 |
|
|
News From Audio Graphics:
|
Internet Radio Station Owner: Rusty Hodge Replies |
Publisher's Note: Rusty Hodge has been in the internet radio business since the beginning. His business sense and ethics are respected by all who know him. His words are worth hearing; they are in response to the Audio Graphics' article "When the Internet Radio Copyright Dust Settles..."
"What is a song worth, and why should a popular song be worth the same as one that's only so-so? That's the value that should be in question." That's a really good point.
Obviously, for over the air play, that value is nothing, or possibly the promotional value of the exposure.
But the real reason FM and AM broadcasters were exempted in the first place is because copyright gives the owner a monopoly on that work. And in the US, we don't like monopolies, and when you have to have a monopoly, there is regulation. Part of that regulation was fair use. Another part of that was the exemptions for FCC-licensed broadcasters providing entertainment and informational programming for their listeners.
One thing that you point out needs to be rectified ASAP: The smaller stations that are arguing for lower rates are the ones not broadcasting mainstream programming. Therefore, a hiking of rates would actually deprive the public of access to a diversity of expression. This point was not made effectively, and needs to be!
Agreeing on a royalty rate will not be the solution.
It's time to start lobbying to overturn the provisions in the DPRA that removed the exemption from digital broadcasting.
Our goal should be to amend the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) so that "non-interactive digital transmissions" (e.g. internet radio broadcasts) are exempt from statutory licensing requirements in the same way that analog transmissions (e.g. AM/FM) are.
And it should be retroactive to at least 2006.
We will need to create text that can be placed in a bill, which details what words are removed from the DPRA and what is added to it. We need to come up with a "pre-amble" of sorts that explains why these exemptions are being made.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/law/usa/us040039.pdf
See 114(d):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000114----000-.html
We need "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" to include internet radio broadcasts, aka “eligible nonsubscription transmission”.
The definition of “broadcast transmission” set forth in Sec. 114(j)(3):
A "broadcast" transmission is a transmission made by a terrestrial broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal ommunications Commission.
That might be the simplest thing to go after. Having that definition expanded to include non-interactive digital roadcasters.
Sec. 114(j)(6):
An “eligible nonsubscription transmission” is a noninteractive nonsubscription digital audio transmission not exempt under ubsection (d)(1) that is made as part of a service that provides audio programming consisting, in whole or in part, of erformances of sound recordings, including retransmissions of broadcast transmissions, if the primary purpose of the ervice is to provide to the public such audio or other entertainment programming, and the primary purpose of the service s not to sell, advertise, or promote particular products or services other than sound recordings, live concerts, or other music-related events.
Rusty Hodge - owner
SomaFM
San Francisco, CA
|
|
Comments may be published.
|
|
|
|
