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The amendment, which was later withdrawn, signals the renewed efforts of Net radio webcasters to reverse an unprecedented 2007 rate increase by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) that threatens to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.

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.

We've arrived in Austin

We've arrived in Austin for SXSW. The town is already starting to come to life. In this pic, 6th street (the big street for clubs) is running horizontally across the middle of the photo. If all goes well, we'll have the live view shot up tomorrow sometime. The real serious SXSW music action starts Wednesday. but SXSW Interactive starts tomorrow.

CRB Update

Just a quick update on the CRB / Royalty issue:

SoundExchange and small (and large) broadcasters continue to hold discussions on the royalty situation. SoundExchange has made an offer to small webcasters that has some problems, but the base rate is acceptable. (What's not acceptable is the proposed limitations on listeners and revenue caps).

We've verbally agreed to continue paying at the 2006 rates while the discussions continue. I don't think SoundExchange wants to shut down most webcasters; and I've been told by several SoundExchange board members that they think highly of what SomaFM is doing.

One other thing: it looks like the Copyright Act is getting a substantial re-write due around 2010 and will treat analog and digital systems the same. We learned this meeting with members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees this summer.

So that's it: not much of an update, but that's what we know now.

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/

"Small Commercial Webcasters" (upper case) as opposed to "small webcasters" (lower case)

I want to take a second to clear up something: There are a group of webcasters who participated in the CRB hearings over the last 2 years. This group is known as the "Small Commercial Webcasters" group, and it is represented by Attorney David Oxenford. The small commercial webcasters include DI.FM, RadioIO, AccuRadio, Radio Paradise, Ultimate 80s and 3WK. Often times, this group is abbreviated in the press as the "Small Webcasters". Note the capital letters. Now I often talk about "small webcasters" in a more generic sense, referring to those who in the past operated under the 2002 Small Webcasters Amendment, of which there are a few hundred if these. I sometimes also refer to them as "small, independent webcasters" or just "independent webcasters". I'll be using the latter term more in the future to reduce the confusion between the SCW group and the generic class of smaller webcasters. The reason for this is that while I support the Small Commercial Webcasters group (and SomaFM has provided some financial contributions to their legal fund in the past), we are not a party to their direct negotiations with SoundExchange. However, any deal that they get will be extended to the whole class of small webcasters. We are fighting the same war, we're just fighting slightly different battles. I'm often outspoken and I say things that some members of the Small Commercial Webcasters don't completely agree with, and I want to make it clear that I don't speak for them. So when you hear me try to rally smaller, independent webcasters, keep in mind that I'm not speaking on behalf of of David Oxenford's Small Commercial Webcasters group. I have a ton of respect for David Oxenford and the parties to the SCW negotiations, but I don't want to see my outspoken views negatively affect something they're doing. I also want to make sure that people understand that I'm not rallying the Small Commercial Webcasters; they have a board who makes their decisions. While I often talk to members of the SCW and am more than free with my suggestions on how they act, I have no direct influence over how the group acts.

Small Webcaster Revenue Limits

The RIAA defines small commercial webcasters as entities with less than $1.25 million in annual revenues. Exceeding this amount in a calendar year would disquality a webcaster for paying based on a percentage of revenues, and force them to pay on a per song, per listener basis which would be multiple times their annual revenue. This cap needs to be raised if the webcasting industry is to be allowed to grow. Revenue caps this low will force small webcasters to constrain their growth or else face debilitating royalty liabilities. We think this cap should be raised to at least $5 million. The US Small Business Administration "Table of Small Business Size Standards" defines a small traditional radio broadcasting network as a company with less than $6.5 million in annual revenue (and no limit to the number of employees). An internet broadcasting service is considered a small business if they have less than 500 employees and no revenue limits.

Why is it that SoundExchange insists on setting the revenue limits so low?

PBS looks into the shaky future of internet radio stations

In "Radio Paradise Lost?," NOW on PBS looks into the shaky future of Internet radio stations pending a decision to dramatically increase royalty fees on July 15. Will it begin to drive these often small, independent outfits -- including some of you --- out of business? Please feel free to direct your users, listeners, and other followings to see the report for free as it aired on Friday, June 8

Small Commercial Webcasters stance on the SoundExchange offer (via David Oxenford)

From RAIN : the Radio and Internet Newsletter, David Oxenford, an attorney with Washington, DC-based Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, represents the "small commercial webcasters" to which yesterday's SoundExchange offer was directed. (SomaFM has contributed to the legal fund for the Small Commercial Webcaters (SCW) but is not on the board and therefore has no direct say in what they do. However, we are all "friends" and historically, SomaFM has fully supported the SCW group and David Oxenford.)

Here's what David wrote in RAIN:

While there has been much in the press about SoundExchange extending the SWSA [Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002], that really is not what happened. They simply made a preliminary, conditional offer to settle the case to the group of independent commercial webcasters that I represented in the CRB proceeding .

Their offer is to extend the SWSA with some "tweaks" that are yet to be negotiated. An SWSA extension would limit small webcasters to $1.2 million in revenue, and once they earned a dollar more, all their performances back to the beginning of the year in which they exceed the cap would be subject to the CRB per performance royalties, effectively exceeding their revenues by many multiples.

While the $1.2 million cap was fine in 2002 when it was used in the SWSA negotiations, it doesn't work in 2007. This would effectively limit the independent webcaster's growth and investment opportunities, as who would invest in an entity with an absolute cap on their financial growth?

While my clients are pleased that SoundExchange has finally made us a proposal -- after we have been requesting one for the past two years -- their offer is simply to extend the SWSA with some modifications that they want. We are studying these proposed modifications. The independent webcasters have suggested modifications of our own to the SWSA, modifications which were not addressed in the SoundExchange proposal.

We welcome this proposal as what it is: the first step in a negotiation process which we hope to be able to conduct in a business-like fashion in the coming weeks, rather than one negotiated through press releases.

That statement is in sync with SomaFM's position on this, although usually my wording isn't quite as nice as Davids. :-)

SoundExchange Settlement entails further negotiations

I asked the PR contact at SX, "Could you please provide details on the revenue cap and a usage cap and any other modifications to the SWSA extension that SoundExchange is offering?" and the response I received was:

"They are subject to negotiations."

That's the entire response. Now I understand these are Washington, DC Blackberry-toting PR specialists and I did get this response later in the evening DC time, and you can't type long emails on those thumb-boards, but I expected a bit more.

So they're offering a settlement BUT it is still subject to further negotiations.

Not exactly how I define a settlement.

SoundExchange's offer: perception vs. reality

it seems like SoundExchange is trying to diffuse the grass roots effort by trying to strike an acceptable but short-lived deal with small webcasters. The perception is that they're making a great offer to appease small webcasters. But the reality is that there are un-stated changes to the original SWSA and that this deal is only for the next 30 months, and then royalties will increase again.

Their press release says:

[SoundExchange] offered to extend to small webcasters through 2010 the terms of prior legislation known as the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (SWSA) with some minor modifications."
(snip)
These minor modifications include a revenue cap and a usage cap.

The details of of these caps are not provided. What if that revenue cap is $100,000? What if the usage cap is 500,000 hours a month?

I tried calling SoundExchange's news department to get more details on this, but I had to leave a message, maybe they'll call me back tomorrow.

As it currently stands, this press release seems to be all fluff, and no substance, and needs to be called out for what it is: an attempt to derail the current Internet Radio Equality Act now in congress.

Also, if anyone received a copy of the actual "settlement offer" that SX released, could you send it to us?