Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Uh-oh hope this does not affect us!


The Good Witch Of The South

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 19309
Date:
Uh-oh hope this does not affect us!


Copyright Royalty Board Releases Decision - Rates are Going Up Significantly

The Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties for to be paid by Internet Radio stations for streaming music during the years 2006-2010 was released to the participants in the proceeding today. And the rates are going up significantly over the next few years. More importantly, especially for smaller entities, there are no royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue as were in effect for small webcasters under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act. Instead, all royalties are given as a per performance number, i.e. a payment for each song every time a listener hears that song

In a 100 page decision, the Board essentially adopted the royalty rate advanced by SoundExchange (the collective that receives the royalties and distributes the money to copyright holders and performers) in the litigation. It denied all proposals for a percentage of revenue royalty (including a proposal that SoundExchange itself advanced). The Board also rejected any premium for streams received by a wireless service, as SoundExchange had suggested.

The rates set by the Board for commercial webcasters, including broadcasters retransmitting their over-the-air signals on the Internet, are as follows:

2006 - $.0008 per performance

2007 - $.0011 per performance

2008 - $.0014 per performance

2009 - $.0018 per performance

2010 - $.0019 per performance

The minimum fee is $500 per channel per year. There is no clear definition of what a "channel" is for services that make up individualized playlists for listeners.

For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level pay at the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit.

The decision is subject to Motions that confidential information be redacted to the public, so it is not yet released for public review. A request for rehearing of this decision can be made by any party to the case within 15 days. The Board can also make technical corrections to the decision (not affecting the rate). The decision is to be published in the Federal Register within 60 days. Appeals may be filed with the US Court of AppeaIs in Washington, DC within 30 days of Federal Register publication. As this decision may well significantly impact webcasters, large and small, there is no doubt that more will be heard on this decision in coming months. We'll have more details on this decision in coming days.

-- Edited by Ruby at 21:19, 2007-03-02

__________________
This_egg_hatches_on_04/05/06!_Adopt_one_today_from_pickle-green.com/egraphics!


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

I think eventually it will Ruby.

More than likely at some point they'll shut us down becasue of cost.

It's such a complicated system.  Right now we run through Live365 and they take care of everything.  But those rates obviously will increase each of the next six years to cover the increased royalties, and that might make the station too expensive to operate.

We would like to go without Live365, but then we have to keep track of and report all songs we played, and how many listeners each song had.  It could get very difficult very quick.

I just think they're being SO short-sighted (typical of the recording industry).  They should be embracing webcasting as a format to help promote their product.

Radio isn't supposed to be a revenue source for labels, it's SUPPOSED to be an advertising vehicle.


__________________


Doesn't Do Windows



Status: Offline
Posts: 25589
Date:


I don't understand that. Do over-the-air radio stations have to pay those royalties?



__________________




2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

Yes they do, but they pay different amounts.  I think their rates are lower, but they also don't track specific listener hours since they can't.  They get to just base their payments on the quarterly arbitron ratings.

Internet broadcasters are expected to log how many listeners are tuned in for each and every song they play.

__________________


The Good Witch Of The South

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 19309
Date:

Wish we could do something.  I agree, the radio should be like commercials, not the main feature- which is the whole album.

__________________
This_egg_hatches_on_04/05/06!_Adopt_one_today_from_pickle-green.com/egraphics!


Doesn't Do Windows



Status: Offline
Posts: 25589
Date:


But what I don't understand is why. Doesn't airtime HELP the artists sell their music? If they price themselves out of airtime, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot?





__________________




2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

That's what I would think.

I really think it's yet another huge mistake by the record industry.  Not even so much the royalties, as the difficulty in assessing them.

If they were to say all small internet stations must pay $500 a year for a "license" to play their music I'd be fine with that.  But this crap of multiplying point zero zero one one by each song played by how many people were tuned in specifically during that song is ridiculous.

They just don't care.  Broadcast stations will always be there.  Internet stations could disappear tomorrow and the recording industry wouldn't care.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard