So here it is: a list of all the music services who have paid SoundExchange royalties through the last quarter. Keep in mind that being on this list doesn’t mean they’re in compliance with all the terms of SoundExchange’s reporting or payment, or that they’re even eligible to be using the government license – SoundExchange can’t give legal advice, so we’re not in a position to say so either way. Though it may be imperfect, we hope that you’ll find this helpful in determining which services are relying on the statutory license and paying SoundExchange for the use of their sound recordings.

Who Pays SoundExchange? (2012) (View as PDF) (View as Excel)

If you believe there is an error on this list, please contact our Licensing and Enforcement department (l&e@soundexchange.com or 202.559.0555). We’ll be updating the list at regular intervals to bring you the most relevant data.

If your service begins streaming February 1 or later, minimum fee payments and corresponding Statements of Account are due within 45 days following the end of the month of first transmission.

Payments and Statements of Accounts can be sent to:

SoundExchange, Inc.
Dept. 4037
Washington, DC 20042-4037

If being sent by overnight delivery (e.g. FedEx, UPS, etc.):

SoundExchange, Inc.
733 10th Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, DC 20001

Please visit our “How Do I Pay?” page to download the minimum fee Statement of Account forms and access more information about service categories. Please note that each form must include a handwritten signature to be processed.

If you have questions, e-mail us at l&e@soundexchange.com and we will be happy to assist you.

While we support the upward trend that this case demonstrates, the rates for the next term represent a below-market outcome. This is due in no small part to the CRB’s application of a special rate standard that permits below market rates for SiriusXM. We believe that all radio services should pay a fair market rate for their use of sound recordings.

We will continue to fight for the value of music and protect the rights of creators. Meanwhile, we are reviewing the lengthy opinion in greater detail, and have no comment on our plans moving forward at this time.

It is our mission to protect, propel and support the digital music industry moving forward. For this reason, SoundExchange President Michael Huppe will testify today, Wednesday, November 28, before Congress in opposition to the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.” This bill could dramatically cut the royalties that Internet radio services pay to music creators. It also does nothing to address the fact that AM/FM broadcasters still pay nothing in performance royalties to recording artists and record labels.

As representatives of both recording artists and record labels alike, we believe creators deserve more for their contributions to the digital music space, not less. Creators should receive fair compensation for their work, and we will deliver that message directly to Congress.

You may watch the webcast of the hearing today at 11:30 am ET at: http://judiciary.house.gov.

You are also encouraged to visit www.fairpayforartists.com to learn more and write your member of Congress.  Let them know that musicians should not be deprived of the income they deserve.

As we head into the weekend, give a listen to some of the answers submitted by our loyal fans. Below is our #resultsplaylist

“Encore” by Jay-Z
“Goldfinger” by Shirley Bassey
“Now you Have Something to die For” by Lamb Of God
“Imagine” by John Lennon
“Another one Bites the Dust” by Queen
“Pandora’s Box” by Nik Kolidas
“Change is Gonna Come” by Sam Cooke
“The Big Payback” by James Brown
“The End” by the Doors
“Eric B is President” by Rakim & Eric B
The End” by the Doors
“Drive My Car” by The Beatles
“Yes We Can” by Lee Dorsey
“What Is And What Should Never Be” by Led Zeppelin
“Cult of Personality” by Living Colour
“Highway to Hell” by ACDC
“The End of the World” by Skeeter Davis
“Anti-Super Hero” by St. Madness
“Keep On Pushing” by The Impressions
“The Ruler’s Back” by Slick Rick
“Make It Happen” by Mariah Carey
“Liar” by Three Dog Night
“We Won’t be Fooled Again” by The Who
“Celebrate” by Kool and The Gang
“The Star Spangled Banner” by Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock 1969
“Oh, Happy Day” by Edwin Hawkins
“You Draw A Bad Card” by Bob Marley
“One Nation under a Groove” by 1978 Parliament Funkadelic

SoundExchange cannot speak to Pandora’s calculations or report the exact figures of what we have paid to individual artists (without their permission). However, the specific figures reported in Pandora’s blog post appear to not be historic payments, but instead seem to reflect a projection of what Pandora may pay for those artists’ recordings in the future. Regardless, the blog post suggests that the artists receive 100 percent of the royalties that Pandora pays. That’s typically not the case. In fact, the statutory license that SoundExchange administers ensures that royalties are split to provide for multiple individuals involved on a sound recording. The owner of the sound recording receives 50 percent and 5 percent is shared with the session musicians and backup singers also on the recording. That leaves 45 percent for the featured artists. And to be clear, it also does not account for our 5.3 percent administration fee, one of the lowest in the industry (For more information see recent Billboard article).

