The imminent death of Internet radio

New royalty rates are illogical, irrational and gouging

On March 2 the Copyright Royalty Board decided to raise the royalty rates for Internet radio stations. My goal this week is to get U.S. readers fired up enough to sign a petition and write to their member of Congress, and demand that this decision be reconsidered in a rational and fair manner, because neither of those attributes have much to do with the current adjudication.

Here's the story: The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) is part of the Library of Congress and consists of a panel of three judges who came to the conclusion that the rates paid by Internet broadcasters were too low. As a result, the CRB hiked the royalties to levels that can only be described as illogical, irrational, gouging and suspicious.

I must make a slight digression here and note that the CRB's site is a sad excuse for public service. Not only is it light on content; it also is inexcusably incomplete: Check out the site sections "Governing Laws" and "Background Information and Website Use" -- they return pages that state "Coming soon!" dated 19-Aug-2005!

This means that on the CRB's site you can't, for example, find out anything about who the CRB judges are; I found the information on the U.S. Copyright Office's Web site.

Anyway, back to the new royalty rates. The rates are illogical because the factors the royalties are based on make no sense; irrational because the new rates will put a huge burden on Internet broadcasters, which will guarantee that many of them go out of business; gouging because the new rates are not only retroactive but also work out to about 400 percent of what regular AM and FM broadcasters pay; and suspicious because the CRB has very obviously sided with the viewpoint of SoundExchange.

SoundExchange is a royalty-collection organization that has on its board: Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, an organization with a history of bullying and dubious money-grubbing tactics; representatives of the major labels, EMI Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group; and a handful of independent labels and various other industry groups with axes to grind.

Now it must be said that SoundExchange's stated mission is laudable - it is trying to get artists compensated fairly for their work. But what it has done with this crucial case is support a set of incredibly faulty assertions, which makes its motives look very questionable.

According to Paul Maloney of Save the Streams, an organization campaigning against the CRB's decision, judges of the royalty issue are instructed to make their decision based on the facts of the case and not consider the impact on industries affected by any changes. While this may be the traditional method of dealing with these decisions, in this case the method is neither fair nor sensible.

One of the best analyses of how illogical the arguments for the new royalties are and how unfair the situation will be can be found on BetaNews , which notes that, "At the projected 2010 rate, streaming radio providers would provide SoundExchange with US$2.3 billion in revenue. That's almost exactly 400 percent of the calculated cumulative total for [Performing Rights Organizations'] royalties to be collected during that same year - and keep in mind, radio stations with Internet services would owe both fees."

So, here's the deal: It's up to you. Do you want SoundExchange and the RIAA to bleed the life out of Internet radio, or do you want to see a level playing field? If you don't make your voice heard, even the stations that are both regular and Internet broadcasters could disappear from the online world. Sign the petition today!

Join the PC World newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Mark Gibbs

Network World
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest News Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Azadeh Williams

HP OfficeJet Pro 8730

A smarter way to print for busy small business owners, combining speedy printing with scanning and copying, making it easier to produce high quality documents and images at a touch of a button.

Andrew Grant

HP OfficeJet Pro 8730

I've had a multifunction printer in the office going on 10 years now. It was a neat bit of kit back in the day -- print, copy, scan, fax -- when printing over WiFi felt a bit like magic. It’s seen better days though and an upgrade’s well overdue. This HP OfficeJet Pro 8730 looks like it ticks all the same boxes: print, copy, scan, and fax. (Really? Does anyone fax anything any more? I guess it's good to know the facility’s there, just in case.) Printing over WiFi is more-or- less standard these days.

Ed Dawson

HP OfficeJet Pro 8730

As a freelance writer who is always on the go, I like my technology to be both efficient and effective so I can do my job well. The HP OfficeJet Pro 8730 Inkjet Printer ticks all the boxes in terms of form factor, performance and user interface.

Michael Hargreaves

Windows 10 for Business / Dell XPS 13

I’d happily recommend this touchscreen laptop and Windows 10 as a great way to get serious work done at a desk or on the road.

Aysha Strobbe

Windows 10 / HP Spectre x360

Ultimately, I think the Windows 10 environment is excellent for me as it caters for so many different uses. The inclusion of the Xbox app is also great for when you need some downtime too!

Mark Escubio

Windows 10 / Lenovo Yoga 910

For me, the Xbox Play Anywhere is a great new feature as it allows you to play your current Xbox games with higher resolutions and better graphics without forking out extra cash for another copy. Although available titles are still scarce, but I’m sure it will grow in time.

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?