Lawmakers Introduce Internet Music Royalty Legislation

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Internet radio stations are being discriminated against with higher royalty fees than other digital radio services. That may be about to change with the introduction of the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The legislation, backed by Pandora, was introduced in the House and the Senate on Friday.

"This bill puts Internet radio on an even plane with its competitors, and allows the music marketplace to evolve and to expand — which will ultimately benefit artists and the Internet economy.”
Click to expand...
 
Why would music publisher do such things? I know they are rotten as hell but still, is it there goal to run internet radio business into the ground or do they assume there is just more money to be made there?
 
This will do nothing but make them raise prices on radio royalties.

It's not rocket science. They aren't going to LOWER prices for internet sites.
 
Derfman said:
Why would music publisher do such things? I know they are rotten as hell but still, is it there goal to run internet radio business into the ground or do they assume there is just more money to be made there?
Click to expand...

I would assume its that they believe since an Internet radio station is available anywhere they should pay higher royalties then physical radio stations who are limited to a much smaller audience.
 
I suspect the other folks don't exactly have the same amount of pure volume which takes away from the recording industry's normal revenue chains (people buying CD's). The internet is all the rave and lots of people use things like Pandora. While I don't know what Satellite radio is doing, I can't imagine that cable-based radio is doing fantastic. I never hear people talking about it. I suspect it may be the policy that you can't get blood from a stone so when they see a nice ripe thing like internet radio doing good business ... they squeeze like all get out.

It is like taxes. You can smack all the taxes you want on the poor people but if they don't have the cash to pay it you're wasting your time. Go where the money is .. that's how you raise cash. That seems (to me) to be the model the recording industry typically uses.
 
weuntouchable said:
I would assume its that they believe since an Internet radio station is available anywhere they should pay higher royalties then physical radio stations who are limited to a much smaller audience.
Click to expand...

Except lots of major terrestrial radio stations are all ClearChannel owned and operated...to the tune of over 100 million listeners every week and 900 stations or so IIRC (per wiki). I'm willing to bet that ClearChannel terrestrial radio stations have more listeners on a weekly basis than all the major streaming radio services combined on a weekly basis.
 
So, RIAA can get more money here? If it is, this is terrible. If it means the artists are getting more money for what they do for a living, that's better...unfortunately I bet this isn't the case.
 
The realm of industry based music just keeps getting darker by the hour. It truly makes me sad since music is suppose to be enjoyed, not tied down and chained to this rock of how much blood you can get out of the stone that is the consumer.
 
"How dare such advances in technology allow the progressive distribution of OUR media! Charge them till they bleed, for surely if there are profits to be made they should be ours!"
MPAA / RIAA / etc : Doesn't do the work, wants all the rewards.
 
Marlfox said:
Soooo... will I be seeing a reduction in my sat radio bill now? :D
Click to expand...

Now that there's funny!

If you want a reduction in your sat bill, you have to deal with the "Customer Retention" lady they pass you on to when you call and say you want to cancel.
 
Derfman said:
Why would music publisher do such things? I know they are rotten as hell but still, is it there goal to run internet radio business into the ground or do they assume there is just more money to be made there?
Click to expand...
It's not the music publishers.

Master [H];1039169701 said:
So, RIAA can get more money here? If it is, this is terrible. If it means the artists are getting more money for what they do for a living, that's better...unfortunately I bet this isn't the case.
Click to expand...
The RIAA doesn't see a penny from performance royalties.

Marlfox said:
MPAA / RIAA / etc : Doesn't do the work, wants all the rewards.
Click to expand...
Again, the RIAA doesn't see a penny from performance royalties.

It never ceases to amaze me how whenever anything is brought up about music industry workings, there's always a crowd here that's eager to jump on the hate/blame RIAA bandwagon. :rolleyes:

The RIAA has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. Performance royalties are paid to performance rights organizations (i.e., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) who distribute the royalties to the songwriters/artists.

From the article:

"Internet radio services pay more than 55 percent of their revenue in royalty fees, while cable and satellite stations pay between 7 and 16 percent."

That's quite a disparity. Why should Pandora have to pay such a higher rate?
 
Lethal said:
From the article:

"Internet radio services pay more than 55 percent of their revenue in royalty fees, while cable and satellite stations pay between 7 and 16 percent."

That's quite a disparity. Why should Pandora have to pay such a higher rate?
Click to expand...

I think the majority of revenue should go to the artists. In reality, how much does it cost to run an internet radio station? Probably nowhere near the cost of running a physical station, when you include FCC required costs, maintenance on transmission equipment, full time staff, new and weather reporting services, etc... That's a lot of crap internet radio doesnt have to pay.

In short, if by proxy the artist says we want this much to allow you to playh my music...the choice is pay it or do not play the music.

This is yet one more item I think the government needs to stay out of. No new regulations or laws are needed. I think lawmakers need to spend more time on reducing taxes instead.
 
I'm curious what the raw dollar numbers are. While internet radio might pay up to or more than 55% in royalty fees, what is that amount vs. terrestrial or cable/satellite stations? It could be that the contracts for internet radio are overall cheaper (i.e., revenue is overall less), but end up paying the same raw dollar amount as terrestrial or cable/satellite? I mean, I wonder if there is both a raw-dollar value and a % revenue value (whichever is more). I can't fathom that the wording in contracts is 55% royalties.

I use Slacker Radio--the amount I use it varies from week-to-week or month-to-month, but I have the $4/mo subscription and I like it. But if removing commercials only costs $4/mo, and that's enough to offset the commercial costs for Slacker, I can't imagine that revenue for commercial-based ads is significant (but that's just a complete guess).
 
...with an antenna and "real" radio waves, all u needed were friends and a good radio to get some tunes. This digital age is turning out to be nothing more than a ridiculous scheme convincing people of more "limits" and how much WE owe to ...um who btw?? We all pay for electricity that's taxed, internet and cable that are taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed, and then peeople think we need to pay more fees. Every thing coming out of this "new internet"(post politics)is "fee" based and tripled-priced. Somehow I feel like some people are getting over......
 
PcGuy78 said:
...with an antenna and "real" radio waves, all u needed were friends and a good radio to get some tunes. This digital age is turning out to be nothing more than a ridiculous scheme convincing people of more "limits" and how much WE owe to ...um who btw?? We all pay for electricity that's taxed, internet and cable that are taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed taxed, and then peeople think we need to pay more fees. Every thing coming out of this "new internet"(post politics)is "fee" based and tripled-priced. Somehow I feel like some people are getting over......
Click to expand...
Whatever, I for one enjoy the freedom to buy a single song vs. an entire CD album if I want, to be able to view/listen to streaming content without having to buy it, to be able to buy and download a song or a movie from the convenience of my own home. All of these things are luxuries, so stop complaining about taxation. No one's forcing you to use and support internet music.

Not to mention the bigger picture--the internet is a huge resource for learning. I can't count how many "problems" I've been able to solve/deal with (such as home maintenance) that I found solutions for--or inspiration for my own solution--on the net. I'd much rather pay taxes on all of these digital things and have that access than go back to when we didn't have it. Don't like paying taxes on electricity? Go live in off the grid in the woods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top