R23 Information Services #134

8 Steps Broadcasters Can Take To Expand Their Digital Presence in 2010

audio4cast

Warner Music Signs With Hulu (Comcast/NBC/Universal)

hypebot

10,000 Sonicbids Members Get $4 Million From SoundExchange

hypebot

Real-Time Search For Online Radio

radio2020

Formula can ID music industry payola

buffalo.edu

R23 Information Services #121

WFMU launches Ichiban Rock & Soul and Ubu Audio
http://mp3stream.wfmu.org:443/listen.pls
http://ubustream.wfmu.org/listen.pls

Bill Mann: Internet radio brings the world to your home
mercurynews.com

SoundExchange, Broadcasters Chat At RAIN Summit East
audio4cast

Radio’s Looming Crisis Is Not Digital
The Infinite Dial

Wireless carriers beg FCC for spectrum, blame smartphones
arstechnica

Sprint Banks on WiMax to Win Back Market Share
nytimes

Employers grappling with social network use
cnet

R23 Information Services #111

World’s first dial-free radio unveiled
telegraph.co.uk

SoundExchange/CPB Deal Is Extended
comm law blog

Internet Evolution Launches IE Radio With craigslist’s Founder
foxbusiness.com

Clear Channel reports $3.7 billion quarterly loss
bizjournals.com

CMX vs. Cocktail, another battlefield in Apple vs. labels
Guardian.

R23 Information Services #105

Comcast & TWC Launch Mobile WiMAX

dailywireless.org

SoundExchange, Webcasters Reach New Agreements

billboard

Why The FCC Wants To Smash Open The iPhone

techcrunch

Clear Channel to Sell Ads for Pandora

adage

Another New Model: Label signed by Artist

hypebot

R23 Information Services #101

The webcasting deal: What took so long?
latimes

Hold on, pandora didn't save all internet radio
nytimes

Sadly, Pandora Is Still Going Bankrupt
michaelrobertson.com

Why National Public Radio's Mobile Web Approach Works
poynter.org

Sprint Gains Network Advantage: Deal with Ericsson Delivers Competitive Edge

Briefing dates set on internet radio royalty court appeal

From David Oxenford in Broadcast Law Blog:

The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia has set the briefing dates on the appeal filed by various webcasting groups seeking review of the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting Internet radio royalties for the period 2006-2010 for the use of sound recordings (see our coverage of this controversy here, and a detailed summary of the CRB decision here). The briefs of the various webcasting groups who appealed are due on February 25. The brief for the CRB (represented by the Department of Justice) is due on April 25, and that of SoundExchange (the "Intervenor) will be filed on May 15. Reply briefs are due on June 12, and oral arguments are yet to be scheduled. As the Court usually takes a summer break in July and August, the argument is likely to be held in the Fall of 2008, and a decision would likely not come until very late in the year or, more likely, in 2009.

Appeals were filed by the a number of groups including large webcasters (including AOL, Yahoo and DiMA), the small commercial webcasters, various noncommercial groups (including two collegiate broadcasting groups and the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music Licensing Committee), and various commercial broadcasters who also stream their signals on the Internet. A group called Royalty Logic, which is seeking to become a collective that is competitive with SoundExchange, also filed an appeal of the CRB decision.

Already, there has been a settlement announced on one narrow aspect of the case, the minimum fees for companies that stream multiple channels, limiting the per company minimum fee to $50,000. Obviously, if there are other settlements, these appeals could become unnecessary in whole or in part.

Another offer from SoundExchange - still not a solution

From Broadcast Law Blog:

Yesterday, SoundExchange sent to many small webcasters an agreement that would allow many to continue to operate under the terms of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act as crafted back in 2002, with modifications that would limit the size of the audience that would be covered by the percentage of revenue royalties that a small webcaster would pay. A press release from SoundExchange about the offer can be found on their website by clicking on the "News" tab. This is a unilateral offer by SoundExchange, and does not reflect an agreement with the Small Commercial Webcasters (the “SCWs”) who participated in the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding to set the rates for 2006-2010 and who are currently appealing the CRB decision to the US Court of Appeals (see our notes on the appeal, here). The SoundExchange offer, while it may suffice for some small operators who do not expect their businesses to grow beyond the limits set out in the SWSA (and who only play music from SoundExchange artists - see the limitations described below), still does not address many of the major issues that the SCWs raised when SoundExchange first made a similar proposal in May, and should not be viewed by Congress or the public as a resolution of the controversy over the webcasting royalties set out by the CRB decision.

The proposal of SoundExchange simply turns their offer made in May, into a formal proposal. It does not address the criticisms leveled against the offer when first made in May, that the monetary limits on a small webcaster do not permit small webcasters to grow their businesses – artificially condemning them to be forever small, at best minimally profitable operations, in essence little more than hobbies. The provisions of the Small Webcasters Settlement Act were appropriate in 2002 when they were adopted to cover streaming for the period from 1998 through 2005, as the small webcasters were just beginning to grow their businesses in a period when streaming technologies were still new to the public and when these companies were still exploring ways to make money from their operations. Now that the public has begun to use streaming technologies on a regular basis, these companies are looking to grow their businesses into real businesses that can be competitive in the vastly expanding media marketplace. The rates and terms proposed by SoundExchange simply do not permit that to occur.

To receive investment necessary to grow, the SCWs cannot be limited to $1.25 million in revenue. No investor will invest in a business which, when it reaches an artificial revenue threshold, essentially is forced to go bankrupt – as all projections show that the CRB royalties would exceed total revenue of a SCW even if it makes more than $1.25 million in revenue.

The new restriction added in this offer by SoundExchange, one that requires a small webcaster to pay at the CRB rate for all listening that exceeds 5,000,000 aggregate monthly tuning hours, would already have some SCWs paying substantial sums in addition to the percentage of revenue royalty. And, at the growth rates projected for some SCWs, the amount necessary to pay such overages could exceed the $1.25 million revenue threshold – exceeding the amount of revenue that a small webcaster is allowed to earn under the SWSA provisions.

Even more importantly, it must be noted that the offer by SoundExchange does not allow a webcaster to play all music for their 10-12% of revenue as did the Small Webcaster Settlement Act – it only allows them to play music of SoundExchange members. For all music from artists who are not SoundExchange members, the full CRB-determined royalty would have to be paid. Thus, a webcaster will have to assess its music choices, and play only the songs released by SoundExchange members (principally the major labels and some independent labels) rather than the diversity of music from small labels and independent artists, the kinds of music that the statutory royalty was supposed to make easier to play through the “one-stop shop” that a statutory license provides to an Internet radio service.

SoundExchange has informally indicated that it will continue discussions as to the concerns of the SCWs. The only way to resolve these issues is through meaningful negotiations, or through legislation like that proposed in the Internet Radio Equality Act. Unilateral proposals simply don’t address all the issues that have caused so much outrage over the CRB decision. In order for these independent companies to build profitable businesses that will promote music and be able to pay reasonable royalties, something more than what SoundExchange has offered must be available.

Webcast royalty bill, negotiations hit impasse

From Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired:

A federal bill that would reset music royalties at a more affordable rate for thousands of internet radio stations is losing steam in the House of Representatives, raising new fears for the future of webcasting.
First-time webcasting fees proposed by recording industry royalty-administration group SoundExchange took effect last month, setting off a wave of protests and last-minute negotiations aimed at reducing the hit for smaller webcasters and capping rates for sites that support hundreds of customized stations.
Negotiations are ongoing, but chances of broad legislative relief in the form of the Internet Radio Equality Act, or IREA, are fading fast, according to several people familiar with the effort. Rather, Congress appears resolved to let SoundExchange and the various strata of webcasters negotiate individual settlements.
"We met with members of the House and Senate judiciary committees this week, and while they all were supportive of small webcasters, time after time we heard the IREA was not going to pass," said Rusty Hodge, founder of webcaster SomaFM.
A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position.
The importance of legislative pressure in the negotiation process was underscored late Thursday. In a joint statement, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) said they were "troubled by the lack of negotiating progress" and promised to take action to push the IREA bill forward if agreements are not made by Sept. 3. Given the lack of support in the House, however, the chances of the bill becoming law currently look remote.
SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.
Webcasters say they are wary of the deal because of a provision that would shift webcasters from the percentage rate to the higher per-stream rate once they exceed certain usage caps.
"That's the sticking point," said SomaFM's Hodge. "In our optimistic projections, SomaFM won't hit the revenue cap for a couple years, (but) when we hit it, our royalties would go from $150,000 a year to over $2 million a year. "
For larger webcasters, such as custom-streaming site Pandora, coming to terms could take longer. Talks are ongoing over a proposal to cap per-station fees, but Tim Westergren, co-founder of Pandora, said there has been "no material change -- we're in a slow negotiation process now."
Reaching a settlement with SoundExchange could take even longer for the largest webcasters, which have been given no hint of a deal beyond the current Copyright Royalty Board rates. In the absence of any alternative, they will likely seek to strike deals directly with the major labels rather than accepting SoundExchange's mandatory license.

