Username:
Password:






 
Webcasters left in the lurch by Jessie Helms
Posted by Bill Evans on October 23, 2002 at 6:21 AM   (printer friendly)

WASHINGTON-- In a scramble to end their session, senators have left small commercial Webcasters with an uncertain--and potentially expensive--future.

Online radio stations and the recording industry, including the Recording Industry Association of America, had agreed on royalty rates that would considerably discount what Webcasters are to pay music companies, but the rates required the approval of Congress.

Both groups expected the Senate to approve the rates late Thursday night, but 20 minutes before the vote Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) put a hold on the bill at the request of small religious broadcasters in North Carolina.

"Our constituents did not have full opportunity to participate," says Joe Lanier, a Helms aide. He says Congress was moving too fast and overlooked the interests of these Webcasters.

For now, Webcasters must pay the higher rates that they were trying to avoid through negotiations.

Initial Tune
The road to the delayed Senate vote is one of negotiation and lobbying, with smaller Webcasters fearing they'd be taxed out of existence.

The Librarian of Congress in June imposed a rate of.07 cents per song per listener. This rate--which now takes effect on Sunday--is retroactive to the date the Webcasters started business. Many Webcasters object that the rate is too high and will force them off the Internet.

In fact, the proposed fees exceeded revenues of some small Webcasters. St. Louis-based 3WK Underground, launched in 1997, would have to pay back royalties of $50,000, though the company earned only $10,000 last year.

Wanda Atkinson, co-owner of 3WK, says business has been on hold since the Librarian of Congress put the rates in place.

At first, members of Congress drafted a bill to extend the royalty deadline by six months. That effort was abandoned on October 1 when small commercial Webcasters and the recording industry said they could reach an agreement.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) gave them a week to strike a deal, and agreement was reached October 6.

Sensenbrenner introduced a bill outlining the compromise, which creates a sliding fee scale based on revenue for the next two years.

"What started out as a negotiation for small Webcasters morphed into legislation," Atkinson says. Sensenbrenner's bill passed by a voice vote in the House last week.

The bill's sponsors, the recording industry, and several Webcasters expected the Senate to approve the bill by unanimous consent Thursday, three days before the Librarian of Congress's rates went into effect.

"Every effort was being made to prevent many Webcasting streams from going silent next week," says Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).

Then Helms halted the process.

Lingering Chorus
Sensenbrenner's bill does not address radio broadcasters streaming on the Web or noncommercial Webcasters, also called hobbyists.

Deborah Proctor, general manager of WCPE, a public radio station in Wake Forest, North Carolina, also streams its classical music broadcasts over the Internet. She says her station wanted to be a part of the negotiations.

"Unless you had six digits to pay for the arbitration process, you couldn't even comment," Proctor says.

Another Webcaster questions the deal.

"I think that the people that went along with the bill did so under duress of closing their doors," says David Shively, director of interactive media for Beethoven. com.

"It would be unfair to say that Senator Helms killed the bill," Shively adds. "He worked to ensure the relief that it creates is relief that helps as many people as possible."

The religious broadcasters would be willing to pay the Library of Congress (news - web sites) rates in short term in order to negotiate a different deal, says a source familiar with the negotiation. The group would have preferred a six-month extension.

Next Verse?
"The ball is in the copyright holders' court," says Shively. "It's up to them whether they want to be reasonable or lenient or if they want to be aggressive and go after these companies."

Atkinson says that most small commercial Webcasters will pay something to SoundExchange, the agency that collects the royalty payments. "The artists have been waiting forever and they deserve it," she says.

Late on Friday, SoundExchange announced a temporary payment policy allowing eligible Webcasters to pay only the $500 annual minimum fee up to a maximum of $2500.

"We are surprised and disappointed that the small Webcasters' legislation was not passed as expected by the Senate," says Hilary Rosen, RIAA chairman and chief executive. The Senate will not meet again until November 12, when Leahy is expected to try again to win Senate approval of the bill.


User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)

goofycaca  
Date: October 23, 2002 @ 12:48 PM
Cool, first post.

Why is it that the webcasters that are not likely to pay royalties are the ones that are all upset with the deal? Beethoven is not likely to be upset with the use of his music. Christian radio stations? Who listens to them anyway? We're talking about webcasters with real listeners and real artists looking at real money.

ChillinBuzz  
Date: October 24, 2002 @ 1:21 PM
What a joke, can't make a decision so let's bang the full charge back on until it's sorted out?

If this was supposed to help, can someone keep count of the number of dead webcasters before they sort this crap out? It's gonna start mounting up now.

jmiles  
Date: October 24, 2002 @ 2:39 PM
It is hard for me to admit this, but perhaps Helms has a point. Helms is an evil man, true. But the legislation truly is vague with respect to hobbyists and non-commercial webcasters. This is not just religious broadcasters we're concerned with, but any hobby or non-commercial webcast. Countless numbers of such broadcasters have already closed up, for inability to pay royalties - not just high royalties, but any royalties.

Copyright law is always sketchy when it comes to personal broadcasting. In effect, you can load your car with all your buddies and play commercial CDs, but as soon as you decide to use radio waves for broadcasting, prohibitive laws go into affect. Of course, much of that has to do with bandwith usage and licensing. But the other problem is royalty payment requirements. IF you broadcast and artists's work the law requires a royalty to be paid to the artist.

Streaming audio should be every independent musician's friend. I have the technology available to stream my music to any computer in the world. RIAA doesn't want that competition, though. If we are to stand for our collective rights we should push for laws that provide protection for non-commercial broadcasters, or at least specify the type of agreements allowed between labels, artists, and broadcasters as they apply to webcasting. Instead, RIAA wants to concentrate on the royalty structure. That is, payment to artists under their union. Well, not every musician, myself included, wants to be represented by RIAA. Instead, I want to remain free to broadcast my music how I want to, and to enter into any agreement I want to to allow others to broadcast my work. Unless the law provides protection for independent broadcasters who simply cannot afford to pay a royalty structure, then the only stations available for broadcasting will be commercial sites. And, once again capitalism-spawned gentrification will ensue, and the music, freedom of expression, and culture are doomed.

Note that Rosen was disappointed that the legislation was not passed right away. That makes me seriously question how useful the bill in its current form would be. My .02.