Talk:Royalties
From WWR
Discussion of WWR and royalties
Contents |
Issues overview
March 2, 2007 - "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." [1]
April 26, 2007 - - Internet Radio Fairness Act Introduced to Nullify Copyright Royalty Board Decision
Previous discussion
- User:Atuuschaaw/BlogEntry: The Future of Community Radio
- User:Mistermaps529/BlogEntry: The Internet Radio Equality Act
Discussion
I'd love to hear/read comments from WWR artists about these goings on. sparx© 07:02, April 27, 2007 (AKDT)
Is SoundExchange the only game in town for collecting and distributing webcast royalties? sparx© 07:09, April 27, 2007 (AKDT)
- Yes, as far as I know Sparx, for webcasts specifically. BMI, ASCAP and SEASAC also collect royalties from webcasters. Terrestrial radio pays those 3 groups too, but would never have to pay SoundExchange because they don't do digital web airplay. Jim 07:32, April 27, 2007 (AKDT)
Quick brain dump here. Hoonah has pointed out that musicians must join SoundExchange in order to have them collect royalties from webcasts in their name. It appears from his reading of the contract that they cannot then give us the right to play them royalty free. I haven't read contract to confirm this yet but just did quick skim. If this is true, then we can simply not play SoundExchange artists just like we don't play RIAA artists. BTW, SoundExchange is an offshoot of the RIAA so you know what direction they are ultimately headed.
Anyone else want to link the SoundExchange stuff and start a discussion of their specific contract and whether artists can be a member of SoundExchange but still give WWR the rights to play them royalty-free????
I still like the idea of artists having a legal agreement with us so they know what we're about and so we're semi-protected (at least made an effort) rather than never specifying that we are not going to pay royalties.
OTOH, as I've said from the start, if the PROs would just give small webcasters like us an easy annual fee to pay I'd do it. We currently do that with BMI ($500-800 I think??? It's on the accounting page.) I do *not* currently provide playlist reports and they don't care. Whatever. 99% of our artists never see a BMI dime. Even some of the bigger ones. If I produce an airtime report for the PROs, I want to provide the same report for artists so they can go after the PRO to collect their tiny 1/10000th of a penny royalties.
Jim 07:53, April 27, 2007 (AKDT)
The Law is for All
The whole concept of a contract is to legally obligate individuals to perform to such contract or face penalty.
SoundExchange (possibly others) has created a business opportunity whereby by artists, artists agents, or artists record labels (ceeding rights to agent or label) transfer the right and ability of royalty collection to said legal entity (SoundExchange). Under a number of circumstance (for WWR specifically webcasting their songs) creats a situation where the user of the songs has to pay a royalty based on a court approved order to said entity.
Any artist that "signs away their rights" cannot also enter into an agreement with another party giving them permission to air their songs royalty free. If done so the artists is in breach of contract and legally liable to the entity playing their songs for all damages (see Last.FM's contract on this page).
Quite simply to avoid playing royalties you would not be able to play any music by any artists that do not have COMPLETE rights to those royalties. Period.
Wheathead opinions
Jim asked for opinions on what to do...
Sparx
- Pull/hide all artists associated with SoundExchange, or for which there is no email address, and covers
- Email all artists about
- What's coming down
- Why
- Instructions on entering an agreement with WWR
If at some time in the future the royalty rules or WWR business model changes, restore tracks of those who we can. sparx© 11:15, April 30, 2007 (AKDT)
zben
The case for a noncommercial WWR:
"For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 ATH (aggregate tuning hours) per month. They would pay the commercial rate for all transmissions above that number."
The term "aggregate tuning hours" means hours times listeners. An average listenership of 218 (= 159140 × 12 ÷ 365 ÷ 24) or fewer would keep us under this number. We would only pay the $500 per year channel fee.
Could we continue to exist within this limitation? If so, we need to find the legal definition for "noncommercial" and find a way to live within it.
Rationale
If an Internet radio station is truly commercial, playing those horrid Maryland Lottery and LASIC commercials, it can jolly well pay its fair share, just like the broadcast-based radio stations.
However, it seems that commercial radio stations do not pay anything at all?
(Def of "aggregate tuning hours" at end of parent of this page. Figures of 218 and $500 per year from NPR broadcast.)
