Origination of the stream doesn't matter. If it's heard in the US, they must abide by US law and pay US royalties. Same for US streams to other countries.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
Origination of the stream doesn't matter. If it's heard in the US, they must abide by US law and pay US royalties. Same for US streams to other countries.
K.M, I very much appreciate this, you're class act to do this in your spare time. The "clock" idea is good to separate the types of songs. Yeah, I've noticed the excessive jingles that sound the same too.
The only question I have, is why are you extending the 60's to about 1974, unless you are classifying the softer, story type songs of the early 70's as similar in sound to the late 60's. I can understand the 50's extension to pre' 64 music (girl groups and instrumentals).
Once again, thank you for the time.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Thank you, sir, for finally allowing our differences to become a real discussion instead of an attack-and-reply situation.
The categories are flexible. There are some songs that will fit better in the "wrong" category because of listener perception. I was being deliberately less precise because ... well, I didn't get paid for this.
To give you an example of how listener perception is used by programmers all the time: My "Eighties Channel" format has a couple dozen songs which are actually from the 1970s (the oldest is from 1975!), and about another dozen from 1990-92. But they "seem" like '80s songs to the listeners, so they're in there.
Your analogy of "similar in sound" is a good one in this context. I think you're starting to learn how programming works!
U
Unregistered
Guest
Some clarification here folks:
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...andora-lawsuit-means-for-siriusxm-and-sp.aspx
What the Pandora Lawsuit Means for SiriusXM and Spotify
By Daniel Kline
April 22, 2014
Record labels want a little "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" from Pandora when it comes to songs recorded before 1972.
A number of major record labels are suing the Internet radio company for copyright infringement for using songs recorded before 1972 without paying license fees, according to the Associated Press.
The suing labels -- which include divisions of Sony , Warner , and Universal Music Group -- are arguing that while songs including Aretha Franklin's Respect and the Beatles' Hey Jude are not covered by federal copyright law, they have been protected in common law by states including New York, AP reported. The lawsuit, filed in New York state court, says that artists and labels have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars every year by services including (but not limited to) Pandora.
The labels also sued satellite radio company Sirius XM last year in a similar case.
Pandora released a statement to AP that it is confident in its legal position and looks forward to a quick resolution of this matter.
A look at the SiriusXM lawsuit
Audio recordings didn't begin falling under federal copyright protection until Feb. 15, 1972. That fact has led to confusion as to whether royalties are owed for use of music from a wide range of artists including Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, and James Brown by services including SiriusXM and Pandora.
The SiriusXM case, filed in California, has not been heard yet but the satellite company has stated that "there is no state law that requires SiriusXM (or any of the hundreds of thousands of other U.S. businesses that publicly perform music) to pay license fees for pre-1972 recordings," Hollywood Reporter wrote.
The judge in the case could find that SiriusXM owes an enormous amount of back royalties. Or the judge could find the company at fault but not impose a stiff penalty because by waiting decades to sue, the record labels created the environment in which the satellite company improperly used the music. The resolution of the suit could impact companies beyond SiriusXM, including Pandora as well as restaurants, bars, and any other business using the pre-1972 music without paying royalties.
It's also important to note that the SiriusXM case is in California while the Pandora case was filed in New York and judges from the two states could have different opinions. That could create a legal mess and a slew of lawsuits across the country.
Sirius spells out its royalty policy on its website:
Music royalty rights were established by Congress and are the product of the Copyright Act. Unlike terrestrial radio, SiriusXM is required to pay copyright music royalties to recording artists, musicians, and recording labels that hold copyrights in sound recordings (the actual recording of a work) that were fixed after 1972. Like terrestrial radio, SiriusXM must also pay music publishers who hold copyrights in musical compositions (or the lyrics and music) through their collective organizations such as ASCAP and BMI. The U.S. Music Royalty Fee offsets royalties payable by SiriusXM to composers, publishers, recording artists, musicians, and record labels that hold copyrights in musical works and sound recordings.
The company acknowledges on its website that the U.S. Music Royalty Fee is currently 12.5% of the subscription price of plans that include musical performances. That equates to $1.87 on the company's base $14.99/month subscription package, according to the FAQ on the SiriusXM website.
The company paid $677 million in royalties and revenue share in 2013 up from $551 in 2012.
Why this matters to SiriusXM and Pandora, but not Spotify
Pandora and SiriusXM rely on the compulsory licensing provisions of federal copyright law. Basically that means the record labels can't forbid any service from using its copyrighted material as long as they meet the federally mandated payment for said use. Spotify and other on-demand services are not likely to be affected by either lawsuit as in most cases they make deals directly with music publishers and do not fall under the compulsory licensing rules.
Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay royalties only to music publishers, which control songwriting copyrights; digital services must also pay for use of recordings, according to The New York Times.
How big is the royalty market?
Pandora pays performance royalties (for the performers of the music) and publishing royalties (for the writers/owners of the music). The company, according to its website, pays statutory performance royalties to SoundExchange, as well as publishing royalties to ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI.
In March a federal judge concluded that Pandora is more like regular radio than other music services, including Apple's iTunes Radio and Spotify.
In her decision U.S. District Judge Denise Cote concluded that Pandora should continue paying a royalty rate of 1.85% of its annual revenues, and that the 3% music publishers had sought was not "reasonable," GigaOm reported. The judge also pointed out that while Pandora falls under a lot of criticism for its royalty payments the company pays more than its competitors.
"Broadcast radio pays no royalties for terrestrial broadcasts of sound recordings; satellite radio pays 9% of revenue for satellite transmission of sound recordings; and Pandora paid 55.9% of its revenue for Internet transmission of sound recordings in 2012," she wrote.
In June of 2013 Pandora founder Tim Westergren acknowledged in a blog post that the company paid over $250 million in royalties in 2012.
"The total is huge and growing but the per spin number is small," he wrote.
In 2013 the company spent $343 million on what it called "content acquisition costs" (royalties, mostly), about half of its $638 million in revenue.
Overall the number is not huge compared to other businesses but to many of the artists affected (or their estates) it's a question of being paid for their work first and foremost, with the rate of that compensation secondary.
SiriusXM and Pandora should pay (to a point)
No artist should not be compensated for his or her work due to a technicality in copyright law. However the judges rule in these two cases both companies should take steps to make sure that payments are made for pre-1972 music under the same provisions that post-1972 songs are being paid for.
It's also important that a deal be reached that makes sense for artists, labels, and Pandora, SiriusXM, and whatever companies will develop in the space down the road. Artists may long for a return to the days when only their record label (and maybe their management) could cheat them out of royalties, but those days aren't coming back. Physical music sales and downloads are declining to the point that it's possible the entire notion of owning music disappears. Forcing Pandora and SiriusXM to compensate all artists regardless of when they recorded their songs makes sense, but pushing them to pay so much their services become bad business propositions does not.
Whether they like them or not artists need Pandora, SiriusXM, and the other modern music services to distribute their music. The system is clearly not perfect and needs refinement, which these lawsuits could begin to provide. Coming up with a fair system for artist compensation is critical to maintaining a pipeline of artists creating new music.
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...andora-lawsuit-means-for-siriusxm-and-sp.aspx
What the Pandora Lawsuit Means for SiriusXM and Spotify
By Daniel Kline
April 22, 2014
Record labels want a little "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" from Pandora when it comes to songs recorded before 1972.
A number of major record labels are suing the Internet radio company for copyright infringement for using songs recorded before 1972 without paying license fees, according to the Associated Press.
The suing labels -- which include divisions of Sony , Warner , and Universal Music Group -- are arguing that while songs including Aretha Franklin's Respect and the Beatles' Hey Jude are not covered by federal copyright law, they have been protected in common law by states including New York, AP reported. The lawsuit, filed in New York state court, says that artists and labels have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars every year by services including (but not limited to) Pandora.
The labels also sued satellite radio company Sirius XM last year in a similar case.
Pandora released a statement to AP that it is confident in its legal position and looks forward to a quick resolution of this matter.
A look at the SiriusXM lawsuit
Audio recordings didn't begin falling under federal copyright protection until Feb. 15, 1972. That fact has led to confusion as to whether royalties are owed for use of music from a wide range of artists including Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, and James Brown by services including SiriusXM and Pandora.
The SiriusXM case, filed in California, has not been heard yet but the satellite company has stated that "there is no state law that requires SiriusXM (or any of the hundreds of thousands of other U.S. businesses that publicly perform music) to pay license fees for pre-1972 recordings," Hollywood Reporter wrote.
The judge in the case could find that SiriusXM owes an enormous amount of back royalties. Or the judge could find the company at fault but not impose a stiff penalty because by waiting decades to sue, the record labels created the environment in which the satellite company improperly used the music. The resolution of the suit could impact companies beyond SiriusXM, including Pandora as well as restaurants, bars, and any other business using the pre-1972 music without paying royalties.
It's also important to note that the SiriusXM case is in California while the Pandora case was filed in New York and judges from the two states could have different opinions. That could create a legal mess and a slew of lawsuits across the country.
Sirius spells out its royalty policy on its website:
Music royalty rights were established by Congress and are the product of the Copyright Act. Unlike terrestrial radio, SiriusXM is required to pay copyright music royalties to recording artists, musicians, and recording labels that hold copyrights in sound recordings (the actual recording of a work) that were fixed after 1972. Like terrestrial radio, SiriusXM must also pay music publishers who hold copyrights in musical compositions (or the lyrics and music) through their collective organizations such as ASCAP and BMI. The U.S. Music Royalty Fee offsets royalties payable by SiriusXM to composers, publishers, recording artists, musicians, and record labels that hold copyrights in musical works and sound recordings.
The company acknowledges on its website that the U.S. Music Royalty Fee is currently 12.5% of the subscription price of plans that include musical performances. That equates to $1.87 on the company's base $14.99/month subscription package, according to the FAQ on the SiriusXM website.
The company paid $677 million in royalties and revenue share in 2013 up from $551 in 2012.
Why this matters to SiriusXM and Pandora, but not Spotify
Pandora and SiriusXM rely on the compulsory licensing provisions of federal copyright law. Basically that means the record labels can't forbid any service from using its copyrighted material as long as they meet the federally mandated payment for said use. Spotify and other on-demand services are not likely to be affected by either lawsuit as in most cases they make deals directly with music publishers and do not fall under the compulsory licensing rules.
Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay royalties only to music publishers, which control songwriting copyrights; digital services must also pay for use of recordings, according to The New York Times.
How big is the royalty market?
Pandora pays performance royalties (for the performers of the music) and publishing royalties (for the writers/owners of the music). The company, according to its website, pays statutory performance royalties to SoundExchange, as well as publishing royalties to ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI.
In March a federal judge concluded that Pandora is more like regular radio than other music services, including Apple's iTunes Radio and Spotify.
In her decision U.S. District Judge Denise Cote concluded that Pandora should continue paying a royalty rate of 1.85% of its annual revenues, and that the 3% music publishers had sought was not "reasonable," GigaOm reported. The judge also pointed out that while Pandora falls under a lot of criticism for its royalty payments the company pays more than its competitors.
"Broadcast radio pays no royalties for terrestrial broadcasts of sound recordings; satellite radio pays 9% of revenue for satellite transmission of sound recordings; and Pandora paid 55.9% of its revenue for Internet transmission of sound recordings in 2012," she wrote.
In June of 2013 Pandora founder Tim Westergren acknowledged in a blog post that the company paid over $250 million in royalties in 2012.
"The total is huge and growing but the per spin number is small," he wrote.
In 2013 the company spent $343 million on what it called "content acquisition costs" (royalties, mostly), about half of its $638 million in revenue.
Overall the number is not huge compared to other businesses but to many of the artists affected (or their estates) it's a question of being paid for their work first and foremost, with the rate of that compensation secondary.
SiriusXM and Pandora should pay (to a point)
No artist should not be compensated for his or her work due to a technicality in copyright law. However the judges rule in these two cases both companies should take steps to make sure that payments are made for pre-1972 music under the same provisions that post-1972 songs are being paid for.
It's also important that a deal be reached that makes sense for artists, labels, and Pandora, SiriusXM, and whatever companies will develop in the space down the road. Artists may long for a return to the days when only their record label (and maybe their management) could cheat them out of royalties, but those days aren't coming back. Physical music sales and downloads are declining to the point that it's possible the entire notion of owning music disappears. Forcing Pandora and SiriusXM to compensate all artists regardless of when they recorded their songs makes sense, but pushing them to pay so much their services become bad business propositions does not.
Whether they like them or not artists need Pandora, SiriusXM, and the other modern music services to distribute their music. The system is clearly not perfect and needs refinement, which these lawsuits could begin to provide. Coming up with a fair system for artist compensation is critical to maintaining a pipeline of artists creating new music.
M
Music Lover
Guest
Several stations I've come to enjoy are on Radionomy. http://www.radionomy.com/en
Various tech press and blogs I've seen (such as this: http://evolver.fm/2012/09/18/radionomy-get-paid-for-being-awesome-at-music/), say Radionomy has a deal with SoundExchange and their equivalents internationally for handling royalties.
From what I've read on various music and tech boards, Radionomy is like Live365 in that individuals themselves are not webcasters, Live365 is. The individuals are content providers.
Various tech press and blogs I've seen (such as this: http://evolver.fm/2012/09/18/radionomy-get-paid-for-being-awesome-at-music/), say Radionomy has a deal with SoundExchange and their equivalents internationally for handling royalties.
From what I've read on various music and tech boards, Radionomy is like Live365 in that individuals themselves are not webcasters, Live365 is. The individuals are content providers.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Here's the thing to keep in mind:
pre-1972 sound recordings
A "sound recording" is distinct from the underlying composition. The underlying composition has been covered by Federal copyright law, for about a century. Pandora (like terrestrial radio) is, and always has, paid royalties on the underlying composition for pre-1972 recordings.
What they have not been paying are the royalties for sound recordings. Those are the royalties which go to SoundExchange (as opposed to the composition royalties, which go to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC).
SoundExchange is saying that Sirius XM has been trying to avoid paying even the statutory rates on pre-1972 recordings, and that it's done so for years, despite the CRB being clear that it does need to pay up.
pre-1972 sound recordings
A "sound recording" is distinct from the underlying composition. The underlying composition has been covered by Federal copyright law, for about a century. Pandora (like terrestrial radio) is, and always has, paid royalties on the underlying composition for pre-1972 recordings.
What they have not been paying are the royalties for sound recordings. Those are the royalties which go to SoundExchange (as opposed to the composition royalties, which go to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC).
SoundExchange is saying that Sirius XM has been trying to avoid paying even the statutory rates on pre-1972 recordings, and that it's done so for years, despite the CRB being clear that it does need to pay up.
The way they "handle" the royalties is they compute the usage and send the operator a bill, with a little extra tacked on for the service.
I run a few web sites and have Google Analytics tracking my usage, and telling me all the details about my users. I see where they are, how they find me, how long they stay, how often they return, and even what kind of device they use to see my site. It's pretty easy for a web server to assess what the usage has been and what the royalty should be. I've been told by some web operators that international royalties can be even more expensive than American royalties. Some can be cheaper. But the rules are different, and it's important to have your legal ducks in a row.
But let's be clear: Web servers are not paying internet radio operators for their content. They are providing a service for which the operator pays a bill. Like GoDaddy or anyone else. The key words in your linked article are "could" and "might." A web ad server like AdSense or TargetSpots sells ads on your site and splits the revenue with the operator. Yes, that's true. One of my sites gets 20,000 hits a month, and my monthly check from AdSense is $50. That would not cover all of my music royalties. Most of these internet radio stations get a tenth of what I get in traffic. That means their advertising payment is $5. Don't expect to get rich playing music on the internet. If you investigate the finances of your favorite sites, rather than read the sales pitches, you'll see I'm right. Rule #1: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
Thanks for that. That clarifies things for me. So those that have been paying to SoundExchange should be ok.
