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

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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" <neuunit () earthlink net>
To: declan () well com
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 <owlswan () ironpeak toad com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
cc: <politech () politechbot com>, <kurt () kurthanson com>,
        Richard Uhl <ulyssesaudio () hotmail com>
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 <zahmed () gsb uchicago edu>
To: <ulyssesaudio () hotmail com>, <kurt () kurthanson com>
cc: <declan () well com>

From: "Richard Uhl" <ulyssesaudio () hotmail com> 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 <jwz () dnalounge com>
Organization: The DNA Lounge, http://www.dnalounge.com/
To: declan () well com
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
jwz () jwz org             http://www.jwz.org/
jwz () dnalounge com       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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------