Wow -- SoundExchange Does Something Reasonable, Says It Won't Enforce New Webcast Royalties Yet

from the now-here's-a-change dept

On Thursday, an appeals court denied a stay of the new (and significantly increased) royalty rates webcasters would have to pay to stream music online. However, as pointed out in the comments on that post, a Wired blog reports that SoundExchange says it's won't enforce the new rates as discussions/negotiations with webcasters continue. The founder of streaming service Pandora says that this development came about as a direct result of Congressional lobbying by webcasters and their listeners -- and hopefully those efforts will lead Congress to take a look at the proposed legislation that would establish much more realistic royalty rates. However, this shouldn't be seen as a victory for webcasters. It's not clear if the SoundExchange reprieve applies to webcasters that aren't part of the Copyright Royalty Board hearings, or what will happen if negotiations don't produce an acceptable outcome for SoundExchange and its RIAA friends -- a demand for retroactive payments would seem the most likely outcome. In any case, internet radio won't die Sunday night; hopefully the reprieve will give a reasonable solution a chance to surface.

Companies: soundexchange


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Brian Lee Corber (profile), 23 Sep 2007 @ 3:49pm

    vampires and the RIAA

    Friday, September 21, 2007 Vampires and the RIAA Ever notice how vampires operate? They suck your blood all the while making you think that they are doing you the favor. It really does appear that the RIAA and its net representative, Sound Exchange, operate under the same principle. The RIAA has the Copyright Royalty Board under its thumb and appears to dictate web policy to that board, the RIAA tells webcasters what they will pay or else they go to jail or get sued. This seems to be coercion to me. So, in effect, the RIAA sets royalty payments unilaterally, sucks the funds from the webcasters and makes them think that the RIAA did them the favor. If the RIAA had its way, there'd be no webcasting at all. Each note of music would have to be bought from one of the RIAA's constituent members. No more free music of any kind, no more fair use would exist, nothing without payment. Pay through the nose, then give up your nose. One thing that webcasters forget as victims of this policy, they could put a stop to it fast. Just stop webcasting music. When the public starts complaining to Congress to do something about it, perhaps the RIAA can be controlled by reason and not avarice. Victimizers often forget that if they destroy the victim, their victimization ceases and they have no source left from which to suck. Unfortunately, the so-called musical performance artists contribute to this victimization by profiting from the RIAA's activities, whether vicariously or otherwise. You can't take your profits with a clear conscience when the agency collecting for you is known to be set on destroying the source of those profits. Musicians can create music without an audience, but do they really want that? Just some thoughts. BRIAN LEE CORBER, CORBERLAW@AOL.COM, Panorama City, California 91412-4656, 818-786-7133.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.