Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAT Editorial: Giving streamers a royalty pain (recent royality increase could kill Internet music)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 07:10 PM
Original message
LAT Editorial: Giving streamers a royalty pain (recent royality increase could kill Internet music)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-radio08mar08,0,621198.story?track=ntottext

EDITORIAL
Giving streamers a royalty pain
Internet radio stations should pay fees to artists and labels, but a recent increase could kill the small guys.

March 8, 2007

AN OBSCURE FEDERAL panel has sent Internet radio stations into a panic. The Copyright Royalty Board's decision to increase the amount of royalties due to music labels and recording artists is nominally a victory for labels and artists. But the victory could be Pyrrhic if it forces a consolidation and commercialization that robs online radio of its musical diversity.<snip>

Those rates expired at the end of 2005, and once again the various sides found themselves pleading their cases to a federal panel instead of making deals with each other. This time, the Copyright Royalty Board provided discounts only for noncommercial stations with, on average, fewer than 218 simultaneous listeners.

There is some rationale for having a single rate for broadcasters regardless of their popularity or mission. After all, a song's value to copyright holders doesn't change according to who plays it. In reality, however, rates vary widely in the radio market. Satellite broadcasters pay royalties based on a percentage of their revenue; local radio stations pay no royalties at all to labels or artists for their over-the-air broadcasts.

If the purpose of the royalty system is to allow artists (and labels) to benefit from their creativity — and it is — then they would be foolish simply to use the system to push royalty rates as high as they can go. A better strategy would be to derive the maximum possible benefit from online broadcasting, in terms of royalties and exposure. Given the tightening playlists of over-the-air stations, webcasters are among the few reliable outlets for lesser-known and new artists. The Pandora.com online radio service, for instance, says its listeners hear music by more than 30,000 artists each week.

Labels and artists should be paid for their music by everyone who broadcasts it, online and off. But if the music industry simply charges small and noncommercial webcasters the maximum rate allowed, it could put them out of business. Then they wouldn't be paying any royalties at all — and it'd be the industry's turn to panic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC