Slashdot Mirror
Internet Radio In Danger of Extinction in United States
An anonymous reader passed us a link to a Forbes article discussing dire news for fans of Internet radio. Yesterday afternoon saw online broadcasters, everyone from giants like Clear Channel and National Public Radio to small-fry internet concerns, arguing their case before the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). The CRB's March 2nd decision to increase the fees associated with online music broadcasting will have harsh repercussions for those who engage in the activity, the panel was told. "Under a previous arrangement, which expired at the end of 2005, broadcasters and online companies such as Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL unit could pay royalties based on estimates of how many songs were played over a given period of time, or a 'tuning hour,' as opposed to counting every single song ... [They] also asked the judges to clarify a $500 annual fee per broadcasting channel, saying that with some online companies offering many thousands of listening options, counting each one as a separate channel could lead to huge fees for online broadcasters." There was also a previous provision for smaller companies that allowed them to pay less, something the March 2 decision did away with; in the view of the royalty holders, advertising more than pays for these fees, and they're ready for higher payments.
time to ditch the music that RIAA owns, and only stream stuff that people want share.
Does this apply even to stations that run regular Radio over the airwaves? You'd think they wouldnt have to double pay since they already pay royalties for the initial broadcast. Using the internet as a form of delivery I would think would be no different than using a repeater to extend range and "rebroadcast". *shrug* definately sucks, but I'll stick with japan-a-radio :)
OOHHH, make the internet just go away ! Pleazze ! Let us return to the day that we owned the radio station, the promoters, the concert hall, and the bands. Our old reliable system of "screw the desperate band", play the music "via cocaine and cash incentives" on the radio, and "fill the concert halls we control with our band", ending with "selling you the authorized T shirt". I'll even toss in a contribution to the "home taping kills music" fund. Please make that nasty internet go away.
I'm also ready for higher payments!
That means I automatically get them, right?
Remember that the RIAA and its WIPO buddies don't tend to content themselves just with *U.S.* laws and enforcement. They'll be headed for you next. Internet radio may be in danger where ever it's located.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What about offshore servers? Are you still liable to pay royalties if you're "broadcasting" from Israel or Sweden? Technically you'd be unicasting to your server, not broadcasting to an audience.
This only means that some internet radios will move their servers to somewhere out of the USA... somewhere with more sane copyright laws, or with no laws at all.
I guess it's good news for the internet hosting business at Russia, China, etc...
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
You couldn't expect them to let people broadcast music for no fee forever.
Except internet broadcasters have been paying fees. The difference is that the new rules make the fees higher for internet radio stations than for terrestrial radio stations.
Internet radio should be handled the same way broadcast radio is. The record labels pay the radio stations to play what they want them to.
If you make hard for people that is willing to set up a legal Internet radio and make a profitable business of it, in the end, the only way to get internet music broadcast (and video, for all that matter) will be illegally, on P2P, FTP and whatnot.
But, on a second thought, that is exactly what the Media Cartel want. They don't matter where you are getting it, as long as the only way to be legally exposed to new content is through their channels. They couldn't care less if you and a couple of technologically wealthy people are going around their blockage, but they will do everything on their power to prevent both the average people and the *artists* to get in touch with each other without them.
This is not about giving people no options. It is about giving *artists* no option. People are attached to their favorite artists and will follow them wherever they go.
The DJ of my favorite internet radio stations, Radio Paradise, has a very informative blog concerning this issue.
Also, if you're interested in taking action, check out Save Net Radio.
How is this going to affect streaming radio from other countries? What are they going to do to stop me from listening to a radio stream that doesn't pay any fees being broadcast from say...The Cayman Islands? How long till the U.S. Government starts actively blocking data entering the country much like China?
This is a contract dispute between competing corporate interests, pure and simple. The broadcasters are complaining their costs are too high (like they'd complain the opposite), while the labels complain their profits are too low (ditto). The broadcasters have two choices: pay and play, or stop entirely. If they stop, the music labels will notice their profits dropping and will rebalance their royalty rates to something more reasonable. While it may take a little time, this will work itself out in the end.
The Buggles 2.0 # Streaming video killed the internet radio star #
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Piracy of music goes up even further as people are no longer allowed to listen to Internet Radio for free... This kind of ruling is detramental. How long will it be before Radio stations run off shore like the Pirate radio of old...
