Save internet radio
March 16, 2002 11:12 PM   Subscribe

Save internet radio The [American] Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel ("CARP") is proposing to lawmakers that internet radio stations aught to pay royalties retroactive to 1998; royalties of .14¢ per song per listener for Internet-only webcasters, .07¢ per song per listener for broadcast radio simulcasts, and .02¢ per song per listener for non-commercial radio simulcasts.

Most stations are operating on zero financing. Do the math; .02¢ x 12 songs per hour and 100 listeners..

Don't let this spell the end of internet radio. Please, go to the site and click to help.
posted by giantkicks (6 comments total)
I think that is supposed to be 14 ¢ or 0.14 $. I don't mean to be nitpicky but 0.14 ¢ would not be very bad as a royalty payment (thats 600 songs per dollar while 14 ¢ means just 6 songs per dollar).

I don't want other mefi readers to get the wrong impression.
posted by ssheth at 4:49 AM on March 17, 2002

Oops .. i'm wrong. Reading the story a little more closely, I see that the royalty rates are indeed 0.14 of a cent.
posted by ssheth at 4:52 AM on March 17, 2002

Math also done in this thread.
posted by bjgeiger at 5:38 AM on March 17, 2002

If I get to choose my play list, then it is not radio. A lot of sites have been calling themselves internet radio, when really they are no more than juke boxes. In a similar respect, some sites have been streaming pre-compiled music, which again is not really radio.

This forms part of the problem, as this legislation has been drawn up to be all encompassing. To my mind that isn't right. If you are a genuine internet radio station, play music live, compiled in real time, then you should not be treated any differently to normal radio. However a company that acts as glorified juke box should not be afforded the same rights. Why should they be allowed to distribute music without making a contribution to the industry?
posted by RobertLoch at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2002

If only they had called themselves the "Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel"...

(Someone had to say it.)
posted by zztzed at 7:35 AM on March 17, 2002

Actually, both radio stations and jukeboxes pay copyright performance royalties -- yup, even that jukebox sitting in that corner bar in your neighborhood.

So the real question is -- if jukeboxes and radio stations pay these royalties, why shouldn't internet jukeboxes and internet radio stations? Or, if internet jukeboxes and internet radio stations shouldn't pay it -- why should radio stations and jukebox owners?

I personally think this was inevitible -- and that the real issue is "what constitutes sharing, which should be without royalties, and what constitutes broadcasting or jukeboxing?"
posted by bclark at 10:30 AM on March 18, 2002

« Older This photograph got the World Press Photo of the...   |   Six months that changed a year Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments