Important for anyone who likes internet radio
 

From savenetradio.org:

The Copyright Royalty Board has announced a music royalty rate plan, retroactive to include 2006, that could put many locally-operated, independent internet radio "stations" out of business. The new "per play" rate proposal "has huge implications for the many internet radio stations in the DC area," we're told. "A station with 1,000 listeners will now have to pay $150,000 a year in royalties. So say goodbye to indie radio online. You must only listen to and buy what Big Brother tells you to." A local internet radio station operator tells DCRTV that his site would face a retroactive payment "higher than any home purchase in the DC area. Obviously, pending the outcome of Live365.com legal review on the situation, the (royalty group) has effectively killed legal internet broadcasting."

Such a shame that it's all about corporate greed. People should be paid for their work, but at what point do we draw the line? Is Internet Radio really taking a piece of the pie? I'm not so sure..

I stopped buying CDs a few years ago because of greedy record companies. They can take their $15 CDs and shove it.

What if it's broadcast from another country? Say Canada (the alledged pirate capital of the world)

:iagree:

Actually, record companies don't receive performance royalties from radio and television broadcasters. Performance royalties get paid directly to the songwriters from the 2 American performing rights societies, ASCAP and BMI. They are both non-profit societies just looking after the best interests of their members, most of whom are poor songwriters trying to make a living.

What I don't understand about that article is that the Copyright Royalty Board has nothing to do with performing rights. That is under the control of BMI and ASCAP. All the Copyright Royalty Board controls is mechanical rates (for sale of CDs, music downloads, etc.)

Ahh No More Energy 98!

Can someone explain that in laymen's terms :(

I thought radio stations already payed royalties each time they played
a song??? So not on line then.

Radio stations must pay royalties to recording companies and performers, as they do to composers and songwriters, when musical broadcasts are streamed over the Internet, a federal appeals court has affirmed.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule adopted by the U.S. Copyright Office, under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
"The exemptions the DPRA afforded to radio broadcasters were specifically intended to protect only traditional radio broadcasting, and did not contemplate protecting AM/FM webcasting," said the opinion, written by Senior Judge Richard D. Cudahy.
Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, applauded the ruling "affirming our view of the law that artists and record companies should be fairly compensated for the use of their music on the Internet."
Attorneys for station owners and the National Association of Broadcasters, which had challenged the rule, didn't immediately return calls seeking comment on the ruling.
Traditional radio broadcasts haven't been subject to royalties to recording companies and performers because they have served to promote sales of recordings. But Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, which required such royalties from webcasters.
The RIAA subsequently asked the Copyright Office to clarify whether simultaneous streaming of AM/FM broadcasts on the Internet was exempted from royalties, and the Copyright Office issued a rule in December 2000 saying it wasn't.
The federal appeals court ruling, issued Friday, came in a lawsuit by some station owners and the NAB challenging the rule. U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller upheld the Copyright Office rule, and the stations owners and the NAB appealed.
Sherman noted that the RIAA has already negotiated royalty rates with the broadcasters. "And we look forward to continuing to work with them in the future," he said.
An arbitration panel proposed rates of $1.40 a song heard by 1,000 listeners, an amount halved by the Copyright Office in June. Under a settlement awaiting congressional approval, smaller webcasters could calculate payments based on their earnings or expenditures.




http://www.wired.com/c/s.gif

To begin with, just so you understand, there are two intellectual property rights when it comes to music. There is an owner of the recording (usually the record company and/or the artist), and there is an owner of the composition (usually the songwriter and/or their publisher).

As the article explains, traditionally there was no performing fee required for live play of a recording. The only performance fee that is required is for the composition, which goes to the composer/songwriter and/or their publisher.

While I'm sure the record companies are thrilled about this ruling, I would imagine that this will result in most radio stations pulling themselves off the internet. My guess is that this ruling won't hold up in appeal.

Eric I get that and thx. I guess what I don't get is the double taxation.
On air and on line. If all this is broadcast at the same time, isn't
that 2x the fee?:dunno: