Intellectual Property: Economic Arrangements Among Small Webcasters and Third Parties and Their Effect on Royalties
Released: 2004-06-01T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The advent of the Internet and digital transmission of sound recordings through personal computers has revolutionized the music industry and created a new way to transmit music directly to listeners. Although personal computers have been available since the late 1970s and music in digital form since the early 1980s, it was opening up the Internet to commercial activity in 1992 that set the stage for webcasting. In webcasts, sound recordings, such as records and compact discs, and live performances can be transmitted to listeners over the Internet. The popularity of webcasting is growing, with the number of listeners tripling over the past 3 years.

Webcasting and traditional radio broadcasting follow essentially the same steps to deliver music to listeners (see figs. 1 and 2). Many webcasters and traditional radio stations deliver music to listeners at no charge. A key difference, however, concerns the number of potential listeners. In traditional radio broadcasting, a station’s signal is available to any number of listeners within range of the transmitter. In contrast, the potential audience for a webcast is anyone in the world whose computer is equipped with a media player.

Webcasting, also called Internet streaming, is the process of transmitting digitized audio or video content over the Internet. The content can originate from live performances, records, compact discs, or other prerecorded formats. A webcast consists of several steps. The webcasters must first assemble the music that will be transmitted and then translate it into one or more digital formats. Music that is not streamed “live” must be stored so that it is available to individuals who use their personal computers to access the Web site created by the webcaster. The final step is delivering the music through an Internet connection.

Choices about the audio quality of the transmitted music and the size of the audience affect the webcaster’s operation costs. The quality of the resulting music depends on the bandwidth—the number of bits of information transmitted per second—used by the webcaster. Higher bandwidth results in better sound quality of the transmitted music and allows a greater number of simultaneous listeners. The size of the Internet connection to the webcaster’s server and the choice of bandwidth determine the potential size of the audience. Although in its most basic form webcasting can be a relatively inexpensive “do-it-yourself” operation using a minimum of two computers and an Internet connection, the trade-off is lower sound quality and smaller audience size. Alternatively, webcasters that hope to reach a large audience with high-quality music frequently contract with one or more third parties to provide the different steps. Such third parties can provide a single service or some combination of services, including translating the music into digital form and adjusting bandwidth needs to accommodate the number of simultaneous listeners. Some may also provide data on the number and location of listeners. Because webcasters frequently deliver their music at no charge to listeners, webcasters may contract with other third parties, such as companies that wish to advertise products on the webcaster’s Web site, to obtain revenue that can help offset the costs associated with webcasting and return a profit to the webcaster.

The Internet and the ability to digitally transmit sound recordings have created opportunities for the recording companies that typically own the copyrights in sound recordings to reach an unprecedented number of listeners. Accompanying these opportunities are challenges for copyright owners to maintain control over, and be compensated for, the use of their copyrighted recordings. In the United States, the owners of copyrights in sound recordings have not historically enjoyed the exclusive right to control or authorize public performances of their recordings. Traditionally these copyright owners generated royalties by selling copies of the recordings in the form of albums, cassette tapes, and compact discs. Although radio broadcasters pay royalties to publishers and writers for use of a musical work, they were not obligated to pay record companies for the use of sound recordings.

Two key pieces of legislation gave copyright owners the right to control performances of sound recordings when they are digitally transmitted and gave webcasters the automatic right to use the recordings under certain circumstances in exchange for the payment of royalties under a statutory license. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, enacted in 1995, granted copyright owners the exclusive right to control or authorize the use of recordings when they are digitally transmitted but not, for example, when they are transmitted for use as background music in a restaurant. In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Congress expanded the scope of this digital transmission right. Among other things, the DMCA specifies that webcasters may operate under an automatic license to use copyrighted works at either a voluntarily negotiated rate or at a rate recommended by a panel known as a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), subject to review by the Librarian of Congress. These rates, retroactive to October 1998, were to apply through December 2002. The act called for this procedure to be repeated every 2 years as the webcasting industry developed, though it could be extended by agreement between the copyright owners and webcasters.

However, the legislation created conflict between record companies and webcasters. The DMCA provided the opportunity to negotiate royalty rates independently. But after negotiations between owners and webcasters broke down, the Library of Congress convened a CARP to resolve the issue and determine the appropriate rates. The CARP held hearings for 6 months, during which both the copyright owners and webcasters presented their cases. In February 2002, the CARP issued a royalty rate recommendation.

In June 2002, the Librarian rejected some of the webcasting rates recommended by the CARP and issued a regulation that set royalty rates for Internet transmissions. Both record companies and webcasters contested the Librarian’s rates and sought relief in the courts. Some small webcasters believed that the rates set by the Librarian were too high, arguing that they would have to close their operations because they could not pay the rates set by the Librarian and that these rates would put an end to the promise of webcasting. Copyright owners believed the rates were too low and did not reflect the true market value of their music, causing them to, in essence, subsidize the webcasters. Moreover, they argued that royalties are simply another cost of doing business, like buying bandwidth, and webcasters that could not afford to pay them should not be operating.

In response to these concerns, the Congress passed the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002. The act did not set new royalty rates but instead allowed small webcasters and copyright owners another opportunity to negotiate an agreement on royalty rates for the period beginning October 28, 1998, through December 31, 2004. These negotiated rates were to be based on a percentage of revenue or expenses, or a combination of both; were to include a minimum fee; and were to apply in lieu of rates set by the Librarian of Congress (see table 1). This option was available to any small webcaster that met the agreed-upon eligibility requirements. In December 2002 the U.S. Copyright Office published the resulting agreement under the act. The agreement contained specific guidance for webcasters to follow in determining the specific revenue and expense categories that were to be included in the calculation of royalties due to copyright owners. The guidance defines revenues and expenses in ways compatible with generally accepted accounting principles and income tax reporting.

As of October 2003, 35 small webcasters that had elected to follow the royalty rates and terms set out in the agreement were in operation. As shown in figure 3, these webcasters were located throughout the United States, with one in Canada. We interviewed 30 of these webcasters. Rock and pop are the types of music they most often delivered to listeners, although they also webcast rhythm and blues, jazz, “oldies,” and electronic dance music. For 17 of these small webcasters, the targeted audience includes both men and women, while the audience for the remaining 11 is predominately men. Almost all of these small webcasters target listeners between the ages of 25 and 34.

Small Webcasters Enter into a Variety of Economic Arrangements with Third Parties

Small webcasters have economic arrangements with various third parties, including bandwidth providers, advertisers, and merchandise providers. Other less commonly reported arrangements with third parties included those with companies that help small webcasters manage or obtain advertising, such as companies that insert ads either on the Web site or into the webcast, and companies that sell advertising based on the aggregate audience of multiple webcasters. We determined that the economic arrangements of the small webcasters that elected to follow the terms in the small webcaster agreement and those that elected not to do so were not substantially different.

Arrangements with Bandwidth Providers and Advertisers are Most Common

Fifty-two, or 91 percent, of the small webcasters that we interviewed reported having had arrangements with bandwidth providers during the year 2003. In addition, 24 small webcasters said that they had received free bandwidth. However, only 16 of them had received free bandwidth in 2003. Fifteen small webcasters reported that they had received bandwidth at a reduced price at some point, while 14 were receiving it at a reduced price in 2003. Although bandwidth is the dominant cost component for most webcasters, some bandwidth providers offer these incentives as a means to gain business for themselves and to promote the small webcaster market in general.

