Music in SL: DJ's in Danger!
|
|
Sterling Whitcroft
Registered User
Join date: 2 Jul 2006
Posts: 678
|
03-07-2007 17:35
A friend sent me this: http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-copyright-royalty-board-releases-decision-rates-are-going-up-significantly.htmlTo quote the start of the article: Copyright Royalty Board Releases Decision - Rates are Going Up Significantly
The Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties for to be paid by Internet Radio stations for streaming music during the years 2006-2010 was released to the participants in the proceeding today. And the rates are going up significantly over the next few years. More importantly, especially for smaller entities, there are no royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue as were in effect for small webcasters under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act. Instead, all royalties are given as a per performance number, i.e. a payment for each song every time a listener hears that song ===== and further along: For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level pay at the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit. ===== Is this correct? and if so, what do we do? |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
03-07-2007 18:23
Unless SL DJ's have been paying royalties to SoundExchange under the SWSA, they've already been broadcasting illegally all along. In that sense I don't see how this will impact them at all. They'll just continue broadcasting under the table. If you were legally broadcasting under the SWSA, meaning you'd paid the minimum license fee (which I believe was $2000 annually) and you want to stay legal, this will probably be pretty major and drive a lot more people underground. Once again the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot. This is just greed incarnate, especially trying to make it retroactive back to the beginning of 2006. That's insanely evil. Contact your representatives in Congress and let them know how you feel. I'm waiting to hear how this will impact Live365 broadcasters since I have a station there, but since it's not a pro station it's never been legal for me to relay it into SL (so I very rarely do) and Live takes care of royalties and license fees. Here's what they had to say on the topic: From: someone Despite all the arguments made by the Internet radio industry, e.g. Live365’s CEO Mark Lam’s testimony last April at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on digital radio urging the Committee to help create a level competitive playing field for broadcast, cable, satellite and Internet radio (go here for video and written versions of his testimony: http://www.digmedia.org/content/release.cfm?id=25&content=news), the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has reportedly adopted the new per performance royalty rates put forth by SoundExchange. It was reported that the new per performance royalty rates for the years from 2006 through 2010 would be $0.0008, $0.0011, $0.0014, $0.0018, and $0.0019, respectively, representing an increase over the existing rate ($0.000762) of 5%, 44%, 84%, 136%, and 149%, respectively, and a year-over-year increase of 5%, 38%, 27%, 29%, and 6%, respectively. This would undoubtedly impose a grave challenge to the development of Internet radio. From the moment the news broke—and even in the months leading up to the CRB's decision, Live365 has been proactively working on resolving any possible negative effects of the potential royalty rates change, on behalf of our broadcasters and listeners and in cooperation with other DiMA (the Digital Media Association) members and the Internet radio industry at large. In the days and months to come, Live365 expects to take a series of measures to combat the challenges imposed by the new royalty rates. We will keep you posted of the progress. Before the CRB and Live365 make any formal announcements, however, we ask you to please stay calm and refrain from passing any false speculations and premature judgments. As far as the X5000 broadcasting package is concerned, we haven’t heard anything about a possible raise in the Small Webcaster royalty minimum premium of $2000 per calendar year, although many believe the CRB may not adopt a new rate for Small Webcasters (although there is no guarantee at this time). Again, please don’t panic before anything is confirmed. In the meantime, you may want to contact your local Congressmen and Congresswomen. Make your voice heard by the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Monty Marketing Manager, Live365
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Pan Fan
Registered User
Join date: 2 Jul 2006
Posts: 306
|
03-07-2007 22:11
From: Sterling Whitcroft A friend sent me this: http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-copyright-royalty-board-releases-decision-rates-are-going-up-significantly.htmlTo quote the start of the article: Copyright Royalty Board Releases Decision - Rates are Going Up Significantly
The Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties for to be paid by Internet Radio stations for streaming music during the years 2006-2010 was released to the participants in the proceeding today. And the rates are going up significantly over the next few years. More importantly, especially for smaller entities, there are no royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue as were in effect for small webcasters under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act. Instead, all royalties are given as a per performance number, i.e. a payment for each song every time a listener hears that song ===== and further along: For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level pay at the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit. ===== Is this correct? and if so, what do we do? Using songs in SL to make money is illegal, but to simply play it for fun, is not, just like in a bar. Good luck! |
