recent Copyright Royalty Rate proposal made by SoundExchange. The latest take it or leave it “offer” made by SoundExchange on behalf of the recording industry has done nothing to further negotiations with webcasters, and a mere 24 small webcasters have felt they had no choice but to give in to the record labels demands.

“The latest proposal made by SoundExchange is extremely disappointing, at a time where we need real progress, not hollow tricks.” SaveNetRadio spokesperson Jake Ward said. “While the clock continues to tick for webcasters, SoundExchange continues to play games with their good faith The resounding rejection of this offer should serve as a reminder to SoundExchange, and to Congress, that the webcasting community is intent on a lasting and fair resolution to this issue, and willing to fight for it”

We, the undersigned have made it very clear to the Sound Exchange exactly why this latest offer is unrealistic and unacceptable. Its terms are not viable for webcasters seeking to run profitable businesses. One such term is the newly added ATH (Aggregate Tuning Hour) cap which immediately makes many mid-level webcasters ineligible for the recently presented agreement. For stations with revenues far below the $1.25 million cap, but with healthy listener bases, this ATH cap forces payments at the CRB rates.

This deal is not feasible for anyone who wants to grow their business. It contains the aforementioned $1.25 million revenue cap, which limits growth and puts in place a dangerously low hard ceiling for revenue generation. The Small Business Administration revenue cap for over-the-air broadcasters to be considered a small business is $6.5 million – this would seem a fair cap, with precedent.

Also, the offer only covers copyright holders that are SoundExchange members, of which there are approximately 20,000. Between us, the undersigned webcasters played far more artists than that in the last year. Under the SoundExchange offer for artists not on that limited roster, webcasters would have to pay at the bankruptcy-level rates, which were set in the fatally flawed Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) ruling in March. Those CRB rates were condemned by webcasters, the press, and members of Congress and deemed as wildly out of line and detrimental to all parties concerned – including the RIAA.

We have asked for a reasonable, long term solution, not one that is subject to increase at the whim of the record industry every five years. 2010 is little more than 2 years away, and it would be difficult for any business owner to accurately forecast profits and build a successful business model with a huge expense variable looming in the future.

Although several of the webcasters listed below are currently involved in direct negotiations with Sound Exchange, the process remains exceedingly slow and increasingly unpromising. In the continuing absence of a genuine offer that would allow internet radio to continue to be the vital medium for new music discovery we implore our listeners and fans of internet radio to continue to urge your legislative representatives to pass the Internet Radio Equality Act (HR2060, S.1353).

For information on how you can contact your representative, please visit http://www.savenetradio.org.

Signed:

Jeff Bachmeier, .977
Val Starr, GotRadio.com, 100hitz.com
Rusty Hodge, SomaFM.com
Rick White, BigR Radio. 1faith.fm
Donnie Mowbray, 181.fm
Kurt Hanson, AccuRadio
Dave Landis, Ultimate 80’s
Bill Goldsmith, Radio Paradise
Ted Leibowitz, BagelRadio
Sal Amato, Dot1media
Brandon Casci, Loud City
Jim & Wanda Atkinson, 3WK
Ari Shopat, Digitally Imported
Mike Roe, Radio IO

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.

Notes from the Platform Equality hearing

Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, held a hearing on "Platform Equality", which would end the decades long royalty exemption for terrestrial broadcasts.

Howard Coble (R-NC), Steve Cohen, (D-TN), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) were among those voicing support for the proposal to end the terrestrial broadcast sound recording performance royalty exemption.

The three main arguments for this according to Berman:

The exemption was never justified under copyright law

Calbe, Satellite and Internet have to pay these royalties. There should be no discrimination based on platform.

US us the only major country that doesn't have a sound recording performance right.

Terrestrial broadcasters currently only pay royalties to the composers of the music; the "musical work". They do not pay for the use of the sound recording. In 2005, broadcasters paid $450 million in muscical work performance royalties.

Issa stated that congress is preparing to reorganize section 114 of the copyright act. (This is the sections that covers royalties for internet, satellite and cable services and provides exemptions for some other uses, such as use of music in business environments.)

