||[Mar. 19th, 2007|03:53 pm]
I subscribe to a website (www.di.fm) that streams trance music all day for me to listen to at work, all day, every day.|
This makes me happy.
On March 2nd, the Copyright Royalty Board made a decision about rates for webcasts that is likely to destroy Internet radio utterly.
This makes me unhappy.
FAQ here, write your congresscritter here.
I want the ability to wave my magic wand and cause
organizations things that displease me to suffer catastrophic existence failure. Grr.
I don't believe in the "this is a new industry, we need different rules" argument, I guess. I didn't believe in it ten years ago when people who didn't know anything about book publishing explained to me that books were old fashioned and should be replaced by around now by e-books, for example. All of these Internet radio corporations are VC-funded, no? Just like Sirius or XM were, no?
I don't understand why $.01/hr is an unworkable content rate for entertainment content. I seem to be willing to pay roughly $.25/hr for my daily newspaper, and many people seem to be willing to pay roughly $.25/hr-$1/hr for cable television. My understanding is that millions of people are willing to pay $.50/day to have satellite radio in their car (and, assuming that they spend something incomprehensible to me, like 2 hrs/day in their car, that's $.25/hr).
And, truly, I don't understand anything resembling a justification for percentage of royalty. What's to stop me from deciding to carry a loss leader, just to take an extreme example, just to screw Sony?
All of these Internet radio corporations are VC-funded, no?
No. They're websites; you start with a server and add capacity as you need and can afford it. Why would you need venture capital? Some of them are literally mom-and-pop outfits.
You have spurred me to do further research, and what I discovered is that the big deal is really that the royalties for streaming will be about five to eight times as much as those for regular broadcast.
Regular broadcasters pay royalties only to songwriters, not to artists, and they collectively negotiate royalty rates based on their expected revenues. (So there's your justification for percentage of revenues right there: that's how regular radio stations do it.)This article
estimates it this way:
On a per-listener scale, broadcast radio stations paid $1.56 per listener on average during 2006; and in 2010, that figure rises to $1.94 per listener. BetaNews estimates that Internet radio sites, by contrast, will pay $8.91 per listener for 2006, rising to $15.59 per listener in 2008 and staying flat beyond that time.
Cross-check: the same article estimates that the three main royalty organizations in the U.S. took in $437M in 2006 from 14,000 radio stations. $437M / 14k / 52 = $600 per week per radio station. Arbitron says the average radio listener listens to 19.25 hours of radio per week, and that 93% of the U.S. population listens to the radio. 250 million * 0.93 * 19.25 / 14k = 320,000 listener-hours per radio station per week. $600 / 320,000 = 0.001875 in royalties per listener-hour.
So I don't know whether $0.01/hr is sustainable or not, but it is more than five times what traditional broadcasters pay.
Wow. OK, I'm surprised. (This really doesn't match what I would have expected, from reading a tiny bit of the decision yesterday, but I was skimming too fast.)
One might have expected that the Internet radio companies would trumpet the 5x ratio in their copy. That would have been a lot more compelling to me than, "it's more than even our revenue is!"
Of course, is there any sort of implicit payment to artists or songwriters through other fees that radio broadcasters pay for their station licenses? (Here, I really have no idea how the US works: in Canada, the answer is yes: part of radio license fees turn into a fund that somehow promotes [and maybe even helps to produce?] CanCon. But I can't recommend that, because we also have other absurdities like the blank media levy, and ...)
But it occasionally leads to things like KanKon, so it can't be all bad!
I think the lack of recompense to artists for airplay may be a part of the whole "artists hate the RIAA" thing. Nothing about implicit artist payment leapt out of my (admittedly scanty) research, but that doesn't necessarily figure. Since we're currently in the midst of yet another payola scandal, I think maybe it goes the other way, if anything? Dunno.
Er, you mean Kon Kan. (I was just listening to that last night at the gym!)
I didn't realize there was yet another payola scandal in the US. Oy.
I should listen to one of my music streams now, just to have done so some more. I'm not sure in the case of the one I have in my iTunes how I even could pay them...