Pittsburgh businessman to bring African-America voice back to local airwaves

Following the demise of two local stations catering to African-American listeners, Pittsburgh media executive Eddie Edwards Sr. promised to give the community a new radio outlet for the disenfranchised listeners. And so far, he's delivered.

Edwards has struck a deal to purchase WPYT (660AM), licensed to nearby Wilkinsburg, for the daytime-only AM station, with the intent of creating a news/talk format focusing on Pittsburgh's African-American community. The purchase price was reportedly $500,000.

The new format will not hit the airwaves any time soon, as Edwards needs to construct studios and hire a staff. He hopes to have that accomplished by early January.

In addition, he is also seeking out an FM station to fill the void left by the sale of WAMO-AM and FM several months ago. The two stations, purchased by Catholic operator St. Joseph Missions, have since changed to religious formats.

A proposed FM station would carry an adult-oriented classic R&B format, in contrast to WAMO-FM's more contemporary approach.

Edwards was highly motivated by bringing a black voice back to the local airwaves. He claimed, with a big mayoral election coming up in Pittsburgh, not having a radio voice for the local black community was "shameful."

All in all, it just goes to show how one person can respond to grassroots outcry, and deliver to a potential audience.

President Obama

"Our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men."

Those prophetic words were spoken in 1974 by a Republican president, Gerald Ford. He said that in a famous speech upon the resignation of former President Richard Nixon, who led the most corrupt administration in American history. The same could perhaps be said of the very times we now live in. We usher out the nasty, angry, arrogant and divisive politics of George W. Bush, and replace it with the promise of proactive, positive and much more inclusive change. Hatred is being replaced by hope.

Granted, President Bush is still in office, a lame duck until January 20. But the American people have named his successor, and a very good one at that. In just over two months, we will welcome President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to the White House. Furthermore, the Democrats will add to their numbers in the House and Senate, going a long way in repairing this country and its reputation around the world. And its all because of you.

Wow. Just plain wow.

Thank you, America.

Of course, mere words cannot describe of the historical magnitude of Obama's victory. Only four decades separated from days of Jim Crow laws in southern states, we now have an African-American president. That's truly amazing, and something I thought wouldn't occur for at least another decade or two, if ever. But it is reality, and I couldn't be happier.

Obama's feat is especially a victory for people-powered democracy. From the very beginning, the seemingly longshot Obama campaign eschewed the typical way of fundraising, which consisted mostly of competing with Hillary Clinton for donations from party sugardaddies. Clinton turned out to be the beneficiary of many of those. Obama's campaign took a different approach. Taking an idea from darkhorse Democratic candidate (and current party chairman) Howard Dean in 2004, they opted for an aggressive high-tech grassroots strategy. Early in the campaign, Obama made a pitch to a group consisting of some of the hottest tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Internet gurus from companies like Google and Yahoo! were in attendance. Obama and his campaign masterminds presented their plan. They wanted to run a true 21st century campaign, harnessing the power of the internet to create a massive volunteer-heavy apparatus, with an interactive web presence and ground operations in all states. The approach would even encourage a true 50-state campaign, encompassing even states that seemingly would never go in the Democrats' favor. The dot-com crowd was hooked. They saw a candidate as innovative and cutting-edge as they were. One of the founders of the social networking site Facebook even joined the campaign to help set up Obama's web infrastructure.

And they pulled in money in ways nobody would have imagined probable. While many campaigns snicker at donations smaller than $50, a mere $5 donation was just as good for them. It all added up in the long run. The end result was the biggest war chest of any politician in American history, with more than half of all donations coming from small donors. Republicans have attacked Obama for the size of his coffers and his heavy spending throughout the campaign, but they're really just envious, mostly afraid to admit how exactly he pulled in all that money and ground support. It came directly from the people. And it is an approach that will be analyzed and imitated by many in the future. Obama rewrote the book.

This turning tide means one other very big thing: The American people are sick and tired of silly games. They're sick of insults. They're sick of dirty politics. They're sick of watching the economy go down the crapper. The neoconservative movement that typifies much of the modern-day Republican Party is now dead, along with the cruel tricks of unsavory people like former Bush political svengali Karl Rove. The American people have returned to reality. They want real solutions, not jingoism, not tacky photo-ops, not faux patriotism, not divisive red-blue rhetoric. They want to make an America for all people, a country as great as it possibly can be.

Obviously, Obama will not be taking a casual stroll through the park by way of the Oval Office during the next four years. It's gonna be a brutal job, and he strongly admits that. We are living in tough times. The economy is a mess. The deficit has risen to a level even greater than during the Reagan Administration. We are also fighting two wars. In short, he has his work cut out for him. But after becoming familiar with Obama over the past year, and seeing his intelligence, confidence and savvy, I feel very comfortable with our new president. We are in good hands.
Barack Obama's victory is a monster step forward for what can be accomplished in the United States of America. Yes, it is indeed a great day to be an American.

Congratulations, President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden. And the best of luck to you.

All you need to know about WVKO

If everything goes as planned, Columbus, OH's new progressive talk station, WVKO (1580AM) should be up and running come Monday morning (12/3) at 6AM with The Bill Press Show. That is, barring any complications, such as satellite uplink issues.

Progress Ohio made the official announcement yesterday, and I posted an advance rumor about it earlier in the day. The grassroots effort to return the format to local airwaves comes after a dedicated year-long effort and a petition drive that yielded over a thousand signatures.

So far, the only issues standing in the way of the launch are logistical ones, mostly dealing with engineering and the satellite uplink, since most of the programming will consist of nationally-syndicated shows. The station already has a web domain reserved, and will also stream its programming. The fully-functional website will also have a message board.

At this time, the on-air lineup has been partially set. Press will air mornings 6-9, followed by two other shows from Jones Radio Networks - Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. Air America Radio's Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow will follow, creating a schedule consisting solely of live programming from 6A-8P. What follows after Maddow has yet to be determined, but it is expected that Lionel will be carried on delay. Overnights and weekends have yet to be determined.

"We're also doing a lot of local sports, although I'm not at liberty as yet to say what we'll have," WVKO General Manager and veteran radio executive Gary Richards told the Columbus Dispatch. "We're going to do a lot of news and local talk, too. Our studios are a block from the Statehouse. I'm always surprised there isn't more political talk on the radio locally."

Richards hopes listeners will tune in the new WVKO. "Especially with AM stations, you're kind of limited in what you can do," he said. "Music is a losing proposition on AM, and we had to find a niche, and we think there is one in political talk -- especially with 'something big' (the 2008 election) going on next year."

The station is currently owned by Dallas-based Bernard Ohio, LLC, which also purchased a few stations in Youngstown, OH earlier this year. Bernard purchased the broadcast license and resurrected the station earlier this year after the previous owner, who programmed various African-American-oriented formats over the years, took it off the air in May 2006 due to financial difficulties. Since it returned to the airwaves this past summer, WVKO has been testing its transmitter and most recently programmed a Spanish-language format. There were rumors that Bernard would air brokered programming on the signal.

The signal, at 3200 watts day/290 watts night, is not a very powerful one, but its centrally-located tower will cover the city of Columbus and most of Franklin County adequately (see graphic on right).

WVKO brings back a format previously carried by WTPG, a Clear Channel-owned station that sruprisingly dropped the format last December in the company's 'Ohio liberal talk purge' that also claimed company-owned stations in Cincinnati and Akron. WTPG became WYTS, carrying mostly conservative talk, and has since been struggling to match its predecessor's ratings. In the latest Arbitron unofficial trend report, they have completely dropped off the list and lost roughly 40% of its listening audience over the past few months (for those who put much faith in Arbitron's ratings methodology).

In short, wouldn't it be funny if the small, independently-owned WVKO punked WYTS in the ratings books? Past history would indicate that this is a strong possibility.

Low power to the people

Last Tuesday, The Senate Commerce Committee voted to expand the number of Low Power FM (LPFM) stations around the country, via Senate Bill 1675, a.k.a. the Local Community Radio Act of 2007. The bill was sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). The legislation would eliminate third channel protection for full-power FM stations, allowing more LPFM stations to exist.

The bill moves on to the full Senate next. A similar bill is currently in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Reps. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Lee Terry (R-NE), with 55 co-sponsors.

Commenting on the bill, Prometheus Radio Project technical director Pete Tridish said in a statement, "Low Power FM radio was limited back in 2000, when the big broadcasters tried to convince America that 100-watt community radio stations would interfere with the biggest stations in America's biggest cities. At Congress' demand, the FCC proved that there was plenty of room for low power FM radio. With today's vote, and with the growing momentum to expand low power FM radio in the House of Representatives, communities across the country have a reason to celebrate."

Elsewhere, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to appease people who want access to the nation's airwaves, albeit in rather peculiar ways. He endorses removal of a rule prohibiting the transfer and reassignment of LPFM licences between licensees. He also would like to see reinstatement of an original LPFM rule that required all permit holders to live in the local community, an ownership limit of one station per licensee and requirements of a physical staff presence at the station during all operation hours. At the same time, though, Martin, a Bush appointee, is trying to relax media ownership rules at the local level, which would allow major corporations like Clear Channel, CBS, Citadel and others to gobble up even more stations. The New York Times claims that Martin is secretly trying to sneak it through by Christmas, trying to repeat the same mistakes the FCC made four years ago. Won't they ever learn? Thankfully, measures to stop this insanity are gaining bipartisan support in Congress. And protests by groups such as Code Pink, who had one member dress up as a French maid for yesterday's Halloween FCC meeting, are bringing attention to this. Activists for consumer, political and minority and ethnic groups have also been rather outspoken on the issue.

But back to this LPFM thing. First off, what is it? Low-power FM broadcasting is an initiative that allows for community-based broadcasters to start up their own stations. These stations would range in power from a meager 1 watt all the way up to 250 watts. Quite a big difference compared to the big-budget commercial and noncommercial stations blasting out anywhere between 10,000 to 100,000 watts, but at least it's a step in the right direction. In theory, these LPFM stations would be run by locally-based groups such as schools, churches, independent owners with money to burn and a reason to broadcast, and other organizations.

LPFM had its start back in the 1970s, when the FCC started granting Class D licenses for nonprofit entities and community broadcasters. The National Association of Broadcasters, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and even National Public Radio helped convince the FCC to cease this practice, citing interference concerns. The FCC was finally able to revive LPFM a few years ago This time, there would be restrictions on these stations. They would be restricted in power, were required to be noncommercial and nonprofit, locally-owned, and required to produce the majority of their own programming. They held a one-time application process for available frequencies in 2003. Currently, over 800 LPFM radio stations dot the landscape, but the effort was again curtailed by big broadcasters. Congress bowed, and a freeze on new applications was enacted.

All this bickering proved to be distracting, as the main beneficiaries of these licenses and translators have been big religious organizations such as Calvary Chapel, Educational Media Foundation, Family Radio, Radio Assist Ministries/Edgewater Broadcasting, shell subsidiaries of these groups and others. These religious organizations made a mad dash to apply for as many licenses as they could. Radio Assist Ministries alone applied for over 2400 of them. In short, the churn out FCC applications like Nigeria cranks out spam. Many of the rules designed to preserve the purity of LPFM's mission went straight out the window as small religious translators, propped up by rather unscrupulous people, began to pop up like dandelions, dotting the landscape and piping in canned programming from Idaho, California and other places (see map at right).

The shuffling of translator licenses became big business in itself. Radio Assist Ministries/Edgewater Broadcasting, headed by a former Calvary employee, has raked in over $800,000 just in the trafficking of these licenses. While LPFM was forced to wait, these groups cut in line and slapped up a translator that took a potential LPFM frequency anyway. With all this crap cluttering up the airwaves and making community broadcasting look bad, does the LPFM initiative really stand a chance? Tough to get your foot in the door when the most probably open low power frequencies are cluttered up with K-Love and Air1 repeaters.

How the hell could this happen anyway? Well, the FCC decided in 1990 to allow noncommercial broadcasters to feed programming via satellite to various FM translators. Oops!

So, how can LPFM be done right? And how can we open up more possibilities for community organizations to get involved? Well, I've got some suggestions:

1. Priority for these licenses should be locally-based groups such as high schools and colleges, well-organized concerns or local churches. No out-of-towners can own these signals. Calvary Chapel and all their little sock puppets can go pound sand.

2. To expand on the religious translator deal (can you tell this is a major pet peeve of mine?), Calvary, EMF and the rest will have a choice to make. The FCC should convert many of these translators (which by law cannot generate their own programming) into legitimate LPFM stations, and require them to either staff each and every translator with a local presence, like a true LPFM station abiding by their rules is required to do, or divest of each and every one of them, selling them to local groups for no more than the face value of the license, the cost of equipment, and perhaps a paltry sum for lawyers, bookkeepers, leases, engineers and their trouble. One current FCC proposal is to allow small daytime-only commercial AM stations to have low power FM translators. There's a sale possibility there. They could also sell their licenses back to the FCC for face value. Seems fair to me. After all, one Clear Channel is more than enough.

3. Translators are effective in many cases. They are used by commercial and noncommercial stations to fill in gaps within their primary signal contours (hindered due to terrain). They are also used to relay the signals of regional public broadcasters (i.e. statewide public radio networks) and, to be fair, perhaps even some regional interest religious stations (like KTIS in St. Paul, Minnesota, which is heavily Minnesota-oriented). Obviously, the translator loophole has been abused pretty badly. While a public radio network often carries vital statewide news and programming, to claim that a little station in Twin Falls, Idaho serves the public need is just plain foolish. The FCC needs to take charge of this dilemma once and for all, rather than encourage mini-Clear Channels.

4. Realistically, most LPFM stations will probably have problems with staffing. I know, our college radio station had a real hard time with organizing all those volunteers. With automation systems become widely available and inexpensive (to the point of some being totally free), some unstaffed operation should be allowed. I'd limit to 6-8 hours max per day. This would also allow for airing some noncommercial syndicated programming, such as Democracy Now, Counterspin, and the Praise Jesus, Send Me Money Hour. I think this seems reasonable. A time limit on this type of non-local programming was one of the things initially proposed.

5. Groups can go in with each other to purchase licenses. Granted, this would require a strong partnership between parties, lest this all turn into some sort of legal fiasco. Some stations are doing well with the co-op/time share deal, and it allows smaller groups, local churches, determined disc jockeys, etc. to access the airwaves.

6. Any group, organization, church or individual wishing to purchase a license must show that they are indeed capable of putting it on the air and making it work. Just like commercial broadcasters. Far too many LPFMs never launch, and are turned around and sold to the Cavalrys and other translator pigs of the world. If it falls apart, then a sale should be allowed. But making sure these people can pull it off from the get-go will help to minimize that, and allow LPFM licenses to get to many of the people who know what to do with it.

Aside from all the hassles, LPFM is an idea with some promise. A promise to give at least some of the airwaves back to the people.

Is KLSD flipping anyway?

Aldous Tyler at NonStop Radio claims that KLSD (1360AM) in San Diego, which for the past few weeks has been the subject of rumors regarding a pending flip, will likely drop its moderately successful progressive talk format for sports, despite the strong show of support by listeners.