Issa spoke a lot about HD radio, and the threat it makes to sale of CDs. He is under the impression that the 64kb or lower compressed digital audio sounds as good as CD. HD does not stand for High Definition. It stands for "Hybrid Digital". Unlike HDTV, which improved the signal quality delivered to consumers, HD radio is not a marked improvement. Signal to noise ratios are improved, but there are audible compression artifacts in the audio.

Issa also talked about a flood of HD radio recording devices that automatically split tracks coming out soon. (I think he's extremely wrong on this, there is so little uptake on HD hardware, there are only 2 or 3 HD radios on the market right now, and they're selling very poorly. I've heard a statistic several times that say an American is more likely to be run over by a bus than they are to listen to HD radio in the last year.)

Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis, TN,

San Jose, CA representative Zoe Lofgren was the only rep to speak out on the importance of small, independent internet (and non-internet) braodcasters. While she's not necessarily opposing the rate, she wants a rate that won't hurt small and non-commercial broadcasters.

(more later)

Congressman Ed Markey jumps to webcasters defense!

Congressman Ed Markey jumps to webcasters defense, From Congressional Quarterly:

Markey brought webcasters and representatives of the music industry together in last-ditch talks late last week. Some progress was made in that closed-door meeting and, for now, the old fees are still in place. Negotiations are still ongoing.
"Markey decided to host the Web radio negotiations because “he does have jurisdiction over the Internet, and he has a longstanding interest in the issue."
As a result of the meeting, SoundExchange, the nonprofit that collects royalty payments and distributes them to recording artists, has agreed to keep the old royalty rate in place as long as good-faith negotiations continue.
Christine Hanson, Inslee’s spokeswoman, said he prefers negotiating to legislating. “Simply because of the time involved, it just would be a lot faster,” Hanson said. “But for Jay, the number one thing is reaching an agreeable solution to both sides, where artists feel like they’re being compensated fairly and webcasters can have a sustainable economic model.”

Read entire story...

Congressional Hearing on Internet Radio Equality Act

Video coverage of the House hearings on the Internet Radio Equality Act.

Part 1

Part 2

part 3

part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7 - Mr. Lee from the American Federation of Musicians

Part 8 - Cincinnati Public Radio, Inc CEO & General Manager

Part 9 - Are webcasters trying to make a marketplace solution?

Part 10

Part 11 - The Lemonade analogy

Part 12 - Tom Lee, SoundExchange and President of AFM

Yahoo's Ian Rogers speaks out

Yahoo's Ian Rogers speaks out about the CRB royalty issues:

The CRB made a mistake, handed Sound Exchange a loaded gun, and gave them the option to shoot Internet radio dead. How the CRB came from the testimony presented to this outcome is a complete mystery to everyone involved. I’m guessing Sound Exchange is nearly as puzzled as we are at this point.

He also talks about how it affects big guys like Yahoo, and offers a bunch of insight into the whole CRB rate setting process, and offers some insight like:

I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting with our representatives in Congress and understanding their position. Congress doesn’t like to set rates, and I think we’d all agree that we’d prefer they didn’t micro-muck with the economy at this level. Instead, they set up a process and a standard, we all went through the process, and they’d like to think the outcome served the needs of the people. Our continued protest just sounds like “wah! the rates are too high! wah!”, which they’re sick of hearing and I don’t blame them. So we’ve been working hard to show them that the conversation here isn’t just “hey, we aren’t making as much money as we used to” but really “um, we are losing a lot of money on Internet radio, and we’re going to have to change our offering in such a way that it’s going to lose a lot of its great diversity of programming at the very least or that it’ll go away entirely at the very worst.” But it’s a tough slog and has taken a lot of convincing.

It's nice to see someone in Ian's position willing to honestly discuss this issue.

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

Save Net Radio benefit Sunday, July 1st

If you're in San Francisco, on Sunday, July 1st we will be sponsoring an early evening (6pm-10pm) event at Bottom of the Hill to benefit the SaveNetRadio cause. The event will feature semi-acoustic mini-sets from Ted of The Heavenly States, Matt Lutz of The Herms (amongst other performers), raffles for tickets, tee shirts and other cool stuff. Elise from SomaFM's Indie Pop Rocks and Ted from Bagel Radio will be sharing the DJing duties. IODA, SonicLiving, The Owl Magazine, and MyOpenBar are all helping to co-sponsor, it is going to be a great way to spend an early summer Sunday evening.

