FC: More on Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the air

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 08:20:49 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Library filtering trial starts Monday in Philadelphia"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the air"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03295.html
    
    ---
    
    Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:30:55 -0800
    From: "Rick G. Karr" <neuunitat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the air
    
    A few major factual errors and misconceptions in this post.
    
    Richard Uhl wrote:
    
     > In perspective, with my max listenership (12 songs/hour x 10 listeners max
     > X 24 hours/day x 365 days/year x 0.14) that equals more than $122,000 per
     > year. Remember when I said I had no revenue sources?
    
    This overstates his liability by a factor of about 100 -- the royalty is
    14/100 of a cent per stream per listener, NOT 14 cents. For (12 songs) *
    (10 listeners) * (24 hours) * (365 days) * (US$0.0014) ... I get US$1,471.68.
    
     > Note that this is ALL based on the DMCA demand that performers be
     > compensated for perfect digital copies.
    
    This assertion is nonsense. The U.S. is among the only nations in the
    world whose copyright regime does not include a way to compensate
    _performers_ for the public performance of their recordings.
    Songwriters, composers, lyricists -- they're all compensated the world
    over. But the U.S. broadcast lobby has for years blocked a royalty that
    would flow to musicians and other performers. This gives rise to a cruel
    irony of international royalties: European broadcasters pay royalties to
    both composers and performers. But because the U.S. does not collect
    performance royalties for _European_ musicians, EU nations simply
    withhold the performance royalty for Americans, depriving them of tens
    of millions of dollars in income.
    
    The DMCA performance royalty was nothing more than an effort to correct
    that situation, at least when it comes to network transmission. Note
    that the NAB went to court to exempt its members from paying the
    royalty, based on the argument that they've traditionally been exempt
    when it comes to broadcast.
    
    Paul Jones wrote:
    
     > Basically webcasters are dead by being priced out of the market, being
     > required to do complex recordkeeping at the song and listener level,
     > having programming restrictions placed on the content that are far more
     > constraining than on-air and more. Fees will be collected and distributed
     > by the RIAA, even for non-RIAA members, after a 'reasonable management
     > fee' has been taken by that organization.
    
    There are at least two competing bodies that will collect and disburse
    the royalty, and possibly a third. Only one is affiliated with the RIAA
    -- Sound Exchange -- and it has recently reformed itself to grant it
    independence from the RIAA -- musicians and managers unaffiliated with
    the RIAA now make up half of its board, for instance. (The Future of
    Music Coalition in Washington DC was at the front of that fight.)
    
     > No one is against artists or copyright holders being paid. The complaint
     > is that the combinations of a high minimum fee, complex -- and invasive in
     > the case of individual listener data -- reporting, and content
     > restrictions. Kill the young and delightfully diverse pratice of
     > net.radio.
    
    The programming restrictions may prove to be a fertile ground for First
    Amendment challenge -- they limit webcasters' ability to play more than
    a couple of consecutive songs by a single artist, so that when, say,
    Waylon Jennings died, webcasters couldn't legally do all-Waylon sets.
    
    --
    Rick Karr
    Cultural Correspondent
    National Public Radio News
    +1 718/609-0068
    
    ---
    
    Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:21:04 -0800 (PST)
    From: owlswan free eagle <owlswanat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    cc: <politechat_private>, <kurtat_private>,
             Richard Uhl <ulyssesaudioat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the air
    
    Declan,
    
    Though I don't like the carp fees and listen to a lot of different web
    radio, the true max cost to Richard Uhl for his station will be $1471.68
    not $122,000.  The .14 cents  is $0.0014 not $0.14.  Still too much.
    
    ---
    
    Subject: Re: FC: Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the a
    Date: Sat, 23 Mar 02 08:58:34 -0600
    From: Zimran Ahmed <zahmedat_private>
    To: <ulyssesaudioat_private>, <kurtat_private>
    cc: <declanat_private>
    
    From: "Richard Uhl" <ulyssesaudioat_private> wrote (via Politech)
     >In perspective, with my max listenership (12 songs/hour x 10 listeners max
     >X 24 hours/day x 365 days/year x 0.14) that equals more than $122,000 per
     >year. Remember when I said I had no revenue sources?
    
    I struggle with your math. At 0.14 CENTS/song/listener I get $1,471.68
    
    12 songs/hour x 10 listeners x 24 hours x 365 days/year x 0.14 cents = 
    $1,471.68
    
    While still high, this does not seem outrageous. Let me know where my 
    calculations differ from yours.
    
    Zimran
    
    ---
    
    Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:56:52 -0800
    From: Jamie Zawinski <jwzat_private>
    Organization: The DNA Lounge, http://www.dnalounge.com/
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Internet radio fees may push hobby webcasters off the air
    
    Being one of the many webcasters who may well be forced to stop
    webcasting if this nonsense becomes law, I've written my own summary
    of the various issues (e.g., the difference between ASCAP and RIAA):
    
    http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html
    
    -- 
    Jamie Zawinski
    jwzat_private             http://www.jwz.org/
    jwzat_private       http://www.dnalounge.com/
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 08:36:58 PST