backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 24 comment(s) - last by dluther.. on Aug 26 at 6:38 PM

New offer sets limits way too low, say webcasters

Feeling the pain of small webcasters forced into new royalty rates that easily exceed some outfits’ total revenues, SoundExchange issued a new royalty structure that consists of webcasters only paying 10 to 12 percent of their annual revenue. Webcasters, however, are only eligible for the new deal if their annual revenues fall below $1.25 million and their audience is below a certain size.

The agreement will be offered to small webcasters individually, and they have until September 14 to sign it. “By providing each small webcaster with an agreement that extends the terms of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act, it takes the uncertainty out of the air as to most of their programming, and lets them continue streaming,” said SoundExchange’s Executive Director, John Simson. Webcasters who do not agree by the deadline must pay the higher rates, or stop broadcasting.

Despite reduced rates, the new deal still faces harsh criticism that the $1.25 million minimum is impractically low. According to David Oxenford, an attorney who represents half a dozen smaller stations, the $1.25 million cap “[limits] the ability of the small commercial webcaster to grow its business, and you can't bring in investors to invest in new programming or new facilities or publicity. Who's going to invest in a business that can't get bigger than [$1.25 million] in revenues a year?”

“This would be a huge step backward for us,” said RadioParadise.com operator Bill Goldsmith, who thinks that the ceiling should be set at $6 million in accordance with the guidelines set by the Small Business Administration. According to Rusty Hodge, operator of San Francisco’s SomaFM, the maximums specificed are too small “by any type of radio standards.” Reflecting on ramifications of SomaFM’s growth in his blog, Rusty on Radio, Hodge wrote:

“If we exceed [the] revenue cap, our royalties would go from $150,000 a year to over $2 million or more a year. In fact, if we extrapolate our current revenue to royalty ratio, our rates would go from $150,000 to $5 million at the point we hit the $1.25 million revenue cap.

“So if we can increase the size of our business to over 1.25 million dollars, we'll be forced out of business.

“This isn't an offer. This is a restraint of trade.”

The deal’s audience limit is also “very low,” wrote Hodge. Stations are allowed no more than 5,000,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours per month at reduced rates, or the equivalent of 6,945 simultaneous listeners, each listening for thirty consecutive days, 24 hours a day. “At the rate we're growing, in 2 years we'll be over that limit with our U.S. listeners.”

SoundExchange’s new offer closely resembles the original rates that webcasters paid, albeit without the revenue ceiling. It “was a fine deal in 2002, when everyone was just getting started and trying to figure out how to make money, and the audience wasn't huge,” said Oxenford. Nowadays, times have changed and internet radio has become a much more accessible — and lucrative — source of music for consumers.

Although the new rates only apply to music by artists who have signed up with SoundExchange, it says it is hoping for “an industry-wide resolution that would have to be implemented by the Copyright Royalty Judges,” noted Michael Huppe, who is SoundExchange’s General Counsel.

“This is an unworkable offer, and it is not in any webcaster's interest to accept this offer,” wrote Hodge.



Comments     Threshold


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

wow..
By Moishe on 8/24/2007 10:00:13 AM , Rating: 3
Soundexchange is essentially blackmailing the webcasters.

"You can pay our fee or go under. I know 1.25 million sounds like a lot but that's not a large company at all. That's also revenue, not profit or anything else.

what a rip off. As usual we see that they're not interested in music, just money (at any cost).




RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow..
By NaughtyGeek on 8/24/2007 10:27:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How hard is it to understand if you want to broadcast intellectual property, then pay for it.


None of them are saying they shouldn't pay for it, they're merely fighting the pricing increase being forced on them by this Sound Exchange group. The revenue of the stations will never support the pricing structure that Sound Exchange is pushing.


RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow..
By Moishe on 8/24/2007 10:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Which morons? As far as I can tell there are only a rare few morons who truly believe that music should be free and legal to download. Those people are bottom feeders anyways and probably always will be.
The rest of us are people who love music and want to continue paying for and enjoying the huge benefit we get from webcasters. There is a limit to what people will take though. $15 is unreasonable for a CD. I personally think $10 is unreasonable unless the album is hard to find.

I think you're preaching to the choir.


RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/2007 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 1
Well maybe moron's was a wrong analogy here, since the OP did not really say it should be free. However I don't really care for the "it's not fair" argument. It does not have to be. Yes it sucks, but "blackmail" indicates some sort of crime, rather than a harsh business decision. Personally I don't think 10% is bad since 100% of the podcasters revenue is based on their product. Without the music there would be no podcast.

And yes I think $10 is too much for a cd (and I don't buy them), but they chose to price me out of the market. Again that is their choice, and yes it seems greedy and does kind of suck. But frankly I would rather give my money to the local bands anyway (lots of them in Dallas).


RE: wow..
By Moishe on 8/24/2007 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 3
I agree completely with your post except for one thing.
It is unfair to receive "compensation" for the broadcast of an artist that you do not represent.

I said in another post, fairness would be if any broadcaster could play music outside of the SoundExchange/RIAA realm and not have to pay those entities at all. They would still be bound by an agreement with the artists or representatives of course, but at least then webcaster, consumers, and artists could make an end-run around those entities if they chose to do so.

The unfairness lies in driving out of business someone who is not broadcasting your music. Who elected SoundExchange the defacto entity in charge of all broadcast royalties?


RE: wow..
By dluther on 8/26/2007 6:38:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is unfair to receive "compensation" for the broadcast of an artist that you do not represent.

Given that statement, who would you vote to collect these royalties? The individual managers?

I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say about how royalties should ideally be collected...


RE: wow..
By Odeen on 8/24/2007 11:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
The reason why I think that music radio (and Internet radio) should be free is that it's 100% advertising. You listen to the music, and, if you like it, and want to hear it again, you buy the music. And, interspersed between all these ads for music are ads for other products.

Therefore, royalties for radio playback have to come down to a level where a radio station can play music and generate enough of a return on the investment to stay in business. Otherwise, SoundExchange is shooting not just itself in the foot, along with everyone else, by cutting off an advertising source that even generates them income.

Music isn't free. Artists have to support themselves just as everyone else. But making Internet radio stations pay for the privilege of airing ads isn't beneficial to anyone.


RE: wow..
By jskirwin on 8/24/2007 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How hard is it to understand if you want to broadcast
intellectual property, then pay for it.


Soundexchange claims to be acting on behalf of artists, but it's not. Soundexchange claims to represent all artists whether or not they belong to the organization and collect royalty fees "on their behalf" anyway. If an artist struck a deal with a webcaster, Soundexchange would still demand that it be paid that artist's royalties at the rates set by Soundexchange regardless.

This strikes me as an illegal cartel, but so far no one has challenged it in court. My feeling is that it will be eventually, and Soundexchange will lose. However until then it has the $$$ whereas the webcasters don't, so they have the control.

But don't think that SE is acting on behalf of artists. It's not.


RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow..
By Moishe on 8/24/2007 10:51:26 AM , Rating: 3
At what point will you agree that SoundExchange has some responsibility? *SOME* artists have agreed to be represented by the old music industry... I support that. A webcaster should be able to broadcast independent music all day long on a separate agreement without SoundExchange getting a dime or having any say in it.


RE: wow..
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 10:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Sure SoundExchange is just doing business, but should they get money from artists that didn't agree to joining the organization? There are plenty of artists that aren't a part of SoundExchange, yet SE is still claiming they represent them, and deserve to be payed on their behalf. That's bull IMO, and it just seems like SE is trying to sap as much money as they can.


RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/2007 11:04:17 AM , Rating: 1
I am not an expert on SE, but yes if they want to play indi stuff then they should not have to pay SE. I am not an attorney, but there must be some contract that either the podcaster or the artist has in place or they would not have to pay anything. My guess is that someone has agreed to dealing with SE (either by playing their artists or some other agreement), and they don't like the terms.

I would think that if you wanted to start an indi podcast, and had the permission of the indi artist, then SE would not come into play. Again I will admit I don't know how it all works.


RE: wow..
By FITCamaro on 8/24/2007 10:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
The stations don't mind paying for it. Just its impractical to have a system where you're either tiny and can afford the fees or you're out of business because you can't. Honestly I think 10-12% of the stations revenue should be more than enough.

I mean 10% of $1 million is $100,000. $5 million, $500,000. Then Sound Exchange can split it up between the studios who's music the station is playing. It shouldn't be per listener either. You shouldn't get charged more because people like the music you're playing and want to listen.

It's not like all the people listening to these streams are recording them either. Most legit stations have protections in place to prevent stream ripping. But if it can be played on your speakers, it can be recorded if the user has the knowledge of how to do it. Should the stations be punished for that though? I can record something off the radio if I want to too.


RE: wow..
By bhieb on 8/24/2007 10:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
Refer to my other respose, but again there is no law saying you have to price something fairly. If they want to price something out of reach of the normal podcaster, then they have every right to do so. Again yes it sucks and is probably not a wise decision, but it is their choice. Maybe they aren't interested in small podcasters broadcasting their product.


RE: wow..
By psychobriggsy on 8/24/2007 11:26:11 AM , Rating: 5
The problem is that in a free market, someone else can come along and offer the radio stations a deal that's more reasonable. It could be that this other body would have a completely different set of music on offer, but it would be an option.

This competition would rapidly see most small to medium internet radio stations migrate to the other offer (if the music range is good) simply because the other option is to go bankrupt.

However the problem is that this SoundExchange group is acting as a cartel - there is no competition. Therefore they morally cannot justify setting any arbitrary rates that they like. Simply because the aim is to kill off internet radio unless it is run by ClearChannel, who will promote a small subset of music on the market in order to drive industry profits.


RE: wow..
By Moishe on 8/24/2007 10:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
They should pay... and the music industry has every right in the world to shoot themselves in the foot. That doesn't make it OK or right it just means it's legal.

Common sense in business is to find the highest price that the market will bear without hindering sales. It IS possible to be too greedy and thus hinder future sales. It's shooting themselves in the foot. It's also bad for consumers because while the entities are busy trying to get more money for their product than it's worth, we are left with fewer choices.

So yes, they SHOULD be trying to make money, and more power to them if they want to screw themselves right out of business... I've already abandoned the music industry.


RE: wow..