As of today, H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act, has only 111 sponsors in the House. It needs more to be assured of passage. Although a member obviously need not add his or her name to a bill to be in favor of it and vote for it, the number of co-sponsors for any given bill is generally indicative of the overall support for the bill in Congress. It has been over a month now since the bill was introduced and we need to rally more support for it.

So, check out this link (Library of Congress) to see if your Representative has added his or her name as a co-sponsor to the bill (H.R. 2060).

Current Co-Sponsors of H.R. 2060

If, not, you need to contact them right away and strongly encourage them to do so.

Upon reviewing the current list of co-sponsors, I sent off a note to my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, immediately. I have to say, I am not pleased with her over this matter. Normally she would be on top of something like this right away. I have always had the greatest respect for her, in terms of her overall positions, and her lack of action on this matter is disturbing me greatly.

Please feel free to copy from my following letter to her as you write your own Representatives:.


Dear Ms. Schakowsky,

In early April of this year, I wrote you to request your participation in introducing legislation that would overrule the Copyright Royalty Board's March decision to raise internet radio royalty rates. This rate increase would put most small internet radio broadcasters out of business and would universally harm struggling musicians. The only true beneficiaries of this ruling are the mega-corporate recording labels of the Recording Industry Association of America, only one of which is an American company at all. Now that H.R. 2060 has been introduced in the House, I am seriously concerned by your current lack of participation as a co-sponsor of this bill.

If you are hesitant to support this bill, a simple review of the testimony presented to the CRB should change your mind. The majority of that testimony came directly from Sound Exchange, the RIAA's not-for-profit royalty lobbying arm. Are you aware that of the 18 current members of the Sound Exchange board of directors, fully 13 of them are fully or mostly supportive of the RIAA's initiatives?

The RIAA's "victory" with the CRB was one-sided and unfair to the vast majority of struggling musicians in America today, as it will result in less exposure for them, and therefore, no revenue whatsoever. Furthermore, the increase will only serve to re-enforce the current virtual monopoly that the RIAA's major labels have on musical recording artistry and radio-airplay within the United States. It will enable them to establish tight control over an internet broadcast medium that has been able to assert itself independently outside of the bounds of their influence.

Some of the best musical artistry today comes from independent artists, like myself and others. We deserve to have a voice in our field. If you choose not to support H.R. 2060, you will be supporting an antiquated and corrupt corporate oligarchy at the expense of today's average, struggling American musician.

I therefore request again that you throw your wholehearted support behind overturning the CRB decision and add yourself as a co-sponsor to H.R. 2060.

Please respond with your position on this matter.

Sincerely,
(My full name)

___________________

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tepmix,

I checked the list and saw one FLA legislator on there, but not the guy I wrote to; I will adapt your sample and write again.

Thanks for keeping up the push on this, Tim!

Thanks Mme. Yes, the entire Mixmeister community desperately needs to be proactive in this matter. You need to contact your Representatives now if they have not added themselves as co-sponsors to this bill.

When I review the number reads our posts have generated and the number of responses to them generated by the membership, compared to the jovial wrangling posts of the membership, I am a bit discouraged by the lack of participation. Without rapid and immediate action to push this bill through Congress, internet radio stations, like the ones here at beatmixing.com will almost undoubtedly go silent on July 15, absent any kind of special agreement with Sound Exchange, which I imagine would be prohibitively difficult to achieve. If MM and Beatmixing.com are forced to pay the current rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board retroactive to January 1, 2006, the financial burden to MM and the Mixmeister community would be chilling.

So, forum members, get off your butts and do something now! If you enjoy the benefits of this community, you should consider yourself obliged to do so. It is the right thing to do, and those who have not participated in this process should consider themselves firmly chastised. If you have a differing opinion on the matter, engage in debate. That's what our system of laws in this country is supposed to be about--participation and debate. Inaction only serves to allow those with money and power (the "corporate music oligarchy) to steal your rights and freedoms away from you.

For those of you outside of the United States, who enjoy the benefits of our radio streams, please encourage your U.S. counterparts to become actively involved in this process. We need your assistance. Without proactive and urgent action now, July 15 will undoubtedly be "The Day the Music Died."

quote:

For those of you outside of the United States, who enjoy the benefits of our radio streams, please encourage your U.S. counterparts to become actively involved in this process.

Unfortunately (as discussed with Mme elsewhere/when) the process is not so clearly defined in the UK.

We can write our MP's but there is not currently any bill going through UK parliament to the effect of changing the UK laws regarding broadcast or narrowcast media.

Therefore these MP's will concentrate on matters that win them votes (poverty, unemployment etc) as oppossed to something that comparatively has a minor aspect.

I still struggle to understand how any American organisation thinks it can regulate the Internet's content!

Perhaps the answer is to get servers hosted in the Netherlands - they have a strong track record of rejecting any US attempt at enforcing US legislation regarding downloading and copyright issues.

Tim, whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm and your passion, please don't forget that a lot of people come here to join in the 'jovial wrangling' posts, and not to read political comment, the community is after all a global one.

Tim,

Thanks for making a big deal out of this. You motivated me to read all 125 pages of the copyright board's ruling. Boy are my eyes tired.

First, the good news: Beatmixing.com will not be affected. We pay under the per performance model. While we will see an increase in our rates, this won't put us out of business in the foreseeable future. The reason we are OK is because we don't have zillions of listeners and we only have 5 stations--for now.

The new ruling in March 2007, increases the amount of the per performance royalty from $0.0008 per performance in 2006 to $0.0019 per performance in 2010. A performance is playing a song for each listener.

One major change is the removal of a percentage of revenue option for small webcasters. This was hotly contested and part of the problem was defining what revenue is relevant and what isn't. The recording industry seems sensitive to this and has made a voluntary proposal to address small webcasters.

Perhaps the most important change is the requirement for a $500 minimum per station with no cap. The previous cap for minimum payments was $2,500 per licensee. This is no big deal for us because we only have 5 channels. But services like Live 365 and Pandora are in bad shape. They potentially owe a ridiculous amount of money, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Residents of the US: email or call your congressperson. Do it now. I just did. Thank you for your support.

quote:

Originally posted by MM_Aaron:
...First, the good news: Beatmixing.com will not be affected...

WOOHOO!!!

16 out of 53 congressional district representatives in CA are on board as co-sponsors. my Congresswoman was not one of them , wrote her a letter today!

quote:

Originally posted by MM_Aaron:
....motivated me to read all 125 pages of the copyright board's ruling.

Thanks for that, Aaron ... it's a lot to digest and it's good to have the benefit of your analysis.

quote:

First, the good news: Beatmixing.com will not be affected.

I'd just echo Space on this!

quote:

One major change is the removal of a percentage of revenue option for small webcasters. This was hotly contested and part of the problem was defining what revenue is relevant and what isn't. The recording industry seems sensitive to this and has made a voluntary proposal to address small webcasters.

It's nice that the recording industry is sensitive to the need to promote the careers of its artists by encouraging air play of their music. However, this has to be weighed against the fact that many artists who are benefitting from internet radio are self-label/small label artists outside the music industry machine and the industry really doesn't care if they sink without a trace once they lose the promotional advantage of internet radio play. The other big losers, besides those independent artists, will be the listeners who care about their music.

quote:

Perhaps the most important change is the requirement for a $500 minimum per station with no cap. The previous cap for minimum payments was $2,500 per licensee. This is no big deal for us because we only have 5 channels. But services like Live 365 and Pandora are in bad shape. They potentially owe a ridiculous amount of money, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't promote my L365 station in any way other than a mention on my website; I would not say that I have huge amounts of listeners ... and I'd still have to pay at least the $500/yr, which is a lot for a hobby -- though not as much as some folks spend on e.g., stamp collecting, car detailing or video games, I guess. I will know what I'll do when I get the actual bill; based on the L365 forum input, lots of webcasters will sign off for good (or go the NL route ).

quote:

Residents of the US: email or call your congressperson. Do it now. I just did. Thank you for your support.

I would just mention the advice of the savenetradio website, which notes it is the old-fashioned, hard copy letter sent by snail mail that gets noticed in legislative offices. I sent one and got a response from my legislator -- a real response, not a form letter. I do believe this is the best way to have an impact on them and impress them that real voting citizens have real concerns about this issue. That said, do whatever you can ... but make some kind of noise!

Thanks to our non-USA community members for bearing with us while we discuss what we perceive to be a crucial issue for the future of broadcast music and the artists who contribute to it.

MadameFly,

Just to be clear about stations on Live365: They pay the royalties so this is initially their problem. Now, they may have to shut down or pass on the costs to you. But, you won't be getting a bill from the recording industry (SoundExchange). Live365 is already doing business with them on your behalf.

That's correct, Aaron ... Live365 does all the interfacing for "hobby" broadcasters such as myself, while their "PRO" category of users must contract directly with SoundExchange, from what I have read ...

I currently pay L365 between $250 and $300/yr to help defray those costs (it varies depending on credits I get whenever listeners click a link to sign up for membership while listening to my station.) So, from what we understand so far, if the base fee of $500 goes into effect, our bill from L365 will increase in step with that.

Like so much stuff w/ governmental process, there is still much uncertainty about the final form this will take ... (for even louder cries of pain, ask me about the current property tax reform working its way thru the legislature in FLA )

Many thanks to Aaron for weighing in on this matter. It was a concern to the community here and it's good to know that we will not be immediately affected. Nevertheless, overcoming these royalty issues, with respect to the overall internet radio phenomenon and how they affect us all now and down the road, is extremely important for what I can identify as three reasons:

First of all, Beatmixing.com may not be affected now, but what about the future? Our listenership here now is not large. However, that does not mean that it cannot become larger in the future. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the net effect of the audience for our stations has a positive net effect on the sales of the Mixmeister product line. Upon the prospect of higher royalties, decisions can be made that affect the listening capacity and potential growth of the stations' audience, if the audience grows over time, depending on the needs of our sponsor and how they weigh those needs in terms of their overall market strategy. I think we all would like more listeners on Beatmixing.com. We have some great talent here and it deserves to be heard. So, we cannot sit in a blind satisfaction that our own stations here will not be immediately affected, because their potential future will be affected in varying ways, most of which can only be concluded to be negative.

Secondly, we do not live in a vacuum. I'm glad Mme. Fly has spoken on her Live 365 participation. If she hadn't brought that up, I was going to. The CRB ruling is set to have a devastating impact on internet radio as a whole. placing overburdens on independent station operators, like Mme. Fly, that exist underneath these larger umbrella organizations. Many will just give up if the CRB ruling stands.

And finally, the success of the RIAA in lobbying this royalty increase has the worst possible implications for independent musicians, who have been able to use internet radio as a successful tool to bypass the unfair monopolist practices of the RIAA and its member labels. According to statistical surveys, roughly 37% of the music played on internet radio comes from independent artists, musicians and labels. By comparison, the amount of independent music played on terrestrial and satellite radio is only 5%. The success of the RIAA in lobbying the recent CRB decision was a blatant power grab on their part to push independent artists out of the way and is an obvious tactic on their part to kill the independent music movement entirely. It is a clear violation of the principles of anti-trust law in this country and needs to be dealt with severely. We need competition in the music industry, not consolidation and further monopoly.

So, if H.R. 2060 does not get passed by July 15, the net effect will still be a devastating blow to artists and musicians everywhere, including ourselves. Check the link above for your Rep's co-sponsorship on the bill. This bill needs to be passed, and it needs additional co-sponsors now.

Coincidentally enough, the L.A. Times had posted an opinion the day before that details the points I've made immediately above:

Battle Royalty

Nice read, thanks Tim. I laughed out loud at this "ivory tower" bit:

quote:

Simson defends charging a $500 minimum even for amateurs and non-commercial webcasters, noting that fishermen and golfers spend more per year to pursue their hobbies.

Yeah, lots of correspondence there between your average internet radio hobbyist and your average golfer who spends hundreds or thousands of dollars for club memberships, hardware and travel, or fishermen at the upper end of the spectrum who may spend thousands or hundreds of thousands on boats, fishing gear and travel ... how do the spending habits of this elite bunch relate at all to the average hobbyist whose greatest expense, besides the computer and the DSL connection, is the musical stock in trade, be it CD, vinyl or digital music purchases?

Another interesting point (though not as laughable) is this one:

quote:

Labels and artists are even pushing to collect royalties from over-the-air stations, which have long been exempted (they pay royalties only to songwriters).

There has always been the feeling among webcasters that they were being hammered unfairly compared with terrestrial radio broadcasters. I don't know if webcasters would actually be happier to find their terresetrial cousins in the same boat ... but I can easily imagine the outcry from the big radio names like Clear Channel if that option was to gain traction....

Finally, the deeply significant part:

quote:

.... the higher minimums and rising rates could trigger the kind of consolidation that has made over-the-air radio a no-fly zone for all but a fraction of the tracks released on CD. Such consolidation would almost certainly reduce the diversity of music online, which runs contrary to the needs of most artists and labels as well as the public's interest.

This really is about cutting off competition as much as it is about maximizing revenue in a down market. For deeper reading about the mis-uses of intellectual property laws to stifle competition rather than simply reward the creator, as contemplated by the law, I recommend the TechDirt.com blog which often has posts breaking down issues in IP law.

"Because the current rates are retroactive to January 2006, an estimated 90 percent of Internet stations will go bankrupt as soon as the rates go into effect."

...from The Charleson Post and Courier "Is Internet Radio Doomed?"

I found this article to have a good, but lengthy, debate between a webcaster and music industry person.

Interesting ... and, as a potential consumer of legal services, let me start by remarking that I'm glad Jay Rosenthal isn't my attorney, since he makes arguments that are pretty easy to pick holes in ... consider this comment:

quote:

I also do not buy into the idea that hobbyists deserve a break simply because they are hobbyists. The cost of a computer, electricity, rent, chairs, et cetera must be borne by the webcaster. Why should the music be the main focus of cost cutting? If you really want to cut costs, you should petition the electric company, Apple or your landlord for a break. Indeed, this sounds silly -- but why doesn't it sound silly when applied to music? We are conditioned to think that music "should" be cheaper or even free. That thinking must stop.

I would suggest that the point was this: as the hobbyist webcaster provides at least some promotional benefit to the artist, on that basis they should get a break -- keeping in mind that for years and years record labels gave away vinyl albums to record stations specifically for promotional purposes (and not touching on the other promotional considerations given to secure airplay that eventually led to payola prosecutions...) -- where in the poorly thought-out analogy is the similar benefit that the hobbyist webcaster provides to the electric company or the landlord or Apple that would cause them to ask for a break in those expenses? Obviously, there is none; the argument is deficient.

He shoots himself again with this comment:

quote:

If the hobbyists really loved what they are doing, then they should pay the going rate. One would think they would find great enjoyment in sharing an artist's music with the world and sharing some of their hard-earned money with the artist at the same time.

If you talk to musicians who have signed contracts with major labels only to discover that they had essentially entered into a condition of indentured servitude (e.g., they won't get royalties until expenses are met and a huge portion of those expenses, after studio time and touring costs, are promotional expenses, the accounting practices for which are essentially a black hole of untrackable monies.) One wonders where the record executives who craft these contracts come out on the concept of sharing some of their hard-earned money with the artist.

I could go on, but I probably don't need to -- most people concerned about the subject can easily discern the illogic and the straw men introduced in Rosenthal's rebuttal (e.g., the assumed jump from webcast streaming directly to theft-by-download ... something that Rosenthal is "inclined to believe" -- therefore it must be true.)

Thanks for this contribution, Aaron ... I'll keep following the conversation.

Mme,

You shouldn't be particularly surprised by Mr. Rosenthal's mostly specious arguments. Jay Rosenthal is lawyer for the Recording Artists Coalition, and a member of the Board of Directors for Sound Exchange. He is a generally vocal supporter of the RIAA. See my earlier post:

The Sound Exchange Front

I would find an argument for the payment of these royalties more convincing if it came from the mouth of an average artist working in his or her field. However, from what I can tell, finding an average musical recording artist that supports the internet radio royalty increase is darn near difficult to impossible.

So, it makes sense that the dissenting opinion, coming from a lawyer that supports the cartel industry, would trot out the same old, tired arguments that the RIAA has been promoting since day one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tepmix,