backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by mixpix.. on Jul 9 at 2:31 PM

Deal will be legally binding according to Congress

The future of streaming music over the internet was in debate for a long time after royalty rates that the streaming content providers had to pay were significantly increased. The rates would have reportedly consumed as much as 70% of the profits that streaming content providers make.

The News & Observer reports that a deal has been struck between online radio stations and record companies that will allow the online stations to continue operations. The deal comes after two years of negotiations between online radio providers and copyright holders.

The whole issue started in March of 2007 when the federal Copyright Royalty Board significantly increased the royalty rates internet radio stations had to pay artists and record labels. Among the most popular online radio destinations is Pandora. The firm has said that the new agreement will help ensure its survival as a streaming radio station.

Pandora's Tim Westergen said, "For us, it's hard to overstate how significant this is. It was either this or an ugly alternative."

The new revenue sharing agreement between SoundExchange and three smaller music webcasters -- radioIO, Digitally Imported, and AccuRadio -- was announced on Tuesday. SoundExchange is the non-profit organization that collects and distributes royalties for the recording industry from digital radio broadcasters.

Westergen says that Pandora will sign onto the new royalty plan and he believes that other streaming radio providers will also sign onto the agreement. The deal will see large streaming providers pay copyright owners up to 25% of total revenue or they can opt for a "per-performance" rate that is below the rate set by the Copyright Royalty board. Smaller streaming radio providers will pay either a percentage of revenues or a percentage of expenses. Details on exactly what those percentages are were not offered.

John Simson from SoundExchange said, "[The deal will] flesh out various business models" and "[allow copyright holders to] share in the success their recordings generate."

Congress has to agree to the deal since the internet radio firms operate under a government license. However, lawmakers are already praising the agreement and Congressional legislation making a deal reached between streaming providers and SoundExchange legally binding has already been passed.

Radio stations that broadcast over-the-air are exempt from royalties.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By crimson117 on 7/8/2009 10:47:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
internet radio firms operate under a government license

Why does the government need to license you to transmit files over the internet?




By FastangLX on 7/8/2009 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why does the government need to license you to transmit files over the internet


"What does God need with a Starship?" -James Tiberius Kirk


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/8/2009 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 2
That was the best part of that pathetic movie.


By callmeroy on 7/8/2009 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
The New Star Trek Movie?

Wow...I had the exact opposite opinion of the movie --- I found it incredibly entertaining from start to finish.

....And i can't stand the Star Trek TV show(s) either....


By bodar on 7/8/2009 3:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
By mixpix on 7/9/2009 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL. It's from Star Trek 5. Sorry, but that gave me a great laugh.


By christojojo on 7/8/2009 3:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to read your opinion (post mini-review or blog and link please) and why it is so "pathetic" to you? I personally enjoyed the movie. While the new Kirk is not nearly narcisistic as the original, it was still fun. For me that was the only requirement, what were yours?


By Chernobyl68 on 7/8/2009 5:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
He's talking about Star Trek V, not the new trek movie. If you need to be told a reason why Star Trek V was bad, you obviously haven't seen it.
And he's right, that was just about the only good line in that film.
Shatner really screwed the pooch on the script for that one.


By christojojo on 7/8/2009 5:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
I humbly withdraw my comment since, that opinion I can understand without a review. At least it was better than non-stop Jackson coverage. lol (ST V That is)


By amanojaku on 7/8/2009 11:08:00 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know. The Internet is a funny place and has changed the rules quite a bit. If you want to "stream" something over TV or the radio you don't need a license, you just need access to someone who does. In other words, if you want to put your TV show, movie, or album out to the public you pay a station to do the distribution, and that station is licensed by the FCC.

The Internet is different. IAPs and ISPs are the stations, the T3's and OC-192's are the towers, and the websites are the TV shows. Yet it's the show (website) that has to be licensed when it should be station (IAP/ISP.) Why? Because the IAPs/ISPs are providing access based on a ToS or full blown contract that defines what is inappropriate; inappropriate content can be removed by the IAP/ISP without having the government intervene. If the IAP/ISP does not then the government has the right to crack down on it. If the content owner feels his/her content was illegally removed he/she can take it to court just like TV/radio programs do the studios (think Robin Byrd.)


By Moishe on 7/8/2009 11:20:16 AM , Rating: 5
I would say "Because in order for government to spend cash, it must have cash" but the truth is, they spend cash that they don't have...

