FMQB: Radio Industry News, Music Industry Updates, Arbitron Ratings, Music News and more!

As reported in FMQB: "the musicFIRST Coalition filed a formal request with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking them to investigate and take action against radio stations over reports that some of them are refusing to air music from artists who support the Performance Royalty. "

Specifically, they're targeting WMPH, a high school radio station in Wilmington, DE that mostly plays dance and electronic music. WMPH decided to boycott those artists that were promoting Music First. And this likely didn't affect their playlists at all, as most dance/electronic artists that get airplay on non-commercial radio are not affiliated with the Big 4 labels that are behind MusicFirst.

While I'm not opposed removing terrestrial radio's exemption that allows them to play any publicly-released sound recording without royalties, I also think that royalty should be reasonable. And I also think that stations that make licensing deals with the labels they play- labels that still want the promotional exposure- shouldn't be forced to pay a licensing fee for using recordings they don't use.

John Simpson at SoundExchange has repeatedly encouraged direct licensing in response to the CRB rates, including this quote from 2007: "they always have the outlet of going in direct licensing" (Royalty Week PDF)

So why is MusicFirst (of which SoundExchange is a supporting member and financial backer of) getting so upset when a broadcaster says it won't play material from artists who are proponents of this royalty?

You can't force broadcasters to play your music and then charge them for it.

Perhaps once more broadcasters start following the lead of WMPH, we'll start to hear more innovative music on the airwaves, and not just the same old derivative stuff that the big labels try to foist off on the public all the time.

And then maybe them, the labels will start to acknowledge the promotional value that radio exposure can give.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Does the New Administration change anything for radio royalties?

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

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

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

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

NAB opposing Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008

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

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

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

House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property passed the Performance Rights Act

The fight between the RIAA and the NAB is heating up.  The RIAA scored one when the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property passed the Performance Rights Act. I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't like the fact that net radio has to pay high royalties while over the air radio doesn't.  On the other hand, I don't want to see AM/FM broadcasters forced to pay the same ridiculous rates that we have to pay. 

I really think this is going to backfire on the RIAA and it's major label members.

Satellite distribution is expensive

I've been looking in to getting Groove Salad distributed over satellite- we've had a few college / public radio stations ask about using it for their weekend and overnight programming. While we have a deal with NPR for distribution of Groove Salad over the NPR satellite service, it's only for use on HD radio multicast channels, and is not allowed to be used for over-the-air analog use.

So I looked into what it would cost to have PRSS (the public radio satellite system) give us a 24x7 satellite feed - which would make it really easy for any over-the-air station to broadcast us (since they already have the equipment for it in place).

It's expensive. $13,000 a month. A 12 hour a day feed would cost $9625. Add onto that the cost of a T1 back to Washington DC to feed their uplink - that's going to be about $1000 more a month, plus another $3000 or so for the Musicam encoding hardware.

I also talked to the folks from Clear Channel Satellite Services when I was at NAB. They're a bit less expensive; but with everything (the T1, sat time) it was going to be around $9500 a month with a 2 year commitment. The caveat is that most public radio stations don't have the satellite gear to receive the Clear Channel satellite feeds; on the other hand, most commercial stations do.

Alternatively, we could use an internet-based solution, the problem is that many of them now have too much buffer delay (10 seconds or more, vs half a second for satellite). There are low latency "over the internet" systems from Musicam, Comrex and others, but they require expensive hardware at both ends.

We'd love to get our programs out there in more places, but the non-internet distribution costs are still quite high.

Airchecks of LA or SF radio from mid 1970s?

I'm trying to find some full length airchecks from the LA and SF areas from 1973-1978. Of particular interest would be KNX-FM from 1975-1977, and KKDJ from about 1974 until a bit before they became KIIS-FM. I'd also love to find some KROQ from 1978-1980. And any other "Boss Radio" airchecks. (KHJ, etc). I'm looking for the full length ones, not "scoped" stuff. I just got a working reel-to-reel deck again, and I've been transcribing to MP3 some of my old recordings. One thing I will be posting in the next few weeks is the last days of KNX-FM before they became KKHR. One thing I've noticed from listening to these is that Radio used to be good. Voice tracking and automation abuse killed popular radio. (Although KNX-FM was automated and it was one of the greatest FM stations of all time. Automation is a tool; when used correctly it can sound great, when used poorly, it sounds like Chear Channel's HD2 stations.)