From his email:

At Monday, August 27th's rally, Program Director Cliff Albert confirmed that AM 1360 KLSD was being scheduled to flip from Progressive Talk. Today, news has come down that this flip is imminent, possibly as soon as Friday! Progressives and Liberals of San Diego aren't taking this lying down.

The rally was attended by hundreds of loyal listeners as well as Bree Walker and Jon Elliot, with Stacy Taylor broadcasting live from within the rally itself!

GET INVOLVED!

Make the fight more effective by going to www.NonStopRadio.com now! There you can:

* Print out listener pledge sheets and sponsor pledge sheets for KLSD
* Join the SaveKLSD Yahoo Group
* Sign the petition to save KLSD
* Download the PDF flier for the Save KLSD Movement
* Fight back against negative media coverage
* Listen to the broadcast of Stacy Taylor's show from the rally, and watch a short documentary of it, and much more!

We need YOUR help today if we will stand any chance of saving San Diego's only Progressive Talk outlet! Visit www.NonStopRadio.com right away!

Yours in the Cause,
Aldous Tyler,
NonStop Radio

UPDATE: There will be yet another rally for KLSD, this one scheduled for Friday morning (September 14) at 7:30AM local time. The location will be Clear Channel's San Diego offices. For more information, see NonStopRadio.

Concerned listeners can also sign a petition.

KLSD rally draws hundreds of listeners

Yesterday's early morning rally outside of Clear Channel's San Diego complex was deemed by many to be a success, as a crowd of roughly 500 people showed up to fight for their favorite station.

In addition, almost 1,200 people have signed a petition calling on Clear Channel to keep KLSD’s progressive talk format. Clear Channel executives have also been deluged with thousands of e-mails, virtually all in favor of keeping the format, rumored to be replaced, on the San Diego airwaves. Program director Cliff Albert, just returning from a vacation, came home to 847 emails in his inbox, all supportive of the format.

Morning host Stacy Taylor greeted the protesters on-air (audio here, here and here), and also played host to others, such as Air America Radio/KLSD host Jon Elliott, KTLK's Bree Walker, local politicians and others. The promotions department of the station itself even set up a tent in the parking lot. Albert himself even addressed the crowd, trying to explain what was happening.

“Clear Channel has no agenda to shut down progressive voices,” Albert said at the rally. Albert was the one who brought the format to KLSD in 2004 and even chose the call letters, both of which he said he is proud of. According to station insiders, consideration of a format change is motivated solely by fallen ratings in the recent Arbitron book and concerns over advertising dollars. No decision has been made about the fate of the station.

Other station insiders disagree, as at least one has claimed that its three year old progressive talk format has always met or exceeded its revenue goals. Ratings, save for the last fluke book, have been about as good as can be expected for a small AM station in a heavily radioed market. Taylor claimed on his show last Friday that a recent market survey showed that KLSD's listeners are more affluent than any other station in town.

So, who's behind all these rumors anyways? And where did they come from? That seems to be the million dollar question, and nobody's providing any answers. Taylor, who has devoted a large amount of time to KLSD's fate on the air, claims that many people in the building are supportive of the format, including office personnel, promotions, people at sister stations and even the sales department.

A domain name, xtrasports1360.com, was reserved by a station employee, Mike Costa, who appears as a sideline reporter and sports commentator on sister station KOGO's play-by-play coverage. This is likely where the rumors started. Granted, a domain name can be registered for as little as the amount of a pack of cigarettes. The name also makes no sense, as the "Xtra Sports" moniker, utilized when the format was carried on XETRA (690AM) is no longer used by Clear Channel in Southern California. Why revive it, especially since XETRA (no longer run by Clear Channel) still exists, albeit under a Spanish language news format?

Some fingers are pointing at the building's upper management. The general manager of KLSD and sister station KOGO is reportedly rather conservative, and dislikes KLSD's format. The general sales manager is a bottom-line guy who likes selling sports formats.

And, of course, many fingers are pointing east, to San Antonio, Clear Channel's corporate home. All involved in the situation deny that any directive has been sent from head office to ditch progressive talk. And with Clear Channel struggling to gain government approval of their proposed effort to sell the company to Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners and go private, it is highly unlikely the company would do anything to attract more controversy to their programming practices. In recent format flips from progressive talks, there are no signs whatsoever that the directive came from San Antonio. Those decisions seem to have been made at the local or regional level (Clear Channel's corporate structure is very, very complicated).

So, the bottom line is this: Who is making the decision to axe KLSD? Is the flip going to happen (everyone involved claims that no final decision has been made)? And finally, will the grassroots effort work? So far, things are looking somewhat positive. The outcry so far has rivaled or even exceeded the backlash that WXXM in Madison received when they tried to install a sports talk format. And we all remember what eventually happened there.

So for now, concerned listeners can sign the petition to save the format, visit saveklsd.com, NonStopRadio.com or their Yahoo! group. And most of all, support the station's many advertisers, who are really the voice that station management listens to. After all, money talks.

KLSD has more about the rally, including photos and even video on their website. Also read the excellent article at Brad Blog.

Life at the bottom

Okay, so the early ratings reports show that WYTS in Columbus sucks ass.

Around Christmas time, the station, formerly known as WTPG, dropped their progressive talk format, which had garnered the frequency's best ratings since the old days of Top 40 hits on the AM dial, for lower-tier syndicated conservotalk. Since then, the new format has not caught on, particularly with the sign-on a few weeks later of yet another talk station, suburban FM station WTDA.

So, would this belly-flop convince the braintrusts at Clear Channel-Columbus to reconsider their hasty move? In a word, no.

See, the current strategy of WYTS is to serve as a flanker of sorts. Meaning that they tie up Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and sports talker Jim Rome and keep other stations from grabbing them. Namely WTDA. Or any other FM station in town that decides to jump into the talk fray. It's an oft-used strategy, and in this case, it prevents competitors from becoming too competitive with Clear Channel's local gravy train, WTVN. In addition, WYTS serves as an account executive throw-in special, meaning that they have a little something-something to offer to clients who purchase ad time on WTVN.

In essence, it doesn't look like Clear Channel will bring back progressive talk anytime soon. As for anyone else, it looks like the best bet may be WVKO (1580AM), which recently returned to the local airwaves with a newly constructed tower and temporary reduced power (soon to increase). Allegedly, the new owner's goal is to turn around and sell the station for a rather steep asking price (though the station had long been on the market with little interest), or try and sell brokered programming on it. If that fails, the owner does know about the demand for a return of progressive talk to the local airwaves. Jones Radio Networks, which syndicates Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and others has been in contact. Air America Radio is in the station's Rolodex. Nonetheless, that's about as far as anything has gotten over there. Progressive talk fans in Columbus will just have to wait for the format to return to the local airwaves.

Meanwhile, Columbus area listeners, particularly those to the southwest of town, can try and pick up WAIS (770AM), a small daytime-only station that recently picked up Schultz and Miller.

Webcasting fight moves to Congress

After weeks of squabbling between webcasters and the Copyright Royalty Board, Congress has stepped in to protect internet webcasters.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL), along with seven other cosponsors, introduced a bill in Congress (pdf) yesterday that could nullify punishing new rates recommended by royalty collection agency SoundExchange and set by the three judges of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) (pdf). These rates, according to many advocates, could have put internet radio in jeopardy for both large and small webcasters, affecting the fees they pay to play music online.

The Internet Radio Equality Act aims to put the brakes on a controversial March 2 decision by the CRB, which would set escalating royalties retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on webcasters, in addition to a $500 annual fee.