A 'noncommercial webcaster/broadcast simulcaster' is any webcaster/ simulcaster that: 1. is exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501); 2. has applied in good faith to the Internal Revenue Service for exemption from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code and has a commercially reasonable expectation that such exemption shall be granted; or 3. is operated by a State or possession or any governmental entity or subordinate thereof, or by the United States or District of Columbia, for exclusively public purposes [2]
===Jac=== after a beer of encouragement
After the Senator Ted Stevens debacle over dump trucks, Internet, and pipes/tubes, surely "his" people have talked to him about representing a case that might draw the stink away from his smelly mess. Could WWR be a vehicle that his staff may want to take on? I can see the spin now, WWR the little man taking on Goliath, a small website wanting nothing more then to let the whole wide world to hear musicians that send their OWN music to WWR. By the grace of free will, the listening public of WWR supports not only WWR, but also the artists themselves by buying the artist's Cd's at an independent Internet radio store called CD Baby. WWR collects nothing from the artists themselves, but only good will. Many of the artists have been so thrilled with the experience that they have come to Talkeetna, Alaska just to give a live preformance for their fans over WWR's internet connection!
Examples in the flesh so it's easy to highlight them
CNN
Children under age 18 must have a parent or legal guardian's written permission to submit their material and such permission must accompany the material or it will not be considered.
Employees (and their immediate families and household members) of CNN and its parent, subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliated entities are not eligible to submit material.
By submitting your material, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party. You represent and warrant to CNN that you have the full legal right, power and authority to grant to CNN the license provided for herein, that you own or control the complete exhibition and other rights to the materials you submitted for the purposes contemplated in this license and that neither the materials nor the exercise of the rights granted herein shall infringe upon or violate the right of privacy or right of publicity of, or constitute a libel or slander against, or violate any common law or any other right of, any person or entity. This license shall be governed by the laws of the State of Georgia.
CNN has the right to edit and/or alter any submission. CNN reserves the right not to use the material you submit at all and/or as little of the material as it chooses.
You acknowledge and agree that by submitting your material you are not entering into an employment relationship with CNN and that no relationship is created other than licensor/licensee.
CNN values your privacy. The information you submit is subject to our privacy policy.
LastFM
The Terms and Conditions in a nutshell:
You have permission to upload the music or you have obtained permission from the relevant rightsholder(s).
Last.fm may use your music for its radio streaming service and for 30 second On-Demand Previews. If or when you make tracks available for free download and/or full-length preview is up to you.
You or Last.fm can terminate this agreement at any time (upon providing no less than 30 days notice except where you breach this agreement, in which case Last.fm can terminate it immediately).
The Digital Music Promotion and Broadcast Agreement
This agreement sets out the terms agreed between You and Last.fm limited ('Last.FM'), with reference to the following facts:
(a) Last.FM intends to promote sound recordings and musical compositions over the internet on its online music station and affiliated outlets;
(b) You own or have the right to distribute the master sound recordings, the underlying musical compositions, any performance embodied therein and any artwork and sleeve notes provided by You to Last.FM (the 'Licensed Recordings').
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. GRANT OF LICENCE
1.1 Licensed Recordings.
You hereby grant to Last.FM a non-exclusive, royalty-free licence (including the right to sub-license) during the Term (as defined in clause 4)throughout the Territory (as defined in clause 3) to communicate and make the Licensed Recordings and any thirty (30) second preview clip of the Licensed Recordings available via the Website.
1.2 Reserved Rights. All rights and licences not expressly granted to Last.FM under this Agreement are reserved by You. Ownership of the Licensed Recordings shall remain with You or your licensors.
2. DELIVERY
You shall deliver to Last.FM:
CDs or digital copies of the master versions of each Licensed Recording (from which Last.FM shall be entitled to make copies for the purpose of streaming);
All necessary, related artwork for use by Last.FM in connection with the marketing and promotion of the Licensed Recordings;
A written schedule of the names and contact information of the author(s), composer(s) and music publisher(s) of the songs embodied in the Licensed Recordings, together with any additional copyright information and metadata relating to such songs and the Licensed Recordings; and
On request, a list of credits that You are contractually required or otherwise reasonably wishes to provide in connection with the usage of the Licensed Recordings under this agreement. Last.FM shall have no right to modify the Licensed Recordings, except that it may encode the Licensed Recordings in any format now known or hereafter devised for purposes of facilitating the exercise of the rights and licenses granted under this Agreement.
3. TERRITORY
The Universe.
4. TERM OF GRANT
The Term of Grant shall commence upon the date of this Agreement and shallexpire three (3) years from that date, provided that at the end of such three (3) years term, the Term of Grant will automatically renew for 3 yearsand thereafter on an annual basis, unless Last.FM or Label receives written notice of termination at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination of the applicable term. Both parties, Label and Last.FM, can terminate the relationship via the terms indicated above.