Clear Channel and HD radio leverage iTunes for brand awareness

Clear Channel adds HD radio tagging for iTunes: "Clear Channel Radio, the largest radio broadcaster in the United States, is now tagging tracks played on its digital radio stations to help listeners buy music through iTunes. The company is leveraging HD radio technology to provide the new service."

What does that mean? In reality, it means if you have a compatible HD Radio with an iPod dock (which there is apparently only one model at the moment), if you are listening to HD radio (not analog FM, but only HD radio), and you hear a track you like, you press a button. Then the next time you dock your iPod, that list of "tagged" songs is transferred to your iPod in a special playlist. Then when you sync to your computer, you'll have a new playlist in iTunes that doesn't have the actual songs, but the names of songs you tagged. At that point, you can buy the songs on iTunes, and then add them to a new playlist, and then load them onto your iPod.

To use internet radio people, this sounds silly. After all, we have a list that shows everything we've played recently, and that list links to where you can buy the tracks or CDs.

What is the real reason for this "breakthrough technology"? Twofold: 1. It brings up the awareness of HD radio to people who are googling for "ipod". 2. It is an attempt to show the music industry that radio does indeed promote records and that's why terrestrial radio should continue to get an exemption from sound recording royalties.

Note to radio manufactures: a feature in a radio that would be really useful? TiVo-like features. The ability to record the end of a show after you've turned off your car; or a timed recording of a show so you always get the full program you want to listen to. Or a button that you press that saves the last 5 minutes of what you've just heard.

Or how about this lower tech solution: press a button and it stores the name of the song you're playing. You could then recall a list of the songs you liked, right there on the display of the radio. No need to dock, sync, undock, sync again, etc.

But by the time you've gone through all the steps it takes to use the "iTunes Tagging" from HD radio, it would probably be faster to just to write down the song name!

Top (terrestrial) Radio Execs start sounding desperate

Emmis Broadcasting CEO Jeff Smulyan, quoted in Radio Ink, confirms that he just doesn't get it:

'We're not hiding from new technology, we're driving it. One of the hottest-selling features for the iPod is an FM tuner.'

Or maybe it isn't? Here's the top 10 selling iPod accessories from the Apple Store as of 3-April-08, and I don't see the FM tuner anywhere on it. But the more important thing he's missing is that the FM radio is an iPod remote as well. In fact, it's the only remote control for the iPod that Apple sells now (aside from the one that requires a dock).

'...But one of the biggest reasons for MP3 sales over iPods is that tuners are built in.' The iPod is nearly the only digital audio player available that doesn't come with an FM tuner, but Smulyan said said he believes Apple will soon commit to radio tuners in its market-dominating device.

And I believe Google will give me billions of dollars. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's a nice fantasy world to live in.

Terrestrial radio has to keep repeating this, hoping someone will believe that people do listen to commercial terrestrial radio to discover new music. I think they're just saying that to try and stop the tide of the approaching music royalties being pushed by MusicFirst and the RIAA.

Terrestrial radio across the country adds in total less than 30 tracks a week. That's across all commercial formats, all across America. A typical FM station might add a few tracks each week. Look in the music trades- most stations list less than 5 adds a week. I can discover more music than that just by browsing the recommendations on the iTunes store.

'Our goal, in the next five years, is to have a radio tuner in every portable phone, in every PDA sold in the United States,' Smulyan said. 'We want to reach 400 million more devices in the next five years.' "

I guess I should be thankful that he's not saying put a HD radio receiver in every iPod. (Among other things, that would be a huge battery killer as well).

Tell my why would Apple want to add an AM/FM tuner in to all their iPhones and iPods? It's a $49 accessory with a cost of goods of well under $5, so why would they want to give up that margin, especially if Smulyan is correct and it is actually one of the biggest selling accessories for the iPod? They probably make more margin on it than they do on the Shuffle itself.

People are caring less and less about AM/FM radio all the time. Look at the demographics: they're not getting any new customers. And they're losing a lot of their old customers.

Oh, and Radio Execs: it's not all about the technology. It's about providing the content that people want. And terrestrial hasn't been doing that for a long, long time.