Bush on performance royalties: "I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about"

From Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired:

In the US, television and terrestrial radio stations don't have to pay statutory royalties to artists and labels, the way net radio, satellite, and cable stations do.

Last Thursday, July 19th -- the same day SoundExchange and webcasters met with Congress to try to hash out fair royalty rates for webcasters -- President George W. Bush indicated to attendees of a speech at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, that he hadn't exactly been following those proceedings.

From an official press release from Bush's Press Secretary:

Question: Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?

The President: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.)

Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)

Will Web radio stations be forced to combat copying?

From Farhad Manjoo in Salon:

Late last week SoundExchange, the recording-industry group that collects royalties from Internet radio stations, agreed to limit one key part of the new fees that threatened to shut down a great many webcasters. But now it seems that SoundExchange's benevolence came at a price: in exchange for reducing fees, the recording industry wants webcasters to prevent listeners from copying the music they get through Internet radio -- despite the fact that such copying may be perfectly legal.

SoundExchange had previously asked radio stations for $500 for each channel of music that they send out to listeners, a fee that would have added up to more than a billion dollars for the industry. On Friday, the royalty group agreed to cap the amount at $50,000 per webcaster. The fee cap all but saved Internet radio from certain death.

As Ars Technica points out, though, SoundExchange says in a press release that it will only extend the deal to webcasters who "work to stop users from engaging in 'stream ripping' -- turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library."

Stream ripping refers to the practice of recording songs from an Internet feed. Several programs -- StationRipper, RadioLover, Streamripper, among others -- make this a pretty easy process. Once your record a song from an Internet radio channel, you can play it like any other MP3, in any order you choose, without logging back in to the webcaster's stream. Considering how easy that sounds, some industry observers have speculated that people who were scared off by file sharing may be moving to stream ripping as an alternative source of free music online.

But there isn't much firm data about the practice. The recording industry has trouble estimating how many music files are traded illegally online, but recording a Web radio stream, like recording a show on TiVo, occurs off the network, in the privacy of your own computer. And even if stream ripping is widespread, it's not clear what radio stations can do to stop it. Stream rippers work by capturing the music going straight to your PC's speakers, in much the same way that your TiVo or your VCR copies video as it flies between your cable box and your TV. Copy-protection programs simply can't stop this sort of copying.

And though legal opinion is unsettled on the question, many copyright experts argue that stream ripping, like recording TV shows on your VCR, is legal. All you're doing is "time shifting" -- recording something at Time A to play back (for yourself) at Time B.

Like the music industry, Web radio stations aren't big fans of stream ripping. They'd rather have you come back to their site each time you want to listen to music. But many also stay away from the main methods to combat ripping -- webcasting at a lower bitrate, mixing promos and jingles over the music, crossfading songs so they don't start and end cleanly.

You have to wonder if the recording the industry -- now that it's got webcasters locked in negotiations for their future -- will have any trouble imposing such reduced-quality streams.

Latest webcasting royalty developments

From Broadcast Law Blog:

The past few days have been eventful ones in the battle over Internet radio royalties. Appeals from the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board decision (see our memo explaining that decision, as well as our coverage of the history of this case) were submitted by virtually all of the parties to the case. In addition, the National Association of Broadcasters, which had not previously been a party to the case, filed a request to intervene in the appeal to argue that the CRB decision adversely affects its members. Also in Court, a Motion for Stay of the decision was submitted, asking that the CRB decision be held in abeyance while the appeal progresses. The "appeals" that were filed last week are simply notices that parties dispute the legal basis for the decision, and that they are asking that the Court review that decision. These filings don't contain any substantive arguments. Those come later, once the Court sets up a briefing schedule and a date for oral arguments - all of which will occur much later in the year. As the CRB decision goes into effect on July 15, absent a Stay, the appeal would have no effect on the obligations to begin to pay royalties at the new rates.

The Stay was filed by the large webcasters represented by DiMA, the smaller independent webcasters that I have represented in this case, and NPR. To be granted a stay, the Court must look at a number of factors. These include the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will be successful on appeal, the fact that irreparable harm will occur if the stay is not granted, the harm that would be caused by the grant of a stay, and the public interest benefits that would be advanced by the stay. The Motion filed last week addressed these points. It raised a number of substantive issues including the minimum per channel fee set by the CRB decision, the lack of a percentage of revenue fee for smaller webcasters, and issues about the ability of NPR stations to track the metrics necessary to comply with the CRB decision. The Motion raised the prospect of immediate and irreparable harm that would occur if the decision was not stayed, as several webcasters stated that enforcement of the new rates could put them out of business.

SoundExchange will have the opportunity to respond to the Motion, and the Court will then consider its merits. Watch to see a decision on the Motion by July 15. In addition to the actions in Court, SoundExchange publicized an offer of settlement made to noncommercial webcasters, an offer which was similar to that made to small webcasters (summarized here) - extend the provisions of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act until 2010, with a few tweaks. The SWSA for noncommercial webcasters required fees of between $250 and $500 per year for each noncommercial webcaster, as long as the webcaster had less than 146,000 aggregate monthly tuning hours of listening. If the webcaster exceeded that listening, it would pay at the rate of .251 cents ($0.00251) per aggregate tuning hour over the limit. The SoundExchange offer suggested a few tweaks, including requiring that noncommercial webcasters provide records of use of sound recordings - something not required under the SWSA. The current requirements for Internet radio recordkeeping are summarized here.

The offer was made to a number of noncommercial webcasting groups, so there will need to be negotiations before any deal is final. And as NPR had its own deal arrived at outside of the SWSA framework (a deal that is not public), they may well have concerns with this proposal which requires the same sort of record keeping about which its has expressed concerns in the Motion for Stay.

SoundExchange's dirty dealings

From Liz Berg via WFMU Beware of the Blog:

The battle between webcasters and SoundExchange (webcasting royalty collectors) is still raging over royalties. Earlier this year, the Copyright Royalty Board approved a hike in webcasting royalty fees so large that the increase would put many online stations out of business. An enormous backlash erupted from webcasters large and small, commercial and non-commercial, backed by the Save Net Radio campaign. NPR asked the CRB to provide an exception to the rates for non-commercial stations with large online audiences, but this was denied. Congress eventually caught wind of the storm, and wrote up a few bills to nix the CRB's rates, but no further progress has been made. In a surprise move, the CRB pushed the inception of their new rate scheme forward a few months, but as July 15 creeps up, few negotiations have taken place between webcasters and SoundExchange.

The few settlement offers that SoundExchange did offer up to webcasters are, unfortunately, useless to the vast majority of stations that will be affected by the rate hike. I imagine that Congress pressured SoundExchange to work something out, and in return SE wrote up a few PR-driven "deals" to get the Reps and Senators off their asses. Here are the details of SE's bum deals:

1. Small webcasters running on less than $250k/yr will pay 10% of their revenue to SoundExchange, and those with revenue up to $1.25 million will have to pay 12%. Any station with a budget over $1.25 million will be charged as per the CRB's new rate scheme. This sounds like a good deal, until you consider the fact that satellite radio companies XM and Sirius pay the highest royalties out of anybody, and their rate is only 7.5% of annual revenue. And 12% is supposed to be a "deal" for fledgling businesses? Here's the story.

2. SoundExchange offered a "private agreement" to a few NPR-affiliated non-commercial webcasters. They'll be charged a low royalty rate, provided that they don't have a large listenership. If they have more than 200 simultaneous listeners on their stream, the fees increase significantly. Trouble is, if your station wasn't part of the "private agreement", this "deal" doesn't apply.

In the meantime, NPR has filed a court request for an emergency stay on the CRB's new rates. Let's hope that SE comes up with a reasonable compromise for small webcasters and non-commercial stations soon...