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