If you had bothered to read the article, or the previous article two weeks ago when the decision was announced (I know, I know, this is slashdot), you would have found out that previously they paid royalties similar to that of airwave broadcasting based on tuning hours. The move to per song/per listener is a considerable change in the fee formula that will drive many smaller broadcasters out of business. Its interesting that if I own a bar with non-live music (juke box/radio) I pay per listening hour regardless of how many patrons are in the bar that particular night, but if it is the internet, I have to pay per ear.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
They were paying a fee. They actually could pay 1 of 2 fees, either a % of profit or a per-song fee. The dropping of the % profit fee structure is going to put most of the small e-radio stations out of business. The increase in the per-song fee is going to put most of the others out of business too.
Don't most Internet-Radio stations make no profit? You'd think artists would be thrilled to get the publicity. If they do make a profit off of the songs themselves, then pay them. But I don't think that is the case. Even traditional stations have to use paid advertising. Right?
Royalties for broadcasting over public airwaves, or on the Internet are a really dumb idea. The artist already got paid with the CD sale. The artist gets 'free' advertising.
Go on tour and make your money. Use CDs as promotional material.
It's not that the internet radio sights didn't expect to have to pay. It's that what they have to pay is orders of magnitude more than what they have to pay to play the same music on traditional radio (to the same number of people). The royalty rate is way out of line. It will likely kill all internet radio, except pirate and large commercial companies who can heavily subsidize it. This is probably exactly what the record companies want, since it'll maintain the status quo over the most powerful marketing tool they have: radio.
Right now, record companies make a lot of money, because they are the gatekeepers to having a hit record. What do you need to have a hit record? At this point, it doesn't take much money to record a good record; you can do a lot in a home studio, (although good producers and engineers do cost a lot). It doesn't take much money to sell a record on the internet. However, what someone can't do without the record companies, is get a song on the radio. Without radio, relatively few people will hear your song, and you won't sell much. However, if the internet radio takes off, suddenly a lot of stuggling artists will have a lot more outlets for their music. Many might find they don't need the record companies anymore.
Scenario #1 - despite what they say the broadcasters/netcasters are actually already making a profit on their streaming services, and will bite the bullet, pay higher royalties, and a carry on.
Scenario #2 - no-one is making money off of Internet streaming anyhow, and this will give them the excuse to pull the plug on a money losing service.
And I guess that there's a Scenario #3 - everybody buys satellite radio receivers and iPods and radio listenrship just continues downhill.
Personally I would really miss KFAI Minneapolis, a station that I listen to religiously.
Three Squirrels
...you should have to pay something for radio in general whether it be in ads or a subscription fee... that I have no problem with. What I have a problem with is the RIAA taking a healthy share for themselves and leaving much less for the bands and the stations that actually provide the music. Why do you think it is that small towns don't have stations with big name songs and artists... It's simply a factor of RIAA fees. If the artists had a better spokesperson music would be how it was intended and reach everyone that wanted to hear.
I didn't log in right away... It's funny that my image verification word was detest
The original generic sig.
Maybe they are higher for a reason. Maybe because the broadcast area for an FM channel is maybe 200 miles (I'm guessing, but I don't think it's more than that for most radio stations), and the broadcast range of internet radio is the entire world (or at least the entire US as far as the royalties go). Shouldn't they be paying more if they have a larger potential audience?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Maybe this is because they figured they could actually charge per person listening, which is the most fair way to charge when you think of it. With traditional radio, it is impossible to tell how many people are listening at any one time. With internet radio, it's extremely easy to tell how many people are listening, as least in terms of number of computers tuned in. Maybe the internet radio will just have to start putting on commercials like the FM stations do. Sure it makes the radio suck more, but somebody has to pay for the music.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I donate $120 to The Current yearly, if we're talking a couple cents a song, I'm not extremely worried that they can't pay that but I still think that public radio should be able to avoid this. I've learned about so many good bands via that channel! For the sake of all musicians I haven't heard yet, I hope internet NPR doesn't die because of this.
My work here is dung.
Shouldn't they be paying more if they have a larger potential audience?
No, else by your logic, any song played on shortwave radio would have to account for a potential audience of 6+ billion people.