Thanks for that. That clarifies things for me. So those that have been paying to SoundExchange should be ok.
How do you know that the server company has ben paying royalties for pre-1972 music to SoundExchange? AFAIK, no one has been paying for pre-1972 music. Because the general interpretation of the law was that it wasn't required. And the Copyright Royalty Board, the group that sets the rates for these royalties, has not addressed pre-1972 music. Should users pay the same rate for mono recordings as they do for stereo multi-track digital recordings? That was never addressed. So unless the server company states to users that it is paying SoundExchange for pre-1972 music, and you have a receipt for that amount, I wouldn't assume they're paying it.
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
As the Unregistered Guest pointed out, the only two being sued for not for their pre-1972 recordings are Pandora and Sirius XM. If any others were being sued, that would be in the news too.
Last edited:
The companies being sued are the big ones owing hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact that they haven't begun to sue the smaller players yet isn't proof of anything. You can break a law and not get caught. Just because you haven't been caught yet doesn't mean you haven't broken the law.
U
Unregistered
Guest
FYI: ALL directly licensed companies (Spotify, Rdio, Rhapsody, Slacker, iTunes Radio, etc.) are paying and many radio stations licensed through Sound Exchange are as well. It is a legal gray area internet radio companies have been cautious of.
The directly ones are different. We're talking here about hosting companies like Live365 and others who host sites, and represent users to SoundExchange. I haven't seen anything in their small print that says they cover pre-1972 music, and a lot of these internet stations focus on that era. Have any of them addressed this issue?
M
Music Lover
Guest
All right folks,
To settle this matter, I have requested one of my board friends, Pass The Word, to join the discussion. (http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?680023-Looking-For-Internet-Soft-AC-Streams/page9) He/she programs an internet station through StreamLicensing and he/she can fill us in about such hosting companies.
To settle this matter, I have requested one of my board friends, Pass The Word, to join the discussion. (http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?680023-Looking-For-Internet-Soft-AC-Streams/page9) He/she programs an internet station through StreamLicensing and he/she can fill us in about such hosting companies.
I still cannot comprehend how, with terrestrial radio well on its way to dropping all '60s and early '70s music from its playlists, the artists and songwriters and labels think it's a good idea to risk having all pre-1972 music disappear from streaming media as well. The money being off that exposure might fall far short of the hundreds of millions of dollars they are seeking in back payments, but it beats nothing at all, doesn't it?
Of course, punitive damages might make the ultimate decision on the case against Sirius XM so lucrative for Flo & Eddie that they'll never have to worry whether anyone ever hears their old Turtles hits anywhere anymore. They'll have their bazillions and will be happy together until the end of their miserable lives, thumbing their noses at the companies that generated sales and downloads for them long after their shelf life as a creative musical force had ended. As for the other acts, who didn't sue -- "So what? We got ours! American legal weasels, we think you're swell!"
Of course, punitive damages might make the ultimate decision on the case against Sirius XM so lucrative for Flo & Eddie that they'll never have to worry whether anyone ever hears their old Turtles hits anywhere anymore. They'll have their bazillions and will be happy together until the end of their miserable lives, thumbing their noses at the companies that generated sales and downloads for them long after their shelf life as a creative musical force had ended. As for the other acts, who didn't sue -- "So what? We got ours! American legal weasels, we think you're swell!"
U
Unregistered
Guest
Live 365 FAQ's: http://www.live365.com/licenses/faq/abs/
U
Unregistered
Guest
Concerning the Radionomy hosting site: From what I read in their forum they are a Belgian company and pay the Belgian equivalent of Sound Exchange.
M
Music Lover
Guest
Thanks for that. Here's thread mentioning about it: http://board.radionomy.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4363
I find that hard to believe. Other than The Cars, I don't see where the 80s began before, say, "My Sharona".
- Status