Copyright Board Upholds Decision; Internet Royalty Rates Proceed

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

April 16, 2007, 6:24 PM

Stating that Internet streaming broadcasters' objections had neither put forth new evidence nor presented any clear sign that they had made some egregious error, the three-judge US Copyright Royalty Board this afternoon ruled it would not stay its own decision last month imposing a massive, per-performance rate increase on Internet streaming broadcasters, beginning in 2008.

"We find...that none of the moving parties [that requested a rehearing] have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or a clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant a rehearing," the judges wrote. "To the contrary...most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence that was presented during the proceeding." While those who objected to the rates, which included National Public Radio, argued that they were putting forth new evidence, the judges wrote that such evidence was either already in the record or "could have been discovered during the proceeding, with reasonable diligence."

However, in what could be a glimmer of hope for streaming music providers and radio stations with streaming channels, the CRB did rule that it would not impose the per-performance rate retroactive to 2006 and 2007. Instead, it would impose an increase on the "aggregate tuning hour" (ATH) method that had been employed before, but which earlier legislation had enabled streamers to forego.

While the new ATH rates will represent a rise over 2005, they may not be as intolerable as the per-performance rates. BetaNews projects, based on ATH ratings for November 2006, AOL Radio - the nation's largest streaming provider - could owe retroactive royalties of about $946,000. Likewise, Launchcast may owe $700,000, Clear Channel $365,000, and Live365.com $264,000. Had the originally planned rate gone into effect, AOL Radio might have owed $23.6 million for 2006.

A somewhat higher ATH rate will be in effect for 2007, the judges decided, though the amount that the SoundExchange performance royalty organization would collect on behalf of performing artists would still be lower than previously anticipated. But for 2008, the $0.0014 per performance rate would take effect. While that may seem impossibly small on the surface, consider the cost when multiplied by as many as 30 trillion individual song performances per year.

In a statement issued just after the ruling, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson wrote, "Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet Radio industry - large and small, commercial and non-commercial - so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres."

But as Trevor Moyer comments on the blog Save Our Internet Radio, "So according to the CRB, their decision, which will effectively wipe out almost all of U.S.-based Internet radio - thousands of small webcasters, college radio streaming, NPR on the net, and services like Pandora to name a few categories - is NOT a manifest injustice. Wow."

From here, the affected parties have 30 days to appeal this decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This will likely happen. Meanwhile, streaming providers have until May 15 to pay their 2006 dues, which for some may be crippling though not fatal. And opponents of the new scheme may yet find their long-sought audience with Congress. If so, legislation may be able to change the course set by copyright judges before the Court of Appeals hears the case - which industry lawyers believe might not happen for another year, at best.

Add a Comment (35 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ctpmn

edited Apr 16, 2007 - 8:11 PM

This is rediculous, you can't charge someone for a law you believe should have existed. In other countries you have to pay royalties to artists when playing. In America no royalty is required. This is why any college with enough money for a radio transistor can have a station. This rule would seem as though it would apply to the internet. The fact that they are charging retroactively is rediculous.

Score: 0

By bmatherlyjr

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 1:48 PM

Here are some extra thoughts that I don't think the royalty board has taken into consideration, web casters are triple charged for music:

a) They are responsible for songwriters licensing rather it be ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.

b) They are now responsible for the performance licensing which is monopolized by Sound Exchange aka the RIAA

However, the one cost that everyone is either ignorant of or otherwise not acknowledging is the fact that unlike AM/FM radio, web casters are legally responsible to "purchase" the songs they use to air on their "stations".

This is a contributing cause for the piracy movement, it's completely unjust to not only expect web casters to license the music they use but to add the added financial burden of going to somewhere like iTunes to buy the music that they don't own.

Want further prove of added cost, what about the pending PERFORM Act legislation that is still being debated in Congress? Once that law is enacted web casters will be forced to lease DRM technology making web casting (as if it wasn't already) completely cost prohibitive.

I think this is completely absurd, and the lobbyist FOR the web casters need to make it known that this industry could be a very lucrative venture for not only the web casters but for the individual states and the country as a whole. I hear a lot of double talk from politicians that are vowing to lower the unemployment rate and open the free market so that everyone benefits then absurd rulings like this are upheld.

It's completely absurd.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 1:01 AM

"And thus the US Copyright Royalty Board & SoundExchange ushered in the new era of independent Internet radio."

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 1:16 PM

Register your protest against the rate increase here: http://capwiz.com/savein.../alert/?alertid=9631541

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 10:59 AM

I'm telling you they won't be happy until the wacknut conservatives at the RIAA have completely outlawed listening to music, period. I expect to be sued the next time I hum a tune, any tune. Jeebus H.