If the government wasn't known for saving big business we wouldn't be having this problem. Laissez faire is needed, then these companies will either learn to compete or die, they will have no ability to use force for this gay crap.
the Political Inquirer
Many years ago, as a student rep at Boston U, we though about hiring a popular band for one of our student affairs. We were advised by several band managers that even tho we could afford the band (s) they would not play our, or any school. The reason was that if you played schools, the concert promoters (Boston, 1979-1983) would not hire you to play the big venues. This suddenly explained why once a band broke, you could never see them anywhere but the big arena. I agree that copy right holders are entitled to be paid for their work. What is happening here is more monopoly strongarming than copyright protection. The internet is the single greatest thing to happen to content since Gutenberg. Recall that prior to him, reading was kept to the Church and King...only elites could read...and they liked it that way.
The fees are based on audience already. They use marketing data to determine how many listeners listen to the FM station (advertisers care too, so if the station deflates figures they make less money from advertisers).
See my other comment, broadcast and internet radio pay the same ASCAP/BMI fees to the songwriters based on listener reach.
Internet radio ONLY (NOT terrestrial radio) has to pay a reproduction fee to the RIAA, because you sit at home all day recording songs off internet radio complete with cross-fades and announcer blurbs. They raised this 'reproduction' fee to very high levels and that's what will kill internet radio. What, you don't sit at home all day taping internet radio stations? Call congress and get this fixed.
Music publishers stand to make the most money.
This rule change is not about paying artists more money. It is about controlling concentrating profit channels. Internet radio allows independent and niche genre music a place to be heard and promoted. If these rule changes go into effect internet radio stations will see a ten fold increase in fees paid to rights organizations.
A few Music Publishers hold the vast amount of rights to music. They want nothing else than all the available bandwidth for broadcast to be dominated by titles in their catalogs. So they seek to raise fees across the board with one purpose. To shutdown alternative channels of music delivery. They want the control and the money. All of it. This is the only way they see to do that.
SOMA FM Internet radio including my personal favorite Indie Pop Rocks (found iTunes radio tuner) is threatened with huge increases and will likely be forced to close. That would simply be a tragedy.
Being a independent musician myself I know all too well the lengths that the industry has gone to crush people from making music on their own. They export money from venues and threaten litigation to club owners if they don't pay and return to a "cover band" formats. Or simply do away with live music. Some give up and leave the hassle of live music behind.
Once again taking away channel of exposure. Granted there always will be musicians willing to starve and scrape by, but you can only do that for so long...the old phrase "don't quit your day job" was at one point almost going away, but they are working hard to make sure they make the decisions about who listens to what when.
In the long run, this move by the RIAA is hurt its own interests. The current situation is actually pretty good for them. They're getting paid (though perhaps not as much as they would like), their music is reaching the ears of potential customers, and the broadcasts are at bitrates good enough to expose people to music while low enough nobody wants to fill their hard drive up with an archive of it.
So what are Internet radio listeners going to do if this succeeds? Sure, some might switch to a more RIAA-encouraged form of entertainment, but a lot will just change the station. Once the RIAA wipes out the stations promoting their music, that leaves the ones playing independent and international music. "Drive your customers to discover competitor's product" is generally not the missing "2. ???" step that leads to profit.
Where is the MAFIAA tag? they are the ones at the back of this too.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I agree that charging per listener makes a lot of sense. But that's not the entire issue. The real issues is the rates are way higher than are reasonable.
If you look at the history of how the rates were computed, the CRB tried to find real royality agreements to base the rate on. (The CRB dictates compulsive rates: the labels must agree to these rates as a minimum. If there are no compulsive rates, then each radio station must independently get a contract with the labels). Before the CRB got involved, some internet companies were already working on agreements with the labels. Because the internet companies had so little leverage, (the labels had little to loose by just going home), these agreements sucked for the internet companies. The only agreement that the CRB felt was suitable was one with Yahoo. So, a single royalty rate, given to a internet company with no leverage (and at the height of the bubble) was decided by the CRB to be the rate that should be applied to everyone.
If I remember correctly, estimates were that more than 50% of the revenue (a few years ago when the CRB originally came up with rate) that a radio station could hope to get out of advertising would go to the royalty. Bandwidth would eat most of whatever's left, and the radio station would have a hard time being profitable. And these were optimistic estimates from the labels!
There's been some discussion of this on my favorite Internet station, WOXY. While the owners have assured us that there is enough revenue to sustain WOXY under the current model, all of their user-based streams would probably go away or be vastly different (P2P, in nature, instead of broadcast). Also, I got the feeling that "sustain" meant more "squeak by" than "doing peachy".
I've written both my senators and my congresscritter about this. Pretty please, do the same.
Cheers,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
The headline had me worried for a second, but after actually reading up on this it appears that these new changes can be waived by independent bands.
That's all I really cared about! I was terrified that these rules were being applied to ANY music being broadcast. If I want to put up a shoutcast station playing nothing but recordings of myself singing about my cat it would be outright robbery for me to have to pay a fee to the RIAA and it's ilk.
Luckily the music that I like the most are all stations like Groove Salad and Monkey Radio, playing mostly independent and small label bands playing music in a specific (and non-mainstream) genre. Those bands have everything to lose by opting out of internet radio, so hopefully the majority (enough to make a station worth listening to) will waive the royalties for the very real return of me purchasing CDs from bands that will never see the radio dial.
bend like the reed
Let's get real. What this will do is force Internet radio stations to begin chargin subscription fees and limiting the rate at which you switch between songs. Using the numbers supplied by RAIN where the average Internet radio station serves 16 songs per hour at a rate of $.0008 per song. One hour equals 1.28 cents. If you listen for 40 hours a week all month long that's $2.05 USD. If you were listing 24/7 for the whole month that would be $9.52 USD/month. So going back to a 40 hour week, if the station charged you a monthly subscription of $5 a month, most of that would be profit. They'd be able to completely do away with ad revenue, a huge benefit over normal radio, and offer a free 1 week trial to new users. It would be annoying all right, but most people can afford that.
This is a slippery slope. I think that while on the surface, Internet radio and traditional, terrestrial, broadcast radio seem like the same thing, they've got some pretty significant differences. Obviously, terrestrial radio has a much larger share of the listeners. That is, while LOTS of people listen to Internet Radio, there are exponentially more Internet Radio "Stations" than there are terrestrial radio stations. Thus, the likelihood of 400,000 people listening to 1 terrestrial radio station (and thus being exposed to their advertising) is much higher than the same amount of people listening to the same Internet Radio Station. While not implausible that someone with a little money and marketing savvy might be able to make a dent with an Internet Radio Station, it hasn't happened yet.
That said, I think to apply the same (or at least similar) royalty fees to these Internet Radio Stations is pretty unfair. As a composer and a musician, I despise that I have to agree with Clear Channel on this one, because I think that they are RUINING terrestrial radio if in fact they haven't ruined it already. I side with Internet Radio as an artist because it is exactly the freedom from some of the industry regulation that makes it possible for someone without Warner Brothers or Sony behind him/her to get exposure. There's no friggin' way I'm going to get my music played/heard on a Clear Channel station or in a Warner Brothers movie soundtrack without EVERYBODY getting a piece of the pie. On the other hand, if I find a niche Internet Radio Station, I can submit my stuff and get it heard by a smaller, but hopefully more targeted audience and perhaps eventually generate some revenue from licensing deals with them or CD sales.
I guess my point is, while it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon as an artist and hope for the "big score" of more royalties, doing so would choke the "small time" Internet Radio Stations and make it once again a field of only "heavy hitters" with whom I stand little chance of getting heard. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think keeping things affordable with regard to royalties is exactly what's making it fertile ground for emerging artists and what's keeping Internet Radio a viable alternative for people looking for something more diverse and different than traditional radio.
I'm surprised that some enterprising country who doesn't give a frick about US laws and who wants western currency doesn't get into the "media business." Imagine if North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba got opened their own internet radio and their own versions of AllofMP3? I'd think that would be a decent stream of revenue that would be hard or impossible to shut off.
All internet radio stations are free to negotiate their own deals with the record industry. Even better, they can ask for, and usually receive substantially better deals from the independents, who would be delighted to get some airplay for their artists.
The only thing that bugs me about this argument is that surely the record industry knows this. I can't imagine they're intending to actively encourage their competition.
The Ramones only stations are going to take a bath under this. The all Yes station will get off light on comparison.
pay royalties based on estimates of how many songs were played over a given period of time, or a 'tuning hour,' as opposed to counting every single song
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Can someone explain why this is being done retroactively? I've seen some pretty stupid laws, but I've never heard of one that takes place retroactively. If the idea was to make this look above board, that part kinda kills the whole illusion. I'm desperately trying to find the "other side" to this issue. It helps when you are explaining it to someone if you have some idea why the law was passed other than "The RIAA is a bunch of jerks and they lined the pockets of the CRB." Surely they have some pretense of a reason...?
In my opinion, you should look at your argument inverted. Since there are a very limited number of broadcast FM channels at any given terrestrial location, each station has very limited competition (especially since channels often specialize the music they play in order to get more branding identity). Therefore, a broadcast FM channel should pay more for the opportunity to reach a more captive audience.
Of course, logic and RIAA do not mix, so this actually has nothing to do with what's happening....
I can just hear the copyright holders meeting now ....
"And our projections show that if we choke the goose hard enough we'll get more eggs."
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Anybody see a reason why this wouldn't work?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
We need to get left behind to shake up our policy makers. After a decade of stupid laws that kill innovation in this country, and start an economic recession, maybe people will wake up to the fact that conservative candidates and ideas need to be tossed out. You can not have progress without change. Conservatives, by nature and definition, resist change.
Innovation killing patents, overly-restrictive copyright, anti-science and anti-education political agendas, trade barriers.....all the right ingredients to kill our economy.
Maybe after a decade of being the "world-losers" joe-sixpack will figure out that new leadership is needed....and maybe voting only pro-choice or pro-life is too simplistic a strategy to keep our country competitive with the rest of the world.
-ted
Should radio stations in large cities (pop > 1 million) pay a tremendous amount more than radio stations in small cities (pop < 100)?
Here is a link to the petition to save internet radio. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveinternetrad io/
Please go sign it. The more people the better.
I wonder what the tipping point is where the cost of doing business with the RIAA becomes so large that we see a mass exodus of artists to smaller, independent recording houses and then distributing their work themselves via the internet. When the collective disdain artists (and other industries) hold towards the RIAA reaches critical mass this mass exodus will occur and people will look towards new technologies (internet based distribution, alternate recording houses, etc) and the industry will move on leaving the RIAA doggedly holding on to their antiquated business model.
Oh, and by the way RIAA, if you but lay a hand on NPR I will never buy one of your CD's again and will go around to everyone I know promoting artists that do not associate themselves with you. That's a promise.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Would this affect something like Last.fm, where users have uploaded all the music that's streamed by their radio station?
Steal my band's record! Seriously,
If you're not sure who your congress critters are or how to contact them, go to congress.org and type in your zip code. Remember that paper letters count for more points than email and reasoned arguments count more than rants. Note that the same site has a Soapbox where you can urge your fellow citizens to get involved as well.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
They have the radio on computers now?
"Anyone who has bought CDs knows each CD is engineered to have 2-3 good tracks and the rest as mediocre filler songs."
Perhaps that has been your experience. Mine has been considerably different. I've currently got about 600 "real" CD's (I did a purge about 10 years ago, otherwise it'd be about 1000), and I'm willing to wager that, on at least three quarters of these albums, more than half of the tracks are much better than mediocre.
Then again, I don't buy CD's willy-nilly just because I heard one song I liked on the radio. Look hard enough and you find thirty second clips for nearly all albums somewhere online.
You might buy crap albums, but just because you do doesn't mean all albums are "engineered" that way. Like there's a group out there that tells bands, "Okay, now, we're up to three good songs - radio engineering standards dictate that you half-ass it for the rest of the tracks."
At issue are the royalty fees paid to royalty holders for broadcast music. The rates are going to drive Internet radio into the ground, and even major communications companies don't like it.
If you are a small station and don't want to/can't afford these new royalties, why not just drop the content entirely and support local talent instead?
There's lots of big talk about boycotting the big media companies due to heavy-handed tactics to protect their copyright and the lack of any good, new talent in mainstream media. If that's the case, I would think that more and more broadcasters would move to supporting local talent and dumping the dross that the major labels produce. After all, you don't pay royalties if you don't broadcast the content.
From the Forbes article:
Go independent, and I'd bet a lot of these fees go down, down, down and payment to the independent artist goes up, up, up. Isn't that what we all want in the first place?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
. .
It is good that you can purchase just the songs that you feel are 'the good ones' but it is a double edged sword. You never get exposed to those 'other songs' that never got any radio play that you still love.
I still hope that there is a massive enough shift in the market that a serious mainstream alternative to the RIAA evolves. When they become enough of a monopoly that they can stop caring about the customer or their suppliers (artists) they need to be slapped back into reality.
This is about control, period.
The amount of revenue for the RIAA is insignificant, either if the fees stay the same or if their raised, since raising them will kill the internet broadcasting industry before its really started. And killing the internet broadcasting industry is exactly the point.
