{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

The US Copyright Royalty Board has rejected an appeal by internet radio broadcasters against a plan to increase royalty fees.

Many US web broadcasters are saying that the royalty hikes, which will be backdated to January 2006, will put them out of business, as well as affecting the diversity of music available online.

Before the ruling, webcasters paid an annual fee plus 12% of profits in order to stream music to listeners.

Under the new fees, they will pay a flat fee per song, which will rise every year up to 2010, and eventually be almost three times higher than current charges.

Web radio companies will also be charged $500 per channel, hitting those with multiple channels offering different types of music and affecting the diversity of services on offer.

Kurt Hanson of AccuRadio believes most small and medium sized broadcasters are under threat:

"Under the judges' decision, we owe $600,000 for 2006 -- which is about 150% of our total revenues! That would absolutely bankrupt us and will force us to shut down. And that's true for almost everyone who’s a stand-alone webcaster."

SaveNetRadio.org, a group of webcasters which is protesting against the ruling, claims that internet radio is being charged higher rates than satellite or broadcast radio stations.

While broadcast radio pays no royalty fees per performance, and satellite radio stations pay between 3% and 7% of revenue in performance royalties, SaveNetRadio claims that royalties for web radio will be as much as 58% of revenue.

A coalition of web radio broadcasters, including Yahoo and AOL, had objected to the increases and asked the Board to reconsider the charges, but a new hearing was rejected as the judges said that they had not shown any new evidence which would influence their original decision.

Graham Charlton

Published 18 April, 2007 by Graham Charlton

Graham Charlton is the former Editor-in-Chief at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter or connect via Linkedin or Google+

2565 more posts from this author

Comments (1)

Avatar-blank-50x50

krispy

Another 'shot in the foot' or probably a major organ for the RIAA. I used to buy back-catalog CD's when I heard a song that I enjoyed via internet radio, but now that they are forceing them down, I'll put my 'patch' on...

over 9 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.