WSJ: Online-Radio Royalty Fight Reaches New Pitch

``... the Internet Radio Equality Act, would replace higher performance-royalty rates, unveiled in March, which charge Webcasters a fee per song and per listener, with a rate of about 7.5% of revenue. While that could reap the record labels less money in many cases than the per-song, per-play fee schedule that Webcasters are railing against, it would still generate more than the music companies get from other sources. Satellite radio pays about 3.5% to 4% of revenue in performance royalties. Because airplay for years was seen as promotional, regular radio doesn't pay anything, though the record labels are trying to change that.``

A response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's response to constituents

Several people have emailed me copies of the letter that Senator Dianne Feinstein is sending her constituents who wrote or called about the Internet Radio Equality Act. The good news is that her office seems open to the the bill, much more now than in the past. But her response has two points which need to be clarified, below:

Senator Feinstein writes:

        I understand that this decision has raised serious concerns for webcasters, in particular, who are worried that the increased rate will force their businesses to shut down.  In response, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced a bill, the Internet Radio Equality Act, which would vacate the Board's decision and apply a lower rate for 2006-2010.

The bill more importantly changes the standards by which the Board calculates the royalty rate; and uses the same calculation methods that satellite radio and cable music services are calculated under. Currently, internet radio royalty rates are calculated on a very different (and less fair) basis than satellite radio.

Senator Feinstein continues:

        Clearly, there are important interests that need to be balanced.  I am hopeful that it is not too late for a rate compromise to be worked out by the parties involved so that Congress does not need to intervene; however, I will take a close look at the legislation and this issue.

Even if a settlement occurs between the parties involved (webcasters and SoundExchange), this would only cover SoundExchange member copyright owners. Unlike the statutory law (as defined in Section 114) which allows webcasters to play any publicly released sound recording (as long as they are paying royalties under the statutory license).  A webcaster who signs a settlement agreement with SoundExchange can only legally use recordings by SoundExchange members.  This is why it's so important for congress to pass the Internet Radio Equality Act, which would create a fair statutory rate

Otherwise, internet broadcasters will not be limited to recordings from SoundExchange members, and a large number of independent artists won't be able to have their music played on the air.

If you have received a response from Senator Feinstein's office, please respond (either call or write) and try to clarify these issues with them.

NAB supports Internet Radio Equality Act

From the trade journal FMBQ: "The radio board of the National Association of Broadcasters recognizes that the new streaming rates established by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) will cause significant harm to broadcasters that stream over the Internet," the NAB said in a statement. "The radio board supports a comprehensive approach to addressing the CRB rate determination, including legislation that vacates the CRB decision and establishes an interim royalty rate structure."

Inslee introduces "Internet Radio Equality Act"

A bill has been introduced that will save independent internet radio by setting these royalties at the same level paid by satellite radio services, a reasonable amount (7.5% of gross revenues) which will benefit the artists as well as not bankrupt net radio stations. Call your Representative right now and ask to cosponsor the "Internet Radio Equality Act", just introduced by Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL). This bill will set royalty rates that internet radio pays to the same reasonable level that satellite radio pays. Please call the House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your representative.  (find your representative).

From the press release from SaveNetRadio.org:

The Internet Radio Equality Act would vacate the CRB’s decision and set a 2006-2010 royalty rate at the same level currently paid by satellite radio services (7.5% of revenue.) The bill would also change the royalty rate-setting standard used in royalty arbitrations, so that the standards applying to webcasters would align with the standard that applies to satellite radio royalty arbitrations.
“The illogical and unrealistic royalty rates set by the CRB have placed the future of an entire industry in jeopardy,” stated Jake Ward [spokesman for SaveNetRadio.org]. “This bill is a critical step to preserve this vibrant and growing medium, and to develop a truly level playing field where webcasters can compete with satellite radio.