Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House

An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the Internet Radio Equality Act is failing fast in the House, with negotiations breaking down over fair pricing for internet radio broadcasters. 'A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position ... SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.'" All very cushy for SoundExchange. Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.

Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails

[couchslug]

"In a weird way, I hope that this fails"

That isn't weird. I want to see the RIAA and anyone who supports them boycotted out of business. As long as these groups are able to make money they will survive.

Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails

[MadJo]

The biggest problem is, that internet radio stations pay copyright fees to SoundExchange even if the artists have released their stuff under a creative commons licence. Or even if said artist is not associated with SoundExchange or the RIAA.
(Article [dailykos.com] on the DailyKos on this subject)

Which ever way you look at it, it's a lose-lose situation for internet radio, if the fees will go in effect.

Someone should point it out to Congress

[Opportunist]

People listening to internet radio will not simply stop to do that and turn back to old fashion radio if internet radio is being made impossible in the US. Rather, they'll tune in to other stations abroad. With internet radio, this is hardly a problem.

The difference is that this makes it quite a bit harder for Congress (or any organisation within the US) to take influence in the broadcast and avoid or at least monitor less desired broadcasts to happen. I mean, think of the propaganda ability of a net based radio that plays what its listeners want to hear. All you have to do is call your spin news and broadcast it once an hour, and between those news, just broadcast the latest and greatest hits.

Now imagine this radio station somewhere in the middle east.

Re:Cause and Effect

[morgan_greywolf]

It would seem, since no one is being taken to court on an illegal act, that they did not. That it were a civil issue why are music stations not suing for redress. Herer's a thought, if Wired thinks SoundExchange is breaking the law, report them to the law. Is that not what we do if we see a crime taking place?

It's not that simple. If SoundExchange is violating the law, it is probably a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Law enforcement doesn't do anything and is not responsible for enforcing civil law, only criminal law.

If they are violating civil law, well, as for why music stations aren't suing...well, people with a legitimate legal beef don't always sue. There are plenty of reasons why they don't.

Look at this way: Microsoft violated the law with its Windows licensing scheme, right? I mean, a federal circuit court judge even said so, right? So why didn't the OEMs, who were harmed by this illegal licensing scheme, sue Microsoft? Mostly economic reasons. They didn't want to fight Microsoft's army of lawyers, sure, but they also didn't want Microsoft to cut them off from Windows and Office licenses.

I suspect there are similar reasons why music stations aren't suing SoundExchange.

what a choice

[Swampash]

Seems like our options are the Oil Industry Party or the Media Industry Party. Great.

Which part of the Constitution authorizes this?

[j1mmy]

I wasn't aware that regulating media licensing fees was one of the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

I think you and the site you link to misunderstands the meaning of the term "compulsory license [wikipedia.org]". It isn't compulsory for the radio station, it is compulsory for the artist. Meaning the artist has no choice but to grant a license through SoundExchange. However the artist can grant other licenses and the radio station is free to accept or reject any of them. The compulsory license isn't compulsory for the licensor to accept, it is compulsory for the artists to grant. If artist and licensor can agree upon some license directly with each other, soundexchange is irrelevant and gets nothing.

Re:One's "illegal lobbying"

[ScrewMaster]

Well, actually that enthusiastic modding-up was mostly +n Funny, which indicates that the mods have more of a sense of humor than the rest of you over-analytical types. More to the point, however, Congress is making deals with a known corrupt organization (there, is that better?) ... but then again Congress itself has, since Colonial times, also been a known corrupt organization. Had it not been for the malfeasance of various members of Congress over the past century, copyright and patent law wouldn't be in their current state of disarray, and SoundExchange, in its current form, would never have been suffered to exist.