Over half of the small webcasters interviewed had attempted to sell advertising space, either directly or through advertising firms. Of the 40 small webcasters that reported having attempted to sell advertising space, 38 said they were currently running advertising on their stations and 2 stated that they had run advertising in the past, but were no longer doing so. As shown in figure 4, these small webcasters had various methods of selling advertising space. Most reported that the owners or employees of their stations sold advertising space. Other arrangements to sell advertising space, such as through advertising firms or coalitions of webcasters, were less common.

Small webcasters use various types of advertising on their sites. Banner ads, which are graphic images that typically appear toward the top of Web pages, were the most common type of advertising used by small webcasters (see fig. 5). Thirty-three of the small webcasters reported that they use banner ads on their sites, and another 2 reported that they used banner ads in the past, but no longer do so. Audio ads, which play at the beginning or during a small webcaster’s stream, were currently being used by 29 of the small webcasters, and another 3 reported having used them in the past. Video ads, which are either shown on the computer screen whenever the listener tunes to the station or during the stream, were less common. Only 9 of the small webcasters reported using video ads, and another 4 said they had used them in the past. Some of the small webcasters reported using some other type of advertising on their sites.

Advertising is a primary source of revenue for the small webcasters we interviewed. Twenty-seven of the 58 small webcasters interviewed reported that advertising had provided at least 10 percent of their station’s gross revenue in 2003 (see fig. 6). According to industry analysts and representatives, advertising sales have remained low, in part due to the collapse of the high technology business sector since 2000 and because of the relative novelty of the Internet as an advertising medium. Twelve of the small webcasters interviewed reported that they had received free or reduced-price advertising since 1998. In addition to advertising, other sources of revenue for the small webcasters included donations and merchandise sales.

Arrangements with Merchandisers and Other Third Parties Are Less Prevalent

Small webcasters generally did not have arrangements with other third parties, such as merchandisers and ad insertion companies. Twenty-five, or 44 percent, of the small webcasters that we interviewed reported that they had economic arrangements with suppliers of merchandise, such as T-shirts or coffee mugs in 2003 (see fig. 7). This represented an increase of 4 percent from the 1998 through 2002 time period. In addition to selling merchandise on their sites, 15 small webcasters reported that they had received merchandise, such as compact discs and T-shirts, for free or at a reduced price.

Thirteen, or 23 percent, of the small webcasters reported that they had economic arrangements in 2003 with ad insertion companies, which sell either the technology for inserting ads into a webcaster’s audio stream or the service of inserting the ads. This technology can help small webcasters target their advertisements to the profiles of their listening audiences as well as provide links to their advertisers’ Web sites. Other types of economic arrangements that were even less common involved coalitions of webcasters and arrangements with aggregators. Twelve, or 21 percent, of the small webcasters reported that they had economic arrangements in 2003 with a coalition of webcasters. Such coalitions have formed to help webcasters market themselves to advertisers. Seven percent of the small webcasters reported that in 2003 they had economic arrangements with companies that sell advertising based on the aggregate audience of multiple webcasters. When an advertiser purchases advertising space from a webcaster, the advertiser is purchasing the chance to present a message to as many listeners as possible. While some webcasters are small and may not have enough listeners to attract advertisers on their own, they have entered into arrangements with companies that sell advertising space based on an aggregate audience of multiple webcasters. Other arrangements included those with parent and sister companies and with corporate sponsors.

Available Data Suggest the Effects of Economic Relationships between Small Webcasters and Third Parties on Royalties Have Been Minimal to Date

Data obtained from small webcasters that agreed to the terms of the small webcaster agreement suggest that to date the overall effect of their economic arrangements with third parties on royalties owed to copyright owners has been minimal. Most of these small webcasters owed the minimum royalty fee for either or both of the time periods for which payments were to be made. Because royalty obligations for these webcasters are based on a percentage of their revenues or expenses, or a minimum fee, whichever is greater, accurate reporting is essential to ensure the appropriate payment of royalties. We found only limited evidence to suggest small webcasters might not be doing so.

Royalties for Most Small Webcasters Equal the Minimum Fee

The majority of small webcasters we interviewed that had agreed to the royalty terms in the small webcaster agreement owed royalties equal to the minimum fee because they did not generate revenue or incur expenses sufficient to exceed the thresholds for owing royalties above the minimum fee. Nineteen, or 70 percent, of the 27 small webcasters that provided us with financial information reported revenue and expense estimates that were below the levels that would result in royalty payments above the minimum fee for one or both of the time periods for which payments were to be made—the historical period, which began on October 28, 1998, and ended on December 31, 2002, and 2003 (see table 2). The specific revenue and expense thresholds vary, in part, depending on when the webcaster began operating. The revenue threshold ranged from $25,000 for those that began operating in 2002 to more than $100,000 for those that began in 1998, while the expense threshold ranged from $40,000 to $170,000. For the period 2003 to 2004, the revenue threshold varied in relation to anticipated revenue, with the threshold at $20,000 for those earning less than $50,000 and at $50,000 for those earning more. During the same time period, the expense threshold was $28,571 for those earning less than $50,000 and $71,429 for those earning more. Most small webcasters reported revenues or expenses that were less than half the thresholds required for royalty payments to exceed the minimum fee.

Eight small webcasters owed royalties that were based on either revenues or expenses and exceeded the minimum fee. Five owed $3,000 or less above the minimum fee and one owed $5,000 above the minimum fee. The remaining two small webcasters owed more than three times the amount of the minimum fee. These two owed royalties based on their revenues in both time periods. One webcaster attributed much of its revenue to a relationship with an online retailer, while the other received revenue from an Internet service provider that offered its customers the option of including the webcast as an additional service. The specific minimum fee applicable to any individual small webcaster varied in the first period in relation to when it began transmitting, ranging from a low of $500 for a webcaster that operated only in 1998 to $8,500 for one that was operating for all or part of each year from October 28, 1998, through December 2002. The minimum fee for the period 2003 to 2004 varied in relation to anticipated revenue and was $2,000 for small webcasters earning $50,000 or less and $5,000 for those earning more.

Reporting revenue and expenses in accordance with the small webcaster agreement is important to help ensure the proper payment of royalties. Under the agreement, all money earned and all expenses incurred, with certain exceptions, are to be reported for purposes of calculating royalties. For example, small webcasters may exclude revenues from the sale of recordings or assets such as land or buildings and such expenses as royalties paid, the cost of recordings used in the webcast, and the value of residential space used in the operation of the webcasting service.

Transactions that do not involve the exchange of money but result in the webcaster receiving something of value are to be included in statements of revenues or expenses. The value of the goods or services received is to be included in the small webcaster’s revenue, and any goods or services the small webcaster offered in exchange are to be reported as expenses. For example, if a small webcaster received free bandwidth, the value of that service should be included as revenue. In some cases, small webcasters contract with an advertising firm that forwards a portion of the advertising sales to the small webcaster and retains a portion as commission. In these cases, the small webcaster is to report the money it received as revenue and the portion retained by the advertising firm as an expense.

Although the extent to which small webcasters comply with the agreed-upon guidance for reporting revenues and expenses could not be determined without a detailed review of their financial records, small webcasters that elect to follow the terms of the small webcaster agreement subsequently certify that the figures they report to copyright owners are accurate under penalty of law. Copyright owners have the right to initiate a detailed review of financial records to verify the accuracy of the reported figures. However, an attorney representing copyright owners said that, to his knowledge, no such reviews have been conducted.

We found limited evidence to suggest that small webcasters might not be reporting revenues and expenses as agreed. Specifically, while 13 of the small webcasters interviewed said they had received goods or services at no charge, 2 reported having no revenue, although they had received free bandwidth. In each case, however, these small webcasters reported revenue and expense estimates that were well below the revenue and expense threshold, and both were subject to the minimum fee for both the period from 1998 to 2002 and for 2003.

Effect of Economic Arrangements May Change As Industry Evolves

Although the majority of small webcasters that we interviewed reported revenues and expenses that were substantially below the levels required to pay a royalty above the minimum fee, this may change as the industry matures.Revenues and expenses of small webcasters might increase as they attract more listeners, and advertising opportunities and rates may also increase as the webcasting industry matures and advertisers rely more on the Internet as part of their advertising efforts. Two trends that may affect the amount of royalties that small webcasters may have to pay in the future include growth in audience size and growth in advertising. The number of Americans listening to Internet transmissions nearly tripled between 2000 and 2003, and about 40 percent of Americans have listened to webcasts, including Internet transmissions of over-the-air radio programming, at least once, according to recent reports by an international media and marketing research firm. Industry analysts expect this growth to continue. Small webcasters that we interviewed also reported growth in the sizes of their audiences. Thirty-six, or 76 percent, of the small webcasters that we interviewed that started webcasting before January 2002 said their audience size had increased, although they could not quantify the extent of the increase (see fig. 8).

As mentioned earlier, the small webcasters that we interviewed indicated that they depend upon advertising as a primary source of revenue. According to an estimate from one of the reports cited above, if the aggregate webcast audience could be “sold” to advertisers as if it were an over-the-air radio network, it could generate up to $54 million per year in advertising revenue. However, according to industry analysts, webcasters have the potential to increase their advertising revenues over current levels, in part because they have the ability to provide demographic information about their listeners, which allows advertisers to more accurately target advertisements to potential consumers.

We will send copies of this report to the appropriate House and Senate committees; interested Members of Congress; the Librarian of Congress; and to the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Scope and Methodology

As required by the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, we conducted a study in consultation with officials from the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress to determine (1) the economic arrangements between small commercial webcasters and third parties and (2) how those arrangements affect royalties due to copyright owners and performers. We consulted officials from the U.S. Copyright Office throughout the course of our work and incorporated the suggestions and comments we obtained into our report as appropriate.

To respond to the objectives set out in the act, we met with officials from the U.S. Copyright Office, the Library of Congress, and representatives of organizations that represent copyright owners. In addition, we interviewed staff from businesses that provide advertising and other services to small webcasters and industry analysts. We also reviewed relevant copyright laws, regulations, and articles.

To obtain information from small webcasters, we developed a structured interview. We pretested the content and format of this interview with 6 webcasters. During these pretests we asked the small webcasters to assess whether the questions were clear and unbiased and whether the terms were accurate and precise. We made changes to the interview protocol based on pretest results. We conducted the interview via telephone with 58 small webcasters located throughout the country—30 who had agreed to the terms of the agreement reached by copyright owners and small webcasters under the Small Webcaster Settlement Act and 28 who had not.

The U.S. Copyright Office is not required to and does not maintain a list of small webcasters. As a result, to identify the universe of small webcasters, we obtained a list from SoundExchange of 35 small webcasters that had elected to follow the terms of the small webcaster agreement. We subsequently learned that one of the webcasters had determined that it was not eligible to follow the terms of the agreement because the station made too much revenue, and a second webcaster operated only as a subscription service. A third webcaster informed us that it had ceased operating in December 2000. SoundExchange later sent us an updated list that included 3 additional small webcasters. Thus, the number of eligible small webcasters that were operating as of October 2003 and had agreed to follow the terms of the agreement was 35. We completed interviews with 30 of these small webcasters for a response rate of 85.7 percent.

We also interviewed small webcasters that did not elect to follow the terms of the small webcaster agreement. We obtained a list of 121 names of small webcasters from BRS Media (a private firm that maintains a list of Internet broadcasting firms). To the best of our knowledge, this encompassed all small webcasters operating in the United States. Of these 121 webcasters, 28 were no longer operating or did not appear to meet the definition of an eligible small commercial webcaster, and 4 had signed the small webcaster agreement (and thus were on the list of “signers”). We attempted to reach the remaining 89 small webcasters. Forty-two small webcasters were contacted. Interviews were completed with 28 that met the criteria of “small webcaster.” Fourteen webcasters refused to be interviewed. We were not able to contact the remaining 47 webcasters, although we made repeated attempts and left messages when we could. We did not calculate the response rate for the group of small webcasters that did not sign the agreement because we did not know how many of those not interviewed were eligible small webcasters, and we did not have enough information to reasonably estimate the percentage that might be eligible.

To protect the confidentiality of the small webcasters we interviewed, we randomly assigned each an identification number and documented their responses to our interview questions with the identification number. During the interviews, we asked the 58 small webcasters about economic arrangements they had with third parties, whether they were currently receiving or had previously received any free or reduced-price goods or services, and requested estimates of their revenues, expenses, and third party revenues. For those small webcasters that had signed the election form to follow the terms of the small webcaster agreement, we asked for their reasons for doing so. For those that had not signed the election form, we asked for their reasons for not doing so. For many of the questions, we asked small webcasters to provide separate responses for two different periods to correspond with the reporting periods contained in the agreement—the historical period, which began on October 28, 1998, and ended on December 31, 2002, and 2003 to 2004. We asked small webcasters to provide information through the date of our interviews, which were conducted in November and December 2003.

We also asked each of the 30 small webcasters we interviewed who had elected to follow the terms of the small webcaster agreement to sign a release form allowing us to obtain access to the financial records they had submitted to SoundExchange. We obtained signed release forms from 25 of the 30 (83.3 percent) small webcasters. A representative of SoundExchange subsequently informed us that it had no financial information for 9 of these 25 small webcasters. We reviewed the information the 16 remaining small webcasters had provided to SoundExchange to determine whether it was comparable to the information they had provided to us.

To assess the effect that economic arrangements between small webcasters and third parties have on the royalties due to copyright owners and performers, we used financial information obtained during our interviews with 27 of the 30 small webcasters that elected to follow the terms of the agreement. Three of the 30 small webcasters declined to provide any financial information. We calculated the threshold revenue amounts that each of the 27 small webcasters would have had to exceed to owe more than the minimum royalty fee. These revenue amounts were calculated for both time periods—October 28, 1998 through December 31, 2002, and for 2003—and were based on the length of time the small webcaster had been in operation. We then estimated the amount that each small webcaster owed in royalties for each of the two time periods based on the revenue and expense data that they provided to us. For small webcasters that did not report revenue or expense estimates for the entire year, we used their average monthly revenues to project their yearly gross revenue and/or expenses. These estimated values were compared to the threshold amounts and allowed us to determine whether the small webcasters were subject to royalty payments above the minimum fee.

Results of GAO’s Survey of Small Webcasters

Q1: Number of Webcasters Who Began Operating Current Nonsubscription Webcasting Service in Years 1997 to 2003 (N=30) (N=24) (N=58)

Q3: Percentage of Webcasters Streaming One or More Channels (N=30) (N=24) (N=58)

Sex of listeners Mostly males (N=28) (N=23) (N=55)

Q6: Percentage of Webcasters Who Track Size of Audience (N=30) (N=24) (N=55)

Q7: Size of audience. Data are not reported due to unreliability.

Q8: Percentage of Webcasters Reporting Increase or Decrease in Size of Audience Since (N=29) (N=24)

Q9: Percentage of Webcasters Currently Offering a Subscription (N=29) (N=23) (N=58)

Use of advertising Currently use (N=29) (N=24) (N=57)

Have never used but intend to use in the future* (N=21)

Did not sign small webcaster agreement (N=16)

Banner ads Audio ads Video ads Other types of ads (N=40)

Banner ads Audio ads Video ads 10.00 Other types of ads 2.50 *This question was asked only of those respondents who answered that they “had never used” that type of advertising.

Don’t do and don’t intend to in future (N=20)

Did not sign small webcaster agreement (N=16)

Sold by an advertising agency Sold by owners or employees of the station Sold by owners or employees of parent company Sold through a coalition of webcasters Other ways (N=39)

Sold by an advertising agency Sold by owners or employees of the station Sold by owners or employees of parent company Sold through a coalition of webcasters Other ways 2.56 Q13: Percentage of Webcasters Who Had Economic Transactions With Different Types Type of business Ad insertion company Advertising agency Audience aggregator for advertisers Bandwidth provider (i.e., an ISP) A music content provider A corporate sponsor A coalition of webcasters A parent or sister company Suppliers of merchandise (e.g., T-shirts) Other types of businesses (N=22) (N=21) (N=47)

Type of business Ad insertion company Advertising agency Audience aggregator for advertisers Bandwidth provider (i.e., an ISP) A music content provider A corporate sponsor A coalition of webcasters A parent or sister company Suppliers of merchandise (e.g., T-shirts) Other types of businesses (N=29) (N=24) (N=57) 50.88 Q14: Percentage of Webcasters Using Different Methods to Pay for Goods and Services Method of payment Direct payment, that is, with cash or a check Commissions Revenue or profit sharing Barter or other noncash exchange Other ways (N=22) (N=21) (N=47)

Method of payment Direct payment, that is, with cash or a check Commissions Revenue or profit sharing Barter or other noncash exchange Other ways (N=29) (N=24) (N=57) 3.51 Q15: Percentage of Webcasters Who Reported Receiving Different Types of Goods and Goods and services Free bandwidth Reduced-price bandwidth Free or reduced-price advertising for your webcasting service Other goods (N=22) (N=21) (N=47)

Goods and services Free bandwidth Reduced-price bandwidth Free or reduced-price advertising for your webcasting service Other goods (N=28) (N=24) (N=56)

Goods and services Advertising Cash donations Noncash donations Merchandise sales Other sources (N=21) (N=21) (N=46)

Goods and services Advertising Cash donations Noncash donations Merchandise sales Other sources (N=28) (N=24)

Q17: Webcasters’ Estimates of Their Gross Revenue (N=20) (N=19) (N=41) (N=27) (N=22)

Q18: Webcasters’ Estimates of Their Expenses (N=20) (N=18) (N=40) (N=27) (N=21) (N=50)

Q.19: Percentage of Webcasters Who Participated in the Negotiations That Led to the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (N=28) (N=24) (N=56)

Q20: Percentage of Webcasters Who Elected to Pay Royalties to Performers Under the Terms of the Small Webcaster Agreement (N=28) (N=23) (N=55)

Q21: Month and Year Election Forms Submitted to SoundExchange. Data are not reported due to unreliability.

Reasons for electing to pay royalties The royalty rates for performers under the small webcaster agreement seemed reasonable. Thought there was no choice but to sign the election form.

The implementation of your business plan required the certainty of knowing 63.33 performer royalty obligations. Wanted to take advantage of the “delay of obligation” option, which allows a small webcaster to delay performer royalty payments. Other reasons66.67 *This question was answered only by those respondents who elected to pay royalties under the agreement.

Reasons for electing to not pay royalties The performer royalties under the agreement seemed too high. Arranged a private agreement with performers. Not familiar with the process and did not know this was an option. Waiting to see if the rate would change. Only stream music by independent artists and labels. Terms and conditions set by the Library of Congress were more favorable. Other reasons *This question was answered only by those respondents who elected to not pay royalties under the agreement.

Q24: Webcasters’ Estimates of Revenues Earned by Third Parties (N=10) (N=13) (N=27) (N=15) (N=15) (N=34)

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

Stephen M. Brown, Jason Jackson, Jonathan McMurray, Lynn Musser, Deborah Ortega, Janice Turner, and Mindi Weisenbloom made key contributions to this report.

GAO’s Mission

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs