From Doc Searls in Linux Journal: "Internet radio has been sentenced to death.

"In a move that recalls the Vogons' decision to destroy Earth to clear the way for a highway bypass through space (a thankfully fictional premise of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), the judges comprising the Copyright Royalty Board have decided to destroy the Internet radio industry so the recording industry won't be inconvenienced by something it doesn't know, like or understand.

"Bill Goldsmith [pictured below] of Radio Paradise told Kurt Hanson [in RAIN here], 'This royalty structure would wipe out an entire class of business: Small independent webcasters such as myself & my wife, who operate Radio Paradise. Our obligation under this rate structure would be equal to over 125% of our total income. There is no practical way for us to increase our income so dramatically as to render that affordable.'..

"Radio Paradise is a paragon of Everything Radio Ought to Be. It is loved by its listeners, by the artists it plays, by the many communities of interest and passion it serves. And... it is sentenced to drown by escalating costs...

"[The new CRB] decision has much to offend both free-speech-loving Democrats and free-market-loving Republicans. Especially the latter. You're not going to find a better example of government interfering with free markets — or preventing them outright — than with this one.

"You also won't find businesses (or organizations, in the case of public radio stations and other nonprofits) that are doing a better job than Internet radio of help recording artists get paid for their work. For proof, go to Radio Paradise and click on any song on its long playlist. You'll get album cover art, links to the artist's website, tour info, and much more, including six different ways to buy the song [See screenshot below]. Go to Soma-FM, click on any playlist and any artist. You'll get sent to an Amazon page where you can buy the music. Go to NPR's Music page, and you'll find Available for Purchase: Featured Music in prominent display.



"This is the marketplace at work, today. It is exactly these kinds of market activities — independent businesses, helping make music consumers into music customers — that the RIAA and SoundExchange are working so hard to prevent, and that [the CRB judges would] rather see bulldozed to make room for the few Big Boys who can afford to pay.

"And there is no guarantee that Yahoo or Clear Channel will keep streaming, either. Remember that they have been allied with the small webcasters in this dispute. And that, if Kurt Hanson's numbers are right, AOL alone will owe $20 million retroactively for last year alone. With those up-front costs, and rates rising over the coming years, what are the chances they'll just give up on the whole thing? Rather high, I would guess...

"I've been listening to Radio Paradise for the duration. I also pay for it by sending money to the station, some of which goes to artists through SoundExchange and the system set up by the CARP process in 2002... I'm sure I'll continue listening to music stations from the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Japan and elsewhere. But unless we unscrew this latest decision, there is little hope for continuing to listen to music stations from the U.S. They have been, essentially, outlawed."

Read Doc Searls' blog in Linux Journal online here. Searls is co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, a New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Borders Books and Amazon.com bestseller. (It was Amazon's #1 sales & marketing bestseller for thirteen months and sells around the world in nine languages.)

From Mark Ramsey's hear2.0 blog:

"You're right, Inside Radio!

"Those declining quarter-hours for radio are simply a mirage, a passing fad.

"If Motorola can't figure something out, nobody else will either... And the phone networks that already provide and derive revenue from song downloads couldn't possibly be a reason why. And those downloads won't amount to a hill of beans and will never replace listening to radio because, after all, nobody owns a mobile phone and they don't go with you wherever you go.

"If Internet radio gets a lot more expensive to create, radio will avoid it because -- let's face it -- nobody cares about the Internet anyway. It's another passing fad. It'll never be in the cars, for example. And if I can't get my radio by streaming there's no chance I would ever swap streaming time for downloading time and move more of my listening to my iPod. Nope, that'll never happen.

"And what about those iPods - just another fad. Wait until listeners discover they can go to Wal*Mart and spend a couple hundred dollars to buy a clunky in-dash HD receiver that they have to install themselves...

"Is 1980 the best year ever, or what?"

Read Mark Ramsey's hear2.0 online here.

From Radio and Records: "Broadcasters are frustrated about their apparent inability so far to reach the twentysomething audience. And with an American turning 55 every eight seconds, they know they'd better start luring the youngsters before the only song on radio is 'The Sound of Silence.'

"'You need to have twentysomethings working at your station. They are so comfortable in a multimedia setting,' advised Bonneville International VP of news Jim Farley during an R&R Talk Radio Summit session...

"KFI/Los Angeles PD Robin Bertolucci stressed that Internet streaming for KFI is not programmed like another daypart but is treated like a brand extension. Farley agreed. 'The Internet is not another daypart, but it's another transmitter,' he said. 'We are becoming multimedia providers, and that allows radio to compete with TV.'"

This excerpt is from a story in today's R&R News section here.

"It seems too out of line to have been anyone's serious effort at a solution..."

My heart sank as I read the new rates earlier in the week and began the
computations, which resulted in outright depression as it became painfully obvious
that this was much more than just a nuisance. More a whack on the head with a
baseball bat.

We have to find a way to turn this ruling around, as it seems too out of line to
have been anyone's serious effort at a solution.

We at American Media Services Internet (AMSi) in Charleston have sent a letter with
supporting material to Congressman Henry Brown, who represents our area, asking him to join with those on Capitol Hill who are already speaking out on our behalf. We are planning other contacts as time permits in our effort to derail this CRB crisis.

Your publication is doing a great job of tracking this situation.

"Could an independent artist offer licensing for a monthly or yearly fee?.."

Could an independent artist like myself with a large music catalog that is copyrighted offer licensing to internet broadcasters for a monthly or yearly fee? Is that is legal?

Let's say I authorized the use of my catalog for a flat fee of $15 dollars per month. That $15 dollars would pay for the unlimited use of 100 songs from within my catalog. This catalog contains a variety of artists and styles. Furthermore, the price would decrease drastically with the purchase of additional songs or with a yearly contract. For example, 150 songs for $17 or 200 for $20 dollars and so on.

The new royalty rate is unfair. I support independent Internet broadcasters and respect the large amounts of work they put in to their stations. At the same time I understand that recording artists need to make money for their work.

Having worked in radio I know that quality product is key. With that in mind I know many independent artists with fantastic catalogs who would be willing to do the same. Would this pose a solution?

"The only eventual winner from this scenario is terrestrial radio..."

I had hoped to see a new Internet radio royalty structure much more refined and
forward-looking than the old one. That is, one designed to maximize the revenues to
those who collect and benefit from them, while encouraging growth in Internet radio,
without imposing undue hardship or ruin on it. Here, it appears the new rate
structure is anything but; it is harsh and punishing to Internet radio.

The only eventual winner I can picture emerging from this scenario is terrestrial radio, which may view Internet radio as a future challenger to its market dominance.

Bandwidth costs have been dropping, and terrestrial radio may be anticipating a day, not far off, when higher-bitrate streaming by listener-sensitive Internet stations could pose a meaningful challenge to their supremacy. In the end, what could be better for them than an Internet royalty structure that strangles Internet radio in its infancy, ridding them of this troublesome pest before it becomes a threat?

"My show has changed format to cover the CRB rate hikes..."

I run the stations SoulsVilleOnline, YourOldiesRadio, and JazzVilleOnline.com. All these broadcasts run under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act. I do a weekly show on LG73, a Canadian-based Internet radio station.

My show has changed format to cover the CRB rate hikes; we're taking calls via Skype, and would like to get the word out about the twice weekly program which now
has become a "Fight the CRB Ruling" show. We plan on doing at least 1 or 2 weekly programs till this issue is resolved.

"Webcasters provide a lot of free advertising for the musicians..."

I am sure this decision had nothing to do with the artists who make the music. I am
a subscriber to Pandora and I can tell you that I get to hear music that I would never hear if it wasn't for this service.

It seems to me that webcasters provide a lot of free advertising for the musicians. It would be a travesty if these companies are driven out of business.

"You can't keep manipulating Congress' lack of understanding..."

One could argue that every single time the record industry attacked technology with "our sales will be destroyed because of this technology," it was no thanks to them that the TECHNOLOGY created secondary markets and more which gave them TRILLIONS of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Once again, they're going to have to be forced to get out of their own way so TECHNOLOGY can help bail them out of their small-minded ways of thinking and bad management. After all, they could've worked on an iTunes-kind of system, and they didn't. They wasted time with comments and court cases, with people like Mr. Simson at the forefront spewing such skewered information and they forgot that the truth is the only thing that can set them free.

You can't keep manipulating Congress' lack of understanding of an industry forever... can you?

"I don't see why the (BMI, etc.) formula can't be instituted for webcasters..."

I don't see why the same formula that for decades has worked for BMI, ASCAP & SESAC can't be instituted for webcasting royalty rates. That is, webcasters could pay
simple (but reasonable) percentage of revenue collected and distributed by SoundExchange, instead of a charging on a per song/per listener basis.