The answer is... Power.

Big government likes to meddle in every aspect of *everything*. It's just the nature of bureaucracy.


By Donovan on 7/8/2009 12:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need a license to broadcast Internet radio per se, but you do need permission from the copyright holders to broadcast their songs. In the US the Copyright Royalty Board sets the price for a blanket license which allows you to broadcast any copyrighted music...that money is handed over to a non-profit which distrubutes it to the copyright holders according to some formula. The Internet radio stations need this license because the alternative is negotiating directly with every record label for rights. It isn't that Internet radio stations are being licensed to use their bandwidth...if anything it is a restriction on copyright holders that they are required to submit to this licensing system. Really, though, it is just a limitation on the exclusive rights granted under copyright law ("fair use" is another well-known limitation).

The complaint was that recent increases in the license cost made it impossible for Internet radio stations to stay in business. Terrestrial radio pays nothing to broadcast...they actually used to be bribed to play songs ("payola")...while satellite radio pays a smaller fee. The intent is probably to reflect the differences in operating costs, which is done more directly under the new terms by allowing stations the alternative of paying a percentage of their profits.


By MrBlastman on 7/8/2009 12:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is where my problem is - the darned music companies and artists should be grateful that someone wants to freely advertise their artists to the masses via internet radio. Exposure of their music to the public equates to increased sales no matter how you look at it. Why wouldn't they want the additional business?

The music companies have forgotten who pays their salary - we, the people do. They earn their pay by:

a. Providing us with a good product (read: no bad music)
b. Giving us our monies worth
c. Not treating us like dumb sheep and instead treating us with respect

You take a dump on your customers and they're going to get pissed off. The less their music is heard by us, the less likely we'll be inclined to buy their product. These companies are so narrow-minded and greedy they fail to see that internet radio is a GOOD thing for them. If they had their way, they would make it impossible for these stations to operate thus shooting themselves in the foot.

Really though, I don't care. I don't buy music. I don't listen to big label stuff. Usually I listen to local college radio or classical IF I bother listening to music nowadays. I have too bitter of a taste in my mouth to allow these crooks to spend my money.

I'm hopeful that the smaller stations are no longer gouged like they were being before. If the music companies were smart, they'd start spending money in a positive way to WIN our interest in their products and earn our business again, instead of trying to beat us down and treat us like bad children. If you do right for the client, treat the client well - they'll want to do business with you.


By callmeroy on 7/8/2009 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I do feel folks SHOULD require permission to legally play / broadcast / share (whatever it is you are doing) someone's work -- be it a movie, artwork, a song, etc.....to the PUBLIC.

I do think its ridiculous beyond belief when lawyers want to get up in your face for allowing your wife/gf/friend/family member listen to your copy of a CD, borrow a DVD, etc.

The difference is intent. A lot of laws are fashioned around the concept of "intent" even if the word isn't directly used in the language of the law.

The assumption is if you broadcast it publicly any number of folks -- to whom you don't know what kind of character they are --- will be able to redistribute or alter the work and then allow a bunch more folks to do the same.

Where as a close family member is an assumed trusted person of some character that wouldn't put you in an awkward situation like copy right infringement.

I have a good friend who is a musician -- he has told me time and again i can play his music online or share it -- but I still ask him every time for his permission before I send it to anyone -- I do not know well (ie. just a gaming buddy on the 'net).


By FITCamaro on 7/8/2009 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we need half of the crap the government does? We don't but they do their best to convince us we do. And unfortunately people are proving to be quite dumb.


By Moishe on 7/8/2009 4:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
The government likes sheep and sheep like free stuff. So the government buy the sheep free stuff with the sheep's own cash while skimming off the top and paying for the elite's posh lifestyle.

It's a brilliant scheme!


By GaryJohnson on 7/8/2009 10:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
Where your thoughts are worth more than your labors.




By Golgatha on 7/8/2009 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
So that should come out to about $1,000,000 per CD since they'll be "making available" the music for free. Maybe they'll just charge $750/track though since they're settling this dispute outside of court.




Cut copyright length
By fishman on 7/9/2009 8:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
The copyright laws need to be changed, and the length of time needs to be substantially shortened. Copyrights are to encourage the creation of works. Few artists receive payment for works more than 25 years old, so why should the copyrights be substantially longer than that?




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki