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?
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.
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.
The Buggles 2.0 # Streaming video killed the internet radio star #
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
If they stop, the music labels will notice their profits dropping and will rebalance their royalty rates to something more reasonable.
You make the presumption that the labels want internet radio to succeede and their profits from internet radio to be maximized. What if what they really want is for internet radio to go away?
Why would they want to do this? Because right now the labels act as the gatekeepers to the radio. That is why musicians sign horrible contracts with them. You want a hit record, you need to get on the radio. You want to get on the radio, you need to sign with a big label. If internet radio takes off, suddenly you'll have new outlets which the labels don't control. In the long run, maintaining this control is more important then any profits they might make of internet radio.
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.
There IS advertising on NPR. You know the little "bumper" at the end of each package that goes:
Support for NPR comes from the following...
There's usually some commission, retailer, foundation, company, etc whose business is essentially getting a "plug" and for which they're probably making a much larger donation than $120 per year. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think that this ruling is a good idea, but in fairness, I can understand how they might be trying to lump NPR into the fold as well.
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.
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
Sealand!
"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."
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.
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