main
Report a problem

Bill Would Overturn Increase In Internet Radio Royalities

Slimy   on 27 April 2007 - 20:40 · 14 comments & 5136 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Illinois Republican Don Manzullo and Washington Democrat Jay Inslee have introduced a bill to overturn a Copyright Royalty Board decision to increase royalty rates for Webcast music, setting a retroactive rate of $0.0008 per song for 2006. The rate in 2005 was $.0007 per song. Under the ruling, announced March 2, the amount is set to rise to $0.0019 per song by 2010. As well, each station has to pay a $500 fee and fee schedules that based fees on a percentage of revenue were eliminated. The Internet Radio Equality Act would mandate royalty parity for Internet, satellite, and cable radio, as well as jukeboxes and traditional radio. The CRB's rules are scheduled to take effect May 15, and Internet broadcasters will be hit not only with an increase in current rates but a bill for the retroactive fees.

Jack Ward, of SaveNetRadio, the group lobbying against the Recording Industry Association of America and the CRB ruling, said in an interview Friday that the increases are "astronomical" and the difference in the old rates and the retroactive hike is one "no small Webcaster can pay." Internet music providers and supporters believe that the increases will bankrupt some companies and force others to stop streaming on-air programs over the Internet.

The RIAA referred questions about the bill to SoundExchange, which represents record labels and artists. John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, said: "The idea that this bill would help small Webcasters or artists is ludicrous since less than 2% of all royalty payments in 2006 came from small Webcasters. The true beneficiaries are the mega-multiplex services like AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Clear Channel, which will benefit from rates substantially lower than those set by the Librarian of Congress in 2002."

News source: InformationWeek

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 14 additional comments
(5 replies) #1 jbrunt1990 on 27 Apr 2007 - 20:43
lol, who thought this was about Bill Gates again!!!
#1.1 vetmarkjensen on 27 Apr 2007 - 20:45
Is it just me, or are there others here who are tired of the old "I thought the title said 'Flea Copies of Windows'." types of comments about mis-read or mis-understood titles?
#1.2 jbrunt1990 on 27 Apr 2007 - 22:04
Quote - (markjensen said @ #1.1)
Is it just me, or are there others here who are tired of the old "I thought the title said 'Flea Copies of Windows'." types of comments about mis-read or mis-understood titles?


Meh, I think its just you lol
#1.3 Jelly2003 on 27 Apr 2007 - 23:54
HAH! You hit the nail right on the head!
I thought it would be about Bill Gates too
#1.4 cork1958 on 28 Apr 2007 - 03:04
Nobody would've thought this was about Bill Gates if they read the whole title. This stuffs been all over.

Definitely the RIAA grasping at straws.
#1.5 daftperception on 28 Apr 2007 - 13:30
Yeah me to lol
#2 vetmarkjensen on 27 Apr 2007 - 20:44
Ahhhh... A bill I can support!
#3 pixels on 27 Apr 2007 - 20:52
Good. The original decision was stupid to begin with. Why discriminate against web radio? It's just the RIAA grasping at straws again.
#4 Sniper101 on 27 Apr 2007 - 21:00
If this gets passed then someone saved internet radio (Y)
#5 vetLOC on 27 Apr 2007 - 21:26
Wow, a politician to save internet radio. Who wudda thunk it??

I certainly hope this gets passed, as the new rates are RETARDED.
(2 replies) #7 black_death on 28 Apr 2007 - 22:33
I think the RIAA should go **** themselves as usual since normal radio and performance royalties go to ASCAP or BMI which is then given directly to the Artist, NOT to the record company, the RIAA had no right to make htis law to begin with.
#7.1 Skwerl on 30 Apr 2007 - 13:58
The RIAA doesn't make laws.
#7.2 black_death on 30 Apr 2007 - 20:52
Quote - (Skwerl said @ #7.1)
The RIAA doesn't make laws.


I'd beg to differ, how many laws has congress passed so far that the RIAA suggested?

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)