Webcasters, including even large internet services and terrestrial broadcast groups such as Clear Channel and NPR, have been fearing the decision, which they claim could have raised royalty rates between 300-1200%, a rate that could put them out of business. SoundExchange has been playing hardball, and has been rather unsympathetic to the webcasters' cause. The CRB has been on the side of SoundExchange since the beginning, and a few weeks ago threw out an appeal by commercial webcasters, National Public Radio and others to review the new rates and postpone a May 15 deadline for the introduction of the royalty schedule (pdf).

The new bill, if passed, would throw out the CRB's decision and set royalty rates at 7.5% of the webcaster's revenue for 2006-2010, the same rate paid by satellite radio. Alternatively, webcasters could decide to pay 33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single user. Royalty rules for noncommercial radio such as NPR would be reset.

Webcasters are applauding this move. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Exec. VP Dennis Wharton said, "We will work with Congress to craft a solution that helps ensure the survival of a fledgling audio platform."

"This bill asks Congress to reinforce its historic acknowledgement that public broadcasting has a place in the media landscape by modernizing section 118 of the Copyright Act for the 21st century," said NPR VP/Communications Andi Sporkin. "The CRB Board would not consider the public service aspect of more than 800 stations across the country when it made its recent decision. This bill will provide a long term resolution that is fair for all sides."

"Since the CRB's March 2nd decision to dramatically and unfairly increase webcaster royalty rates, millions of Internet radio listeners, webcasters and artists have called on Congress to take action," said Jake Ward of the SaveNetRadio coalition. "Today Congress took notice, and we thank Mr. Inslee for leading the charge to save music diversity on the Internet."

Ward continued, "This bill is a critical step to preserve this vibrant and growing medium, and to develop a truly level playing field where webcasters can compete with satellite radio. The Internet Radio Equality Act is the last best hope webcasters, artists, and listeners have to keep the music playing."

Bill Goldsmith of RadioParadise said, "It's now time to step up our pressure on Congress -- specifically the House, at this point -- to address this issue quickly, hopefully before the new rates go into effect on May 1."

Tim Westergren of Pandora.com also issued a call to arms for webcasters and listeners. He claimed, "Following our outreach to Pandora listeners, every congressional office was flooded with constituent phone calls, emails and faxes - literally hundreds of thousands in just 5 days! The entire fax system on the Hill was brought to a standstill. We had to hand deliver the faxes!" Westergren echoed the challenge of contacting congresspeople to gain support for the the bill.

Many webcasters, including Goldsmith, Westergren, Soma.FM's Rusty Hodge and others plan to travel to Washington next week to lobby congresspeople themselves.

In recent months, SoundExchange has been waging a hard-fought war in their attempts to raise the rates to extreme levels. The group's front man, Jon Simson, has taken a 'let them eat cake' approach to the plight of webcasters, claiming that they could merely sell more advertising. "Webcasters have a number of opportunities to maximize revenue with ... banner ads, pop-ups, video pre-rolls, audio commercials," claimed Simson. If only it were that easy.

He went so far as to even trot out 'big name artists' who back their decision, people like Michelle Shocked, Twisted Sister's Jay Jay French and Big Star/Golden Smog drummer Jody Stephens. Okay, so they aren't big names, but seeing a renowed indie rocker (and self-described socialist) like Shocked on there is, well, rather shocking. At least we've got Bryan Adams and Talking Heads' David Byrne (a webcaster himself) on our side.

And in a rather sneaky move, Simson offered his own olive branch, claiming that SoundExchange is open to working with webcasters to cut their own deals. But this sounds a bit like cutting a deal with the devil. Soma.FM's Hodge fears that this could open the door to the recording industry to demand their own deals, namely forcing webcasters to play whatever less-than-desirable product they're trying to push down the public's throats, in exchange for relaxed royalty payments. Hodge calls this "Dark Payola," in that it's the opposite of payola but with all the effects. In other words, the RIAA has webcasting by the you-know-whats.

So, what can webcasters and listeners do to support this bill, and to stop this crazy thing perpetrated by the RIAA, SoundExchange and the CRB? Many of the grassroots efforts to fight the CRB ruling have been combined at SaveNetRadio.org, which has become a clearing house of information on the proposed royalty rates, and the damage it could do to a growing form of media. The group has pleaded with supporters to contact their representatives in Congress to help support the Internet Radio Equality Act. Webmasters and webcasters alike can go to their website to download banners and recorded PSA's to play on streams. In addition, Kurt Hanson's Radio and Internet Newsletter is the best resource on the internet for the latest on this issue. You can also find more links and resources on the right hand side of this site.

Next Tuesday, May 1, webcasters, musicians, independent record label personnel and others have planned a "Hill Walk" in Washington DC, where small groups of SaveNetRadio coalition members will spend the day going from Congressional office to Congressional office, meeting with members of Congress and their staffs. And on Tuesday May 8, many webcasters will go quiet in a "Day of Silence" to help draw attention to the issue.

LTR, a strong supporter of internet radio, wishes everyone involved in this the very best of luck.

Attack of the Music Mafia

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.” - Hunter S. Thompson

More and more people are listening to online radio these days, with overall listening time per person coming close to equaling that of terrestrial radio. Music aficionados are enjoying the eclectic and distinct genres that they can access with the simple click of a mouse. Listeners can also tune in terrestrial radio stations from other cities, in case they feel the KISS-FM in Chicago is better than the one in L.A. or Dallas. For many fans, this is about as close to heaven on earth as they can get. The ability to have so many listening choices at one's disposal was likely once a whacked-out dream inside someone's head. And with the growth of WiFi and portable technology, webcasting could someday go wherever we go.

But, things can't ever possibly be this good. A dark cloud looms over the horizon. Soon, music fans could be deprived of the rich sounds and wildly varied styles and genres of music coming through their computer speakers. They could be without the bossa nova, lounge and other forms of exotic content provided by LuxuriaMusic. Or the not-too-commercial content of FolkAlley. Or the deep selection of 80s new wave hits served up by Java Jane. Yes, this burgeoning media form could come to a grinding halt soon, if lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, DC get their way.

Even acclaimed non-commercial stations like WXPN and KCRW could shut down their webstreams. Heck, so could the big commercial guns like Clear Channel!

This is not a veiled threat. This is real. And it could very well happen.

SoundExchange, the D.C.-based trade organization (and arm of the Recording Industry Association of America) that collects and distributes royalties, half to artists and half to record labels, is advocating for an increase in the amount of royalties that webcasters, satellite radio providers and other forms of modern technology broadcasters pay. After all, if licensing firms such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC can collect song publishing royalties from broadcasters, satcasters, webcasters and whoever else, why can't they? But at least the music publishers are reasonable. If SoundExchange gets their way, royalties paid by webcasters to the recording industry will more than double, in addition to a $500 per channel per year fee. If this gets the go-ahead by the Copyright Royalty Board, and it possibly could, the very small hobby webcasters will be pushed out of business. Even multi-stream providers such as Pandora and Live365 will be bankrupted.

Terrestrial radio broadcasters are grandfathered in, and thus excluded from this money grab (though they pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI). They're not required to pay the RIAA-mandated royalties, unless they themselves stream their content over the web. But if SoundExchange gets their way, they too may have to cough up money. If that happens, well, I hope you really like talk radio.

And if you're one of the roughly 30 million people in the United States who listens to internet radio and are looking for sympathy and compassion from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or SoundExchange, well, don't hold your breath.

In fact, John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, relishes the idea of paring down the webcast field, if it's beneficial to the artists.

"Is 10,000 stations the right number?" he asks. "Does having so many Web stations disperse the market so much that it hurts the artist? What's the right
number of stations? Is it 5,000? Is it less? Are artists better off having hundreds of listeners on lots of little stations, or thousands of listeners on larger stations?"

And if your webcast is a non-commercial hobby, well, find a new hobby. Simson says small operators who play music and don't try to sell ads "will have a hard time paying the rate" -- a change about which he's not shedding tears. Of course, he's living in a bit of a fantasy world, as webcast advertising is really in its infancy, and the vast majority of streaming stations are basically worth no more that the equipment they use. After all, AccuRadio is not AOL.

Many see a Utopian model where webcasting, like terrestrial radio, can work with the music cartel in a collaborative fashion. Meaning that the music getting airplay serves as promotion for the industry's goods, resulting in increased sales. Heck, the labels don't even have to bribe them to play their music! It would be a perfect world. Too bad the world really isn't perfect.

"The attitude that really has to change is the idea that the people playing this music on the Web are somehow doing artists a favor," Simson says. Artists want their music to be heard, of course, and the industry likes the concept of Web radio, but Simson rejects the concept that small webcasters are doing artists a favor by giving them exposure. He wants blood. And it doesn't matter how they get it.

Simson and his ilk are basically empty suits - lobbyists and lawyers doing the bidding of the RIAA (though they claim they are currently independent of them). Most of these goons aren't really true artists (though Simson did try to make it in the 70s as a singer/songwriter before chucking the dream and going to law school). They probably don't really care if musicians get paid or not. Most likely, they probably don't really care about music in general, as their minds have become clouded by figures and retainer fees. These people represent the dark, extremist side of the Music Mafia, the supercharged id of the industry psyche.

The music cartel thrives on control. And the very nature of the internet gives way too much power to the fans, power that the industry just doesn't want to fully cede. They'd much rather decide what we listen to, rather than us going out and discovering music that we might like better. The peer-to-peer file sharing boom earlier in the decade scared the bejeezus out of them. Sure, illicit file sharing is wrong on many levels, but this practice made the cartel paranoid of virtually anything on the internet controlled by parties outside their system of control. And that includes webcasting.

Just to warn you all, I'll be making much mention of file sharing, as it has been the 800lb. gorilla in the room throughout this rocky relationship between music and technology, and an example of how the industry dropped the ball with something that could have benefited them. But it most certainly has very little to do with the practice of webcasting. Although the industry has connected the two in the past, streaming music programming over the internet is really no different than terrestrial radio, only it's nature lends itself to niche programming and a more personal feel than corporate-owned radio. And it is definitely much more legit than music file sharing. Artists had every right to be hostile toward the likes of Napster, Kazaa and Grokster (though Metallica screwed the pooch in their poorly received response to it), but I'm sure all of them wholeheartedly approve of and support independent webcasting. In addition, many of them actually want to work with those nefarious peer-to-peer operators to legitimize their efforts and actually help the artists promote their works, while at the same time respecting their rights. But the music cartel, for the most part, is very timid.

(My son) kept saying it was wrong to steal the music (downloading from Napster)... (I said) If he wants to fight for my rights he could call up BMI and ask them why my broadcast-related payments were so low during the years The Who were in the top 10 AOR playlists. He might ask them why during the 1989 Who tour, when we paid a huge sum of money to BMI for the right to perform songs I had written, they eventually paid me (after a lot of complaining from my manager) a tiny portion of that sum, excusing themselves because their main payout area that year was Nashville. - Pete Townshend

Now, getting money to the very people who create the music is one thing. Only thing is, SoundExchange has had pretty mixed results in their distribution efforts. Last year, they posted a list of artists that have unclaimed royalties, giving a December 15 deadline to claim or forfeit. And who gets that forfeited money? Gee, one can only guess. Though, how hard could it be to find the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Here's a hint: they're in Utah. Or the Chicago Community Choir? The list is utterly hysterical. How about Clayton and Mullen? You know, the guys who did the theme for the first Mission:Impossible movie? Remember them? Hmm... I wonder where they are now. Well, it certainly can't be too difficult to find the rhythm section from U2! Ace Frehley? SoundExchange must think the former KISS guitarist is living under a bridge or something (oh wait - that's Peter Criss). Or, I wonder if New Kids on the Block know that they had money coming their way? Well, they'd have to look under 'M', since it's spelled "Mew Kids on the Block." Hey, isn't that Coolio on the list too? Or, speaking of washed-up 90s acts, how 'bout Gerardo, a.k.a. the "Rico Suave" guy? Well, he shouldn't be that tough to find. He's currently a friggin' record label exec for Interscope, part of one of the Big Four labels! As for any of the other artists on the list, I'm sure anyone with half a brain in their heads could go online and find contact information for many of them in mere minutes. No wonder why a budding competitor, the more reasonable Royalty Logic, is fighting against their questionable tactics. Of course, SoundExchange used their government clout to stick it to their budding rival.

"In a game where the ‘other' guys in suits and ties and 4 super-corporations control the bottom line in this culture, my stance is to dismantle that dominance and add parity across the board. The lawyers and accountants who've assumed the exec positions stand to lose the most when that happens." - Chuck D

So, am I advocating that artists should go pound sand and be thankful that they get any airplay at all? Absolutely not. But the recording industry should realize that, as hard as they try, they cannot work against technology. It didnt' work with the sheet music publishers and their wars with radio in the 1920s and 1930s. It didn't work with recordable tape and the rise of FM radio. And it didn't work with digitally compressed audio files and the internet. What did happen in every case is that the technology helped them grow even more. Even today, the recording industry is starting to make money via legitimate digital distribution of their music via iTunes and the like (and it took someone with the clout of Steve Jobs to finally make it work), after the fizzling of half-assed industry-controlled efforts such as MusicNet and PressPlay. Illicit downloading, believe it or not, may have actually helped them, as albums from Radiohead, Eminem and Coldplay shot to the top of the charts even after being fully leaked in advance online.

"In Mozart's time, word of mouth built an audience. People found him and heard him play. Then someone came along and said, 'We can sell this experience.' Right there, you've got trouble. Music comes from the spirit, but where does the guy selling the music come from?" - Prince

The music industry and its lobbyists and lawyers have to realize that new media (as in satellite radio and webcasting) is really helping them stay alive. Here are ten suggestions for the recording industry on how all parties involved can coexist:

1. Just like radio airplay, webcasting, satellite, Muzak and whatever other distribution technologies out there can actually help promote your stuff. And they can help sell it. Heck, AccuRadio, with 20,000 listeners at a time tuning in to 320 different music streams, claims that they help to sell $40,000 worth of CDs per month via direct links to Amazon.com. But with over 300 streams, the new rates will drive them out of business. Is this what they really want? Record labels have had no qualms in the past actually bribing stations to play their useless crap, so why take it out on the little guy who actually wants to play it? And it won't cost the labels baggies of weed, suitcases full of cash or hookers to do it. Tell the lobbyists to be reasonable about this whole royalty business and stop being so anal about it. The money will come. Trust me.

2. Recording industry lobbyists such as Simson claim that the music on webstreams are 'perfect digital copies.' That's nonsense. Music on webstreams is highly compressed and non-lossless. Meaning that they are degraded. Most webcast at rates of 128K or lower, in various streaming formats. That's roughly the equivalent of FM, without the excess compression and occasional static. The closest one could get to CD quality would be at a rate of 320K, which has minor degradation. But very, very few stream over 128K, due to exhorbitant cost of bandwidth and the inability for most people to listen to it. Again, webcasting is not the same as file sharing. Far from it.

3. The RIAA claims that people can 'rip' streams and make their own digital copies with widely available software. This is true, but the rips are still highly degraded. And doing this just to get a few individual songs is a real pain in the ass. I've never heard of anyone doing this. Besides, it's just as easy to record off the air (maybe even easier) to your computer with an external FM radio and an inexpensive connector plug from Radio Shack, if someone really had the time and energy to do that.

4. Choking legitimate royalty-paying webcasters out of business will jump back to bite the music industry in the ass. These are the ones who go out of their way to support you, via 'buy' links on their site where someone can actually buy the song they're hearing with a mere click. Getting rid of the webcasters who are succombing to your extortive tactics will only open the door wider to lower-tech 'pirate' webcasters who don't pay royalties. Think these people are going to put 'buy links' on their site for people to purchase the stuff they play? Think again.

5. The music industry also has to realize that most webcasters out there aren't in it to become zillionaires. The webcasters realize this. They do it as a labor of love, and some, like Bill Goldsmith of Radio Paradise can scrape a living out of it, all the while paying his royalties. And revenue streams for webcasters are far from becoming reality. Most webcasters spend more money than they make, but they do it because they believe in it. They're looking to support their favorite artists, not exploit them. This isn't the same as peer-to-peer providers like Kazaa selling advertising and spyware on their heavily-trafficked sites and services and pocketing all the loot. Music execs are more likely to rip off their artists than webcasters are. And they have.

"They wouldn't recognise art or artistic integrity if they bounded over and bit them on the arse... The real truth is that record companies have been screwing the public for years and they're now terrified that they might lose the odd dollar here and there." - Dunstan Bruce, Chumbawamba

6. The availability of online music, whether it be in webcasting, legitimate and illegitimate downloading or on-demand streaming is not what's really hurting the music cartel's bottom line. Sure, they're groaning about that 20% loss in sales over the past year, but have any of these people really looked to see what could be the real root of the problem? After all, the movie industry, also waging their own war against internet piracy, experienced a 5% increase in business in 2006, despite $10 tickets and $7 buckets of popcorn. Rather than blame everyone else, has the music industry taken into account other factors such as the increased competition from other media, including the widespread success of the DVD format for movies? Or the pricey video games available for all those gaming consoles (with several high-profile system launches in the past year)? Lots of stuff out there competing for that same dollar. Or the rise in sanctioned downloads from services such as iTunes? How about the tight playlists that dominate our corporate airwaves, depriving listeners of hearing talented artists rather than the current 'flavor of the month'? Or have they taken a look in the mirror at the very product they're pushing? There's lots of good music out there, but they seem content at merely pushing the mass-appeal mediocrity that they think is an easier sell. Blaming it all on the internet is short-sighted. And if new media is hurting your bottom line, perhaps you should learn how to take advantage of the vast marketing opportunities available with it and stop trying to fight technology. Remember, technology will always win.

"As the technology changes and the distribution channels evolve, artists are going to become free," Clint Black

7. Take care of your own. People have to wonder if your aim to collect royalties for deserving artists is true when the artists themselves are getting burned on expected royalties. Take the Bay City Rollers (...please!). They were pretty big in the 70s, and sold roughly 70 million units sold around the world. Yet all they've gotten in royalties in the past 25 years is a measly $254,000. Tsk, tsk. Or the Chambers Brothers. They released a bunch of records but scored only one real hit. And what a hit it was. "Time Has Come Today," written by Joe and Willie Chambers themselves, still gets tons of airplay, has been used in over 30 films, included on at least 125 compliations and even used in commercials. Yet, they haven't gotten a penny for it, or anything else they recorded in the 60s and 70s either. Is this how you take care of your own? Where does all this royalty money go anyway? We hear so many horror stories of artists getting screwed out of their money by unscrupulous execs, to the point that some of the very same people who built the business through their hard work died penniless through record company incompetence. Rhythm and blues pioneer LaVern Baker was still performing to her dying day while in a wheelchair with both of her legs amputated due to diabetes. Why? She needed the money for her artificial legs. Funny, I've never heard of a record exec falling on hard times. The industry screaming about webcasting cheating deserving artists is utter hypocrisy! So walk your talk. Practice what you preach. If it is indeed the artists' money, give it to them. And that means the money you stole from them too.

And if the recording industry is so concerned about the plight of the artists, allow the many musicians out there to be able to participate in the same health plans and perks that RIAA and label staffers have access to. NARAS, another music industry trade concern and host of the Grammy Awards, provided their former president Michael Green with a million dollar country club membership, a Mercedes and hush money for a sexual harassment suit. Musician Victoria Williams couldn't even get medical treatment for multple sclerosis on her own.

"The RIAA represents the interests of the majors. The interests of the majors are contrary to the interests of artists. The RIAA does not represent the interests of artists, and to suggest this is fundamentally dishonest." - Robert Fripp

8. The music industry will not gain much sympathy by alienating the people who support it most. Meaning people who listen to and buy your products. Calling your supporters thieves and slapping lawsuits on them will not endear them to you. Neither will cutting off their favorite listening options (i.e. webcasts) or inconveniencing them. And certainly not filing lawsuits against stroke victims and 7-year olds. Stop telling kids to drop out of college so they get a McJob and send you $3,000 or whatever you claim they owe you. And the 'settle-o-matic' feature on your website for the guilt-ridden and paranoid downloading crowd is piling it on a bit thick, don't you think? Let's face it, none of that money will ever see the hands of the artists whose music was snagged. Piss off your supporters (aka music fans) even more and they might do something rash, like form really bad opinions of you, boycott you, or even worse - ask questions you don't want to answer, such as why your artists only make less than a buck on their CD that sells for $15-18. Shaking down your fans is a big, big mistake.

"Record companies as we know them will soon be gone. There are too many other ways to distribute music, and once those are established there will be no place for record companies and their pigeonholes. They can take that as a threat if they like. It will be a big change. But as an artist I love change. Who needs ‘em?" - Keith Richards

9. Let go. Stop trying to be the gatekeeper to the entire music universe. I doubt this whole charade really has much to do with artist royalties. The labels have been shafting artists for decades. Rather it's a method of control. The industry wants to be the ones to decide who makes it and who doesn't, in order to target their cashflow and give the beancounters and shareholders something to wrap their minds around. They want all the power, and the ability to decide who gets airplay and promotion and who doesn't. With only a select number of radio station owners out there, and a heavy reliance on corporate-mandated playlists, this makes promotion very easy. Much more simplistic to shove bland, shitty mass appeal bands like Nickelback and Hinder down everyone's throats than Bright Eyes, who has recently garnered quite a bit of attention and rave reviews despite little mainstream airplay (except for non-commercial radio and webcasting) and being distributed by a small independent label out of Omaha.

But that would be too complicated for the industry. Much easier to promote and market what they know - crass, predictable crap. Like the Pussycat Dolls, a Las Vegas burlesque troupe who are in a rather unique situation - they are record company employees! Yes, you read that right. Rather than being 'works for hire' or indentured servants like every other act out there, they were hired and are employed by Interscope, meaning that the image, songs, musicians, videos, promotion, etc. are provided by the label, and all the girls have to do is show up in the studio, on the video set, on stage and to the reality show (yes, the reality show). Well, two out of three ain't bad. Supposedly, it's only one girl singing lead and backup on all the songs on their record (though two more out of the remaining five are given credit for backup vocals). Have we learned nothing from the whole Milli Vanilli fiasco? They also market this group heavily toward young girls, going so far to team with Hasbro to produce a toy line. Hmm... Las Vegas burlesque marketed to 11-year olds? Is this where they got the idea? But that's another rant for another time.

The labels are killing themselves with their increased reliance on mass appeal mediocrity. Think of it this way: In 25 years, who's going to be elected into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame? Certainly not Justin Timberlake. The innovative artists are the ones on the ground trying to do it themselves. Heck, there could be another Led Zeppelin out there, waiting for their big break. And likely, in the modern day environment, with the RIAA holding the keys to the gate, controlling distribution, support and radio airplay, it will never happen. And they're still a bit uncomfortable with fan-driven webcasters and sites like Myspace taking matters into their own hands. That's a chink in their armour! An affront to their authority!

