Copyright Royalty Board's fees for Streaming - what happens here?

[johnnyrichards]

What happens to the guys like 'DJO and 'CIN with weak signals?

What happens to stations like 'SWD (the wife's favorite) which are, apparently, unique and could really grow listeners beyond their signal area?

What happens to the talkers like 'LW? Anything? They currently play snappy fill-in music over all the commercials except the ones they've created.

 

[KevinFodor]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

 

[titoisradio]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

There were no lies or misrepresentations by internet broadcasters. Not sure where you got your information but here is the truth.

The CRB's decision would A) Institute a minimum per channel fee per year plus B) institute a per song per listener royalty that was retroactive to Jan 1, 2006. The fee was based on rate X listener. For example a station with 1000 streamers listening to a station for one hour on average would owe over 108000 in Performance royalties alone for 2006, and even more in 2007. Compare that with what satellite radio pays (7.5% of revenues) and what terrestrial radio pays(over the air), nothing, there is an unfair balance that the Internet Radio Equailty Act would work to fix.

 

[Toddy-0]

I think the internet radio should pay the same amount as over-the-air non-commercial radio stations, what like $300 a year? If PBS can have a blanket agreement, why the outrageousness of sticking it to the internet folks. What will happen to JACK-FM? That's one of the best internet sites.

 

[KevinFodor]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

There were no lies or misrepresentations by internet broadcasters. Not sure where you got your information but here is the truth.

The CRB's decision would A) Institute a minimum per channel fee per year plus B) institute a per song per listener royalty that was retroactive to Jan 1, 2006. The fee was based on rate X listener. For example a station with 1000 streamers listening to a station for one hour on average would owe over 108000 in Performance royalties alone for 2006, and even more in 2007. Compare that with what satellite radio pays (7.5% of revenues) and what terrestrial radio pays(over the air), nothing, there is an unfair balance that the Internet Radio Equailty Act would work to fix.

Sorry, Tito, you're not right on that one. Quite a few bloggers and internet radio supporters claimed "terrestrial radio pays nothing." A total misrepresentation of the facts that you just quoted. Some of the "support internet radio" ads played on internet stations also made this claim. Because of that, one internet station I know of only played the "support internet radio" spots that did not make the claim, because the owner of the website knew the claim was incorrect.

By the way, as a terrestrial broadcaster, I support internet radio. I think the fees they want you to pay are ridiculous.
We should be working together here, not fighting each other.

 

[titoisradio]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

There were no lies or misrepresentations by internet broadcasters. Not sure where you got your information but here is the truth.

The CRB's decision would A) Institute a minimum per channel fee per year plus B) institute a per song per listener royalty that was retroactive to Jan 1, 2006. The fee was based on rate X listener. For example a station with 1000 streamers listening to a station for one hour on average would owe over 108000 in Performance royalties alone for 2006, and even more in 2007. Compare that with what satellite radio pays (7.5% of revenues) and what terrestrial radio pays(over the air), nothing, there is an unfair balance that the Internet Radio Equailty Act would work to fix.

Sorry, Tito, you're not right on that one. Quite a few bloggers and internet radio supporters claimed "terrestrial radio pays nothing." A total misrepresentation of the facts that you just quoted. Some of the "support internet radio" ads played on internet stations also made this claim. Because of that, one internet station I know of only played the "support internet radio" spots that did not make the claim, because the owner of the website knew the claim was incorrect.

By the way, as a terrestrial broadcaster, I support internet radio. I think the fees they want you to pay are ridiculous.
We should be working together here, not fighting each other.

Terrestrial radio does not pay any royalties to SoundExchange for performances under current law. XM/Sirius pay 7.5% of revenues. Net radio pays on a per song per listener basis. When 90sAndNow.com was still active, before I shut it down party due to the royalty uncertainty, I ran nearly all of the savenetradio.org psa's and none of them said terrestrial radio pays nothing. I do know a few of the webcasters originally targeted corporations when news first broke but the people behind the lobby did not make those type of claims. The best thing to happen would be for the Internet Radio Equality Act to pass congress and set the rates at 7.5% for net casters as well, though with this Congress the only thing will happen is they will either A) hold investigations about investigating why there is a difference or B) attach pork projects or unwanted taxes to the bill which will cause a stalemate in Congress.

Of course SoundExchange is using net radio's complaints of "inequality" to try to lobby congress to add terrestrial radio to their customer list by requiring the same per song per listener basis, which would be the end to music radio as we know it.

 

[radiorob2.0]

If you want misrepresentation, go back to 1995 when this all started. The recording industry convinced Congress any digital copy was like having the master tape. Of course with bit reduction that's not true. But Congress, much like most of the world, thinks digital in any form is a pristine copy fell for the lie which started this mess.

The RIAA needs to wake up and realize the world as they know it has changed and greed will get them nowhere. Cooler heads will prevail but as long as the lobbyist run Congress it will be a long fight.

 

[KevinFodor]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

There were no lies or misrepresentations by internet broadcasters. Not sure where you got your information but here is the truth.

The CRB's decision would A) Institute a minimum per channel fee per year plus B) institute a per song per listener royalty that was retroactive to Jan 1, 2006. The fee was based on rate X listener. For example a station with 1000 streamers listening to a station for one hour on average would owe over 108000 in Performance royalties alone for 2006, and even more in 2007. Compare that with what satellite radio pays (7.5% of revenues) and what terrestrial radio pays(over the air), nothing, there is an unfair balance that the Internet Radio Equailty Act would work to fix.