Score: 0

By rsx508

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 8:18 AM

I have to agree with that also. It seems the RIAA is bent on making music as difficult or painful to listen to as possible.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 10:36 AM

WOW. Very bad news. I thought people actually had some sense... nope, they just care about their bottom line. Iceholes.

Score: 0

By sucrets

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 8:57 AM

At the risk of sounding very confused, it seems to me this wouldn't be a big deal for the likes of NPR to swallow. If a radio station with a single stream and anyone logging in gets that one stream (unlike Yahoo! Launchcast and AOL Music where each person has a personalized radio station), then we are talking ~$0.57/day. I base this on ~17 songs per hour * 24hrs/day * $0.0014/per song (performance).

Am I over-simplifying the royalty?

Thanks.

Score: 0

By somafmdj

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 4:15 PM

$0.57 per day PER LISTENER. Not per channel. So if the royalties alone can be $17 per month per listener - and that doesn't include the ASCAP/BMI/SESAC royalties (which can add another 5% of revenues) or the cost of your streaming operations.

Even if a listener only listens 1/4 of the time, that's over $4 a month in royalties for that listener.

Score: 0

By Jegar48

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 7:55 AM

This is a case of killing the Golden Goose. They raise the rates and drive the broadcasters off the net and they loose their source of income all together. Any one who thinks they are only going to be paying $10 a year for internet radio has his head stuck in the sand.

Score: 0

By sd.green

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 2:34 AM

This royalty/copyright issue is getting tiresome. I should think that if a concerted effort to simply not purchase CDs/DVDs from certain labels or RIAA members would send a major message to them that this tactic will not work for them. We could also not purchase certain performers CDs and watch the reaction from them.

The RIAA is simply using the Royalty/Copyright laws to maximize their profit margins. They really do not care about the performer.

Score: 0

By scrumbus

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 9:58 AM

What labels are NOT a member of RIAA.. after looking at their member list it looks like pretty much everyone.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 12:58 AM

I bought 2 CDs last week from Amazon that weren't associated with the RIAA in any way. I also DIDN'T buy a third because it was. :P

If you need help finding non-RIAA music, look here: http://www.riaaradar.com/

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Apr 18, 2007 - 7:48 PM

Thanks for that. Excellent resource. I'm working on a draft email to send to every artist that I decide to not to buy music from because of their membership.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 12:28 AM

The business models will adjust, as usual. So you're gonna have to pay $10/yr for internet radio...big f' deal. Or you may get commercials/ads up the gazebo. So after every song on Pandora you'll hear a 15 second commercial (perhaps something like "like this song? click on X to buy it now for only 79c!")

Score: 0

By somafmdj

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 4:19 PM

It will be more like $10 a MONTH...not $10 a year. And come on, are you really going want to hear a commercial every 5 minutes? Are you going to tell me you don't skip ads on your TiVo either? :-)

Even if Pandora managed to sell a song through the iTunes store they'd only make US$0.05 on that song. They'd need to sell each listener 5 songs a day to cover their royalty payments.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Apr 16, 2007 - 10:13 PM

I hope that broadcasters will take a stand, announce that they will start playing independent music, and avoid these fees altogether. This is a way that the Internet broadcasters can make this backfire, and I would be happy to start trying out independent artists.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Apr 16, 2007 - 9:33 PM

This could be a bummer.

That 12% thing they used previously seemed to work. Here is a link to the story I'm referring to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/...aT4Mhq.mLvmjP66WxYjtBAF

"Small broadcasters have received relief from Congress in the past, benefiting from a law passed five years ago that gave them a break on royalty rates. The legislation allowed them to pay about 12 percent of their revenues instead of having to calculate per-song, per-hour rates like larger companies had to."

12% of their total revenues is a nice round number, much easier to calculate with less burden in terms of administrative tracking of every song / item played.

The overhead in calculating on a per song / track / item basis could be enormous, especially if the RIAA has separate rates depending on the tracks played.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Apr 16, 2007 - 8:26 PM

I wasn't buying CD's because of the RIAA. Now, I stop buying music altogether. This is unbelievable, and suddenly I find that I cannot side with those who say that music should not be stolen through P2P or other methods. These so-called artists groups continue to steal from their customers and partners. Enough is enough, from now on my music will be free.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 11:21 AM

and suddenly I find that I cannot side with those who say that music should not be stolen through P2P or other methods.

So there's a point where logic and responsibility get thrown out the window?

These so-called artists groups continue to steal from their customers and partners.

I love it. You guys can't loosen your definition of stealing to cover copyright infringement, but you can loosen it easy enough when it comes to legally charging licensing fees. Nice double-standard.

Enough is enough, from now on my music will be free.

...and this will help the situation *how*? It sure as hell isn't going to convince anyone to drop DRM. It's not going to get them to lower or stop their licensing fees (they'll now need to cover additional loss in sales due to piracy). In effect, other than satisfying your newfound sense of entitlement to something for nothing, it does *nothing* but hurt the honest people by raising their prices and providing more fuel for the case for stricter DRM.

...Excellent. You're hurting the honest Consumer. Just like the RIAA. Aren't you *so* proud of yourself now?

Score: 0

By rsx508

edited Apr 18, 2007 - 8:20 AM

So, then how does EMI's decision to go DRM-free fit into this entire discussion?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 18, 2007 - 9:02 AM

It doesn't?

The article is about streaming radio, the guy's post above me is about his apparent decision to go pirate (though his comment below speaks more to simply ignoring them).

Score: 0

By rsx508

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 10:54 AM

You said "It sure as hell isn't going to convince anyone to drop DRM." Maybe this didn't convince EMI, but something sure did.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 12:15 PM

The "it" you quote is piracy, not internet radio licensing fees.

Piracy didn't convince them to drop DRM. Apple did. :)

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Apr 18, 2007 - 10:38 AM

For me, this has gone too far. Groups like SoundExchange are trying to render the internet about as useful as a television. The licensing fees are way to high and the reasons stated make it clear that they are outrageous. The only purpose is to drive small webcasters out of business. If you disagree with that, I'm sure I can't change your mind, nor do I care what you think enough to try.

SoundExchange has lied and exaggerated the same way that the RIAA did for years. Fortunately, it is likely that Congress will step in an correct Copyright Boards unfair decision. If that does not happen, then it will be up to music consumers to communicate to SoundExchange that they are not going to put up with this. Neither the RIAA or SoundExchange have ever shown a any concern for adherence to any ethical standards. I've heard enough of their lies to convince me that the rest of us might need to show exactly the same level of concern.

Personally, I don't steal music and it's unlikely that I'll start, but I can no longer condemn those who do.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 9:08 AM

While I agree that this licensing is extreme and unwarranted, I don't feel it has any bearing whatsoever on piracy. My comment to you was simply in response to your conclusion that this would cause you to think any differently concerning that issue.

You are right, SE doesn't have the market or the consumer in mind. The company is concerned solely with it's bottom line.

While I would normally expect no less from any company I dealt with, they do need to consider what impact this would have on the rest of the market and the consumer backlash which may eventually have the opposite effect they intend on that bottom line they are so concerned about.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 10:47 AM

I'm sick and tired of waiting for greedy execs., living in multi-million dollar houses in gated communities who are completely clueless about the rest of the world to finally wake up and smell the frickin' coffee. No amount of patience with these clowns gets us anywhere, they simply take advantage and push through more "extreme and unwarranted" policies.

Maybe it's time for a Tea Party.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 12:14 PM

We might want to hold off on that until it actually affects anyone. :p

Right now, you can still buy CDs free of DRM, you can buy online music free of DRM, and you can listen to internet radio.

Until the *only* choice is DRM, the system is working. (it may be hobbling, and having some heart-trouble, but it's still alive)

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 2:54 PM

Nope. "Holding off" is how we got where we are. For me...no more holding off.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 4:25 PM

I meant hold off on the revolution, not on choosing not to purchase DRM media.

My point is that as more folks like you pile on the anti-drm buying bandwagon, the less the market will support it, and thus it will correct itself. (without the need for a revolution)

The only reason we needed a revolution back in the Tea Party days was that there was no way for the "system" to correct itself.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 8:02 PM

Actually, there was a way for the system to correct itself, in fact a boycott was organized and underway. Much as is happening now, those in power found a way around the attempted correction instead of being swayed by it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 19, 2007 - 9:10 AM

Boycotts are useless. It's a small number of people whining in the background while the overwhelming majority continues to purchase whatever this group has decided to boycott.

It's a nice thought, it's a nifty ideal, but realistically, it's completely useless.

The market won't change until the vast majority change their buying decisions. That's how it works.

Score: 0

By pickchevy

posted Apr 17, 2007 - 4:50 PM

"So there's a point where logic and responsibility get thrown out the window?"

Yeah, and the point is clearly delineated, too.

The rest of your post is the usual blah-blah, so I'll ignore it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 18, 2007 - 9:03 AM

I guess that means we can all ignore your entire post.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Apr 16, 2007 - 8:25 PM

Probably the worst decision anyone can make, I am sure when sales plummet because no one wants to pay these outrageous fees thus killing streaming radio they'll blame it on something else then.

Score: 0