An agreement has been reached to help ensure the future of internet radio by warding off potentially devastating copyright-royalty rate hikes. The deal is between SoundExchange, a nonprofit royalty collection and distribution organization associated with the Recording Industry Association of America, and three small internet- …
What if the radio only casts un-copyrighted music
they are still fucked. See the RIAA collects royalties on all music. They have even collected royalties on artist that dont belong to them and then turns around and says if you want the money you have to join us .
... the quality of the music would improve several hundred percent :)
Don't care about the others,
just get Pandora over here. Seem's like a good compromise deal (shocker!).
Seriously who empowers these quangos? 70 percent of royalties and they didn't think they were having a laugh? The new agreement demonstrates how much fail there is at the US Copyright Royalty Board. I remember the days when radio was a valid medium for promoting music, glad common sense prevailed.
Whilst some across the pond would like to think they run the world, these organisations do not represent rights holders worldwide (they would like to, but they don't) - it depends on local legislation. I guess the main reason a deal has been reached is they probably realised they would only have killed off webcasting in the USA and a few other places that happen to follow their line. I can't see them ever having any impact on webcasting anywhere east of the EU.
"un-copyrighted music" ?!
"UN-COPYRIGHTED MUSIC" ?! ?! ?! ?!
You anti-capitalist, Commie-loving, pinko liberal scum. All music should be copyrighted. And any that's not merely represents a temporary failure of congress to properly extend retrospective copyright.
I mean, the latest medical technologies will ensure Cliff Richard can live into his 150s, and he still wants to be able to live off his royalties then. :-P
US of A
This is great for webcasting stations "I hate the term 'Radio' when it comes to internet... casting, not exactly 'broadcasting' either" in the USA, however in the UK. There is subjectation to PRS, PPL and MCPS, which costs far too much to make it worthwhile. There is no scope to be a commercial entitiy. Sure I agree that the artists should get a payout if their work is used to construct a station's output; however do tell me, how could you ever get a commerical sponsor or advertiser on an internet station? - It's not like targetted at a certain area or anything; you can get the stream in your vechicle (unless you're a geek of some description). The UK is a joke. PRS / PPL / MCPS all want cash for playing artists (obviously they have a nice admin fee attached to their fee's); which is just another way of them getting cash. The way it should work (across the world) is IF the station is making a crust from advertisers of some nature then I think the profit (after overheads) at say 25% to at least give the business some substance to survive, is put into some kind of 'webcasting' pot, which end of every year is devided to record companies who have done well and most likely to have their track played.
What percentage of the money collected by the copyright mafia actually goes to the artist? Does anybody know?
@ US of A #
"I hate the term 'Radio' when it comes to internet... casting, "
I know it's not strictly accurate, but what's the alternative? When standalone Internet radios do look like radios.
Whoever did the catalogue pictures for the Bush Tr2015 even felt the need to photoshop a telescopic aerial which it neither has nor needed.
Actually, that's a reasonable point... I guess you'd have to look at what Classic FM pays and to whom.
Scrap the PPL, MCPS, PRS and license fee. Instead replace with simpler Rights Agency
The current system is far to complicated, with too many separate bodies dealing with different types of royalty.
I think we should scrap all of them - and the license fee and have a simple Rights Agency tax for everyone: business and consumer, based on usage.
Tax? Not another one I hear you say? If you drop the populist view of "yet another tax", then you might realise you could be better off without the annual license fee of 140pounds and by paying a nominal sum per usage instead.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great