Kurt's summary of the Internet radio royalty dispute
Watching the webcast of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms” was a mind-bendingly frustrating experience, as the various parties involved pingponged randomly from topic to topic, seemingly without rhyme or reason.
If I may, I’m going to try to organize the issues in a nice, clear fashion:
Royalty-setting standardFor decades now, the standard that Congress instructed the Copyright Office to use in royalty-setting proceedings was a multi-part standard called “801b“ that balanced the interests of copyright owners, copyright users, and the general public.
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? The ultimate beneficiary is the general public, which benefits when both sides of the equation — creators and distributors — are treated fairly.
But in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), music industry lobbyists got a new standard written into the law, for Internet radio only, called “willing buyer / willing seller“, which has proven, I believe, nearly impossible to interpret or quantify. (A problem is that the copyright owners (e.g., the RIAA) operate as a near-monopoly and the copyright users don’t.)
Basically, the record industry wants the royalty-setting standard to be the first half of point (B) above… and to hell with everything else! (And, incidentally, they disingenuously position all of the money as going to poor musicians, when in fact half of the money goes to the record labels themselves, and a huge portion of the rest goes to the superstar multiplatinum recording acts.)
Now the record industry is trying to get royalty legislation passed that would change the standard for all radio-oriented proceedings to “fair market value.”
It sounds good on the surface — hey, it’s got the word “fair” in it, so it must be fair! — but it’s going to have the same problems as “willing buyer / willing seller” in that it can mean anything either side wants it to mean. Since record companies pay to get radio airplay for new product, maybe fair market value is less than zero. On the other hand, since iTunes pays labels $.70 per song per consumer for downloads, maybe fair market value for radio airplay is, oh, $.55 per song per listener. Who knows?
Astonishingly, the senator who wrote the bill (the PERFORM Act) proposing “fair market value,” Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), said today that she doesn’t know what 801b is — she just intuitively understands that “fair market value” sounds fair. (Hey, it’s got the word “fair” in it!)
More to follow.
share: del.icio.us. Reddit Digg Yahoo Wink Windows Google Newsvine
Commenting is closed for this article.
Other blog entries
Spotify is an "online music service," but that doesn't make it "radio"
How Pandora could become a $70 stock (in a few years)
Late-night addendum to the Pandora analysis: "Enterprise value"
Memorial Day cliche'
Zune's failure proves the way onto devices, for radio, is apps
Great Moments in Business Journalism VXIII -- Pandora version
Great Moments in Business Journalism XVII
NAB is negotiating a VERY FAIR deal with musicFIRST
Simulcasts aren't working
Book your TUESDAY travel to Washington, DC!