Pureplay Webcaster Deal
A few weeks have gone by since the Pure Play Webcaster Deal was enthusiastically announced. The RAIN staff says referring to the Pure Play deal as a death march is alarmist talk. Fair enough, but post CRB 2007 the same people that were pushing for seemingly alarmist stances like Internet radio was going dark, and a Day of Silence, which turned out to be a PR flop.
Some Pure Play Webcasters were asking for 5% at the first CRB proceeding, depending on where they are now, are paying between 12% and 25% of revenue. While most existing Pure Play Webcasters can probably still operate a business, beaming with joy and presenting this as a favor to webcasting world is a little over the edge.
Lets face the royalty situation for what it is and be honest about it. The CRB and current laws create a perfect storm which gives copyright owners the luxury to carve up the landscape and decide which models they want to live, and which models they want to die. We’re not saying copyright owners will outright destroy anyone, we’re simply saying this is the power they are given. Rates are not derived from any particular formula, but by carving broadcasters into classes where as much money as possible can be taken from each class.
The current webcasting agreements that fall within the statutory license are either a unilateral creation by SoundExchange, such as the Small Commercial Webcaster agreement, or the product of private negotiations with a small sliver of the webcasting world, three in the case of the Pure Play Deal.
A negotiation between four entities (three webcasters and SoundExchange) ultimately got to define what it means to be a webcaster within a statutory license in the near future. All webcasters will pay a minimum of $25,000 by 2015 if there are no further modifications to existing agreements.
The Pure Play Deal was closed under the Webcaster Settlement Act, which greatly expedited the process for three webcasters and SoundExchange. Thousands of microcasters wrote in support of the Webcaster Settlement Act, and they were ultimately left out of it because private negotiations superseded the principal of a statutory license, which is supposed to be accessible and beneficial to all sides.
Is the CRB Un-Constitutional? The question was raised, and it should be answered considering CRB’s role and responsibility.
Was the Pure Play Webcaster agreement really fair compensation for copyright holders, or a ploy to keep new players out?
Why do broadcasts over the Internet have a separate rate setting standard? Clearly the standard matter because every other platform got a substantially lower rate starting at 0%.
Is it fair, or even legal, that as a pre-condition to accepting an agreement, webcasters be asked to waive a right of contacting to elected officials over certain statutory license matters?
Should private negotiations over a statutory license be allowed?
Should SoundExchange be allowed to lobby? Of course copyright holders should be able to, but should SoundExchange remain strictly an administrator of the statutory license?
SoundExchange collects royalties from organizations that receive government financing like public radio, college radio. Is any of that money being used for lobbying? If so, should public money be applied to lobbying?