- . Digg It
- . Sphere It
- . E-mail This
- . Save to del.icio.us
- . Permanent Link
Who's Zooming Who?
Don't cry a river for Internet radio
Unless you've been avoiding the Internet for the past few months, you've probably heard that Internet radio is going to die. Or, as it's usually put in the hyperbolic language of the Net, INTERNET RADIO IS GOING TO DIE! The ostensible reason is a ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board, an obscure panel under the Library of Congress that sets the amount of money that online media have to pay for using recordings. Initially, at least, the fees were set so high that many Internet sites thought they might have to go out of business. OMG!
Predictably, there was OUTRAGE. Why should Internet radio stations have to pay for the rights to play recordings while traditional radio stations don't? (Under U.S. law, traditional radio stations only have to pay royalties to songwriters but not performers or owners of recordings, who are usually but not always major labels.) The implication was that the system is UNFAIR! And it is. But although it's easy to drum up sympathy for independent operators, this issue basically cast major labels against online behemoths like Yahoo!, which are essentially arguing that their cost of content should stay stable as their advertising revenues rise. Cue "Cry Me a River."
Fast forward a few months, and even as Internet rates are still being argued over, a coalition of performers and major labels is now posing that same question about the rights of traditional radio in a very different way. They're asking Congress — in House subcommittee hearings with testimony from Judy Collins and Sam Moore of Sam and Dave — why terrestrial radio gets to use recordings for free in the first place. (Opinions vary, but to me it looks like less a matter of legal principle than the fact that radio had more lobbying power at the time.) This has been asked before over the years — Frank Sinatra famously wondered why radio stations were allowed to grow rich off of his labor since he derived little if any money from songwriting royalties. But it's an especially pertinent question at a time when this would give traditional radio an advantage over its electronic competitors.
Predictably, there was OUTRAGE. Why should Internet radio stations have to pay for the rights to play recordings while traditional radio stations don't? (Under U.S. law, traditional radio stations only have to pay royalties to songwriters but not performers or owners of recordings, who are usually but not always major labels.) The implication was that the system is UNFAIR! And it is. But although it's easy to drum up sympathy for independent operators, this issue basically cast major labels against online behemoths like Yahoo!, which are essentially arguing that their cost of content should stay stable as their advertising revenues rise. Cue "Cry Me a River."
Fast forward a few months, and even as Internet rates are still being argued over, a coalition of performers and major labels is now posing that same question about the rights of traditional radio in a very different way. They're asking Congress — in House subcommittee hearings with testimony from Judy Collins and Sam Moore of Sam and Dave — why terrestrial radio gets to use recordings for free in the first place. (Opinions vary, but to me it looks like less a matter of legal principle than the fact that radio had more lobbying power at the time.) This has been asked before over the years — Frank Sinatra famously wondered why radio stations were allowed to grow rich off of his labor since he derived little if any money from songwriting royalties. But it's an especially pertinent question at a time when this would give traditional radio an advantage over its electronic competitors.
What People Are Saying…
Leave a Comment