Slashdot Mirror
RIAA and Royalties From Webcasters
kootch sent us a story explaining something I didn't know about. Radio broadcasters pay a royalty to the composer & publisher to play a song. The record company doesn't get anything. But under the terms of the DMCA, the recording industry is trying to collect royalties from webcasters who are streaming audio.
Not really. Radio stations can use a variety of methods to get around this. There is, AFAIK, no standard contract for a radio station to play a certain song.
And there are many ways that a radio station can play a song more often then others without paying more money for it (i.e. the publishers are not asking for money or even paying the station):
1) Play a few songs, including the one you want to play often, and ask listeners to call in to vote on the one they like best. Play the ones they liked best again later. If this doesn't result in playing that song again, skew the results so it does.
2) Have each DJ play it at least once during their shift. You'll get the song played 4-6 times a day this way.
3) Hold a promotional event around the album the song is on. The publishers of the album will help with this, more often then not. Give away free albums, posters, concert tickets to listeners who call in when the song is played. Do this all week long. You can play the song more often then normally because people are winning something.
See how this can be done?
Now, here's the problems that the publishers have with web-broadcasting:
1) You never know who's playing your songs. Publishers love looking at station demographics as this affects their marketing strategy.
2) You never know how they got your song. Did they download it illegally? Get a dupe from a friend?
3) Song quality. Radio stations tend to get new copies of CDs if the old ones get messed up. Web-casters rarely have enough money to replace damaged music. Song quality does affect how the song is received by listeners. If it's really grainy or scratchy, then what incentive does someone who doesn't own the album have to go buy it?
4) Royalties. Let's face it. People are greedy. Not just song publishers, kids. Also, when recording from a radio broadcast, you're likely to get a bad recording. If recording from a web-cast, you can (not will, can) get much better quality for your own home recordings. Publishers hate the thought of anyone owning the album without paying for it.
Just some points...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
It's sort of like having the radio station pay the the publisher to use the music, then the publisher paying back the radio station to be rotated and played more on the playlist.
In some cases this goes to an even higher extreme, with the publisher not accepting pay at all (the radio station gets the music for free, but must play it often) or even the publisher paying the radio station (where they then have to play it very often).
I know that is how the major station here in New York, K-Rock, does it.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Public Domain? HA! Nothing ever goes into the public domain anymore, not with the giant mouse of doom extending copyrights to the end of time; and don't even try to hide behind "fair use", the MPAA and RIAA are making sure that every possible circumstance is exempted from fair use.
performance rights and the printing of the sheet music is protected.
I don't think this is true, as long as the song was written before Walt made The Mouse (IE in the public domain), you are free to recreate the song in sheet music form or as sound waves as much as you like. Who would you pay the royalties to? The grandchildren of the composer? That totally violates the entire purpose of copyrights.
Dang, in the preview window this looks like shameless karma whoring. Oh well.
I read the internet for the articles.
Here in the U.S., businesses such as hair salons that play music radio stations have been targeted for fees. I'm not comnpletely certain, but I believe that if they play CDs, they're expected to also pay a fee for giving a 'performance'. I'm sure if the industry could figure out a way to get away with it, they'd find a way to charge you for playing your own CDs in your home.
We're talking like 100 bucks per year, for Christ's sake!
The most bizzare thing about paying these royalties is that as long as the songs we play are covered under the licenses, we can obtain the music via any source and broadcast it legally.
So what you are saying is that for a few hundred bucks a year I can get all the music I want from any source as long as I broadcast it? Ok, sign me up- Forget paying $20 a CD when I can get just about every song on the planet for $300. I'll just broadcast to myself.
Of course the record company wants to collect royalties! The development and adoption of the Internet as a medium surpases anything ever seen with either Radio or Television. The RIAA is looking at the Internet as the biggest cash cow to hit the world EVER. You have to expect the recording industry to do everthing in their power to get their fist into our pockets. It makes good business sense. A lot of people claim that the RIAA is trying to shutdown Napster, Scour, etc. because they "Don't get it." This is not the case. The Recording Industry "Gets it" probably more than anyone else (slashdotters like me included.) The RIAA is going to continue to appear to fight "internet technologies" like streaming webcasts of music, file sharing and the like BECAUSE they are great technologies. The RIAA just wishes that they had developed them first so they could be the ones making the profits. The RIAA will, of course, try and shut them all down so that in a few years, when they are ready with their business plan, they can mimic the exact same technologies themselves. And make the money from them.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
I'm just wondering when the RIAA will start charging me for playing music at home.
I wonder if there will be and added surcharge depending on the number of people in my house at the time.
Also, will the RIAA charge me depending on the number of pets I have who might listen to the music being played.
I'm sure someone's mentioned this before, but we really should just put ads into Napster and pay artists royalties from that. I think that Napster has at least the advertising potential of radio. I mean, five million users.
Sure, some of us would get around the ads, but most people wouldn't. They wouldn't really get in the way or anything.
It's an idea that needs work, sure, but I think it would be good. I certainly have no problems giving the artists the money they've earned, it's when the RIAA gets involved that I complain.
I run the technical operations for a larger webcast company (one that produces our own music stations). For a very long time now, we have been paying ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC fees just like traditional broadcast stations.
I'm sorry for all the shoutcast people out there, but legally, if you run a radio station for profit or not, be it Internet or Broadcast, you have to either pay royalties through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC or you can alternatively negotiate with *EACH INDIVIDUAL ARTIST WHOSE RECORDINGS YOU PLAY*.. in practice you have to really do both, as many independant bands are not signed or covered under ASCAP BMI or SESAC licensing.
Another thing I should mention is that these fees are NOT EVEN EXPENSIVE for small stations (read: stations with little to no profit) We're talking like 100 bucks per year, for Christ's sake!
The most bizzare thing about paying these royalties is that as long as the songs we play are covered under the licenses, we can obtain the music via any source and broadcast it legally. We usually get our music via promotional lists directly from record companies, but if we wanted to, we could LEGALLY download and broadcast music from Napster users! I know of many regular broadcast stations in the midwest that are gaining an extra day or two (mailing lead time) by downloading music from Napster so that they can play the songs one or two days ahead of competing stations.
What a twisted mess this all is, isn't it?!?
~GoRK
This one is a little thick, but it's a nice biased look at what ASCAP/BMI are all about. Whether the RIAA or ASCAP/BMI control the online version of this extortion scheme so they can continue to foist bad music on the public is irrelevant.
I do not have a signature
Can be found at:
http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/license.html