While Pandora’s blog post touts how much it pays artists, it ends advocating for a rate standard that would drastically lower the rates it pays to artists. SoundExchange supports the current standard, where artists receive the fair market value for their recordings – not a subsidized, discounted rate that forces artists and copyright owners to fund Pandora’s growth. This is particularly true when you consider that Pandora’s fees are already incredibly low. Currently, the 2012 per-performance rate for Pandora’s free service is $0.0011 per performance, or 1.65 cents per listener per hour. At that rate, a consumer could listen to Pandora 40 hours a month, for 12 months, and Pandora’s royalty load for the sound recordings would still be less than $8 per listener, annually. That’s approximately 500 hours of the user’s time that Pandora is getting for $8 per year.

And even if some top artist receive significant payments as a result of Pandora’s service, what’s wrong with that? By Pandora’s own numbers, it is expected to earn nearly half a billion dollars in the twelve months ending in January 2013 and continue to grow its user base. Why shouldn’t the artists named in Pandora’s blog post (and those that were left unnamed for that matter) share in the rewards of the growth of digital music listenership?

And the digital radio industry is growing, not contracting. There are now more than 1,800 digital radio services in existence today that are taking advantage of the low content usage rates that statutory license that SoundExchange administers. That’s proof positive that others are finding a way to make their business models work under the current content rates.

It’s true that as digital radio continues to grow, so does the amount that performing artists and rights owners receive for the use of their content. We’re proud to support this growth, and it’s our hope that Internet radio platforms like Pandora continue to thrive. But the company can’t cut costs at the expense of musicians. It’s simply unfair.

At its core, this bill is an attempt by Pandora and other webcasters to reduce the royalty fees that you are paid for their use of your sound recordings on digital radio.  Right now, the law requires the webcasting rates to be set under a “willing buyer, willing seller” standard – that is, the fair market value of your recording. Pandora, however, wants the law to be changed so that the rate could be set at less than fair market value, potentially much less. We believe in digital radio and its future, but we do not believe there is any reason that webcasters and broadcasters should pay less than fair market value when the music that we all enjoy, your creative contributions, are the main content of a digital radio service.

And while these services complain about a supposed lack of “parity” among different platforms, the bill utterly fails to address the most glaring inequity of all — the fact that AM/FM broadcasters still pay nothing in performance royalties to recording artists and record labels. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about true radio rate parity without addressing this unfair exemption. And a level playing field should not mean yet further reduced rates paid to artists and record labels.

Musicians should not be deprived of the income they deserve. If you agree, please let your representatives in Washington know, and tell them not to support the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.” Let them know that recording artists and copyright owners deserve more for their creative contributions to the digital music space, not less.

• 1013online.com
• AWmusicproductions.com
• B96Jams.com
• BDR Free Radio
• Clubjam.com
• Dolphinradio.org
• Gila/Mimbres Community Radio
• Gocountryclassics.com
• Harvard Broadcasting, Inc. (Harvard Community Radio)
• Harvest Radio
• Hood2Radio.com
• Joy FM Guam
• Level 1209 The Volume (East Texas Baptist University)
• MegsRadio.fm
• Metropolitan State University of Denver
• Nebraska Rural Radio Association – KNEB-AM, KNEB-FM, KRVN-AM, KRVN-FM, KTIC-AM, KTIC-FM
• Now921.com
• Q101.com
• Rockitfm.com (93.5 Rock It FM)
• Rooster101.com
• Roots Radio
• Scotphree.fm
• Sirsaxgospelskateparty.com
• Spotify USA, Inc.
• WCSU (Chicago State University)
• WCSY
• WDCE.com (University of Richmond)
• WDJX.com
• WNEK 105.1 FM (Western New England University)
• WVIN
• WZBG.com

This is in addition to the hundreds that have filed over time; a complete list (updated periodically) may be found here, provided by the Copyright Office.

Of course, not all services launch right away, and sometimes they stop streaming. change their business, or consolidate with other companies. If you want to know which services have actually started paying SoundExchange under the statutory license, view our “Who Pays SoundExchange” post.

Internet radio proponents are pushing the “Fair Internet Radio Royalties Act of 2012” draft legislation sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). The bill claims to erase differences in the calculation of payments from various digital music services to performers and music creators. To do so, the legislation would reduce royalty rates for Internet radio stations to the so-called 801(b) standard, which is currently being used by only a handful of companies such as satellite radio services and certain cable music services that were grandfathered into this lower standard. In reality, the bill could drastically slash digital performance royalties to artists, labels and everyone else in the creative community participating in the digital performance revenue stream.

This bill also fails to address the most important disparity between music services: AM/FM
broadcasters enjoy a unique and decades-old exemption from paying any performance royalties
to recording artists and record labels. AM/FM radio makes billions in advertising revenue every
year without paying a single penny to the musicians that created the songs they play. By
ignoring this special loophole for broadcast radio, the bill lets stand one of the greatest
inequities in the music industry today.

Ray Hair, international president, American Federation of Musicians (and a SoundExchange
board member), warned in a recent op-ed that the bill “could set us back decades…[i]nstead of
ensuring that terrestrial radio stations pay musicians fairly…it would allow the digital platforms
to pay musicians less too, at rates far below market value.”

Fortunately, this attempt to drastically change the music landscape has prompted a response:
the draft “Interim Fairness in Radio Starting Today Act of 2012,” from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (DNY). This proposed legislation recognizes the need for real equality in the calculation of payments by Internet music services without slashing payments to music creators by adopting
the “willing buyer/willing seller” standard (currently used for Internet radio rates) for all digital
platforms including Internet radio, satellite radio and cable music services. The bill also takes a
step toward addressing terrestrial radio’s unfair exemption.

Under existing law, different types of services operating under the statutory license (that
SoundExchange administers) have their royalty rates set by different rules. Internet radio
companies like Pandora, and most of the more than 1,800 services that pay SoundExchange, pay
based on a “willing buyer, willing seller” standard. This standard directs the Copyright Royalty
Board (CRB) to set royalty rates representing the fair market value for the recordings that they
use (i.e. what a “willing buyer/willing seller” would negotiate if there were no statutory license).
These Internet radio, satellite and cable TV services are built upon the content from this creative
community, and it’s only fair that they pay what music creators could get in the marketplace.

Ironically, satellite radio behemoth SiriusXM does not have its rates set by the “willing
buyer/willing seller” standard. Instead, because of a special interest legislative loophole,
SiriusXM’s rates are set at a below market rate by the CRB. As a result, SiriusXM rates were
slashed between 25 percent and 50 percent in the last CRB proceeding.

Since that proceeding, Sirius and XM merged and now, according to Q2 2012 financial results,
the combined company projects $3.4 billion in revenues, and free cash flow of approximately
$700 million this year. While SiriusXM maintains a cheerful outlook, it was the creative
community that subsidized SiriusXM’s growth.

Now Pandora wants to pay less, too, even as it has thrived under the current standard,
celebrating a successful IPO and achieving explosive growth. The company beat its financial
guidance the past two consecutive quarters, and with its Q2 FY 2013 earnings report, raised its
full-year revenue forecast to $425 million to $432 million. Pandora has also increased its market
share, with listener hours up 80 percent year-over-year.

SoundExchange agrees with Pandora Founder Tim Westergren, who recently testified to
Congress that “it is time…to level the playing field and to approach radio royalties in a
technology neutral manner.” However, SoundExchange believes that all digital radio services
should compensate artists and creators at a market rate. The organization also believes that the
real injustice is the fact that terrestrial radio pays nothing at all.

Nadler’s proposed “Interim Fairness in Radio Starting Today Act of 2012” could begin to address
these issues. In contrast, the so-called Internet Radio Fairness Act could be a step backward for
the creative community.

It’s SoundExchange’s mission to help support, protect and propel the digital music industry
forward. The organization stands behind the creative community, and the interests of the signed
and unsigned recording artists, and small, medium and large record companies that it
represents. But more importantly, the organization works to support the work and efforts of the
creative community who dedicate their lives to the music and entertainment that we all enjoy.
For this reason, SoundExchange will continue to work toward supporting the singular cause of
ensuring the long-term value of music.

1.We have to send reports of use to BMI as well as SoundExchange. Is there any talk of cooperation between the services, so BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC could share the same report, or at least the same format requirements for reports?

As you may know, streaming requires permission from two different (and, usually, unique) sets of copyright owners: the underlying musical work owners and the sound recording owners. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC work with underlying musical work owners (songwriters, composers, publishers, etc.), and SoundExchange works with sound recording owners (record labels, etc.) and recording artists. While the kinds of data needed to correctly distribute royalties to all of these many different entities sometimes overlap, much of the data is unique to each collecting organizations’ needs. Additionally, the format and content of the reports of use that are required under the statutory license are mandated by federal regulation.

2.Can you please elaborate on what a station is for purposes of the “per station minimum?”

While there is no official definition of “station/channel,” SoundExchange interprets instances where services are offering different programming simultaneously to unique listeners as the operating of multiple stations or channels. The classic example would be a service with a website containing three links to programming (i.e., jazz, country, rock, etc.). If the service were operating under a category that requires the reporting of the amount of stations or channels, we would expect that that service would report three stations/channels.

On the other hand, a service that offers only one stream of the same programming, but at different streaming bit rates (128 kbps, 256 kbps, etc.), it would count as only one station/channel. It should be noted that not all webcasting categories use the amount of stations/channels as a factor in calculating the annual minimum fee. Services which operate a large amount (or infinite amount) of stations/channels often choose categories where this amount is not factored in their liability.

3.If iTunes radio or other services are rebroadcasting my station, are they required to pay SoundExchange as well?

Generally, the service creating the digital transmission is ultimately the service that is required to obtain (and pay for) statutory licensing. Certain services will often retransmit or redirect a stream, and as long as the originating transmitter is paying (and reporting) for ALL actual total performances (including these retransmissions), SoundExchange would not expect to receive any submissions from such retransmitting/redirecting services.

4.How long after you receive the money from the service providers does it take for the artists to receive their share?

Generally, if a payment, statement of account, and report of use are all submitted in a timely manner, without errors or issues, the funds are distributed to artists and copyright owners within 3 to 6 months after the service makes the submission. (SoundExchange generally distributes payments to artists and copyright owners quarterly so it depends when we receive the report of use during that quarter.)

5.In the event that an artist is not registered with SoundExchange, what happens to the money?

One of SoundExchange’s primary initiatives is to locate and register artists and copyright owners who may have royalties waiting for them. We do our best to reduce that amount by registering as many artists and copyright owners as soon as possible. For more information, see our recent press releases.

6.What percentage of the fees goes directly to SoundExchange for your expenses?

We are pleased to report that our administrative rate in 2011 was 5.3%. We are dedicated to paying through the maximum amount of money to the most artists and copyright owners possible.

7.I am on Pandora and Spotify, but have yet to see any money. What are some things you suggest to do to get more people to listen to my music?

Our primary function is to collect and distribute the royalties collected from services using sound recordings via statutory licensing. At this time, we are not able to advise artists and copyright owners on how to increase or maximize listenership.

8.How does SoundExchange collection differ from online collections such as Harry Fox Agency (HFA) or Sony? And how can these various agencies collect for the same song?

The agency that collects royalties depends on the copyright involved and the particular use of the musical work or sound recording. SoundExchange primarily collects the royalties owed under the statutory license for digital audio transmissions of sound recordings. We are the sole collective designated by the U.S. Copyright Office to perform this mission. We do not collect and distribute royalties for the use of musical works (as opposed to sound recordings), and statutory licensing does not cover certain uses of sound recordings, such as in podcasts and interactive services. For those uses, other collectives and companies, and/or the copyright owners themselves, collect those royalties.

9.What about “partial years” for new, non-commercial educational webcasters beginning operation in middle of year? Beginning operation and registering with SoundExchange as of July 1, for example? How is the $500 payment “parsed”?

As stated in the federal regulations, the annual minimum fee is not pro-rated. Services, regardless of when they begin streaming, must pay the full minimum fee required for that calendar year. For example, a noncommercial educational webcaster that begins streaming a single station on July 1, 2012 would owe $500 on or before September 14 (45 days after the end of July), and then (if they continued to stream on January 1, 2013) would owe another $500 on or before January 31, 2013. It should be remembered that as well as being recoupable against a service’s liability for that calendar year, the minimum fee helps to pay for the inherent costs associated with administering the statutory licensing, which are unrelated to the amount of streaming accrued by a service.

10.How do we know/where can we find proof that artists we play have been paid for the spins?

Artists registered with SoundExchange receive detailed statements showing the amount of royalties that they receive from each licensee that streams their recordings. If you are playing a particular artist and including them in your reports of use, as well as timely remitting your statements of accounts and payments, you can rest assured that the money you pay us is going directly to the artists and copyright owners you report.

11.Explain how this interfaces with rights paid to BMI and ASCAP.

Please see above answers regarding BMI and ASCAP.

12.Need for Royalties to be paid for incidental use on talk formatted, not for profit stations. Effect by stations using rights free production music

The public performance of ANY copyrighted sound recording in a digital transmission (even if only a portion, or if in an incidental manner) requires either a direct license with the sound recording owner (if there is one) or compliance with statutory licensing regulations (which also means paying and reporting to SoundExchange at least an annual minimum fee). Services that offer news/talk/sports programming will often submit monthly statements of account and reports of use that contain very few or zero actual total performances. If you need more information regarding these kinds of situations, please contact us.

13.I would like to learn more about the process that Sound Exchange does on its end after receiving our monthly report. How they are processed, and who the royalties get paid out from that process?

It is a complex process, as we explained in this most recent webinar. If you have specific questions, or wish to further discuss, please contact us directly. It is worth noting that the better the data is (both in statements of account and reports of use), the more efficiently the money is paid out, and the less time and resource is expended trying to either obtain corrected data or fix the data we receive.

14.Interested in collection and distribution of royalties on foreign music. I ran a few Asian Pop radio stations & it seemed like I was in some grey area of international IP law. It’s been a few years so I’m revisiting the possibilities.

SoundExchange collects on behalf of any and all copyrighted sound recordings (regardless of country of origin), that are transmitted to listeners in the United States in accordance with the statutory license. It is our mission to distribute royalties to the correct artists and copyright owners, wherever in the world they may be.