NEW YORK, 8:11 AM, FRI DEC 5 | 10 POSTS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS | tips@idolator.com | SUBMIT A TIP | RSS
copyright royalty board

Internet Radio's Heavy Hitters May Be Holding Fund Drives Sometime Soon

radio.jpgThe proposed increase in per-song royalties isn't the only fee that is making Web broadcasters nervous about their revenue streams. As CNet notes, the larger broadcasters—including RealNetworks and Pandora—may have to shell out more than $1 billion because of the large array of channels they offer:

In letters distributed to various Capitol Hill offices on Thursday morning, the four companies' CEOs argue that the music industry will also be forcing collection of more than $1 billion per year from three services alone—Yahoo, RealNetworks and Pandora—in the name of covering so-called administrative costs.
Here's how they say they derived that figure: When the CRB decided earlier this year to change the rules for Internet broadcasters, it also decided to levy a $500 minimum annual fee per Internet radio "channel." SoundExchange, the non-profit music industry entity that collects the royalty and other fees on behalf of record labels, says that minimum payment is supposed to cover administrative costs.

But since some of the larger Internet radio services potentially offer their listeners hundreds of thousands of unique "channels" (RealNetworks' Rhapsody offered more than 400,000 in 2006 alone, according to a company spokesman), the companies view the ruling as forcing them to multiply that mandatory minimum payment accordingly (for Real, that would amount to $200 million).

Such an amount would far outpace the $20 million in total royalty fees collected by SoundExchange from the Internet radio industry last year, the CEOs note in their letter. And besides, it's not even clear that those payments would go to artists, as royalty payments do, the companies argue.

"While we don't imagine SoundExchange would keep this $1 billion all to itself, this lack of clarity is absurd," RealNetworks spokesman Matt Graves told CNET News.com.

SoundExchange did not respond to requests for comment.

$1 billion for administrative costs? That's a lot of Uniball Micros, isn't it? Anyway, we eagerly await SoundExchange's justification for this rate, although we suspect that it has something to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "channel," and what it means in the post-VHF world.

Major Webcasters to face billions in new fees? [CNet]

4:05 PM on Thu Jun 7 2007
By mjohnston
365 views
4 comments

Comments

  • The CRB has actually already stood by their definition of a channel (which, admittedly, was vague at best) in their denial of a motion filed by webcasters for a re-hearing back in April.

    The $500/channel minimum has been downplayed in the arguments by webcasters because of a genuine (and apparently naive) belief that something so on-its-face stupid would be clarified or restated by now.

    Oh yeah, and your title on this post was sadly apropos.

  • I think everyone should just refuse to pay them. If everyone that the CRB says owes them this money simply refused to pay it, the matters would be tied up in court for so long that the CRB would eventually have to recognize the battle as unwinnable. In short, yes, I am suggesting total and utter resistance-based behavior towards the CRB on the part of internet radio stations.

  • "Uniball Micros". Way to name-drop a pen?

  • As someone who used to work in business administration, let me just say I'm behind this proposal 100%. Gold-plated limos for all the accountants!

Comment on this post

Reply by Email

Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.