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.

SoundExchange to small webcasters: here's your one offer. Take it or lose it.

SoundExchange continues to try and strangle small webcasters like SomaFM, RadioIO, DI.FM, RadioParadise and others. They've offered us a not very good agreement... that among other things says we can't publicly complain about or discuss the agreement, and we can't talk to Congress about anything related to internet radio royalties or copyright law, and we can't participate in the CRB process for the 2011-2015 period.

They have us between a rock and a hard place. The deadline is Sunday, but for all practical purposes, the deadline is Friday, tomorrow.

Pretty soon I may not be able to post any of this in our blog, because we're going to get forced into an agreement that will limit our audience (and hence growth) and create a serious financial drag on us and other webcasters who aren't big enough to enter into direct licenses with the parties that own the copyrights to the music they play.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?