NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Marion, NC, United States, 04/27/2007 - SoundExchange spoke out against the Internet Radio Equality Act today.

In a recent press release Sound exchange expressed it's dislike to the newly proposed Internet Radio Equality Act. SoundExchange claims the bill is for large internet broadcasters rather then small webcasters. They say that small webcasters only comprised a mere 2% of royalty revenues in 2006. They additionally say that those reveues only amounted to only $360.00 to each artist in 2006. I'm afraid I would I have to challenge those rates and pose some questions regarding their authenticity. I also disagree with the notion that the Radio Equality Act is for the largest broadcasters.

I would challenge them recalculate the $360.00 per artist. Lets first show how royalties are are divided up. Royalties are split 50/50. SoundExchange gets 50% off the top. The artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording. Lets not forget that usually the label gets a chunk, if not all of that 45% as well. If we recalculate this as to what internet radio actually pays using the SoundExchange example the figure doubles to $720.00 instantly. Now lets consider the artists that never receive their royalties. SoundExchange keeps multi millions of dollars in royalty payments every year using the excuse they are unclaimed. By posting a list of artists on the internet which can not be found by the average internet user, it is easy to say they are unclaimed funds. If you add those millions and millions of dollars to the equation I believe that figure would probably much, much higher. Several famous artists have come forward to say they have never received a royalty payment from SoundExchange. Coincedence? Still other artists have told stories of having to take legal action to get their deserved royalty payments from SoundExchange. Sounds like these bloated rates they want are to serve their own interests, not artists.

SoundExchange stated "Because the bill is retroactive, artists would have to write checks to cover refunds to corporations whose CEOs and top executives are paid millions of dollars per year." Now how is that possible? The proposed rates are slightly more than the existing rates in 2006. This sounds like a ploy to scare artists into backing your position. I simply don't believe it.

Why should'nt internet radio be allowed to pay the same rates as satelite radio? That's exactly what this bill proposes. Because SoundExchange was willing to bankrupt small webcasters without any regard whatsoever these webcasters were forced to join the SaveNetRadio Coalition in order to fight back. John Simson made it very clear that these broadcasters were insignificant to him. He even alluded that there were probably too many small webcasters. That's the very reason internet is becoming so popular. They do not play the mainstream top 40 but instead provide a diverse mixture of every genre. Everyone does not want to hear the top 40 as chosen by the big record labels. Internet radio provides an alternative to this. It gives independent artists an outlet for their music to be heard in an international market. It creates sales for these artists who would otherwise quite probably be unknown. The Internet Radio Equality Act puts broadcasters on a level playing field by setting royalty rates evenly. There is no reason internet radio should be penalized with huge rate increases while other broadcast mediums pay a much smaller rate. Let us not forget terrestrial AM and FM stations do not even pay this particular royalty. I say lets keep things fair. If you are going to quote stats on payments tell the whole story. Don't create rhetoric that is unfounded or a half truth. People know better. We were'nt born yesterday.

Agency / Source: Webcasters Unite - Radio Amber

Availability: All Regions (Including Int'l)

Traffic Booster: [/] Quick Newswire Today Visibility Checker

Distribution / Indexing: [+]