Left unchecked, eventually internet radio will make broadcast radio obsolete. Maybe not for 10 years, but it will happen eventually. For the recording industry, that's a huge problem. See, they effectively control what traditional radio broadcasters play. Ok, maybe they cannot always control the individual bands that will get played, but they have enough control to more or less exclude independent music from the airwaves. With Internet radio stations, they have no such control. None. Perhaps over time they could build up such control with the major internet broadcasters, but that's no garauntee, and with every Tom, Dick, and Harry running his own Internet radio station out of his garage, controlling the entire medium will be impossible. Independent music will become more legitimate, and that is a direct threat to the existence of the RIAA member companies.
Meanwhile, broadcasters like Clearchannel, who do not own the copyrights on the music in question, and thus really have no standing in front of the copyright board, are no doubt applauding from the side lines and having their lobbyists whisper a word or two into the right ears. After all, they've got as much to loose in this as the RIAA as they do not want to be superceeded by internet radio.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
When I first heard about this, I thought it was great news. Independent music labels and individual artists are still free to license their music to internet radio stations at lower prices, right? The high rates set by the CRB seem to basically mean that major labels will not have access to internet radio, while independent labels and musicians will (if they want). Although I like the occasional major label tune as much as the next guy, it's easy to see a major upside to this move. Through one channel at least, the RIAA not only loses its virtual monopoly, it loses access almost completely. As internet radio grows, this could turn out to be a huge boon to anyone who cares about independently produced music. Am I missing something?
I, of course, didn't read all (115 pages of) the copyright board's actual statement from this month, but it seems like the $500 minimum-per-stream doesn't depend on whether the station uses ASCAP music or free (e.g. cc-licensed) music
"Radio Broadcasters propose that music-formatted stations pay a fee ranging from as little as $500 per annum for small stations in low revenue ranked markets to as much as $8,000 per annum for large stations in high revenue ranked markets"
The term "Creative Commons" is not grep'd in the document so I assume it didn't come up.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Live from Radio Free Sealand...
I agree that copy right holders are entitled to be paid for their work.
Does anyone else see the hidden error in this? Their work != the artists' work.
I think I speak for most of us when I say "fuck 'em." These shitheads have proven again and again that they're hopeless Luddites who don't understand that the old rules don't apply. Even in the post-Napster age I've felt that it's only right to buy CDs of music I've really enjoyed on MP3, but bullshit like this just disgusts me. Where do these morons think I hear the new music I need to buy? Not on bland commercial radio.
I'll be supporting musicians by buying their music at concerts. All these money-grubbing, no-talent shits and their lawyers can find a new line of work because I'm cutting them out of the revenue stream.
Ask me about my sig!
...long live WFMU!!! who needs RIAA crap?
My kind of music is traditional pre-1940's jazz (sometimes a.k.a. Dixieland). It is off the radar screen of the entertainment industry unless it involves reissues of very old recordings. You can't hear it on Sirius or XM Satellite radio. (I've looked for it when I take a flight where they offer satellite music.) You can't hear it on these consultant/remotely-programmed cookie-cutter stations that have taken over broadcasting over the past 20 years. About the only place you can hear it -- outside live performance or on recordings bought from the band or from labels that are not RIAA members -- is on public radio stations (for example, WAMU on Saturday night) who also stream their broadcasts on the Internet.
Royalties paid to ASCAP/BMI for broadcasting traditional jazz don't benefit the widows, descendents, and other heirs of the people who produced that music. They are thrown into a pool that mostly benefits others.
This royalty plan would not only send money to people who had nothing to do with the music being broadcast, but would also have the effect of further limiting the exposure of people to some of the greatest music of America.
Quite a while ago, musicians were paid very little, and they worked for the joy of it, and listeners shared that joy with them. Then musicians started to get paid a whole lot, and although decline was not immediate, it has occurred. I have hopes that more of the joy of music will return!
J.E.B.
Joshua Corps
An FM radio station is limited by range, an internet radio station is limited by bandwidth. An FM radio station could broadcast to millions (perhaps billions in theory) and AM could do even more. Internet radio stations aren't limited by range, but they are limited to X listeners. While internet radio stations can scale up, internet radio is also less popular. So I don't see why they should have to pay higher royalties to broadcast to fewer people. (Well other than that whole "RIAA wants to protect its monopoly on what Average Joe is exposed to" thing.)
am i wrong ?
Read radical news here
It's a US association wanting license fees from US companies, right?
So I can still listen to broadcasts hosted outside my borders? How will the Royalty Idiots & A**holes of America enforce this?