5. WARRANTY
You warrant and represents to Last.FM that:
You are the owner or authorised licensee of the Licensed Recordings throughout the world;
You have full right and authority to enter into this agreement;
There is no present or prospective claim or litigation in respect of the Licensed Recordings;
The use by Last.FM of the Licensed Recordings shall not infringe the rights of any third party.
You hereby indemnify and will at all times keep Last.FM fully and effectively indemnified from and against all actions, proceedings, claims, damages, costs and losses whatsoever made against or incurred by Last.FM in consequence of any breach or non-performance by You of any of the representations, warranties or covenants on the part of Last.FM contained in this Licence.
6. AGREEMENT
This Licence includes all of the Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated herein by reference.
7. RELATIONSHIP
The relationship between You and Last.FM is of licensor and licensee and nothing in this agreement shall be construed: (1) to give either party the power to direct or control the daily activities of the other party; or (2) to constitute the parties as principle and agent, employer and employee, franchisor and franchisee, partners, joint ventures, co-owners, or otherwise as participants in a joint undertaking.
8. NO OBLIGATION
Last.FM shall be under no obligation to stream or use the Licensed Recordings
Great, you made it to the end ;) We look forward to establishing a long term, mutually-beneficial relationship with you.
Jim's "Position Paper" Notes
Stuff I want to remember as fodder to write a final "Position Paper" on where WWR stands on the royalty thing. This will be the main resource to point artists, media, etc. to. Then, at some point, we will contact all the artists we play, point them to that resource, get some sort of written (or web-signed) agreement that they grant us the right to play their music without having to pay royalties (even though we will continue to pay PROs who make it easy and charge a reasonable amount) ... blah blah blah. Anyone else getting sick of all this crap? I am - but it must be done - and hopefully for the last time. :-) Jim 13:47, July 26, 2007 (AKDT)
- Musician's are still able to specify their own "taping policy" at live shows. Imagine a self-appointed organization coming along and saying "Here is your taping policy. You have no say in it." That's what the royalty collection agencies have done.
- From the chat today:
Okay. Yeah, I think they call it a "Position Paper". I need to write one and be done with it. Just feels like homework though.
But at least I think I've finally found my "position". It took awhile to get there. Bottom line: I am for choice. Pro-choice musical royalties. I have no position on whether the royalties are too high etc. I only want the musician to have the right to determine who does or does not have to pay royalties on the songs they own. The next step would be for a standard blurb to appear on CDs (Esther's new CD is going to have the first one I'm aware of [::clap2] ) and as long as a station can prove that's the only music they play (an easy task for WWR) then no royalty collection agency could demand royalty payments.
That works for everyone as far as I can tell. And it puts the power/control back in the hands of the musician who wrote and recorded the song - where it belongs. Let them decide if they want to be heard on WWR and if they are willing to sacrifice the $0.0001th of a penny they might get from us in royalties anyway in the hopes that they sell just one CD at $15 and pocket $2-3 which would be the equivalent of 1,000,000 years of royalty collection from a flea's ass size station like WWR.
- It's not about "Save Internet Radio" or royalty structures for WWR. We made a conscious decision 5 years ago to play all non-RIAA music. While the rest of the web was busy scrambling for popularity with no thought of doing "something different that didn't play into the corporate hand" we held up our little corner and found listeners who enjoyed the music we played by independent artists. We got virtually no attention for opening the door to great music that was not encumbered by RIAA royalty payment requirements. Now that royalty structures are squeezing stations who made no such commitment to finding another way at the price of 'popularity', they want relief. We are not now and never have been about how much should be paid in royalties. We are, and always have been, about giving artists who are willing to recognize royalty payments from us are of no use to them (and could shut us down financially) but the exposure and CD sales we provide to a rabidly music appreciating audience is worth a lot. We want to continue providing these artists an outlet. Their choice completely about sending us a CD. Our choice completely about wanting to air those musicians. Jim 14:35, July 26, 2007 (AKDT)
- For those who are saying "Why the hell is he spending so much time on this issue? Why not just either pay or do what you want or whatever and then shut up! Because - the decision I make and the path we follow will truly effect 1) if we remain on-the-air and 2) our financial health. As I've said repeatedly, any royalty collection organization can shut us down at a moment's notice simply by sending a letter saying we owe some exorbitant amount in royalties. I have given too much personally to get into a legal battle with these assholes. But, if I have come up with a 'plan' I can live with (i.e. written permission - all the stuff I talk about in these missives) then at least I will stand behind what I've said and done. I will at least try to get relief from EFF or similar. Plus, if I've done something that really makes sense to me and is fair, then I won't hesitate to contact the artists and ask them to kick up a huge fuss over not being allowed to have a say in who collects royalties in their name. Jim 14:35, July 26, 2007 (AKDT)
