Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The End of Internet Radio?

By Aram Sinnreich, Truthdig. Posted April 28, 2007.


A recent ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board raised royalty rates for online radio broadcasting, which could put the exploing online commercial radio industry right out of business.
Advertisement

On April 16, three men -- a retired bankruptcy judge from Alabama, a former litigator with expertise in transportation industry economics and a career attorney for the Copyright Office -- made a decision that has profound implications for the future of webcasting, and for the music and Internet industries in general.

These three judges on the recently empaneled Copyright Royalty Board decided to raise webcasting royalty rates drastically, to levels proposed by SoundExchange, a digital music collecting society presided over by record labels and musicians unions. Specifically, the board’s ruling denied webcasters’ requests for a stay and a rehearing, effectively closing the door on further deliberation over the royalty rates and requiring that webcasters begin paying the new rates by May 15 of this year, due retroactively from the beginning of 2006.

Supporters of this decision argue that these new, higher royalty rates will ensure that musicians are paid fairly for their work as the music industry shifts its focus from traditional media to the Internet. Currently, record labels and recording artists don’t receive any royalties at all from terrestrial radio, which is required to pay only composers and publishers. However, detractors argue that the new rates are ruinously high and will lead to bankruptcy for the vast majority of webcasters, eliminating a resource that entertains more than 70 million Americans and financially supports tens of thousands of recording artists.

In order to learn more about the webcasting business, and the potential effects of this ruling, we spoke with Tim Westergren, the founder of popular Internet radio provider Pandora and one of the most vocal proponents for lower webcasting royalty rates.

AramSinnreich: What, exactly, is Pandora, and how does it work?

Tim Westergren: Pandora offers personalized radio over the Internet. The secret to our product is the music genome project, which is this enormous collection of songs that have been musicologically analyzed, each along close to 400 musical attributes, by a team of 50 trained musicians. We use this musical DNA to connect songs and create playlists.

We launched the radio service in November 2005, and in the past year and a half we’ve accumulated close to 6.5 million registered listeners.

Sinnreich: What’s Pandora’s business model? How do you make money?

Westergren: It’s advertising-supported. Our primary costs are licensing and streaming, and the core personnel. But a business like ours scales, so the whole thing is, build a large listener base, and then you start to get the advantages of scale. We sell visual advertising right now, and we recently experimented with audio ads. But we haven’t made any decision about whether that’s something we would pursue long-term.

I can’t tell you too much about our financials, but we’re not profitable right now, and [until the CRB ruling] we were looking at a year or two from now being able to turn a profit. It’s a relatively small-margin business, and it’s all about getting a big audience.

Sinnreich: What are the new webcasting rates, and how do they affect your bottom line?

Westergren: As a webcaster, we pay a performance royalty for every song that we stream. It’s a royalty that’s not paid by terrestrial broadcasters, and is paid at a much lower rate by satellite broadcasters. Until this ruling, the rate that we paid was 1.17 cents per listener-hour, which equates to about 0.076 cents per song streamed to each listener.

The new rates, which are retroactive to the beginning of 2006, are immediately higher than that. They go from 0.076 to 0.08 cents per song, and then they go up incrementally over the subsequent five years. And by the end, they’re at 0.19 cents per song. That’s close to a tripling.

Economically, these new rates will represent 70-80 percent of gross revenues for folks like us, as opposed to only about 25 percent today. So they make the business completely uneconomic. There’s nobody that can deliver an advertising-supported webcast at those levels, because advertisers won’t allow us to raise rates high enough to cover it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: riaa, royalties, internet radio

Aram Sinnreich is a writer, speaker and analyst covering the media and entertainment industries, with a special focus on music.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Here we go again!
Posted by: Temporary on Apr 28, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Copyrights will kill the internet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This sucks, the internet will be turned into television before long
Posted by: ateo on Apr 28, 2007 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The great thing about the internet is how open it is. Openness is not what made the huge media empires what they are today. The existing media would like nothing more than to restrict internet users to a small number of pre-determined content like television.

I even hear of movements within the U.S. to "remake" the internet with the excuse that TCP/IP is "inherently insecure." Who wants to bet that internet 2.0 will include all kinds of totalitarian crap in the name of "homeland security" and "copyright protection?"

It makes me cringe, literally cringe.

The net is PERFECT the way it is, open and as free as medium for expression as there ever has been on Earth for the common man. Sure, it has its faults regarding security but I'd rather put up with those than let big business and the department of homeland security rewrite it on their terms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That won't happen... Posted by: EagleMB
Old Internet was freedom’s best friend
Posted by: Lector on Apr 28, 2007 1:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Internet 2 is on the drawing boards and will effectively end the freedom of Internet as we know it. A charge for every e-mail sent, preferential treatment to those who pay, psychological warfare and cyber attacks by our government on 'enemy' Internet websites for starters.

The first wave will price people out of using the conventional Internet and force people over to Internet 2 which will be state regulated and where you’ll need permission and an FCC or government bureau to set up a website. If your on a “no fly” list; a known activist or ideologically unsuitable forget it.

The original Internet will then be turned into a mass surveillance database and marketing tool. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants will track and store information on your every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system; no different than the National Security Agency.

For a dictator or any regime running our country, the Internet is a dangerous tool so I think it will be shut down. Of course, it will be a staged Internet shutdown and blamed on cyber terrorists.

The common man will no longer be part of the dialogue of society, we will become irrelevant. Enjoy it while it lasts.

See article on the conflict between giving up your privacy and getting access to the Internet where AOL has reframed the issue, reduced it to a "good or bad" debate.

Robert Lightfoot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The internet giveth and taketh away.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 28, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the history of the internet. Something really cool comes along, and then some greedy and/or corrupt force either takes it away, or renders it practically useless.

Email was corrupted by spam. Online info. was corrupted by ads, viruses and adware. Music and other media are being corrupted by the big media companies.

Psychologically, what does it mean when millions of people constantly have all these cool rugs yanked out from under them? So many are so dependent on the net for entertainment, community, interaction, etc. It would be interesting to see stats on what the rollercoaster ride is doing to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking things for granted
Posted by: talkville on Apr 28, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internet is the modern "Commons". Any commons will be enclosed by claims of property. Property, reduced to 'the bottom line' is the principle of "Might makes Right". Assuming the internet to be immune from this process is folly. And it's only the beginning - the internet was not set up to be of public benefit but for expected profits. This is but furthering the "Enclosures". Virtual or not, this is still reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please read the fine print carefully on this one, it isn't what it appears
Posted by: olhsson on Apr 28, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a bunch of spin. Here is a response Senator Feinstein sent people who wrote to her that explains the issue straight up. Nobody has to pay these rates except in cases where an artist won't agree to a lower rate and the webcaster insists on playing their music anyway.

This is all about the biggest corporate webcasters being empowered to pay the biggest artists less money. Negotiating a fair rate was good enough for XM and Sirius radio but apparantly this isn't good enough for Clear Channel, Yahoo and Microsoft. NPR has always paid a reduced rate and there has been no proposal to take that away.

From:
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:57:59 -0400
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message


Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision on the statutory rate for music webcasting. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress - at the behest of webcasters - created the Copyright Royalty Board which consists of three judges. By law, the judges are a venue of last resort and are required to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that webcasters and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges set a rate designed to approximate the fair-market value that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010. The new rate that was established is less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005.

Although a few webcasters have recently claimed that the process was unfair, it was not arbitrary and allowed representatives from all sides to make their cases. The judges began the proceedings in 2005, and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of tens of thousands of pages of evidence submitted by all interested parties over an 18-month period.

While some webcasters may choose to pay this rate, independent negotiations between the parties are still possible and this new statutory rate would serve as the ceiling. Additionally, if it appears that the new rate will reduce the overall amount of webcasting - as well as the overall income from this stream of revenue - the copyright owners may still have an incentive to offer webcasters a rate less than the statutory rate.

I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. In the meantime, if you should have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.


Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Then Explain This Posted by: NoPCZone
On The Other Hand
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 28, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really do not care about .coms, but do care about real stations that stream content they already pay for. KCRW, for example, rebroadcasts it's programming online and serves musicians and music lovers with a far ranging, well programmed and open format. Many musicians got their start or big boost courtesy of KCRW and other NFP public stations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the perfect Neocon business model:
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 28, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suck it dry until it's dead, then go elsewhere. When business is unregulated and the corporations are allowed to write the laws and regulations, they'll do exactly this. Squeeze every penny out of it, no matter who gets hurt, even if the source of income is destroyed. They don't look to any sort of conservation or renewabilty.

Welcome to the Neocon Century

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome to the real world... Posted by: Ian MacLeod
RIAA Greed
Posted by: mincemeat on Apr 28, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 5 major labels represented by the RIAA will continue their slide into oblivion. The RIAA Mafia, so to speak, will come knocking on your door someday. Just look at what they've done to the penniless teenagers, making them pay thousands of dollars to "settle" lawsuits. This makes their product undesirable to say the least. Most of the teens I know, that either download mp3's, or listen to streaming online music, still go to concerts, still buy the licensed tee shirts, and still go out and purchase the licensed cd.
This recent royalty decision is, however, the best thing that could possibly happen for Indie music, as people gravitate toward the big label alternatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: RIAA Greed Posted by: Vandover
» RE: IAA Greed Posted by: EagleMB
The end?
Posted by: bradford on Apr 28, 2007 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never began!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember how CDs were gonna make music cheaper?
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 30, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go price a Beatles album and you'll see how cheap it got. The old model is a rip-off and that's why sales are down so drastically.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Net Radio Needs A Sundance/IFC
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on May 1, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody remember when Willie Nelson did a "duet" on an Asleep at the Wheel tune about how he did all the creative work and some asshole at the record company made all the money? Maybe it's time for Nelson and friends to through the weight of their talents, reputations, and a few bob behind indie records and indie recording artists. Anybody who'd started at Sun Records, or early Motown, etc., can see their life come full circle.

Isn't that the fun of art, after all? Because if the music can stay indie, so can the other programming on many stations that bring you more than just music. Like the actual news, for instance.

With board approval required for shelf display at the giant empires like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and ridiculously bloated empires like Clear Channel and SoundExchange buying up a station a week, I'm actually glad someone is "threatening" Internet Radio.

We can get better music, develop more home-grown talent, listen to new movements in the music world, and so on. And at reasonable prices and royalties.

For one hold Clear Channel, Sinclair, SoundExchange, and the RIAA's feet to the fire as their bottom lines start to suffer. I mean I'd be staying up all night sleeping like a baby if someone or something actually made it harder to sell their right-wing propaganda to decreasing market shares.

Keep Internet radio independent free from what amounts to a King George Stamp Tax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The End of Internet Radio?
Posted by: opec on May 10, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
teen hardcore pic - asian hardcore hardcore gay photo click gets fucked thigh boot fetish - foot fetish looking for fetish page thigh high boots hard spank - spanking and for example spanking sites their children amateuer - gay amateurs sexe gratuit gay amateurs free mature sarees - privacy policy porn movies indian pussy porn videos dirty feet fetish - click here to * content form and high heels return true video cam chat - free videos videos free reality porn free lesbian gay comix - hentai manga comic books comic strips underground comix incest picture - amateur incest incest cartoons porn movies incest taboo GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED man blow job - street blowjobs pictures of free blowjob giving blowjobs crotchless pantie - united kingdom and accessories sexy costumes sexy dresses dvd storage - overall rating dvd players customer service release date big toy sex - toy parties united states good vibrations toys for men cock - pictures of privacy policy muscle hunk pictures of america latina - latin ladies colombian women dirty latina latin america

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The End of Internet Radio?
Posted by: afghanistan on May 12, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The End of Internet Radio?manaus - pictures of nude mature mature hairy mature women tiny bikini - brazilian bikinis bathing suits bikini beach thong bikinis lesbien - teen lesbiens rateurs ro@dy lesbians fucking v lasz erre gay bondage fetish - free gay porn lesbian sex erotic stories san francisco big ass - user rating porn movies lesbian ass lesbian porn videos porno gay - gay hardcore sex stories gay porn videos lesbian sex GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED tiny bikini - brazilian bikinis bathing suits bikini beach thong bikinis sapphire ladyboy - tranny movies shemale sex thai ladyboys in pantyhose

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]