"Somewhere along the way, record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation." - Courtney Love

10. If you don't do it, someone else will. There's a reason Prince left Warner Brothers, Garth Brooks left Capitol and Public Enemy left Def Jam to strike out on their own. And there's a reason Ani DiFranco shunned the major labels and currently enjoys complete artistic freedom and over $4 per album in royalties by distributing her own music. Just last week, Paul McCartney, perhaps the most famous musician still alive, left EMI after more than four decades, even turning down a reported £25 million advance (or $49 million - like he needs the money!), to sign with Starbucks' upstart independent label, because he felt they could more effectively promote his new music. Yes, that Starbucks. It's about control. It's about freeing themselves from restrictive indentured servitude contracts. It's about determining their own destiny, outside of the Big Four. It's about trusting their destiny to a company that actually cares about promoting their new product.

Today, there are many more avenues available to artists that didn't exist in the past. No longer do major labels and corporate-controlled radio stations have to get involved. Artists and independent labels can simply cut out the middle man, by going to independent webcasters and sites like Myspace and Last.fm. The extremely talented Terra Naomi scored a major label deal with Island Records via a widely seen homemade music video on YouTube. These are more direct grassroots marketing channels that artists can utilize themselves, meaning less control for the music mafia. They're being rendered obsolete. No wonder why the industry is so timid of the internet!

Here's what can happen if the major labels just open their minds and support new media. A Chicago band, OK Go, was sitting on an album that was getting virtually no attention. Unimpressed with the predictable promotional efforts of their label, Capitol Records, they created a silly music video in their backyard for one of their songs as a joke (at a cost of roughly $5), emailing it to friends and acquaintances while never really intending to officially release it. Capitol could have sued for many, many copyright violations when the video spread and became a massive success on YouTube. Or they could have put their foot down when the band started handing out homemade DVDs featuring the video at their shows. Instead, figuring they really had nothing to lose anyway, Capitol stepped aside and just supported the band's efforts. OK Go got even more creative, shot another low-budget homemade video (this one intentional) and uploaded it to YouTube, without the knowledge or consent of the label. The result? "Here It Goes Again", another hilarious effort featuring a single long take and a choreographed routine on treadmills, was a web phenomenon, viewed over 13 million times on YouTube alone. It also won a Grammy for Best Video and resulted in a sales spike of 180% and widespread airplay for a year-old album, a very rare feat. To their credit, the Capitol brass gave in, let the band to their thing and even supported it, going so far as to allow the music on a medium they loathe - on-demand internet access. Yes, this stuff does work. The internet is a powerful tool that can be utilized to give a much-needed shot in the arm to a sagging music industry. This is even bigger than MTV! Killing the goose that laid the golden egg is sheer lunacy.

Major labels aren’t going away, but until they figure out how to lead the Internet rather than chase it, the mainstream music scene is destined to just get even duller and safer than it already is. - John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants

So, what can we as the general public do to save internet radio? Well, fighting the music industry lobby and the politicians they have sucking at their hind teats is intimidating, but it can be done. You can go to this link at Congress.org, copy the text letter there and by just entering your zip code you can send the letter directly to your congresspeople. You can also find more information about the Music Mafia shakedown of the internet at these sites:

Save Our Internet Radio
Save the Streams - includes petition
Kurt Hanson's Radio and Internet Newsletter
Another petition

Or you could even let the SoundExchange shakedown artists themselves know how you feel about their fatwa on webstreaming and other heavy-handed tactics. You can email Simson here and contact the rest via this web page.

And yes, the Music Mafia and new media can coexist. And flourish. If only they stop fearing it and stop trying to kill it. And work with the public, rather than against it.

Webcasters, broadcasters fight for internet radio

Not only are internet webcasters up in arms over planned royalty fee increases for online music streamers, but traditional broadcast concerns are fighting the ruling as well.

Lawyers for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are in Washington this week, planning legal action aimed at overturning a ruling from US Copyright Royalty Judges which raised royalty fees for webcasters high enough for some to predict the demise of Internet radio.

"Right now the thought is that the initial response needs to be a legal response," General Manager Roger LaMay, of NPR affiliate WXPN, told internetnews.com. WXPN is a non-commercial member-supported radio service of the University of Pennsylvania, and programs an innovative music-heavy format.

"If this were to go into effect it's going to have public radio stations looking for ways to cut back what we do, as opposed to expanding. Now, there is significant dis-incentive when you're talking about services that are committed to public service," LaMay said.

Commercial Internet radio broadcasters were equally upset. "Left unchanged, these rates would be disastrous. It will not only end Internet radio, but will also stifle innovation as entrepreneurs and investors will abandon this space - leaving a vacuum that will be quickly filled by illegal unlicensed services with no intention of creating legitimate businesses," a spokesperson for commercial webcaster Pandora said in an email. Pandora founder Tim Westergren said his company plans to follow NPR and CPB into court.

Willem Dicke, a spokesperson for SoundExchange, was on the defensive. "We're all fans of Internet radio. We don't want to see Internet radio go away. These are negotiations. We're not trying to stick it to anybody. In terms of what happens next? Either side could appeal to the U.S. District court," Dicke told internetnews.com.

LaMay claims that the proposed rate hike will hurt independent musicians, who rely on Internet radio to expose their music, the most.

That's not SoundExchange's goal, Dicke said. "We just want them to play fairly when they use the work of musicians and artists and ultimately the market place is going to determine who succeeds and who doesn't." Dicke said.

"There's nobody in public radio that's making money overall on their [Web] streams," LaMay said, "We're doing them because we think it's the right thing to do."

You can read the rest at Internetnews.com.

Listeners rally to save eclectic New Mexico rock station

It's an all-too common story. Beloved station gets sold off to another broadcaster, with the aim of flipping it to a not-so-beloved satellite-fed format.

This time, it's in Santa Fe, NM, and a well-regarded station looks to be kaput unless a local group consisting of station employees and management can change the station owner's mind and sell to them instead.

Recently, Clear Channel Communications, in their mass divestiture of small market properties, reached an agreement on February 26 to sell KBAC ("Radio Free New Mexico") and another station for $1.5 million to Educational Media Foundation, a California-based non-profit group that programs three Christian-oriented formats and sends them out via satellite to roughly 350 stations and low-powered translators across the country. And local listeners are working hard to save what they feel is a valuable local voice.

Ira Gordon, general manager of KBAC and smooth jazz sister KSFQ, said he and a group of employees are working to buy KBAC from the Educational Media Foundation after Clear Channel sells it. Gordon said his group, called Radio Free Santa Fe Inc., has an out-of-state financier who will help them purchase the station. He also said the group is poised to take ownership of the station quickly.

Listeners are also rallying to the cause. with a group called Friends of KBAC organizing a campaign that has resulted in hundreds of letters sent by local residents to representatives at Clear Channel and EMF seeking to keep the existing format on the air.

Since debuting its adult alternative format in 1989, KBAC has garnered accolades with its eclectic playlists that mix blues, jazz, folk, rock and world music, among others. In addition, they have long been a solid supporter of local music. Gordon says that his group would not change KBAC's present format, but is open to tweaking it.

KBAC is licensed to Las Vegas, NM, with its offices and studio in Santa Fe. The station's 100,000 watt signal is located southeast of Santa Fe, and employs translators to help with local reception. While the station often ranks in the top ten for overall listeners in the Santa Fe market, Clear Channel has always had a problem with selling advertising on it. Hence, the station has been losing money for the past two years. Gordon claims that Clear Channel, with their heavily regionalized corporate management structure, wasn't equipped to run KBAC as a heavily localized station, something that is crucial for a station with KBAC's approach. "Many of our past issues with revenue are tied to the fact that this community is pro local business, and we have been owned by a large corporation," he said. "We are optimistic and have been assured by our local community that we can count on their support in the future."

