Copyright Judges To Hear Arguments On Webcast Royalty Fees; SoundExchange Sounds Off
March 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM (PT)
Following petitions from NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, the DIGITAL MUSIC ASSN, CLEAR CHANNEL and others, the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD has agreed to hear arguments regarding its decision to increase webcast royalty fees.
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge JAMES SCOTT SLEDGE asked that parties who filed requests for a rehearing submit their arguments by APRIL 2.
SoundExchange: Webcasters Not Telling Whole Story About Royalty Process
A press release from SOUNDEXCHANGE today calls on Internet radio and broadcast radio simulcasters to "publicly acknowledge the value of musical performers to the success of their businesses and to acknowledge the recent royalty setting process for such work was fair to all involved."
The music created by artists is the main reason why people listen to Internet radio, and those artists should be fairly compensated for the value they bring to each webcaster's business.
"The music created by artists is the main reason why people listen to Internet radio, and those artists should be fairly compensated for the value they bring to each webcaster's business," said SOUNDEXCHANGE Exec. Dir. JOHN SIMSON. "Yet the webcasters refuse to acknowledge this common-sense fact. Webcasters have a number of opportunities to maximize revenue with a captive audience attracted by music created by artists through banner ads, pop-ups, video pre-rolls, audio commercials and other avenues of revenue generation. While we want Internet radio to succeed, it is only fair that artists be compensated for the value of their work which forms these services' business."
The release states that the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD's decision "was a balanced, well-reasoned opinion that considered all sides of this issue. Unfortunately, some in the webcasting industry have been engaged in a campaign of misinformation about the process, the decision itself and the impact of the decision on the participants."
SIMSON added, "Recent claims by a few webcasters that the process was unfair simply reveal that their complaints are not really about process, but rather about results. Webcasters like AOL, CLEAR CHANNEL and others want to impose low rates on artists, rather than accept fair-market rates as the law requires. They may disagree with the ruling, but they should be forthcoming about the integrity of the process."