|
|
Death of Webcasting Highly Suspiciousby George Ziemann -- November 11, 2008 Remember the big royalty agreement a couple of months ago that promised to be the death of webcasting? I was so amazed at the way the songwriters got shafted that I missed the odd part, namely that webcasting seems exempt from licensing. Either that, or I simply have no real comprehension of what "webcasting" is. I thought it was like doing a radio show, only on the Internet. I did a stint as a radio DJ. Radio is a non-interactive audio-only streaming service. I've listened to some webcasting. It seemed like the same kind of deal. The listener doesn't pick the songs, they can't save them off. There are no downloads, limited or otherwise; it's not interactive.
So I don't understand how this is a burden for webcasting, seeing as how they don't have to pay anything. Why is this driving webcasters out of business?
Tethered downloads, interactive streaming. This sounds like it's aimed at Rhapsody and Napster, not what I would consider webcasting. Neither was Pandora. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but it looks like you can put together a "radio show," with advertising within the show, allow people to stream it (but not download it), and are exempt from licensing fees. Is there something I'm missing here? Seriously. This makes no sense to me. I also wondered if the new rules brought some burden as a result of having downloadable cover songs on my site. The second question is clearly answered. "The agreement does not address royalty rates for physical product or permanent music downloads." So there still is no real royalty. I made one copy. |
|