[Ucrn] [Fwd: Re: [CBI] SoundExchange's John Simson o n the CRB Webcaster Rate Ruling" in "Royalty Week"]

[Sandra Wasson]

Another interesting post.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CBI] SoundExchange's John Simson o n the  CRB  Webcaster
Rate Ruling" in "Royalty Week"
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:11:40 -0700
Resent-From: <sandra at media.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:11:31 -0500
From: Joel R. Willer <willer at KXUL.COM>


>From The Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) Listserv>>

> This guy is worse than John Bolton was on The Daily Show this week.

Awwww, c'mon, John's such a nice and reasonable guy ... after all, he once
was the manager for Mary Chapin Carpenter and has been a struggling/starving
musician himself (Feel tugging on your heartstrings?  Didn't think so.).

> Sounds like he's saying that SoundExchange WANTS to shut down smaller
> stations. Creep.

No doubt about it.  (I'll let you decide which sentence that responds to.)

In all seriousness, SoundExchange has for a long time been very clear that
they see the reduction in the number of Webcasters as a desirable outcome.

Their objection to noncommercial Webcasters receiving a rate different from
commercial services is that we take listeners away from services paying the
higher rates.

Personally, I think there are a several issues at play here:

1) copyright owners (read: major labels) want copyright protection for sound
recording performances so that they can have a new source of revenue (see
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444575607043728-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQy
NDE1Wj.html),

2) labels have already begun lobbying to have the sound recording
performance protection extended to over-the-air broadcasters;

3) the major labels resent the statutory licenses (for both commercial *and*
noncommercial services) because the rates are set for the government, not by
the labels themselves (the labels would prefer direct licensing for all
sound recording performances);

4) the RIAA/SoundExchange tactics (both in the rate setting and
recordkeeping proceedings) are designed to make the statutory licenses
meaningless so that services will be forced to enter into direct licenses on
the labels' terms;

5)  RIAA/SoundExchange would be very happy to see non-subscription
non-interactive services disappear entirely, to concentrate the market with
subscription services paying higher dollars; and

6) RIAA/SoundExchange does not like having to offer licenses to all comers,
but would prefer to pick and choose which services are licensed (ideally,
only to services which are subsidiaries to the labels).  Can you say "media
consolidation"?  If not monopoly, think oligopoly
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly -- wow, there are some very scary
phrases in this Wikipedia entry that are spot on in this situation).

Just one man's opinion.

--
Joel R. Willer
Assistant Professor of Mass Communications
General Manager, KXUL(FM)
University of Louisiana at Monroe
http://ulm.edu/~willer     http://kxul.com