Originally posted by kosmo:
ok.. i was being factious in my yeah right statement...
however, prior to the formation of SoundExchange an hobbyist, such as myself, interested in setting up a legal internet radio station could do so without breaking the bank with licenses paid to ASCAP, etc. For instance the minimum fee paid to ASCAP for a year is $288 assuming i'm not making any revenue from the site and have low listenership.
the minimum soundexchange fee for a commerical station is $500 plus a monthly fee... Note it appears that it would be hard for even a hobbyist broadcaster to claim a non-commercial station.
it's the soundexchange fees that threaten to silence all but the largest of site wanting to stream music on to the music... WOXY.COM almost went down twice because of those fees... additional fees they didn't have to pay when they were broadcasting over the airwaves.
there are very limited options for a hobbyist internet broadcaster to keep a station legal... and obviously the threat of getting sued doesn't stop many people as evidenced by all the stations over at shoutcast... i personally would rather not get caught..
I certainly understand the argument that it should remain possible for hobbyists and broadcasters to operate internet or streaming radio stations.
However, I would also argue that it is important to set a precedent that artists are paid for the use of their music in digital mediums. Personally, I think a station like WOXY.COM should absolutely have to pay royalties - they are at a level where they are reaching a somewhat substantial (Yes, I realize this is relative) national audience. I don't know enough about WOXY to know whether they do, but I would expect that they also generate income to the site.
Digital media streams are still a relatively new medium for music. They're only going to become more prominent - and artists will need income from those outlets. Yes, I recognize that this may make it difficult for hobbyists - but as a musician, I want to be compensated for my work.
I guess this is ultimately a discussion over at what point you draw the line - which is what SoundExchange has been tasked to do. Perhaps the debate that you'd rather have is whether or not this type of royalty should even exist - the reason for the creation of SoundExchange was to collect a new kind of royalty that ASCAP and BMI do not. Not only does SoundExchange handle digital media exclusively, but the type of royalty that they collect is a different classification. From the SoundExchange website:
"Prior to 1995, Sound Recording Copyright Owners (SRCOs) in the United States did not have a performance right. This meant that, unlike their counterparts in most of Europe and other nations around the world, recording companies and artists were not entitled to receive payment for the public performance of their works. Users of music, the digital music service providers, freely performed these works at will, without a dime being paid to the rightful owners of those recordings or the featured artists who performed the songs - the recordings which created the backbone of their business.
The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 changed that by granting a performance right in sound recordings. As a result, copyright law now requires that users of music pay the copyright owner of the sound recording for the public performance of that music via certain digital transmissions. The U.S. Copyright Office recognized the benefits of SoundExchange's administration of these royalties, and so has designated SoundExchange as the administrative entity for subscription services' statutory license fees. You may find SoundExchange's Notice of Designation as Collective Under Statutory License here. The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) was established by Congress in 2004 to set fair market rates to be paid to recording artists and record labels under the statutory license. The CRB reaffirmed SoundExchangeâ??s sole collective status in 2007." A "performance right" is a fundamentally different type of royalty. Take this as an example - Harry Belafonte made the "Banana Boat Song" (Day-O) famous. However, he was simply the performer - and under previous royalty laws, he was not entitled to royalties from the performance of the song. ASCAP and BMI cover songwriters and publishers - but NOT performers or copyright holders [NOTE: I recognize I said ASCAP & BMI covered copyright holders before - that was an error due to writing a quick post and I can't go back and change it now]. So, since Belafonte was only the performer of the song, didn't write the song, and didn't hold the publishing rights to the song, he was never paid royalties. Think of that - DECADES of performances of a song that your performance made famous, but you're not paid a penny for those performances?
SoundExchange pays the performer, along with the copyright owner. Currently, performers and copyright owners ARE NOT paid royalties for public performances on more traditional mediums - radio, TV, etc.
So I think the larger debate here is whether or not you think this royalty structure should even exist. Personally, I feel as though it should - I also think it should extend to traditional media as well as digital media. But I don't think we're there yet.
