RIAA Loses To Yahoo Over Webcasting Rates

from the finally dept

Well, finally. The RIAA has lost its case against Yahoo over what royalties the Launchcast service needed to pay. As per usual, the RIAA kept trying to add on additional fees. Rather than just webcasting fees, it also wanted an additional royalty for being an interactive service. This is a neat trick that the RIAA has been pulling a lot lately. In the past, every time some new technology comes along, the recording industry runs screaming and crying to Congress about how unfair it is, and how it needs a special new royalty for that new technology/service. But here, because Launchcast was online and combined elements of different services, the RIAA simply figured it could lump all the different royalties together and get Launchcast/Yahoo to pay multiple times for each use of a song. The entertainment industry sure does love trying to get everyone to pay multiple times for the same thing.

But, it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license (though, it still has to pay the basic webcasting fees). The ruling here did not take kindly to the RIAA's argument that being able to choose which station you wanted to listen to (or that you could skip songs) made it somehow interactive beyond regular radio:

"Launchcast listeners do not even enjoy the limited predictability that once graced the AM airwaves on weekends in America when 'special requests' represented love-struck adolescents' attempts to communicate their feelings to 'that special friend'."

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Not That It Matters... But Appeals Court Rejects Webcasters' Challenge Over Copyright Royalties

from the and-ignores-constitutionality-issue dept

Last week, we noted that the DC Appeals court had rejected a challenge to the Copyright Royalty Board's rates set for satellite radio. Michael Scott notes that the same court has also rejected the challenge to webcasting rates. Of course, this is mostly a moot discussion, because just days before the decision, SoundExchange and some big webcasters worked out a deal -- though there are serious questions about how reasonable these rates really are to webcasters. Still, this latest ruling once again highlights just how out of touch the Copyright Royalty Board is with reality. If the current negotiated rates threaten to put a lot of webcasters out of business, and the CRB's original rates were even higher, doesn't that suggest a pretty serious problem both with the CRB and with the appeals process? Separately, it looks like the court had no problem at all ignoring the constitutional questions about the Copyright Royalty Board for a second time. It's as if no one wants to actually follow what the Constitution says...

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why The New Webcasting Rates Are A Death Sentence For Webcasters

from the plainly-ridiculous dept

When the announcement came out this week that webcasters had somehow "come to an agreement" with SoundExchange over webcasts, what was unbelievable was that many presented this as a "victory" for webcasters. Hell, even SoundExchange made public statements about how it was disappointed by the rates, but it was an "experiment." But when you looked at the actual numbers, this made no sense. The rates are ridiculously high when compared to royalty rates for traditional radio or satellite radio. Michael Robertson breaks down the numbers and explains away the myths of this deal. It will almost certainly bankrupt nearly every webcaster out there. Robertson focuses on the big webcasters, and points out that the 25% royalty rate promoted by the press isn't accurate at all, and for a company like Pandora the real rate will be north of 40% of revenue -- which is not even close to sustainable.

Meanwhile, small webcasters don't get much of a break either. Live365 is pointing out that these rates will basically kill off every webcaster it hosts by requiring a $25,000 fee. As the company notes, the guy running the Armenian folk music station for $10/month isn't going to pay $25,000 and certainly isn't going to make enough revenue to pay up.

Make no mistake: these new rates are effectively going to kill off a significant portion of online webcasters. The recording industry, of course, doesn't find this problematic, because they don't like the fact that they can't control webcasters the way they can radio, so they are fine with taxing them out of business. But what a waste of what technology allows. These days, anyone can and should be able to effectively express their own musical views by webcasting what they like. And that's about to become prohibitively expensive for no reason other than that SoundExchange/RIAA have a gov't granted monopoly over any kind of broadcasting.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Traditional Radio Stations Agree To Webcasting Rates; Internet Only Webcasters... Not So Much

from the battle-still-brewing dept

While the big radio stations, represented by the NAB seem to have worked out a deadline deal on webcasting rates, it appears that internet-only webcasters have had their talks break down. This is bad news, of course. The whole situation is something of a farce. Rather than letting the market work the issue out directly, the Copyright Royalty Board (basically some internet-illiterate judges) basically gave the recording industry everything it wanted when it declared what the rates should be -- and made them quite high. Many online radio stations noted that the rates were so high that they would shut down. And, of course, the whole process would make RIAA-spinoff SoundExchange tons of money in administrative fees while separately benefiting the major labels that make up the RIAA by driving the smaller indie webcasters (who play less RIAA music) out of business. A win-win! And, of course, protesting by playing non-RIAA music wouldn't help. SoundExchange gets to collect for that music as well.

About the only reasonable thing was (despite the CRB's refusal to stay the ruling) that SoundExchange agreed to hold off new royalties while the parties negotiated. Time to work out a deal was supposed to end last fall, and despite SoundExchange and many webcasters asking for more time, the NAB lobbied hard to deny that extra time. Luckily they got it anyway, but even the extended period of time has ended. NAB and its big radio stations are fine with their deal, but internet-only webcasters still don't see anything reasonable. On top of that, SoundExchange made a separate offer to "small" webcasters, but most have found that to be way too onerous as well -- especially the part where if they ever get acquired by a larger player, they'll have to go back later and pay the higher rates even for the time when they were small and independent.

And, no one has yet explained why webcasters should need to pay so much money for helping to promote new acts in the first place. Radio, streaming online or over the air, is a great way for people to learn about new acts, giving them reasons to go out and buy products and merchandise or see those acts live. By forcing the very people who want to promote the music to pay ridiculous fees, all the industry is doing is shooting itself in the foot. Again.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Does The RIAA Hate Webcasters? Webcasters Don't Play Very Much RIAA Music

from the nothing-like-a-little-competitive-pressure,-huh? dept

Back in March, when the word came out that the new royalty rates for webcasting were much higher than in the past, we were confused. After all, webcasting helps promote music -- so why would the RIAA (and its SoundExchange spinoff) want to set rates so high that it would kill off this promotional channel? The answer isn't that hard to figure out. Traditional radio, of course, is dominated by a few similarly formated stations that all play RIAA-backed music. 87% of the music you hear on the radio is from an RIAA-member record label. However, when it comes to music on webcasts, the story is quite different. Jon Healy, at the LA Times, points out that only 44% of music on webcasts are from RIAA labels. This, at least, based on the findings of Live365, one of the larger webcasting services out there. So, with more than half the songs coming from non-RIAA labels, no wonder they're less interested in keeping webcasts alive. And, of course, the situation really is a win-win for the RIAA (in the short-term). It either kills off those webcasters who don't contribute to the homogenization of music, or it forces them to pay large sums even if they only play non-RIAA music. Of course, this is a strategy guaranteed to backfire in the long run, as it simply pisses off even more music fans who will simply look elsewhere for music.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..