Last.fm sopprime quasi ovunque i "canali radiofonici". Restano - a pagamento - solo in 8 nazioni

Cambiamento di policy in casa Last.fm, che sopprime per la stragrande maggioranza delle Nazioni del mondo, Italia inclusa, la funzione dei canali in streaming personalizzati, le cosiddette "radio stations" finora riservate solo agli abbonati (gratuitamente in USA, UK e Germania). A partire dal prossimo 15 gennaio 2013, anche gli utenti in queste tre nazioni dovranno pagare 3 dollari al mese per accedere alle stazioni radio, mentre la feature dei contenuti in streaming resterà accessibile (sempre a pagamento) in Canada, Irlanda, Brasile, Australia e Nuova Zelanda). In tutti gli altri Paesi, tra cui appunto l'Italia, i "canali radiofonici" di Last.fm spariranno. Per gli utenti paganti italiani resta una formula di abbonamento a 3 euro al mese che consente di accedere ai servizi di "music discovery" in una modalità preferenziale. In pratica l'esplorazione dei vari generi musicali con i suggerimenti su nuovi autori non prevede l'ascolto di annunci pubblicitari. In più l'abbonato dispone di amenities come la visualizazzione dei visitatori del profilo personale e l'accesso a un'area "vip" con classifiche e grafici esclusivi e altre novità dai Last.fm Labs. Elena Brescacin, che ringrazio per avermi segnalato una notizia che sta passando un po' sotto silenzio - mi fa capire che 36 euro all'anno per tutto questo sono una somma spropositata e in effetti non posso darle torto. Chiaramente i nodi della musica legale in streaming stanno venendo al pettine: il sistema delle royalties rende insostenibili anche i servizi a pagamento, almeno ai livelli di prezzo molto contenuti che caratterizzano le offerte attuali. C'è veramente da chiedersi che cosa abbiano in mente le case discografiche e i titolari dei diritti che si ostinano a rendere difficilissima (o salatissima) la vita di chi non vuole ricorrere a mezzi illegali ma non può essere costretta a sborsare somme spropositate per consumi musicali che sono comunque imponenti. Ha senso continuare a trattare la musica digitale come se fosse cocaina?

Royalties, gli abbonati pagheranno al posto di Sirius XM

Nuovi guai in vista per l'operatore satellitare Siurius XM, che dopo il merger deve poter contare sui flussi di cassa generati dagli abbonamenti per risolvare la sua non facile situazione debitoria. Ma conservare la fedeltà degli abbonati rischia di diventare problematico perchè dopo gli aumenti delle tariffe entrati in vigore nei mesi scorsi ora l'operatore ha preso una decisione che non risulterà troppo popolare: a partire dal mese prossimo Sirius XM trasferirà agli ascoltatori la tassa di circa due dollari attualmente versata per coprire i costi dei diritti sui brani musicali trasmessi, diritti che vengono percipiti non dagli autori ma dagli interpreti dei brani e dalle loro case discografiche.
E' la stessa tassa che discografici e cantanti vogliono imporre alle stazioni radiofoniche terrestri (con un progetto di legge molto controverso) e che le stazioni radio via Web e gli operatori di radio digitale come Sirius XM versano da tempo, tra l'altro con aumenti anche cospicui. Fino a oggi Sirius si sobbarcava il balzello. In questi giorni, un memo interno fatto circolare su Internet (ecco per esempio il testo pubblicato da Satellite Guys, un forum di appassionati) ha rivelato l'intezione di riversarlo su chi si abbona.
Dopo aver salvato la sua azienda per il rotto della cuffia, con il prestito di un altro operatore satellitare, Liberty Media, per Mel Karmazin, audace e fortunato Ceo di Sirius XM, la fedeltà degli abbonati è una priorità assoluta. Quanta pressione potrà permettersi di esercitare su di loro? E se l'azienda dovesse fallire, chi trasmetterà i brani musicali le cui royalties vanno a rimpinguare solo le tasse dei discografici?

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.

USA, questione royalties, le paure di radio online e on air

Ancora sulla questione delle royalties sulla trasmissione radio di brani musicali (oggi una stazione non deve pagare niente all'editore di chi suona, solo agli autori delle canzoni) che le etichette americane vogliono imporre ex lege (progetti di legge S. 2500 e H.R. 4789) . Ecco il parere, apparso l'altro giorno sul San Jose Mercury - il giornale della Silicon Valley - a firma del proprietario di KSJO di San Jose, una emittente locale che potrebbe essere strangolata dalle spese aggiuntive se la nuova normativa dovesse essere approvata.

Opinion: Tax on radio would enrich labels at communities' expense

By Dave Pugh
Special to the Mercury News
Article Launched: 09/29/2008

The record labels don't want you to know about the theft they are trying to commit in Washington, D.C., which could deal a $3 billion to $7 billion blow to communities across America.
The record labels, hiding behind the performing artists they continue to exploit, are pushing Congress for a new tax on radio.
In addition to the royalties my stations and stations nationwide are already paying to both the songwriters and publishers of music and to the artists/labels for the ability to stream a station's signal over the Internet, the labels want to get paid for any music we play over free, local radio. Yet 50 percent of the proposed tax would go directly to the record labels, while less than half to the primary performing artist.
Radio stations like mine give artists and their labels billions of dollars of free promotion over the airwaves, helping to make a career for many artists by making them a household name and helping to drive both concert and music sales. Just watch the Grammys or other music awards, and you will see many big name artists thank radio for their success.
In spite of this, the labels want more. In these tight economic times, radio stations are facing declining revenue and feeling the pinch. Telling stations like mine that we need to find millions of dollars — that don't exist in our budgets — means cuts have to happen somewhere.
Job cuts: All across the country, radio stations employ more than 124,000 people to the tune of $6 billion dollars in annual payroll — the price tag of the performance tax. Right here in California, that means 13,645 people and $824 million in payroll that comes back to the community. Stations could be forced to cut benefits or to lay people off.
Public service: The Federal Communications Commission established bare minimum requirements for public service; however, most radio stations go above and beyond the call of duty. In California alone, broadcasters donated more than $1 billion in airtime for PSAs, fundraising drives and charitable contributions. Radio is there for the community in times of need. If the tax passed, stations could be forced to the bare minimum, crippling many non-profit organizations that rely heavily on radio to help them operate.
Diversity in programming and ownership: To avoid the hefty cost, many stations may resort to talk-only formats, limiting exposure to new music and upcoming artists, ultimately hurting the artists and the labels. Smaller stations broadcasting to Hispanic and other ethnic minorities could be forced out of business. Boosting the cost of operating local radio stations could also reduce the number of stations owned by women and people of color at a time when the FCC and broadcasters are trying to increase diversity in ownership.
Radio stations like mine serve as cornerstones of the community. We are here for you in times of crisis during hurricanes, fires, earthquakes and tornadoes, and in better times to entertain and inform you as you go through your day. Now we need you to be here for us: Call members of Congress and urge them to oppose S. 2500 and H.R. 4789 and any performance tax on local radio.
Radio belongs to you; keep it that way.

Dave Pugh is the market manager for Clear Channel San Francisco/San Jose, whose stations include KFOX 98.5 and KSJO 92.3, and a member of the Free Radio Alliance.

Nel frattempo nel Parlamento americano sta avanzando la legge che prevede la possibilità per le stazioni radio in streaming via Web di negoziare royalties più convenienti con i titolari dei diritti musicali. Potrebbe essere solo una soluzione temporanea ai problemi di un settore che non deve solo raggiungere un obiettivo di contenimento dei costi, bensì anche riuscire a consolidare le proprie fonti di guadagno convincendo gli inserzionisti pubblicitari a investire in questo nuovo mezzo. Sembra che da parte dell'associazione delle radio via etere, non ci siano più pregiudiziali alla stesura di accordi di questo tipo, inizialmente osteggiati per il timore di possibili effetti di disparità tra radio convenzionale e radio via Internet. Ecco il commento di Alley Insider.

Web Radio Darling Pandora Breathes Easier, For Now
Peter Kafka | September 28, 2008

Who says our elected officials can't get anything done? In addition to hammering out a $700 billion Wall Street bailout deal over the weekend, lawmakers extended a lifeline to Internet radio companies like Pandora, who are trying to lower the fees they're supposed to pay for streaming music rights.
Last night the House passed a bill that essentially gives Pandora and other Webcasters the ability to negotiate with the music business over royalty rates (see press release below). It's expected to clear the Senate in the next few days. Webcasters, led by Pandora's Tim Westergren, have warned that if the bill didn't pass, many of them would end up pulling the plug.
But the bill itself doesn't ensure that Internet radio will survive. Assuming it goes forward, it will simply give Webcasters the ability to continue haggling with the music industry over "performance royalties" -- the fees they're required to music owners each they stream a song. Tim and other Webcasters won't actually tell us what they're willing to pay, except that it's less than what Congress signed off on last year.
And the Internet radio business also has to resolve something that can't get fixed in Washington: How to generate real revenue from their services, since advertisers have so far shied away. If that doesn't happen, it won't matter what how much Internet radio pays the music business: The costs are always going to exceed the revenues.

UPDATE: We're stuck in 2005, says Tim. His full response:

We're going to generate over $20M of revenue in just our 3rd year. I think it's fair to say that we're rapidly solving the monetization issue. Advertisers love the medium, it just takes some time
to break through when you're still growing your comscore numbers.

--------------

Webcasters and Recording Industry Welcome
Passage of H.R. 7084

Bill Would Enable Implementation of Negotiated Agreements

Washington, DC – The House of Representatives last night approved by voice vote must-pass legislation that would benefit all webcasters -- large, small, non-commercial and simulcasters. The Digital Media Association (DiMA), SoundExchange, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) all applauded the swift action taken by the House. It now moves to the Senate where supporters are hoping for quick passage.
The legislation (H.R. 7084) sponsored by Reps. Inslee, Berman, Smith, Conyers and Manzullo authorizes SoundExchange, on behalf of copyright owners and performers, to negotiate new royalty agreements for Internet radio through February 15, 2009 with Digital Media Association (DiMA), National Public Radio (NPR) and any other Internet radio service. It will benefit all webcasters, including broadcast simulcasters. This modification to existing law was introduced because Congress will be out of session as discussions between the parties continue, and it enables implementation of an agreement in the event the parties can reach an accord.
“Everyone is grateful to the sponsors of the bill and to Chairman Berman for getting this through the House last night,” said John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange. “This bill favors all webcasters and simulcasters – large and small. It paves the way for SoundExchange to use the coming months to pursue helpful solutions that allow all services to focus on business development. And, although there are no agreements yet, I am hopeful.”
Jonathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA was also encouraged. “This is an important step. Hopefully the Senate will follow suit and we can return, energized, to negotiations.”
“This legislation benefits all music webcasters and excludes none," said Michael Riksen, NPR VP of Policy & Representation. “Passage will facilitate closure of an agreement to enable all public radio stations to continue their public service through the webcasting of music.”
Nothing in this bill affects the scope of sound recording performance rights or any underlying copyright law.
Supporters are hopeful the Senate will take up the bill prior to adjournment and it will be sent to President Bush for his signature. The parties expect negotiations to resume upon enactment of the bill.

Royalties musicali USA, radio on air contro radio online

La vicenda degli accordi tra chi detiene i diritti musicali e gli "streamer" su Internet per un regime di tariffe meno opprimenti per i poveri webcaster si sta complicando. Il capo di Pandora, uno dei servizi Web tra i più penalizzati dal caro-royalties, Tim Westergren, ha denunciato il tentativo da parte del NAB, la National Broadcasters Association, di bloccare una legge che consentirebbe alle singole stazioni su Internet di negoziare con SoundExchange il prezzo più adeguato. La NAB ribatte di aver spinto in questo ultimo anno per arrivare a una soluzione legale più equa per tutti i player, on air e online.
Credo che in questo fosco clima di alluvionale erosione del risparmio americano, legislatori e titolari di una qualsiasi rendita di posizione debbano sentirsi più inclini al compromesso. Le Web radio rappresentano un segmento molto vitale della net economy, ampie fasce di pubblico giovanile (che purtroppo sul mercato valgono poco perché non hanno grande capacità di spesa) non conoscono altro mezzo per consumare musica. Dopo tutto basta che tutti siano un po' meno avidi.

September 26, 2008
NAB tries to block fee reduction for Web radio

Time is running out on a bill that could pave the way for Pandora and other Webcasters to pay reduced royalty rates, as traditional radio broadcasters are now trying to kill the legislation.

As Congress readies to adjourn, representatives of the National Association of Broadcasters are lobbying lawmakers to stop legislation that would allow anyone streaming music over the Web, such as National Public Radio and Pandora, to continue negotiating with SoundExchange, the body that collects statutory rates for the music industry.
SoundExchange and the Digital Media Association (DiMA), which represents Web radio stations, have been at odds over the fees required to stream music, but the two sides are "optimistic that a deal can be reached," said Tim Westergren, founder of music service Pandora.
The bill, introduced late on Thursday, would allow negotiations between Web radio stations and the music industry to continue and reach a settlement while Congress is adjourned. The two sides need the government's OK before reaching a settlement because they're after a statutory license. Such a license gives Web radio stations the right to stream any copyright songs they want, but also requires them to pay a negotiated rate.
Without the legislation, the talks could come to a halt and the deal could fall through, Westergren said. The bill is scheduled to be voted on the House floor Friday. Congress is expected to adjourn no later than noon on Monday.
Westergren said the NAB's efforts to kill the bill is nothing more than an attempt to stifle the burgeoning Web radio sector, which many in terrestrial radio see as a competitor.
"This bill doesn't effect the NAB at all," Westergren said. "This bill is designed to give us the time to resolve what it looks we're close to getting resolved. The NAB is trying to suffocate the first viable alternative to broadcast radio and is reaching out of their industry to kill another."
Responding to Westergren's statement an NAB spokesman issued this statement: "NAB has concerns related to Congress attempting to fast-track a bill introduced less than 24 hours ago that could have serious implications for broadcasters, Webcasters, and consumers of music. NAB spent more than a year trying to work out an equitable agreement on webcasting rates, only to be stonewalled by SoundExchange and the record labels. We will continue to work with policymakers on a solution that is fair to all parties."
Westergren said that there is nothing in the Webcasting bill that would block traditional broadcasters from reaching their own rate agreement.

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.

Legge sulle royalties, il Congresso si aggiorna

A causa degli impegni parlamentari previsti nell'anno delle elezioni presidenziali, è improbabile che i deputati americani votino entro quest'anno sulla nuova legge che potrebbe costringere le stazioni radio a versare royalties agli esecutori (oltre che agli autori) dei brani trasmessi.
Ma il percorso, dice questa interessante analisi di Billboard/Reuters, sembra ormai segnato e prima o poi il Congresso approverà.

Battle for radio royalties gains momentum
Tue Jul 8, 2008

By Jeffrey Yorke

WASHINGTON (Billboard) - Chances appear slim that Congress will vote this year on legislation requiring terrestrial radio stations to pay artists and labels performance royalties to play their recordings.
Nonetheless, signs are emerging that the recording industry is making some headway in its precedent-breaking fight to extract new royalty payments from broadcasters.
A resounding voice vote June 27 by the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property in favor of the legislation sent the Performance Rights Act to the full House Judiciary Committee. A vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a similar bill is also possible. But the legislation doesn't seem poised to get much further in this election year, as Congress is scheduled to adjourn for a summer recess after the first week of August and faces a full agenda after it reconvenes following the Labor Day weekend.
The National Assn. of Broadcasters (NAB) has rallied opposition to what it derides as a performance "tax," releasing in late June a list of 219 House members (out of 435) who signed a nonbinding resolution declaring that such fees would impose "severe economic hardship" on radio stations.
Still, supporters of performance royalties can point to bipartisan backing of their own, amid signs that even some opponents of the bill are absorbing a fundamental message that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and artists' groups have been hammering home for months: that terrestrial radio broadcasters in other industrialized countries, as well as satellite and Internet radio companies in the United States, all pay performance royalties.

LEGISLATORS WEIGH IN

Intellectual property subcommittee member Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., said he considered the current legislation "a work in progress" and that he intends to vote against it in hopes of working with other members on amendments. But given that satellite and Internet radio companies pay performance royalties, "extending the exemption in perpetuity does not strike me as fair," Coble said.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., one of the signatories of the NAB resolution, told fellow subcommittee members that he recognized the exemption of U.S. terrestrial radio from performance royalties reflected "a lack of harmony with laws around the globe," adding that broadcasters may be at a point where they will have to compensate rights holders and artists for use of their recordings. But he also proposed that radio stations be compensated for their role in promoting music, the value of which the NAB recently pegged at $2.4 billion annually.
"True mitigation here is to compensate the performer and then allow the radio station to participate in the revenue stream," he said. "We ought to consider ... a business model where everyone wins."
A compromise solution is something even subcommittee chairman Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the House version of the performance royalty bill, has been advocating. Another subcommittee member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., urged broadcasters to work with lawmakers.
"The train has left the station," Sensenbrenner said. "Start negotiating in good faith and get a better deal now by negotiating."
But NAB executive VP Dennis Wharton dismissed that option, saying, "That would be negotiating from a point of weakness, and we believe we are in a position of strength."
Tod Donhauser, a spokesman for musicFirst, a coalition that includes the RIAA, the American Association of Independent Music and various artists' groups, said performance royalty advocates "have made more progress this year than in any of the 80 past years," adding, "This is exactly where we want to be at this point."

Royalties musicali, un equo accordo per le radio americane?

Oggi la Commissione giustizia del Parlamento americano deve decidere sulla proposta di legge (democratica) che azzera l'ottantennale privilegio concesso alle stazioni radio, che oggi versano i diritti ai compositori delle musiche ma non agli esecutori. L'abolizione di questa sinecura costringerebbe le stazioni AM e FM a versare contributi che le Web Radio sono già costrette a pagare. Ovviamente gli editori radiofonici non ne vogliono sapere, dicono che gli artisti vengono ampiamente ripagati con la pubblicità fatta ai loro dischi. Il problema, osserva questo equilibrato editoriale del Los Angeles Times, è che di dischi se ne vendono sempre meno, mentre i concorrenti delle stazioni AM e FM stanno versando una tassa in più. La proposta di legge imporrebbe tariffe abbastanza equilibrate, sostiene il giornale, ma queste dovrebbero essere controbilanciate da qualcos'altro, perché a questo punto il rischio è che siano gli artisti a trovarsi in posizione privilegiata. Per esempio, suggerisce il quotidiano, si potrebbero fissare norme che rendono più facile accedere gratuitamente alla musica, riducendo i tempi di passaggio al public domain, o rimuovendo alcune delle barriere (leggi il digital right management) alla circolazione elettronica della musica.

Fair royalties from radio
Unlike online outlets, local broadcast stations don't pay performers. Legislation should level the playing field and preserve public access.
June 26, 2008

More than 100 years ago, Congress gave composers the right to demand royalties from those who played or sang their musical works in public. That 1897 law would later help songwriters (along with their publishers) collect a percentage of the revenue from radio stations that broadcast their tunes over the air. But when the radio industry was developing early in the 20th century, there was no copyright protection for the sound-recording business that was emerging around the same time. Such rights were not made part of federal law until 1972 (in response to vinyl record bootlegging). The result was a strange double standard that persists to this day: Radio stations have to pay composers but not performers.
This double standard applies only to localbroadcasters, not stations that stream songs online, through cable TV or from satellites. That gives the AM and FM dials an advantage over their digital competitors. Broadcasters defend the exemption, arguing that radio airplay gives the biggest boost to music sales. That may be true, but the value is slipping as CD sales plummet. With labels and artists relying less on selling songs and more on monetizing the activities around them, it's hard to defend the free pass awarded to one of the most profitable businesses built on music.
Today, the House Judiciary Committee's panel on copyrights is expected to consider a bill (HR 4789) that would end radio's exemption. Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village) and five others, it would require broadcasters with less than $1.25 million in annual revenue to pay no more than $5,000 in annual royalties, and cap public broadcasters' fees at $1,000. All other broadcasters would be left to negotiate deals with the royalty collectives representing labels and artists or else have the rate set by a panel of federal arbitrators.
It's a simple measure that strikes a blow for fairness, not just to artists and labels but to webcasters and other music services that compete with radio. Still, it's not clear how the constitutional goal of promoting "progress of science and useful arts" would be served by creating a windfall for record companies and musicians. A better approach would phase in royalties gradually and include other provisions that promote public access to music -- for example, by speeding the entry of musical works into the public domain and ensuring that reasonable personal uses of music aren't denied through the labels' use of electronic locks. Intellectual property law is supposed to balance public and private interests -- a feature that Congress often forgets when responding to copyright holders.

Congresso USA, pedaggi musicali per le radio?

Torna a riaccendersi negli USA la discussione sulle royalties che i cantanti vogliono imporre da decenni alle stazioni radio che mettono in onda i loro brani. Finora i legislatori americani hanno evitato di imporre questo balzello ai proprietari delle stazioni radio sulla base di una considerazione che appariva, almeno in passato, abbastanza equa. Le radio contribuiscono a far conoscere le canzoni, ce non si venderebbero senza questa pubblicità. Proprio l'altro giorno la National Association of Broadcsaters ha reso noto uno studio dell'economista James Dertouzos di Stanford, in cui si calcola che il contributo della radio è ancora importante sul mercato della musica: una porzione di vendite equivalente a una somma compresa tra gli 1,5 e i 2,4 miliardi di dollari è legata alla notorietà radiofonica dei brani. I cantanti e le loro associazioni - in testa ci sono tutti i grandi nomi, proprio l'altro giorno Nancy Sinatra è intervenuta con forza - dicono che sono tutte balle, che ormai la radio non conta più niente, che ormai vengono trasmesse solo canzoni vecchie che non vendono più, che i giovani consumano solo MP3, che la radio digitale satellitare le royalties le paga già (è anche un servizio a pagamento, a differenza della radio commerciale finanziata dai soli spot). Il Congresso americano ora promette di ritornare sulle sue decisioni e alcuni deputati cercheranno di imporre la tassa con l'appoggio della RIAA. Le radio rispondono che l'impatto sarà devastante. Probabilmente la verità sta nel mezzo: le stazioni stringeranno la cinghia e andranno avanti per la loro strada in declino. In compenso un folto gruppo di cantanti famosi diventerà ancora più vergognosamente ricco, mentre tanti gruppi e cantanti meno conosciuti stringeranno la cinghia e andranno avanti per la loro strada sempre più digitale. Certo che ultimamente vediamo i parlamenti di mezzo mondo lavorare come matti per rendere i ricchi ancora più ricchi e i poveri sempre meno felici. La cosa straordinaria, di tutto questo, è che i parlamenti vengono votati per lo più dai poveri. Qualcuno me la spiega, questa? Forse sono solo io a essere meno felice? Tornando alla musica, Business Week fa un buon riassunto della situazione:

Radio Royalty Wars Heat Up Again

Congress is weighing fees for terrestrial stations, but broadcasters say such royalties could have a devastating impact on the industry

by Olga Kharif

Nancy Sinatra took her walking boots down the corridors of Congress June 11. The singer took up a cause her father Frank Sinatra had championed 20 years earlier—getting radio stations to pay artists royalties on the songs they play. Satellite and Internet radio stations do it, so it's only fair that terrestrial radio stations should have to pay up also, Sinatra told legislators. "Now we have a situation where one format—AM/FM radio—has a competitive advantage over another: digital radio," Sinatra said in prepared remarks. "This isn't any more fair to digital radio than it is to artists."
(continua)

Mentre qui c'è la risposta del NAB con il link al report firmato da James Dertouzos (scaricatelo, ne vale la pena) e ad alcune controproposte di legge attualmente in discussione, questa volta favorevoli a esentare le stazioni, soprattutto quelle locali, da eventuali pagamenti.

STUDY: RADIO AIRPLAY GENERATES $1.5 TO $2.4 BILLION IN MUSIC SALES ANNUALLY

-- Study shows radio airplay affects music sales more than any other factor--

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new economic analysis of local radio airplay's impact on the recording industry reveals that $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion in annual music sales are generated through free radio airplay.
The analysis, conducted by former Stanford economics professor Dr. James Dertouzos, focuses only on album and digital track sales and does not take into account radio's impact on licensing revenue or merchandise sales. Also not factored into the report is radio airplay's promotional role in increasing ticket sales at concerts, which was reported to be a $2.8 billion a year business in 2006 by Billboard.
"By omitting concert and merchandise sales, as well as licensing revenue, this economic analysis is extremely conservative," Dertouzos said. "Nevertheless, the study clearly demonstrates that radio airplay increases music sales and that performing artists and record labels profit from exposure provided by radio airplay."
The study examines the relationship between local radio airplay of music and sales of albums and digital tracks from 2004 to 2006 in the 99 largest designated market areas (DMAs). The analysis showed that an increase in "spins" -- the number of times a song is played on the radio -- resulted in a subsequent increase in album and digital track sales.
The entire report can be read here in PDF format.
The study relies on local radio ratings information provided by Arbitron, music volume information provided by Nielsen BDS and Mediaguide, music sales data provided by Nielsen SoundScan and radio financial data provide by BIA Financial Network. Dertouzos, who received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University, has more than 25 years of economic research experience. He has worked for the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Stanford University, UCLA, the Annenberg School of Communications at USC, and the Pardee RAND Graduate School for Policy Studies.
A bill in Congress, supported by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), would require America's hometown broadcasters to compensate record labels for radio airplay of music. Countering the RIAA-backed legislation is the Local Radio Freedom Act, which is supported by nine senators and 208 House members.
(continua)