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
The link posted was broken, so here is the fixed version:
http://www.radioparadise.com/
If you stream, you owe the compulsory licensing- doesn't matter if you're streaming signed artists or not.
This is what they want. They don't want the venue to exist, so they'll get the government to tax the hell
out of it so it'll go away. I wouldn't mind helping my favorite internet stations pay the bill if I thought
that the money would go to the artists I listen to (All unsigned in the case of the stations- I like listening
to Celtic, Celtic Rock, and Renaissance Festival music on the streams. I don't listen to much else...) but
I know that this big spike in fees happens to go to the pockets of RIAA directly and then to the labels.
Not to the artists in question.
Not to someone who's at all a legitimate rights holder for the stuff in question.
Just to RIAA.
Tell me again WHY the radio stream providers have to do this?
They want this stuff off the air because they see themselves as being the gatekeepers of culture.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I can still remember how that music used to make me smile.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I am a former radio dj. I always wanted to have my own radio station. My dreams came true a little over a year ago when I started my very own Internet radio station. I have spent around $4500 dollars getting the station up and going. There are costs for music, automation and music scheduling software, computers, bandwidth, stream hosting, licensing fees not to mention the endless hours I spent putting it all together. I also did all the webpage creation and hosting myself which saved me quite a bit of money. I had originally hoped that I would at least be able to re-coup my original investment and get enough revenue to at least cover my expenses. After a little over a year of broadcasting, I have received $0 in donations and just $20 from website advertising revenue (google and amazon). I finally resigned to the fact I was never going to see my $4500 again and since that most of that was sunk costs, I would just continue paying the ongoing licensing/streaming fees so that I could continue playing the music I love for myself and the small number of listeners that also enjoy the station. I never expected to get rich off this thing. I did it for my love of the music and my passion for radio. Now if this decision is not reversed I'll just be forced to throw all my hard work and dreams into the toilet. Some of us aren't the greedy bastards we're being made out to be. We just love music.
"With traditional radio, it is impossible to tell how many people are listening at any one time"
Well, you better tell Arbitron, because they sure make a good living on what is impossible.
Can you tell to the last person? No, but the ratings give them a good enough idea that advertisers are willing to pay based on that data.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Clear Channel uses internet streaming as another source of revenue.
Example.
There are "internet only" advertising packages which include ads on a radio station site along with streaming, etc.
So yeah, CC has a big stake in this. Non-traditional revenue/internet revenue is (obviously) a big part of their long-term strategy.
Sony ha
While the RIAA controls a lot of music, I would contend that they don't control the best or even the most, only the best known. Many formerly popular groups have retrieved their music, which the RIAA has been neglecting in favor of the more profitable new groups. Classic music scores are, generally, public domain and can be performed by any competent orchestra. Do you honestly believe that RIAA artists are inherently "better" than the huge number of non-RIAA artists? The only real problem is one of filtration. As covered previously the question is, how do you filter out the huge number of wannabees from the genuine talent? IMHO, a rec system could be put in place which would allow the listeners willing to rate tracks to winnow out the pretenders and provide a list of talent better than anything the RIAA offers.
Remember, the RIAA makes more profit when there are fewer artists selling more copies of the same songs to more buyers. Therefore, it is in their best interest to reduce the amount of music available. In turn, this means that the bulk of those with real talent out there do not have a contract with a major label. The RIAA is opposed not only to the rights of artists and fans, but to music itself.
To someone who contends that the RIAA controls the best, I would ask, "How much non-RIAA music have you listened to?"
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
So again, who at the RIAA screwed up so royally that Clear Channel didn't sign on to this agreement? If your customers are those who sign the checks, this is one huge check that is regularly signed that the RIAA (and member companies... I can't forget them) absolutely depend upon.
To piss off such a major customer should, in my opinion, result in a massive firing of all top management involved with the decision to push for this sort of royalty arrangement. If I were a shareholder of one of the major record companies, I would be doing just that upon hearing this sort of news.
I don't care what business you are in, if you piss off too many of your customers you will quickly be out of business. This is one customer that the RIAA should not have pissed off, and should have been "in the pocket" in regards to this royalty decision.
Extinction is such a nice, nondescript word.
Internet Radio in the US is being MURDERED by the MafiAA.
Fortunately, what these bastards utterly don't understand is that the internet doesn't give jack squat about national boundaries. So fine, US internet radio producers will be driven out of business by the government at the behest of protective corporate interests. I'll listen to Swedish, Japanese, or German stations instead.
