Help save Internet radio

[Mike Anderson]

Sign the petition here:

http://www.savethestreams.org/

"On Friday March 2nd, the U.S. government (specifically, the Copyright Royalty Board, or "CRB") announced its determination of the royalty rates Internet radio webcasters must pay the owners of sound recording copyrights to license the music they play for the years 2006-2010. The owners of these sound recording copyrights are, in the vast majority of cases, recording companies ("labels").

While successful webcasters which have built loyal audiences can usually cover most of their costs from their revenue (and sometimes even make a little profit), these new rates will almost certainly destroy the Internet radio industry, as they amount to well over 100% of even the most-successful webcasters' online radio revenues. In other words, these fees are grotesquely disproportionate to any other expense a webcaster would normally face, and certain to bankrupt him or her."

[Feanor]

Sign the petition here:

http://www.savethestreams.org/

"On Friday March 2nd, the U.S. government (specifically, the Copyright Royalty Board, or "CRB") announced its determination of the royalty rates Internet radio webcasters must pay the owners of sound recording copyrights to license the music they play for the years 2006-2010. The owners of these sound recording copyrights are, in the vast majority of cases, recording companies ("labels").

While successful webcasters which have built loyal audiences can usually cover most of their costs from their revenue (and sometimes even make a little profit), these new rates will almost certainly destroy the Internet radio industry, as they amount to well over 100% of even the most-successful webcasters' online radio revenues. In other words, these fees are grotesquely disproportionate to any other expense a webcaster would normally face, and certain to bankrupt him or her."

The "labels" are fighting hard to preserve traditional royalty levels despite what amounts to a far wider distribution of their products than ever before. Think of these distributions as potential sales and suddenly you realized that the labels are far too greedy.

Of course, the practicality of collecting any cash for many of these distributions is doubtful, but I believe people would be willing to pay if the cost of song or album was much lower -- let's say, reflecting the cost of distribution. To charge $1.00 a song for an Internet download means that buying a CD's quantity of songs costs roughly as much as buying the CD. This is an egregious gouge when you consider the relatively huge cost of the physical distribution a CD through the retail network. A more reasonable and proportionate fee for a download would be, say, $0.10.

[noddin0ff]

Thanks for the link Mike!

[Mike Anderson]

Think of these distributions as potential sales and suddenly you realized that the labels are far too greedy.

Exactly. Ever since I started listening to Internet radio, my CD purchases have skyrocketed.

[nightflier]

Of course, you could always tune into non-us internet radio stations.

Although it would not surprise me if one day, American consumers will be blocked from receiving these stations. Funny how our "pay-as-you-go for everything & everywhere" society is becoming more and more like China's.

[The Tahitijack]

I contacted one of my favorite net radio stations...Art Good's Jazztrax...to see what they had to say. They pay ASCAP and BMI a fee to play smooth jazz tunes. While the cost is not recovered its "manageable" for them as this is just one a piece of their business, which is concert promotion and a syndicated radio program. I think Art covers the cost from profits from other sectors of his business.

[Mike Anderson]

Slashdot piece:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/04/0930245.shtml