The biggest stumbling block to the death of terrestrial radio altogether is current copyright law. The fact that we have to jump through hoops to distribute Podcasts, the facts that there are so many limitations to the Section 114 music licensing, the fact that we have to pay such high royalties: these are what is keeping digital radio from completely obliterating terrestrial radio.

I'll leave you with one last comparison: Shortwave Radio. This used to be huge 40-60 years ago. There were stations all around the world broadcasting over Shortwave to reach global audiences. People would buy special radios just to pickup the BBC in the US. But now no one listens to shortwave, and many shortwave stations are shutting down their shortwave transmitters, going online instead, because no one listens to shortwave over the air anymore.

AM/FM: You're next. What you should focus on is creating incredible programming that you can stream and podcast, and stop worrying about your expensive transmitters.

HD Radio isn't going to save you. Cookie-cutter HD2 channels aren't going to help you. Forcing manufacturers to include AM/FM radios in mobile devices isn't going to help you. You've lost the battle. Move on.

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?"

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.

No one is listening to over the air radio anymore.

Over the air radio continues to bleed listeners. Is is the technology? Is it the programming? Of course, I think it's the latter. Regardless, it's losing audience share. Why? More choices. And as soon as we have internet in cars, AM/FM listening will plummet even more.

Inside Radio 14-Nov-07 reports:

Summer book Persons Using Radio (PUR) numbers declined to their lowest level since Arbitron began keeping statistics in Fall 1998. Radio usage dropped in every cell except 50-54s. Steepest declines continue to be among teenagers and young adults, as their attention is increasingly diverted to other media. That’s especially true among males, with Men 18-24 and 18-34 cells posting the biggest year-over-year declines. But the crowded media world is also taking a toll on the 25-54 money demo, which fell 15.1-14.9. There’s also a disturbing trend among female demos. In the Summer book not a single female cell saw an increase in listening. All but two (50-54 and 65+) declined. Compare that to male demos. While older women mirror the trend of listening less, the Summer book shows Men 45-64 were listening to the radio more.

via Hear 2.0

The Promotional Value argument

There is a valid argument that todays corporate radio operations (e.g. CBS, Clear Channel) is not providing adequate promotional benefit to record companies to justify their exemption from a performance right royalty (much like internet radio already pays).

But the argument that there is no promotional value for radio is a weak one, and an argument that I wish MusicFirst (the association backed by SoundExchange, RIAA and many independent record labels) would stop using.

In the testimony from Alice Peacock (a singer/songwriter) she said something that bothers me because of the context she uses it in:

Frankly, the promotion argument sounds a little silly. Last week I bought a pair of Nike shoes. I wear them everywhere—well, except to Senate hearings. With the Nike logo on my feet, I am probably promoting their brand wherever I go. Can you imagine if I decided not to pay for the shoes on the grounds that my promoting Nike should excuse me from payment? My refusal to pay would be called "shoplifting." But radio's refusal to pay artists is called "business as usual."

Wearing shoes with a logo around town may not be significant promotional value; but once she brings those logos on stage in front of a large audience, it's a different matter!

You don't think the popular performing artists wearing clothes with the big designer labels are buying all that stuff themselves? No, the designers give them to them to get the promotional publicity for seeing their brand worn by a star.

It's also common for performing musicians to get lots of gear and other goodies in exchange for promotional consideration. Guitars, drums, cymbals, keyboards are commonly given to popular musicians to use, so that aspiring musicians will see them and want to buy that brand as well. Why do you think so many drummers have their drum brand in huge letters on their drums? And it's been going on that way for decades.

Radio has a tremendous amount of promotional value. However, the way many stations do things in this new media-consolidated world detract a lot of value from that promotion. How often do you hear a radio DJ play a new song, and mention the album name or the label it's on?

The other argument against promotional value (the one that no one seems to like to talk about) is that while radio can promote songs, that promotion doesn't always turn into a purchase. This is something that radio needs to help fix: right now, many people hear something on the radio and then go out and download a free copy of it. Promotional value only has value if it brings in money.

What I've done at SomaFM is made sure that we have links to where people can buy CDs and legal downloads when they hear something on our station. It's not a perfect solution yet because we play a lot of stuff that's not available for legal download; or it's out of print or otherwise hard to obtain a copy of.

Another problem that is really a record industry problem and not a radio problem is the fact that there are so many "for promotion only" CDs ending up on Amazon, Half.com and brick and mortar stores like Amoeba Records. If you go to buy a CD and can get a used FPO copy for half the price, you'll buy it - who cares if there is a hole punched in the UPC. This is a case when the value of radio promotion goes to the wrong person - the used CD store and not the sound recording rights holder.

Labels: you need to do some work on this as well. Meet broadcasters halfway. Make sure that when people go to obtain your recordings that they can do it legally and quickly. And broadcasters should be telling people how to buy the music they're playing as well. Then everyone benefits.

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!

Groove Salad, HD Radio, and is there anybody out there?

You know that we do a special version of Groove Salad for NPR, right? The catch is that it's for NPR member stations to use on their HD2 channels, which require a special HD radio, which hardly anyone actually owns.

Still, we've got a few NPR affiliates that carry us, and KPBS in San Diego was one of the first. Alas, apparently they switched formats and no one noticed:

KPBS-FM changed formats last week on its subchannel and nobody seemed to notice or call the station to complain, a surprising development considering how rabid KPBS listeners are about griping when the station does anything. (North County Times)

They go on to say:

KPBS plans to begin offering a second subchannel, known as HD-3, within the next few weeks. In a bit of a switcheroo, it will offer a format called "Groove Salad" that was previously on its first subchannel, known as HD-2.

Despite its godawful name, Groove Salad apparently has an audience, at least on the Internet. It features a lot of "chill" music that helps people relax and, if they're HD Radio executives, forget their woes for the moment. (Listen yourself at somafm.com.)

Meanwhile, a 24-hour classical music feed from Minneapolis that provides programming to KPBS at night replaced Groove Salad on the station's HD-2 subchannel.

Whew. We're coming back. And by the time we're back, there might be more than 50 people in San Diego with HD radio receivers!

Which reminds me: If you want Groove Salad in your car, and are willing to spend $200-300 on a HD radio receiver, call your local NPR station and ask them if they have plans to carry Groove Salad on their HD2 channel.

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...

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)

Performance Right and Platform Parity webcast

Tuesday, 31-Jul-07, Elise and I will be attending the hearing of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Hearing on Ensuring Artists Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance Right and Platform Parity for the 21st Century hearings will be webcast live(RealVideo)

I'll post an archive link as soon as I get it.

RIAA blocking IREA, holding up any settlements

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

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

As Bill Goldsmith at Radio Paradise says:

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

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

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

Why?

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

Don't let this happen.

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

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

Music First: Radio does not sell records

According to a study by Stan Liebowitz for the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation linked (but apparently now removed) from the Music First coalition website's FAQ states:

Radio does not have the positive impact on record sales normally attributed to it. Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a compliment.

A more detailed abstract of the study:

This paper undertakes an econometric investigation of the impact of radio play on sales of sound recordings using a sample of American cities. The results indicate that radio play appears to have an economically important negative economic impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a complement. This research exposes an important fallacy of composition in applying to the entire market a conclusion based upon the positive relationship between radio broadcasts of particular sound recordings and the sales of those particular sound recordings. This finding imposes a more complete view of the implications of economic suggestions to allow the radio/record market to function unhindered by government regulations.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to read the full study before they took it down. (Maybe they took it down because they didn't have the proper copyright clearances to publish it on their site, oh the irony.) But radio Consultant Mark Ramsey, who did read the whole thing, makes this comment:

Even if we accept the conclusion that some radio listeners don't buy music and further accept that radio satisfies whatever need they have, the author of the study doesn't acknowledge the tangible difference between the stealing of music via P2P and the fact that radio stations do indeed already pay considerable license fees to play the music industry's content on the public airwaves. This notion that radio is getting something for nothing is downright offensive.

After a bit of searching, I tracked down an online preliminary version of this report (PDF) if you want to read it yourself.

Stan Liebowitz has flip-flopped about similar issues in the past, writing a paper for the CATO institute that said MP3s were killing music, then saying in 2002 the decline in music sales was in sync with the overall decline in the economy, but then in 2003 blaming MP3s for declining music sales again, based on data supplied by the RIAA.

I guess I'm just curious about how the record industry thinks people find out about new music, if it's not over the radio, or from file sharing, or what. How many people are going to want to buy something they haven't heard about?