Web radio: accordo con i discografici; e Pandora limita

Il sito Paid Content (grazie a Francesco per la segnalazione) fa il punto sull'accordo raggiunto tra le case discografiche americane e le stazioni radio via Internet o i servizi di musica free tipo Pandora, che in base alla nuova regolamentazione del 2007 avrebbero dovuto versare royalties molto onerose ai titolari dei diritti dei brani musicali trasmessi. Gli accordi prevedono la possibilità di versare dei fee in funzione dei brani diffusi o, in alternativa, in base alle revenues complessive (un balzello piuttosto salato: il 25%). La nuova convenzione, che dovrebbe favorire le entità "pureplay" - i business esclusivamente musicali - permettendo loro di tirare avanti, era stata contestata da aziende come RealNetworks, che forniscono anche altri servizi e tecnologie. Real in effetti continua a dirsi non soddisfatta del patto. Quanto a Pandora, facendo i suoi calcoli ha deciso che d'ora in poi chi usufruisce del servizio gratuito non potrà ascoltare più di 40 ore di musica al mese. Oltre questo limite gli utenti saranno tenuti a versare, ogni mese, 99 centesimi di dollaro, o passare direttamente al servizio a pagamento Pandora One.

Labels, Online Radio Stations Agree On New Royalty Rates; Pandora Will Limit Listening


After years of uncertainty, so-called “pureplay” internet broadcasters finally have a copyright deal that should give them enough breathing room to stay in business. The agreement announced today between the record labels and the online radio stations offers an alternative to the higher royalty payments imposed in 2007 by the Copyright Royalty Board—providing a form of revenue sharing and more detailed reporting in exchange for lower per stream rates. Earlier this year, settlement talks faltered at the last minute when the two couldn’t get past the idea of charging companies like RealNetworks based on their overall revenue, rather than streaming music alone.
This still doesn’t help Real, the company says, since it isn’t “pureplay” but Pandora, the poster child for the idea that the new rate could kill businesses, is pretty pleased even though founder Tim Westergren says the rates are “quite high” and that the free service’s top listeners face limits.
Westergren told readers of the Pandora blog that users of the free version will be limited to 40 hours a month; he estimates that will effect about 10 percent. They will be able to pay an opt-in fee of 99 cents when they hit the limit in a given month: “In essence, we’re asking our heaviest users to put a dollar (well, almost a dollar) in the tip jar in any month in which they listen over 40 hours. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable—the same price as a single song download.” Or they can upgrade to premium Pandora One.
For its part, the music industry isn’t letting go of the earlier ruling. John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, stresses that this is an experimental formula and that the rates “the rates the CRB set were appropriate and fair.” The nonprofit collects royalties for copyright owners. This, Stimson said in a statement, “gives certain pureplay webcasters the opportunity to flesh out various business models and the creators of music the opportunity to share in the success their recordings generate.” These rates are extended through 2014 for small pureplay webcasters, and through 2015 for the others; it’s retroactive to 2006 for all.
The final settlement includes three rate classes, each starting with a $25,000 minimum annual fee that can be applied to royalties owed and with a minimum percentage of all their U.S. revenues up to 25 percent:

—Large pureplay webcasters: Pay the greater of either a per performance rate or 25 percent of total revenue; agree to provide “more comprehensive reporting” about the sound recordings used than currently required.

—Small pureplay webcasters (those earning $1.25 million or less in total revenues with a cap on music streamed): Through 2014, they will have the option of paying the greater of a percentage of revenue or a percentage of expenses, and “in certain circumstances” can have less stringent reporting requirements in exchange for a “proxy fee.” That option could keep the paperwork down, something that can be intense for smaller operations.

—Pureplay webcasters that provide bundled, syndicated or subscription services: Will pay per-performance fees that are the same as those contained in an agreement cocluded earlier in the year by SoundExchange with the National Association of Broadcasters.

—Update: Real spokesman Bill Hankes explained the company’s situation via e-mail: “None of the settlements are a good fit for our diverse business. Our goal is to arrive at a rate that is feasible for both free-to-the-user and bundled music services. We’d like to reach an agreement that makes sense, but if that proves impossible we are prepared to adhere to the rates established by the Copyright Royalty Judges.”

USA, NAB strappa uno sconto sul webcasting

La notizia è che la National Association of Broadcasters americana e SoundExchange, la società che raccoglie i diritti per la diffusione della musica, hanno raggiunto un nuovo accordo per il cosiddetto simulcast via Internet, il flusso di programmazione che l'emittente radiofonica tradizionale difffonde in simultanea via etere e sul Web. Sono tariffe piuttosto elevate e destinate a crescere notevolmente nei prossimi cinque anni, ma quel che conta per la NAB è che fino al 2010 i suoi associati pagheranno lo streaming musicale su Web a tariffe comunque più convenienti rispetto a quelle a loro tempo fissate dal Copyright Royalty Board.
Restano i dubbi sulle povere emittenti che trasmettono solo su Internet, esterne al NAB e quindi escluse dalle tariffe preferenziali e impossibilitate a giocare su diversi canali pubblicitari (cosa ha già spinto AOL e Yahoo a liberarsi delle loro Web radio). Ma attenzione, scrive nel commento che segue la newsletter Audiographics. Le famose tariffe concordate con SoundExchange, forfettizzano il pagamento dei diritti in funzione del numero di ascoltatori che si collegano allo stream, in ragione di un tot ogni migliaio di ascoltatori. Le radio devono cominciare a convivere con l'idea che in futuro, diversamente da quanto è sempre accaduto per il modello diffusivo, un pubblico più esteso implicherà un maggior costo per la trasmissionedi brani musicali. E di conseguenza anche il modo di coprire tali costi - cioè la vendita di inserzioni - dovrà seguire un analogo ragionamento. Gli inserzionisti dovranno pagare di più per una pubblicità assai più mirata e misurabile, perché legata a un contenuto trasmesso via Internet e non via etere. Non solo. Nella pubblicità radiofonica ibrida via etere/Web, cambia anche radicalmente il concetto di localismo. Si sa che il mercato pubblicitario radiofonico americano viene suddiviso in tanti bacini e gli inserzionisti che acquistano uno spazio per essere ascoltati in un dato bacino sono anche quelli che si muovono, commercialmente, nell'ambito di quel territorio. Un brand nazionale non farà mai pubblicità su una stazione che si ascolta in una piccola città o comunque non investirà mai troppi soldi. E invece, con lo stream via Internet, cambiano anche quelle carte in tavola. Oggi una stazione non può andare a vendere pubblicità a un inserzionista che lavora in aree non coperte dal segnale. Ma se l'inserzionista in questione ha un sito Web raggiungibile da tutte le località americane la stazione ha uno stream Web che potenzialmente le consente di arrivare ovunque, perché l'inserzionista non dovrebbe acquistare uno spazio su quello stream? Un discorso molto logico, che dimostra come Internet, in una certa misura, ha davvero cambiato le vecchie regole e i mezzi tradizionali devono ancora abituarsi all'idea.

NAB reaches webcasting deal with SoundExchange
February 16, 2009

Soundexchange Two down, four or more to go. SoundExchange, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of labels and performing artists, announced a compromise today with the National Assn. of Broadcasters that settles a nearly 2-year-old dispute over royalties for online radio simulcasts. The deal comes one month after SoundExchange reached agreement with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those pacts leave commercial webcasters, religious broadcasters, college radio and, possibly, hobbyists still seeking better terms than a Copyright Royalty Board decreed early in 2007. Unfortunately, the NAB deal isn't likely to break the logjam for the other webcasters -- simulcasts have much better economics than webcasts do, so NAB members can afford higher rates.
Many webcasters viewed the CRB's order as devastating because it would have more than doubled the royalty rate per song played online. The rate from 1998 to 2005 was 76 cents per 1,000 listeners for large commercial stations, and 20 cents for non-commercial ones. The CRB set a common per-song rate for both that rose from 80 cents per 1,000 listeners in 2006 to $1.90 in 2010. Combined with bandwidth costs and other expenses, those fees test the limits of what some webcasters can make selling advertisements. In response, SoundExchange argues that just as webcasters can't expect discounts from ISPs and utilities, they shouldn't demand "subsidies" from recording artists and record labels. Yet the rates apparently were high enough to prompt dramatic retreats by two of the most popular webcasters, AOL and Yahoo. Both turned over their radio streams to CBS, which was better positioned to market them to radio-friendly local advertisers.
Under the deal announced today, local radio stations will pay a per-song rate of $1.50 per thousand listeners in 2009 and 2010, compared with the CRB's $1.80 and $1.90, respectively. But the deal also calls for rates to rise to $2.50 by 2015. It's worth noting that commercial radio simulcasts (simultaneous online transmissions of over-the-air feeds) can be more lucrative than made-for-the-Internet webcasts because they cost little to produce and include far more commercials per hour. That's why it seems unlikely that the terms agreed to by the NAB will be appealing to other webcasters.
Congress had given each group of webcasters and SoundExchange until Sunday to negotiate deals whose terms would become available to every member of that group. With the deadline passed, it's not clear what will happen next. The courts will soon weigh in: A federal appeals panel in Washington is set to hear the webcasters' legal challenge to the CRB's ruling on March 19.

***

"Local" Covers Larger Area in Radio Today

If there's anything good to come out of the NAB agreement with SoundExchange for local broadcasters, it's that the radio industry will soon understand it must stretch its concept of the term "local" to survive after paying those streaming rates.
Let's quickly go over the terms: from $0.0015, a gradual increase to $0.0025 for each listener for each recording by 2015. It starts at 16% less than what is being demanded of pure-play internet radio stations. If you are interested in seeing what was offered to small webcasters, the agreement is here and the agreement term sheet is here.
There are two thoughts about NAB signing this deal:

1) Radio won't make it work without reconstructing how it sells its online audience.

2) The streaming fee will go up as each station builds its audience online.

Let's take the second point first because it's far from anything the radio industry has ever had to deal with: an escalating expense associated with extending audience reach. This brings a new metric to radio, "Revenue Per Visitor." It's a mathematically certain way to show whether each audience member makes you money, or costs you. The formula is Revenue Generated/Visitors = Revenue Per Visitor.
With server log analytics, you'll see how minor adjustments in web site programming elements add to your revenue or cause people to leave.
Revenue Per Visitor was never considered in a radio station's programming cost before because you could never track audience size. At $0.0025 for each listener, for each recording, you now know that it's technically possible to count an online audience accurately. You may also begin to see the granularity of measurements a radio sales staff can offer in its web site ad package.
It's no secret that HOW radio sells itself is antiquated. So, reconstructing your sales plan is useful if moving this old approach online.
As the NAB and SoundExchange agreement proves, accounting of an online audience is accurate enough to base your costs on it. The natural extension, then, is to offer clients this same granular accountability as a premium service attached to an advertising campaign. You can establish separate revenue streams for a variety of reports you are now able to provide advertisers.
Now about those advertisers, and getting back to our mention of stretching the concept of "local." Anyone listening to your radio station online, who lives in your ADI, helps represent approximately 40% of your web site's total visitors. (That's a very general/generous estimate based on years of watching data like this.) 60% of your web site traffic will come from outside of your market.
Focus selling to the 60% of outsiders by targeting (as advertisers) your town's businesses which have web sites offering online transactions.
If the radio industry is going to sign agreements to pay by audience numbers, it needs to establish methods of charging advertisers using the same audience numbers. (BTW: $0.0025 per listener for each recording may not sound like much until you extrapolate that over an AQH of 15,000.)
By setting up to pay these very high copyright royalty fees, NAB may have just pushed its radio members into tomorrow. Radio industry executives must now look at audience numbers on a much more molecular scale - where most in-the-know ad buyers are starting to settle.
When these execs look, their eyes will open wide; only we won't be able to tell if it's from an amazement at what stands before them, or the amount of money they will need to pay for streaming to an online audience.

Diritti musicali e radio USA: nuove regole per le playlist

Non è affatto conclusa la vicenda, che ha tenuto banco per tutto l'anno passato, delle royalties che le radio americane devono versare per la diffusione di brani musicali. Dalla Copyright Royalty Board è arrivata una nota che fissa alcune novità sul sistema che le stazioni via etere, Internet, cavo e satellite devono utilizzare per riferire alla Commissione i brani effettivamente trasmessi e avere, sulla base di questi elenchi, l'esatta indicazione di quanto pagare. Le regole stabilite cinque anni fa imponevano alle stazioni radio di comunicare le rispettive "playlist" relative a periodi di due settimane ogni trimestre e ora invece la CRB intende chiedere elenchi continui e dettagliati. Per stazioni come Pandora non ci saranno problemi (le playlist vengono già comunicate in elettronico), ma questo nuovo requisito potrebbe risultare oneroso da rispettare per le radio più piccole, per esempio le stazioni universitarie. Ancora non sono state prese decisioni definitive, perché le controparti hanno adesso un mese di tempo per commentare sulla nuova proposta di regolamento. Inoltre, osserva questa breve cronaca di PC Magazine, per le Web radio non è ancora stata chiusa definitivamente la questione dell'entità dei diritti da versare. Una legge dello scorso ottobre aveva fissato il 15 febbraio prossimo come scadenza per la stesura di un accordo tra emittenti e titolari dei diritti. Se l'accordo non ci sarà, sarà la stessa CRB a fissare le tariffe

Web Radio Royalty Battle Takes New Turn

12.31.08

by Chloe Albanesius

The battle over radio royalty rates will likely continue into 2009, with the latest issue tackling how and when cable, satellite, and Internet stations should report their playlists to copyright holders in order to determine payment.
The Copyright Royalty Board, a government body that sets royalty rates, released a notice on Tuesday that suggests altering the reporting requirements for stations.
CRB wants any entity that pays royalties under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act, including Internet radio, satellite radio, digital cable radio, and any other radio-like services delivered by digital means to report every single song they play on the air to SoundExchange, which governs the music industry's royalty rates. Under current rules established in 2004, they are only required to report their playlists for two weeks every quarter.
Pure Internet radio stations like Pandora will not really be affected by this type of "census reporting" because they already agreed last summer to report all activity electronically.
CRB also noted that satellite and cable could have difficulty actually calculating how many users are listening to a particular song, and might have to come up with an alternative means of payment.
"Where this change is likely to have the most impact is in connection with the operations of broadcasters who also stream their programs on the Internet," David Oxenford, a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine, wrote in a blog post. "Noncommercial broadcasters, such as college radio stations, have repeatedly complained that their small staffs to not have the ability to maintain these electronic records, especially where the stations are volunteer-programmed by DJs who select their own music on the spot."
Comments on this proposal are due to the CRB by January 29.
The board also questioned whether it was feasible for SoundExchange to set up a Web site for receiving playlist data to make it easier for smaller operations. SoundExchange has thus far resisted this idea for security and financial reasons. At this point, SoundExchange accepts data via FTP, e-mail attachments, CD-Rom delivery, or via floppy discs.
Though Internet radio already abides by census reporting, royalty payment status is still up in the air. Under a bill signed into law in October, Internet radio and copyright holders have until February 15 to come up with a royalty agreement or the decision will be handed back to the CRB.

Accordo tariffe, salve le Web radio americane? Non tutte

Sembra essere stato raggiunto l'accordo tra le organizzazioni americane che tutelano i diritti d'autore musicali e una parte di siti Internet che diffondono canzoni in streaming. Ma come precisa l'edizione online di PC Magazine in questo articolo l'accordo non rappresenta un'ancora di salvezza per tutte le radio che operano via Internet. Pandora, per esempio, insieme a tante radio musicali, corre ancora il rischio di vedersi raddoppiare le tariffe da versare per ogni brano diffuso ai titolari delle royalties. Nell'accordo di martedì scorso sono compresi solo i servizi come imeem.com, che permette di scegliere i brani da ascoltare, o i siti stile Rhapsody o Napster dove per poter ascoltare brani a piacimento occorre pagare un abbonamento. Pandora, che i brani li seleziona sulla base delle indicazioni ricavate in base alle affinità di gusto tra gli ascoltatori, resterebbe fuori dai nuovi accordi. I responsabili della stazione Web hanno però già fatto sapere di essere ancora ottimisti sul futuro esito di una nuova trattativa.

Is Internet Radio Saved? Not Exactly

09.23.08
by Chloe Albanesius

The recording industry and a group representing digital media reached an agreement Tuesday regarding royalty rates for certain online music services, but the controversial issue of rates for Internet radio stations like Pandora has yet to be settled.
Under Tuesday's deal, sites offering interactive streaming and limited downloads will pay 10.5 percent of annual revenue as a "mechanical" royalty rate - or a fee that goes to songwriters, composers, and publishers.
Interactive streaming Web sites are music sites that let users select the songs to which they want to listen, like imeem.com. Limited download sites let users download a song and listen to it for a set amount of time, or as long as they continue to pay a monthly fee, like Rhapsody or Napster's subscription services.
The Digital Media Association (DiMA), the National Publishers' Association (NMPA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Nashville Songwriters Association International, and the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) submitted the agreement to the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) for final approval.
The debate goes back to 2001 when digital downloads were just emerging as a viable business plan. The RIAA hashed out a deal with the NMPA whereby the RIAA would pay $1 million as an advance until the two sides could reach a deal regarding mechanical royalty rates.
If the RIAA and NMPA did not reach a deal after two years, RIAA would have to pay an additional $750,000, according to the deal.
Seven years later, the debate was still raging and was turned over to the CRB in January 2008. Though the two sides have come to an agreement regarding interactive streaming and limited downloads, the CRB must still hand down its ruling regarding mechanical rates for physical CDs and permanent downloads like those available via iTunes. A decision on those issues is expected by October 2.
Jonathan Potter, executive director of DiMA, said he was pleased that the deal ends "litigation and threats of litigation involving several of our member companies, so that they can focus on building innovative businesses that can effectively fight piracy, the music industry's greatest threat."
"This historic agreement is the foundation for a new generation of music distribution," said David Israelite, NMPA president and CEO, in a statement. "This agreement will ensure that songwriters and music publishers continue to thrive in the digital age."
"This agreement provides a flexible structure to support innovative business models in the digital music marketplace that will benefit music fans, creators, and online services," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the RIAA. "The agreement demonstrates that our industries can work collaboratively to solve complex issues."
One issue they have not resolved is royalty rates for Internet radio stations like Pandora.
Internet radio stations object to a March 2007 CRB decision that would increase the current price per stream of one user from $0.0008 to $0.0019 per stream by 2010 and impose a minimum fee of $500 per station.
Internet stations argue that such high rates will ruin them financially. They are also irked that satellite and cable providers were not subject to the same standards.
The two sides have been going back and forth for nearly 18 months, with no resolution in sight. Members of Congress have introduced bills that would reverse the CRB decision, but those measures have not seen significant action.
"Although this agreement does not address our business, Internet radio, we are encouraged to see copyright holders and digital services reach agreement on a rate structure that will enable the continued growth of those services while fairly compensating artists, labels, songwriters and publishers," a Pandora spokeswoman said Tuesday.

Radio e royalties, un anno dopo il CRB

A un anno dall'entrata in vigore delle nuove tariffe della Copyright Royalty Board per le royalties che le emittenti radio su Internet devono corrispondere ai proprietari dei diritti, il Boston Globe fa un primo bilancio della situazione. La radio su Internet non è morta, ma gli operatori più piccoli sono in oggettiva difficoltà.

Internet radio firms say royalties limiting choices
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | March 14, 2008

For Barry Cedergren, the decision to stop broadcasting nightclub music over the Internet was a matter of simple arithmetic. Much as he enjoyed playing music online, a big increase in music performance royalties made it too expensive for him to continue operating Mobile Beat Radio.
"It was going to cost us tens and tens of thousands of dollars just in fees to play this music," he said. Cedergren launched Mobile Beat Radio from his home city of Minneapolis in January 2007, two months before a panel of federal judges approved a big increase in the performance royalty paid by Internet broadcasters every time they stream a song, prompting him to immediately shut down his site.
Cedergren's story is the nightmare scenario painted by many Internet radio companies who have claimed that the royalty hike would kill online broadcasting in its cradle. In fact, Internet radio is far from dead. Online broadcasters like Pandora and Live365 still serve millions of listeners. But the higher rates have driven away many small online broadcasters who say they can't afford to stay in business. And even industry leader Pandora says it's in trouble. "We're at the very end of our tether," founder Tim Westergren said. "There's a very good chance that we will shut down."
Critics of the royalty system say the result is decreasing musical diversity on the Internet. They warn of an online music industry dominated by the same giant media companies that presently dominate traditional radio broadcasting. And they point to CBS Broadcasting Inc.'s recent takeover of the Internet radio operations of Time Warner Inc.'s AOL as a harbinger of an Internet radio market rendered bland and predictable.
(continua)

Lo stesso bilancio lo troviamo, in forma più approfondita, sulla Radio and Internet Newsletter di Kurt Hanson, mentre il Houston Chronicle pubblica un editoriale che invoca una legge che cambi la situazione delle royalties riguardanti la musica trasmessa via etere. Oggi negli USA i diritti vanno agli autori dei brani e agli editori, non ai musicisti che li eseguono e questo secondo il Chronicle deve cambiare.

For much of the past century, American musicians have been denied the right to get paid for their work when it is used to generate audiences and profits for radio station owners. Songwriters and music publishers receive royalties, but the performers who bring the music to life have been unfairly excluded.
While U.S. radio broadcasters raked in more than $20 billion in 2006 for media conglomerates, the industry's representatives claim closing the royalty loophole would constitute an onerous tax on the industry.
The United States is the only developed Western nation that does not allow its musicians to collect payments for recordings played over the radio airwaves. That puts it in the unsavory company of culturally authoritarian nations, including China, North Korea and Iran.
(continua)

Approfondimenti su Web radio e copyright

Pur non essendo un giurista mi sembra di aver trovato una fonte interessante per approfondire la discussa questione della Copyright Royalty Board. Anche Radiopassioni ha parlato della decisione, da parte della CRB americana, del nuovo sistema tariffario che regolerà i "pedaggi" che le stazioni radio, incluse quelle che operano solo su Web, dovranno versare per poter trasmettere via Internet brani musicali. Il movimento delle Web Radio è insorto, affermando che il nuovo sistema avrebbe strangolato sul nascere un fenomeno che sta già facendo concorrenza alle radio commerciali via etere. Stavo leggendo adesso sul Broadcast Law Blog, curato dallo studio legale Davis, Wright, Tremaine che il primo maggio la CRB ha emesso la sua Final Determination of Rates and Terms in cui tra l'altro viene postposta la data entro cui le stazioni dovranno versare i soldi. A partire da questo momento, scrive il Broadcast Law Blog, ci sono 30 giorni per depositare gli appelli contro la Final Determination. Nel frattempo però, rivela il blog, negli USA è iniziato l'iter parlamentare di una nuova legge chiamata Internet Radio Equality Act una legge il cui obiettivo è "to nullify the March 2, 2007, determination of the Copyright Royalty Judges with respect to webcasting, to modify the basis for making such a determination, and for other purposes."
Ho trovato sulla stessa fonte una pagina che sarebbe impossibile riportare qui, in cui uno dei curatori del Broadcast Law Blog, David D. Oxenford, chiarisce punto per punto le conseguenze che il nuovo tariffario della CRB avrà sugli stream musicali via Internet, siano essi originati da stazioni via etere che ritrasmettono su IP, e da Web radio originali. Il conrtibuto è intitolato Copyright Royalty Board Releases Music Royalties for Internet Radio Streaming for 2006-2010—Clarifying the Confusion. Se siete interessati vi suggerisco anche di andarvi a leggere la raccolta di tutti gli articoli del blog relativi agli argomenti Internet radio e digital radio.