Pitchfork

As a Pitchfork reader, you're aware of the impact the internet has had on the ways in which music is discovered, disseminated, championed and discussed. From sites like ours to blogs like yours, musical interaction on the web seems to become more vast and exciting with each passing day. But an integral part of that landscape-- internet radio-- is in danger of becoming drastically weakened or extinct, due to a new law. Although the consequences of this are far-reaching, the death of web radio would be a particularly crushing blow to under-the-radar sounds.

Countless numbers of people listen to the radio on their computers every day, seeking shows that appeal to their chosen tastes, expand their musical horizons, or simply give them something to drown out the Maroon 5 seeping over the adjoining cubicle wall. Net radio offers broadcasters the opportunity to do just about whatever they please-- an impressive feat when contrasted with the focus-grouped farce that is most corporate-owned terrestrial radio in 2007.

Here at Pitchfork, we think that turning people on to new music is pretty important. (Hell, it's what we do every day.) And losing web radio would significantly reduce exposure to new music. We think that sucks.

So Pitchfork News is taking a little time off from our usual routine of reporting who's on tour, who's putting out albums, and what Sufjan Stevens ate for breakfast, to clue you in to what's going on with net radio. Hopefully you already know, and have your Senator on speed dial. But if not, here's a brief run-down. For much more information, go to savenetradio.org.

Given all the less-than-honorable ways people acquire music through their computers, net radio is practically saintly. It's mostly free, legal, and musician-friendly, paying royalties in the same manner as terrestrial and satellite radio, though not necessarily in the same amounts.

On March 2, the Copyright Royalty Board-- a legislative body specializing in copyright license law-- approved a ruling that upped the royalty rates providers of digital radio streams pay to SoundExchange, a not-for-profit performer's rights group operating on behalf of music copyright owners. SoundExchange collects checks from broadcasters and funnels that money back to the performers. The March 2 decision changed the payout from either a small hourly rate (about a penny for each listener to every hour of music streamed) or a percentage of the station's overall revenue, to a per-song fee.

On July 15, broadcasters will have to pony up 7/100 of a penny for every listener to every song they've played retroactive to January 1 of 2006, a cost that will gradually increase to near nearly triple that by 2010.

7/100 of a cent might not seem like much. But think about NPR affiliates supported by listener donations, or consider the literally thousands of streaming stations operating around the clock on popular sites like Live365, running on little more than the pluck of their DJs. These stations exist because of their operators' commitment to bringing free music to listeners. So many stations offer an alternative to the sad state of Clear Channel -controlled terrestrial radio, with the freedom to explore sounds as far out as they see fit. These stations will likely crumble under the new rates, marking a silencing of an untold wealth of free expression and the transmission of new sounds.

We're all for artists getting their due, and to that end, the argument for letting the decision stand has legs, in theory. The higher fees leveraged against broadcasters would ostensibly mean more dough for artists, although even that appears to be negligible. Reports vary, but the average artist's payout after the rate increase will still only be in the neighborhood of a few hundred bucks per year. And is that really worth the price of untold numbers of small broadcasters being put out of business?

Corporate-backed net radio stations like AOL Radio likely have the bank to soldier on despite the rate increases (if they decide it's even worth the investment), but the decision will squeeze out the venues more likely to rock Apparat than Akon. It's a tired adage, but often all too true: the rich will get richer from this deal, while the little guys lose another way to have their voices heard.

Net radio's vast listenership has cried foul, and now, some parts of Washington seem to be catching on. Bills have been introduced into both the House and Senate attempting to halt the rate increase and the July 15 due date for the royalty payments, as well as seek a similar payment scenario to satellite radio, which pays a flat 7.5% of their revenue to SoundExchange. The Senatorial bill does the House action one further by allowing a provision to refund all royalties paid above the old level should the bill itself pass after July 15.

To support these bills, call or write your local representative, or pop on over to savenetradio.org, the leading website in the struggle against this decision, for more information.

Because, in the end, do we really want these people exerting even more power over what we can and can't listen to?