-Styopa
The internet is the single greatest thing to happen to content since Gutenberg.
Yes,well, we all know how the distribution industry reacted to Gutenberg. That's what started this whole mess. Copyright exists to protect the distributors. It has nothing to do with the creators, while their little smokescreen about "protecting the artist" is just that.
What?
...but somebody has to pay for the music.
They can get paid when they PERFORM! NOT by selling their demo disks. I know the law says differently, but playing a recording does NOT constitute a performance, any more than playing a movie of me fixing a car fixes the car. How did we let that happen? The concept is utterly absurd.
What?
Should the IRS assess your taxes based on actual or potential income?
I guess the RIAA should just cancel their music all together because there's no getting around broadcasting it, or pirating it.. Everyday more and more independent bands spring up and start becoming more well known without the help of the recording industry.. of course you might not get all the 13 year screaming teenage girl fans that you've always dreamed of due to the RIAA infiltrating Nickolodeon, but is that what you really want anyway?
cancel out the middle-man (RIAA), and simply let the people have your music, and we'll never have to worry about this bullshit ever again..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Therefore, Clear Channel doesn't want to drive US Internet Radio offshore. Probably not the reason, but at least it's sort of plausible.
BTW, Clear Channel is said to be selling off its operations in small markets. Maybe if you can figure out why (I can't) the reason for their siding with the forces of light and virtue on Internet Radio royalty rates might be clearer.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
I listen to (according to my knowledge) royalty free music from hardhouse.co.uk :)
Thanks for that. If all goes well, then, the minor outlying stations will pretty-much have to start raising awareness of CC-licensed music or nothing at all.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Interesting? no not so much. I find it completly unsuprising.
Its hard to confirm, for sure, how many people are in a bar at any given time. Not so true for internet radio. Not saying its right, just a great excuse to exstort money from legit business.
Go RIAA! Go away, anyway.
This is as clear of an answer as I can think of myself. I have no idea why I was modded down here, but I guess not too many other people can understand why Clear Channel has joined the "light side" either. My comment wasn't really trolling, or at least I don't think so. Somebody must not think Clear Chanel can ever get "good" press.
Actually small commercial Webcasters previously operated under the SWSA which was exclusively a revenue-based royalty rate.
Unless Last.fm has negotiated a license agreement with SoundExchange, they are no more entitled to transmit their streams into the United States than any U.S.-based Webcaster. From what I understand, Last.fm, has thus far obtained clearance from several record labels, but that may not completely absolve them of their royalty obligations for the remainder of the sound-recordings being transmitted into the United States (which PPL alone cannot authorize).
Actually there is an alternative to SoundExchange. Royalty Logic also distributes royalties to record producers and recording artists. However, they do not execute license agreements, from what I understand.
Therefore, the real issue is that SE was selected as the sole designated agent to collect all royalties from digital music services operating under the statutory license -- which in essence created a monopoly. (Can we say antitrust consent decree waiting to happen?)
That is why I would like to see a shift away from the broken regulatory model of licensing and toward independent licensing collectives (a la ASCAP and BMI). Let the free market sort these issues out instead. We need to promote increased competition in the world of digital broadcast licensing.
The parent makes a very good point. The masses will never congregate to stop buying music that is backed by the RIAA due to the fact that if a band has signed with an RIAA company, then there is no alternative way to get that band's music. If you want that band's music but hate the RIAA, there is no way around forking cash over to the RIAA as well. I dont have a say in who produces Tool's music.... and honestly i dont give a shit, im gonna buy their albums regardless.
This is why the salvation of the music industry does not lie in the hands of the consumer but rather it is up to the music bands and musicians to assemble and combat the oppressive RIAA. Ideally what is needed is a group of mega artists (say U2, Rolling Stones, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Jay Z, The Dixie Chicks, etc) to round up a few billion $ and say "ok, we'll create a low-profit production agency that will market and produce bands' music...the bands/musicians get 80% of the profit, and the other 20% goes back to the production agency." This would circumvent the RIAA entirely and accomplish the much desired revolution that the music industry direly needs. The musicians are the ones who allow this crap to happen and they are the ones who have the power to change it.... We just want good music at an aforedable price with a model that rewards the musician for bestowing us with the music we love to hear.
Agreed. Indie artists are unlikely to see any of the money collected by SoundExchange. I was just pointing out that the fees are collected for all songs played, not just those of RIAA-affiliated artists.
I don't care why you're posting AC