The SaveNetRadio coalition is a response to the royalty increase in the March 2007 Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) ruling. The coalition consists of artists, labels, listeners, and webcasters that believe another solution must be created in order to prevent internet radio stations from shutting down. The CRB decision will harm millions of music listeners, performers who depend on the internet radio to increase their audience, and webcasters who make a living from streaming music online.
     SaveNetRadio exposes the unreal myths and harsh facts about the cost of webcasting. While the internet radio is the smallest medium within the radio business, it pays the most royalties. Broadcast radio and satellite radio are subject to small or no royalties at all. The predicted combined revenue for internet radio services is $73.6 million, but 58% of that revenue will be used for royalty payments. Internet radio is one of the most important sources for music listeners. About seven million Americans a days use internet radio. Although the popularity of internet radio has increased tremendously, it is still a small, growing industry. Most webcasters do not generate enough revenue to cover the royalties since they do not have enough sponsors or advertisements to sustain them.
     Another myth concerning royalty rates is that artists and record companies were not being fairly compensated for their work prior to the CRB decision. The reality is that if royalties are too high, internet radio will go out of business, and then performers definitely will not be paid for their work. The high royalties will not allow small or large webcasters to survive, and even if large webcasters can afford the royalties, it will not promote competition and diversity in the internet radio services. While the increase in royalties may seem negligible, tripling the per-song royalty rate adds up to an enormous royalty payment. Besides the per-usage rate, webcasters are also subject to a minimum fee per station and have no option to opt for a revenue-based royalty system.
     SaveNetRadio is an important topic in my paper. It demonstrates the outrage of the music community to the CRB decision. The myths and facts of the cost of webcasting clearly describe the toll that increased royalties will have on small and large webcasters. SaveNetRadio.org is an extremely useful and interesting source. I think it is an excellent way to bring music fans together to fight the unfairness in the royalty system for internet radio stations.

    Tim Westergren, founder and chief strategy officer of Pandora, spoke on behalf of the Digital Media Association (DiMa) at the hearing on “The Future of Radio.” His testimony first introduces Pandora and the Music Genome Project. He emphasizes that Pandora is unbiased in the song selection for its listeners. Through a completely democratic process, listeners can vote “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” if they like the song, and that respective song will gain or lose more exposure. Pandora plays songs from a wide range of artists with about 70% of the sound recordings belonging to artists not affiliated to major record labels. It equally reviews any CD that is delivered to them and selects songs solely based on their musical composition.
    Westergren’s statement focuses on the benefits of the internet radio technology. Internet radio offers more stations and diversity content than broadcast, satellite, and FM radio. Virtually any artist or song can be found on the internet. Westergren reports that in a study “Pandora listeners are three to five times more likely to have purchased music in the last 90 days than the average American.” He emphasizes that internet radio is the best way to promote artists and music.
    On the issue of royalty rates, Westergren highlights that internet radio has the smallest of all radio revenues yet it pays the highest royalties. The increased rates are not economically sustainable, and unless a new resolution is made with SoundExchange, Pandora and other internet radio companies will immediately shut down. Pandora and DiMa have supported the SaveNetRadio campaign, which has urged support for the Internet Radio Equality Act. Westergren provides words from listeners and musicians who are extremely grateful to internet radio. In his own words, Westergren states, “It is my hope, indeed the reason I started this company, that we are at the beginning of the development of a musicians’ middle class, as radio services like Pandora allow musicians to find a fan base and maintain a steady career making music, which is a real alternative to the major-label system that makes you an enormous star or leaves you unemployed.”
    Westergren’s statement is important for my paper, since my argument completely supports his ideas and beliefs. The internet radio is extremely beneficial to the public and I agree that it is the best way to promote an artist’s work. If the royalty rates are increased, this will put a halt to the promotion of cultural diversity. Although not all listeners end up purchasing CDs or songs, the word-of-mouth advertisement for performers is tremendous, this benefits them in the long run. Westergren’s ideas and beliefs are fair and justified. He is not completely against the payment of royalties, but he demands a fair standard to be used for the rate determination, which is what my paper will discuss.

