Save Internet Radio

"Help Us Fight To Prevent The Impending Death Of Internet Radio!" Okay - the headline gets a bit carried away. And I’m sure there's plenty of opinion on the site that does as well. In my view, it's not unreasonable for artists and labels to want proportionate compensation. (key word = proportionate!) Internet Radio isn't going anywhere. It's just headed for some changes, and changes will involve higher compensation to music makers for the web casting of their product, but if the current act gets passed, everyone involved will be hurt from this in the end.

The Save Internet Radio site does fill in the gaps about the issue. (My gaps at least!) It gives a concise history of the legislation which goes back to 1998 when Clinton signed the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" allowing that record companies were owed compensation for music played over the internet. The rationale for this is said to be the "perfect" quality of digital copies and its projected impact on music sales. ("Perfect" as in equal to buyable cds, I suppose. How this was not the case in the days when cassettes ruled the musical kingdom, I'm not entirely sure.)

Broadcast Stations pay royalties based on revenue to the composers of songs, but record companies and artists are deemed compensated enough by the "promotional value" of the free exposure of airplay. (please see rant in earlier post...)

So disputes ensued over what rate of compensation to employ, finally resulting in the current Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) who took six weeks last summer to reject the revenue-based model and instead the per song per listener system and opt for the much pricier across-the-board approach which threatens to wipe out all but the largest internet radio stations, narrow the breadth of music currently available to a web listener and, unwittingly or not, cut down on free and decent exposure (i.e. SALES) for a huge wedge of otherwise up-and-coming music makers and their labels.

The public has their say.
Check out this discussion board on the issue at radiohorizon.com

Also - here's what I've dug up from "the other side":
Sound Exchange, a "dynamic and modern organization comprised of large, medium and small recording companies" presents a collection of rebuttals to the negative press the act has received in its Letters to the Editor section. And Executive Director John L. Simpson offers a concise and disappointingly flat summary of Sound Exchange's view.