|
Tamii Gwynneville
Supreme Curmudgeonette
Join date: 1 Jun 2006
Posts: 72
|
03-08-2007 11:02
From: Pan Fan Using songs in SL to make money is illegal, but to simply play it for fun, is not, just like in a bar. Good luck! Absolutely wrong. In RL, a bar that plays music must have a license from a Performance Rights Organization to ensure that royalties are paid. If you stream music in SL, you must be licensed or you are in violation of DMCA. |
|
Prospero Frobozz
Astronerd
Join date: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 164
|
03-08-2007 11:18
From: Pan Fan Using songs in SL to make money is illegal, but to simply play it for fun, is not, just like in a bar. Good luck! Ho, ho. If you believe the RIAA, any kind of use of a song other than listening to it yourself is an event that requires a licence. Hell, remembering the song is probably illegal. (Remembering is copying, and copying is theft.) Humming a few bars to a friend is probably illegal. (Illegal derivative work; sharing is theft.) And so forth. Copyright law is a complicated and terrible thing. It's *not* about money, it's about distribution. But it's also very complicated because there are those out there with an agenda to spread misinformation about the purpose and real legal permissions of copyright. If in doubt, don't do it. I'm talking even playing CDs in your card CD player when anybody else not from your immediate family is in the car. It's probably illegal, or at the very least it's probably a reason why the RIAA might sue you if they decided you were worth the attention. -Rob
_____________________
---
Prospero Frobozz (http://slprofiles.com/slprofiles.asp?id=6307)
aka Rob Knop (http://www.pobox.com/~rknop)
|
|
Kyle Beltran
Registered User
Join date: 9 Dec 2006
Posts: 7
|
03-08-2007 11:55
If you're honestly concerned about this issue, I'd encourage you to get informed at futureofmusic.org, freepress.net and similar sources. Then get on your representatives in government and your local radio stations, and quit voting for American Idol contestants. The corporate consolidation and governmental deregulation of all media is, by its rotten nature, not something that gets covered by most news outlets -- and it depends on being fed directly from our wallets and our ignorance.
Sure, I stream a Shoutcast station from my parcel. It's Swiss. Switzerland doesn't seem to be quite as concerned with this issue. They also have a performance royalty there, as does virtually all the rest of the civilized world. I'll probably continue using this stream until I have enough independent LIVE content to fill the week.
It's difficult for a musician like myself, who has spent over half my life and unending cash investments on developing artistic competency and finding ways to share it, to find much compassion for most DJs. There are tens of thousands of talented "content providers" out there who, owning their music, are willing and able to license it at fair rates that are still fiercely competitive with the fathomless greed of the majors.
Kill them where they live. Stop feeding them. SL can be a powerful weapon.
|
|
Darien Caldwell
Registered User
Join date: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,127
|
03-08-2007 12:03
From: Prospero Frobozz Copyright law is a complicated and terrible thing. It's *not* about money, it's about distribution. The most naieve statement i've ever seen. Copyright is ALL about money, especially when it comes to music. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
03-08-2007 13:01
From: Darien Caldwell The most naieve statement i've ever seen. Copyright is ALL about money, especially when it comes to music. I'd say it's a true statement, but not the whole truth. It's also about protecting corporate interests, and in the US it's only gotten worse as a result of deregulation. The rule changes that just went into effect are as much about killing off internet radio for the benefit of corporations like Clear Channel as about anything else. Protecting the rights of artists is near the bottom of the list of their motivations. The distribution issue is part of it, and it is about money. According to DMCA rules, I'm not allowed to play any music that isn't distributed here in the United States. While part of that is because there's no mechanism for those artists to receive their royalties, I'd say a bigger part is because it advertises a product that no US corporation is making a cut on. The whole system is a huge disservice to everyone except the corporations. It's sad. If you're interested in taking some action on the issue, these are the politicians who originally co-sponsored the "Internet Radio Fairness Act". Most of them are still active and are likely to still be sympathetic to the issue (info courtesy of a poster on the Live365 forums) Jay Inslee (D) Washington George Nethercutt (Former Republican Congressman) Now a lobbiest Rick Boucher (D) Virginia Don Manzullo (R) Illinois Jim Moran (D) Virginia Patsy Mink (Former Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii) Deceased Rick Larsen (D) Washington Dennis Kucinich (D) Ohio Currently running for President Jerry Kleczka (Former Democratic Congressman from Wisconsin) Jim Leach (Former Republican Congressman from Iowa) Zoe Lofgren (D) California Norm Dicks (D) Washington Corrine Brown (D) Florida Adam Smith (D) Washington
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|