Thesis: The Copyright Royalty Board's decision to increase royalty fees for online music streaming is unfair and will lead to popular internet radio stations, such as Pandora, to go out of business. Paper proposal: I would like to research and write a paper on Pandora in the context of online music streaming. The paper would focus more on the Pandora case, but I would also discuss the copyright issues concerning internet radio stations. My research would include Pandora's background, its terms of use, and its method of dealing with copyright concerns. I would also research the Copyright Royalty Board and other internet radio stations. This research would allow me to analyze and argue that increasing internet radio fees are putting internet radio companies, such as Pandora, in risk of going out of business. The goal of my paper would be to discuss the fairness of the royalty fees for internet radio stations and use Pandora as the main example and focus of this argument.

    Pandora has become one of the nation’s most popular internet radio stations. It has about one million listeners daily and 40,000 new customers a day. Pandora has made it to the top ten most popular applications for Apple’s iphone. Listeners can create their own stations according to their musical tastes. All of Pandora’s success, however, may soon reach an end with the increasing royalty rates.
    Royalty fees are paid to a single agent SoundExchange, Inc. The organization represents performers and record companies, and it supports the higher rates on the basis that musicians deserve a larger fraction of internet radio profits. “Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses,” said Mike Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange. The organization also believes that internet radio has not done enough to profit from streaming music.
    Some musicians defend Pandora and other internet radio stations on the other hand. Webcasters argue that internet radio offers a larger range of music than traditional radio and also promotes independent musicians. While traditional radio does not pay royalties and satellite radio pay 6-7% of their revenue, webcasters must pay per song and per listener. With the new royalty decision doubling the per performance rates, Pandora and other webcasters may go out of business. Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, predicts that royalty fees will amount to $17 million this year, which is 70% of the projected revenue. “We’re funded by venture capital,” [Westergren] said, “They’re not going to chase a company whose business model has been broken. So if it doesn’t feel like it’s headed toward a solution, we’re done.”
    This newspaper article is important for my paper because it portrays the trememdous effect the new royalties will have on Pandora. Westergren repeatedly states that the company will go out of business, and this is important for my paper. Performers will not be paid more for their work if there is no internet radio station that will be in business to pay them. In order to ensure a fair royalty rate, the company must not be threatened to close down. My paper defends another model for determining the royalties and argues against the latest copyright ruling on the royalty rates. This article is important because it not only demonstrates the copyright ruling from Pandora's point of view but also from SoundExchange's perspective.

    On April 25, 2007, the House of Representatives presented the Internet Radio Equality Act with the purpose of nullifying the March 2, 2007, Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling on webcasting and royalty rates. The act proposed a new standard of determining royalties according to Section 801b of the Copyright Act. It also established a transition rule for commercial webcasters for 2006-2010, which offers a choice between paying $0.33 per hour of sound recording to a single listener or 7.5% of the annual revenues received by digital transmission of sound recordings. For noncommercial webcasters, the act proposed a payment of 150% of the royalty fee paid in 2004. The act also proposed a study to determine the competitiveness of the internet radio marketplace. Research is also being conducted to study the effects of the proposed rates on local programming, the diversity of programming, and the entry barriers into the internet radio market.
    The Internet Radio Equality Act is an important source for my paper. It demonstrates the efforts Pandora and other internet radio companies are making to fight the Copyright Royalty Board’s last ruling. It also argues that the standards for determining royalty rates should be the same as the ones proposed in the Copyright Act. This bill is important to argue the different sides of the royalty issue in my paper, since it offers the perspective of the internet radio companies. It also allows me to defend the point that there is a better model to determine the rates.

Tim Wu talks with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation about the possible ways presidential candidates might attempt to reach younger voters in the 2008 election. Wu speculates about candidates battling in virtual worlds (which may prove more "exciting" than real-life rallies, since you can actually blow things up). He talks about the increasing participation in virtual worlds like Second Life, but doesn't really contextualize the still relatively small virtual world population. Wu also speculates that it might become more acceptable for serious politicians to make cameo appearances on TV shows as a way of advertising their brand, i.e. themselves. Although he mentions Clinton, it might be useful to think about Gore's career since he left the White House. Appearances on Saturday Night Live and most recently the Oscars with his film An Inconvenient Truth have turned him into Hollywood's golden boy without detracting from (and if anything, increasing) his political clout. Will candidates still in office be able to garner popularity in this way - without worrying about their reputations as "serious" presidential candidates?

This clip is also useful because it imagines the possibilities for increased voter participation throughout the political process.