WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters.

The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government panel had proposed in February.

John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the earlier proposal.

The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate artists and music labels for using their songs.

The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America.

If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full payment of royalties from past years will be due in October.

Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers -- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at home.

Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener contributions.

John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about $100,000 a month.

"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said.
14,449 views 17 replies
Reply #1 Top
sigh.. i knew it was coming though. i told everyone i could, but i know public opinion makes very little difference in an issue like this. i can't imagine how even a company like 365 [which i'm listening to know.. chronix] can begin to pay the back due. they've basically just put all these people in bankruptcy.
Reply #2 Top
I hate to sound cold but what did they expect? Wasn't anyone paying attention to Napster?

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #3 Top
real world radio stations have to do it, but they can afford due to advertising on their networks, it will be hard for online broadcasters to do it for a number of reasons, the first, if people listening on the net hear adverts theyll browse to another station, the second is that getting people to advertise on the net is near to impossible (high paying advertisers that is)

i suppose someone will just create a new service which cant be classed as a radio broadcast, similar to alternatives appearing after napster
Reply #4 Top
I'm with jcg.
Are they actually crying because they can't make money for free anymore??
Reply #5 Top
May kill??? Already happening. My favorite is gone....Somafm. It also killed any chance for there to sources for alternate(non-main stream)music. Yep, Corp. America does it again...
Reply #6 Top
Oh, and what happens to those young artists of a different voice now?
Reply #7 Top
berzerka - regular radio stations don't have to pay the per song royalties. They were exempted because their playing a song is considered advertising for the music label. (which probably means they had the money to put up a fight when the RIAA tried to impose the royalties.)

The potential of the internet is astounding in its ability to expand information and culture to every corner of the world. It can give anyone access to a global audience. I hate seeing any restrictions that try to keep cultural content from being available. When you force web-broadcasters off the net you are silencing more than just music, you prevent the sharing of ideas and inspiration that could ultimately serve to untie people in a cross-cultural awareness.
Reply #8 Top
paxx: most weren't making money anyway..

i used to be a dj. not only do radio station not have to pay the per play royalty, they don't have to pay it per capita. -that- requirement is just preposterous. the -only- reason it's in there is because it can be.. radio has no way of determining exactly how many listeners they have, but the net streamers do - so they use it against them. the rules should be the same for radio and net radio.

this is one rare case where the oh-so-popular-these-days phrase 'that isn't fair' actually applies perfectly.
Reply #9 Top
oops... "serve to untie people" should of course read "serve to unite people".

but then again... breaking down nationalistic borders between cultures is a bit like un-tying the people...
Reply #11 Top
The day the music died.
SomaFM already shut down... I imagine there won't be any internet stations left in 2 months. The reason is that, as migellito was saying, these royalties are hundreds of times higher than regular broadcast stations- as in a radio station with no commercials and 2000 listeners would have to pay $500 a day in royalties. Insane...
Reply #12 Top
The revolution is already happening. Look at the recording industry's numbers, they are in a death spiral.

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #13 Top
The music industry has been fighting new technology since the turn of the century.
Records - Why pay to see someone live when you can buy the record and listen to it hundreds of times? Wrong!
Radio - Why buy a record when you can hear it for free on the radio? Wrong!
Cassette tapes - Why buy a record when you can tape a friends record? Wrong!

In every case record sales went up.
Yet they never realize the opportunity before them.
With such blunders of vision it is amazing they haven't folded up.
Reply #14 Top
I just have a feeling some ppl are going to fight back sometime for all this music,mp3,radio stuff ppl have to wake up and stop the money devils
Reply #15 Top
I remember years ago someone described the movie industry this way - "Once they get their hand in your pocket, they want to keep it there."
Reply #16 Top
Yeah and once they have their hand in your pocket thay have you by the nuts. I am sick to death of the corporate world and the way they grab everything they can. At the end of all this with digital copying and internet radio scuppered who will they blame next for the lack of music sales.
I don't suppose it could be the fact that they ignore music and promote short term crap in the mainstream.
AAaaaaaargh. >
Thanks, I feel a little better now.
Reply #17 Top
Talking about movies... I saw a study that said that two thirds(?) of those who now download movies from the net, buy more movies than before. It increases their interest and makes it easier for them to find out what they like. My own experience tells me this is true.

I would think the same thing applies to music. Noone get popular by attacking popular services.