Slashdot Mirror
Study Says $2.3B in Net Radio Royalties by '08
An anonymous reader writes "According to a newly published report, the music industry will have a nice pile of cash to collect from net radio owners in 2008 — a staggering $2.3 billion to be exact. The report is based on current performance royalties paid by terrestrial radio vs. internet radio, and taking into account projected growth in listenership. Meanwhile, the corporate Clear Channels pay just $550 Million for broadcasting the same songs we've all heard before. Hardly a fair deal."
That's why I built my latest little project. MP3's by the boatload, napster
squared. with storage approaching $400 / TB why not copy *ALL* the music ?
MP3 is the standard, no matter what the big corps want you to believe.
this mp3 file sharing system will merge two collections seamlessly
and remove doubles, you can tag your files and if you have a band you can
use this system to spread your music to your fans. It's just another CDN,
but one that is based off KNOPPIX, so it comes with all the power of a
full Linux distro, and gives you a single dedicated box to play and share
your music on.
It's open source, and if you feel like hacking around with it be my guest
(most of it is PHP, there is a little bit of C in there).
MP3 Search Engine
Wrong on two counts. Clear Channel and all other FM radio stations pay NO performance royalties. Yet the new rules would have inernet radio pay HUGE performance royatlies, relative to their revenues. (Both pay artist royalties. )
Also, much of the reason that the toilet paper costs more at the small store is because of local overhead. The suppliers charge somewhat higher rates to the little guys, but not many times as much, as is being proposed in the new rules from the Copyright Office.
If you have a crowd of credible amateurs giving your product exposure in a new medium with excellent youth market penetration, the best thing to do is shut it down. After all, they should be re-imbursing the labels for...um...the free product advertising? Oh, wait, that's actually a terrible idea. And from those peerless innovators in the recording industry - who knew?
Maybe the only rational explanation is the Broadcasting Industry and the Labels are one in the same. They sure act like it.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
will pay the new fees instead of finding alternative unlicensed content
CARP created automatic royalties for ALL online music. Regardless of what you pay, you are legally required to pay RIAA's SoundExchange these automatic royalties, and it's SoundExchange's job to pretend to give that money to the artists. Same thing for bands that cover music, they pay automatic royalties regardless of what they're playing.
it is called purchasing in bulk.
Intellectual property does not occur "in bulk". One does not buy 5000 rights-to-play-songs in a box. Furthermore, some broadcast stations play heavy rotation of playlists of less than 100 songs, making them far less "bulky" than most online stations.
It was actually back in 2002, all thanks to the DMCA CARP ruling. The SomaFM About Page covers what they went through during that time. Now, with the latest fees, they're looking at about $1 million in royalty fees for the year of 2007, compared to $22,000 for 2006.
And all this just as I started listening to them... thanks a lot, Copyright Royalty Board. Assholes.
Check out www.saveourinternetradio.com. Sign the online petition. Write your Congressman. For anybody out there who listens to stations like Radio Paradise and Pandora (my personal favorite), let your voice be heard before these staggering fees kill these great stations.
"End of Line." - MCP
Sorry bud, but the stations pay fees based on the estimated number of listeners (as part of the calculation, they multiply two other variable by that estimate). I would call that performance based.
-1, no link handed to you
+1, this was left out of article
+4, TRUE
Also, Neal let the phrase "just $550 million" in the summary, referencing 25% of the total internet radio revenue. Too much? Too little? "Just" is a blatant pejorative here.
Why allow overtly biased statements in such a stupid way? We expect more cunningness.
And all this just as I started listening to them... thanks a lot, Copyright Royalty Board. Assholes. Actually the fees are retroactive to 2006, so they still owe $1m for 2006, they just did not know that in 2006. This is ridiculous.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
The *royalty* payments are only for RIAA/BMI/ASCAP/Harry Fox related artists and labels. All the labels in the indie scene and the labels are actually labels that are much bigger than you might think (though this excludes the fake indies or 'boutique labels') will give you - if you ask nicely - a blanket license not only to stream their music but to podcast it as well. Podcasting has serious licensing issues well beyond streaming internet radio but all of this is obviated if you are allowed to negotiate with the label or the copyright owner directly. Remember the RIAA/BMI/Harry Fox are acting on behalf of *their* labels, not music in general. They can not dictate what a label or an artist themselves say if the artist and the labels are not part of that agency.
. html
To be clear, my show gets about 1500 listeners a week and industrial / new wave electro and here is a list of labels that have given permission:
http://www.bloosqr.com/the%20essence/the%20labels
*the irony* of these laws it is giving these labels much more exposure because by definition the indie/hipster/creative kids making their shows are now even more likely to only play music from the indie labels and more over anyone looking for internet music is more than likely to be exposed to music from these labels which given the distate for the "big 4" could easily turn some of these artists/labels into the next big thing
First, this assumes that everyone will pay the new fees instead of finding alternative unlicensed content (that is free or Creative Commons or other similar content).
This also assumes that internet radio companies will remain in business to pay those fees. It's likely that many cannot. www.radioparadise.com's argument is that they will not be able to afford to continue operating if this were to happen.
1. I myself have bought albums after hearing certain artists' songs on other net radio stations -- music I would never, ever, ever have heard otherwise except perhaps in the drunken haze of a goth club.
2. Several independent artists have sent me singles and even entire albums, encouraging me to put them in rotation. To quote the latest, after he sent me a few samples and I liked 'em:
This has happened several times. It's good for the artists who are trying to get noticed; it's good for the audience who gets to discover new music; it's good for the broadcaster cause it's just fun. I get permission from many of the labels or artists to play their stuff, and when I don't, well, it's a freaking 96k broadcast that can't be copied without some technical know-how (certainly much more difficult than jamming a tape into your radio and hitting "record"). Exactly who is being harmed here?
The RIAA's outmoded and antiquated business models, and their continued attempts to strangle the life out of emergent technologies, is absolutely appalling. I'll continue to broadcast from my host in Germany and here's a big screw you to the suits. I don't make a single cent off my broadcast, and I don't play the kind of music that would come close to competing with the mass-appeal fare on the normal airwaves. You'll never get a dime from me.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.