Posted on 05/08/2013 9:38:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Internet music listeners should be plugged into whether or not the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will reform how the government sets its royalty payments.
The new chairman, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R.Va.) is a self-described fan of web radio and the chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, so the expectation is that he will bring an end to the music feudalism, where broadcast radio pays nothing in recorded performance royalties, but web-based music services, what the government calls “non-interactive transmission,” pay 50 percent of their revenues.
In the last Congress, bills in the House and Senate would bring the web-based music services in line with what the government makes satellite-based SiriusXM pay.
A Utah Republican congressman led the charge on the House bill.
“This bill would allow for natural, market-based competition, rather than the procedural favoritism that exists under the current standard,” said Rep. Jason E. Chaffetz (R.-Utah), who maternal grandfather Harry Ellis Dickson was for 49 years, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s concertmaster.
“It would also halt the current discrimination against services just because they happen to be delivered over the internet,” he said.
A companion bill in the Senate will be filed by Sen. Ronald L. Wyden (D.-Ore.), who said digital services for broadcasting music are one area of innovation on the Internet being stifled.
In 1998, federal laws were enacted that specifically constrained the development of Internet radio as a commercially viable service, he said.
“The Internet has shown itself to be an incredible tool for enabling innovation and competition to make existing industries better,” Wyden said.
“Fourteen years ago, when online radio was in its infancy, the incumbent interests were successful at getting laws passed to discriminate against the Internet,” he said. “This bill puts Internet Radio on an even plane with its competitors, and allows the music marketplace to evolve and to expand--which will ultimately benefit artists and the internet economy.”
The royalties for recorded performances are paid out at different rates as determined by the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-man panel appointed by the Librarian of Congress since 1987, James H. Billington, the same individual, who made unlocking your cell phone a federal felony.
The CRB is supposed to consider many factors, balancing the need to make music as accessible as possible to the widest audience and the need to reward the owners of the music. But, in reality, the board is free to decide as it chooses.
The board set new rates for satellite radio Dec. 17 for 2013 at 9 percent of revenues, then with incremental increased up to 11 percent in 2017.
This is not a free market. It is an arbitrary work of a star chamber.
If there is one thing Americans resent about government intervention in the marketplace, it is when it picks winners and losers. What better example does one need that one music service provider pays 9 percent of revenues and another pays 50 percent—while, again, broadcast radio pays nothing.
Chaffetz said he is ready to fix it.
“A system that clearly favors some providers over others, picking winners in the music marketplace, is not good public policy. It’s time to level the playing field,” he said.
Writing for Slate.com, UCLA Prof. John Villasenor, said, “If you are like most of the millions of people who listen to Sirius XM satellite radio or Internet radio services like Pandora or Last.fm, you probably don’t give much thought to the underlying—and fundamentally flawed—framework that governs digital music broadcasting royalties.”
Villasenor, who is also a fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, wrote a 27-page paper detailing the history of the disparities in how platforms pay royalties and his ideas for reform, but for him the nub is the ransom paid by Internet music services.
“But if royalty rates are too high, as has occurred with Internet radio, companies providing broadcasting services will continually struggle to turn a profit, impeding market—and ultimately royalty—growth,” he wrote.
The differing royalty rates for these three groups of webcasters can be summarized as set forth below.
Broadcasters Per Performance Royalties
2011 - $.0017 per performance
2012 - $.0020 per performance
2013 - $.0022 per performance
2014 - $.0023 per performance
2015 - $.0025 per performance
Statutory Webcasting Per Performance Royalty Rates
2011 - $.0019 per performance
2012 - $.0021 per performance
2013 - $.0021 per performance
2014 - $.0023 per performance
2015 - $.0023 per performance
Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates
2011 - $.00102 per performance
2012 - $.00110 per performance
2013 - $.00120 per performance
2014 - $.00130 per performance
2015 - $.00140 per performance
I think those rates are for the broadcast stations' internet feeds as opposed to the stations' over the air broadcasts.
Then there is confusion on whether the royalties being paid are for the writers or the performers. As I understand it, broadcast stations have to pay royalties to the writers but not to the performers because the performers are supposed to get increased sales from air play.
In my opinion the rate should be the same no matter what the medium is. The only difficulty is how to handle internet broadcasts where you can track how many people are receiving the station at any time vs. broadcast or satellite where you get no feedback from receivers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.