The sale deal is currently before the FCC. After details of the sale are hammered out, the public has 30 days to comment before it can be finalized. That 30-day comment period started this past Monday.

UPDATE 3/8: And it looks like Radio Free Santa Fe will live! According to Radio and Records, EMF has decided that they only need one of the two stations (KSFQ). Gordon's group was able to work out a deal to purchase KBAC from them. According to Gordon, "Once the deal to sell these two stations was presented to the FCC, we were then able to talk with the folks at EMF, and negotiate the purchase of KBAC. Once EMF has officially taken over ownership, we will then buy the station from them. We are very excited that we will remain the triple A voice for the community that we have been for over 10 years now."

RIAA trying to kill internet radio

Faithful readers of LTR know that this blog does not necessarily limit itself to liberal and progressive talk radio. Quite often, the worlds of independent media and emerging technology are covered here, as these often have much to do with the ability of the general public to be able to become a part of the overall media process. Unfortunately, independent internet radio as we know it may be in danger, following a ruling on Friday, and this development could affect the creation and development of new media.

In a move that could potentially cripple small and medium-sized internet radio services immensely, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) on Friday made a decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange, the digital music fee collection arm of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). In short, this move could kill webcasting as we know it.

Further adding insult to injury, the rates will be retroactive to the beginning of 2006, and will be significantly higher than laid out in a similar May 2002 royalty edict (the CARP ruling). And these new rates will increase drastically from year to year.

The new rates are as follows:

2006	$.0008 per performance
2007	$.0011 per performance
2008	$.0014 per performance
2009	$.0018 per performance
2010	$.0019 per performance

A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays.

The minimum license fee is $500 per channel per year. There is no clear definition of what a 'channel' is for services that make up individualized playlists for listeners. For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 ATH (aggregate tuning hours) per month. They would pay the commercial rate for all transmissions above that number.

Participants are granted a 15 day period wherein they have the opportunity to ask the CRB for a re-hearing. Following that will be the usual back-and-forth before it could become official.

So, what does this all mean to you and I? Well, if you enjoy listening to music on internet radio, your favorite online station could shut down. The big guns of streaming audio, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL, could withstand this, since streaming is only a minor part of their massive business interests. The next tier, which would include services like Live365, will feel a serious pinch. And many well-revered services, such as SomaFM, Radioio and Radio Paradise, may be kaput. Or they may go the KPIG route and start charging subscription rates to hear their stream (they have since ditched this model). The next level down are the small hobbyists with Shoutcast or Live365 streams. If they're running a legit operation (i.e. forking over royalty fees to the RIAA), chances are they won't be able to weather the change. They'll either shut down or go underground. Or limit their playlists to non-RIAA material, which will effectively limit what they can put on the 'air'.

And while some of these webcasters rely on donations or advertising to help offset expenses such as equipment, bandwidth, etc., they are far from massive profitable enterprises. Many of them are hobbyists, doing it as a labor of love, such as Bill Goldsmith, who runs Radio Paradise with his wife and stepson. The station is a non-profit small business, and is a full-time job. He doesn't expect to get rich off it, but he is living the American dream of making a living doing something he loves. What kind of impact will the new rates have on Goldsmith and other independent webcasters? Well, they'll effectively run them all out of business.

Goldsmith sees the whole system as highly unfair, in that the RIAA, representing the 'Big 5' record companies, extracts so much money from webcasters, while collecting nothing from owners of terrestrial radio stations. Yes, you read that right - companies such as Clear Channel and CBS pay nothing to the RIAA. In fact, record labels will sometimes illegally pay station owners such as Entercom and Citadel to air their music, as the most recent payola scandals that rocked the industry showed.

The RIAA's argument for demanding fees from webcasters rather than terrestrial providers is that webcast stations are merely providing "perfect digital copies" of individual songs to listeners, rather than creating traditional radio programming. Goldsmith thinks this is hogwash, and it most certainly is. Nobody with even a limited knowledge of computers can say that a song on a webstream is a 'perfect digital copy', unless they're streaming at a 14,400kbps rate, which would be highly impractical. Most stream anywhere from 64-128kbps, a highly compressed rate.

The new rates could easily eat up roughly 125% of Radio Paradise's income, according to Goldsmith. And he feels his hands are tied, as the recording industry and Congress are ignoring the plight of small webcasters.

SomaFM, a highly popular webcaster with multiple streams dedicated to electronic, ambient, lounge and alternative country music, had already run into problems with the RIAA's heavy-handed ways. Following the 2002 CARP ruling, the webcaster was effectively forced to shut down temporarily, since they could not handle a $15,000 per month royalty bill. SomaFM's owner, Rusty Hodges organized a letter-writing campaign and even testified before Congress. The grassroots effort persuaded Congress to pass the Small Broadcasters Amendment Act, which enabled SomaFM and others to negotiate a more reasonable rate with the RIAA and return to webcasting. SomaFM and Radio Paradise, among others, currently pay roughly 12% of income to the RIAA.

The RIAA has long had an uncomfortable relationship with the internet. Since the peak of Napster and other file sharing organizations, the RIAA has virtually declared war againts these companies and even engaged in what some would call 'Gestapo-like tactics' in going after people suspected of downloading music via file sharing. They have tried to sue children, dead peoples' families, the terminally ill and even an 83-year old woman they suspected of downloading rap music. Granted, the makers and distributors of music do deserve to get paid on it, but heavy-handed tactics such as this have alienated the recording industry from the many people who have supported them in the past. Even former RIAA head Hilary Rosen, vilified by many in the peer-to-peer file sharing community, feels that the hardline tactics of the RIAA have been counter-productive. She feels the time is right for the RIAA to work with new technology in a more positive fashion.

So, the question deserves to be asked. Who gets the money collected from webcasters? If you guess that the beneficiaries are the artists themselves, you are grossly mistaken. Any money collected from royalty fees go directly to the RIAA and the record companies, further feeding the beast. Lobbying's hard work, after all.

Now, lest anyone get the wrong idea from this posting, nobody is demanding that the RIAA get stiffed on any money owed. Rather, it is a call for rational thought, in creating a system that is fair to all, including both webcasters and terrestrial broadcasters. And an effort to save a highly valuable medium that enables the population at large to become a larger presence in the media, something that is extremely important in this day and age. This new iron-fist tactic seems designed to enable an organization such as the RIAA, which represents the major recording conglomerates, to dictate who is allowed to deliver the content. And it is highly unfair. In short, the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by bullying organizations that could help pad their bottom line in a considerable way.

And if the new royalty rates go into effect, the world of internet radio could resemble terrestrial radio. Only, instead of being dominated by the likes of Clear Channel, CBS, Entercom and Citadel, will be dominated by AOL, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and others, with the little guy once again squeezed out. Instead of breaking truly innovative artists who happen to be toiling away at major labels, webcasting fans will yet again have the not-so-talented likes of Jessica Simpson, Nickleback, the Pussycat Dolls and various other flavors of the week shoved down their throats. For this to happen to webcasting would be an absolute travesty. The recording industry has already helped to destroy terrestrial radio. Don't let them do it to internet radio, and don't let them try to single-handedly wipe out an entire class of small business.

You can find out more at Save Our Internet Radio, a new site started by Goldsmith, or Save The Streams, a similar site. For further reading, check out Gizmodo's Anti-RIAA Manifesto, the International Webcasting Association, and Kurt Hanson's excellent Radio And Internet Newsletter. There is also a petition that will be submitted to Congressional representatives, pleading to "please keep internet radio alive."