Sorry, Tito, you're not right on that one. Quite a few bloggers and internet radio supporters claimed "terrestrial radio pays nothing." A total misrepresentation of the facts that you just quoted. Some of the "support internet radio" ads played on internet stations also made this claim. Because of that, one internet station I know of only played the "support internet radio" spots that did not make the claim, because the owner of the website knew the claim was incorrect.

By the way, as a terrestrial broadcaster, I support internet radio. I think the fees they want you to pay are ridiculous.
We should be working together here, not fighting each other.

Terrestrial radio does not pay any royalties to SoundExchange for performances under current law. XM/Sirius pay 7.5% of revenues. Net radio pays on a per song per listener basis. When 90sAndNow.com was still active, before I shut it down party due to the royalty uncertainty, I ran nearly all of the savenetradio.org psa's and none of them said terrestrial radio pays nothing. I do know a few of the webcasters originally targeted corporations when news first broke but the people behind the lobby did not make those type of claims. The best thing to happen would be for the Internet Radio Equality Act to pass congress and set the rates at 7.5% for net casters as well, though with this Congress the only thing will happen is they will either A) hold investigations about investigating why there is a difference or B) attach pork projects or unwanted taxes to the bill which will cause a stalemate in Congress.

Of course SoundExchange is using net radio's complaints of "inequality" to try to lobby congress to add terrestrial radio to their customer list by requiring the same per song per listener basis, which would be the end to music radio as we know it.

Tito:

We do pay fees for the right to stream our music online, though...and it's a pretty sizable chunk of money. That's why radio streaming in most companies went away several years ago and just came back in the past couple of years when agreements were reached that radio believed was affordable.

That's why I suggest it's a misrepresentation to make the blanket statement "terrestrial radio pays nothing". And it was in at least a few of those PSA's...not all, I agree.

 

[titoisradio]

We are all going to be paying more money for the right to stream music.

At present the additional fees will add, at the very least, tens of thousands of dollars a year (as I understand it today.) to a typical station's streaming costs. This is what some "internet" broadcasters, by and large, either misrepresented or flat-out lied about during the run-up to July 15th.

Then, radio as an industry will be battling it out with the artists, who have now decided that, though our "free" airplay sold millions of records, tapes CD's and digital downloads, they, too, need to have a hand in radio's pocket. Funny thing, though...most of the time, when I see an artist complaining publically, it's an artist who either...

1.) Is not selling many units these days. Or...

2.) Had a bad record deal, 'cause they didn't get proper legal advice
before they entered into it.

Now that I've vented here, I have sympathy for some of these artists, particularly, the older acts who have been subject to what amounts to musical identity theft. But, that's a different subject. The deal always was free publicity in return for free airplay. Now, the artist wants "payola". (In a manner of speaking, of course!) Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

There were no lies or misrepresentations by internet broadcasters. Not sure where you got your information but here is the truth.

The CRB's decision would A) Institute a minimum per channel fee per year plus B) institute a per song per listener royalty that was retroactive to Jan 1, 2006. The fee was based on rate X listener. For example a station with 1000 streamers listening to a station for one hour on average would owe over 108000 in Performance royalties alone for 2006, and even more in 2007. Compare that with what satellite radio pays (7.5% of revenues) and what terrestrial radio pays(over the air), nothing, there is an unfair balance that the Internet Radio Equailty Act would work to fix.

Sorry, Tito, you're not right on that one. Quite a few bloggers and internet radio supporters claimed "terrestrial radio pays nothing." A total misrepresentation of the facts that you just quoted. Some of the "support internet radio" ads played on internet stations also made this claim. Because of that, one internet station I know of only played the "support internet radio" spots that did not make the claim, because the owner of the website knew the claim was incorrect.

By the way, as a terrestrial broadcaster, I support internet radio. I think the fees they want you to pay are ridiculous.
We should be working together here, not fighting each other.

Terrestrial radio does not pay any royalties to SoundExchange for performances under current law. XM/Sirius pay 7.5% of revenues. Net radio pays on a per song per listener basis. When 90sAndNow.com was still active, before I shut it down party due to the royalty uncertainty, I ran nearly all of the savenetradio.org psa's and none of them said terrestrial radio pays nothing. I do know a few of the webcasters originally targeted corporations when news first broke but the people behind the lobby did not make those type of claims. The best thing to happen would be for the Internet Radio Equality Act to pass congress and set the rates at 7.5% for net casters as well, though with this Congress the only thing will happen is they will either A) hold investigations about investigating why there is a difference or B) attach pork projects or unwanted taxes to the bill which will cause a stalemate in Congress.

Of course SoundExchange is using net radio's complaints of "inequality" to try to lobby congress to add terrestrial radio to their customer list by requiring the same per song per listener basis, which would be the end to music radio as we know it.

Tito:

We do pay fees for the right to stream our music online, though...and it's a pretty sizable chunk of money. That's why radio streaming in most companies went away several years ago and just came back in the past couple of years when agreements were reached that radio believed was affordable.

That's why I suggest it's a misrepresentation to make the blanket statement "terrestrial radio pays nothing". And it was in at least a few of those PSA's...not all, I agree.

Well I guess the intent of those PSA's were talking about the simple onair signal of terrestrial radio and not the webcasts of the on air signal. Though of course Oui's first law of communication is 'if the message can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood" to paraphrase.

 

[KevinFodor]

And on that, my friend...you and I agree.