-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Raising both hands here.
It's been proven that the labels get the money, not the artists. It's also been proven that there is no balance between what terrestrial broadcasters and Internet stations pay in royalty fees. (from 3 times to 12 times as much.) No one says that webcasters shouldn't pay fees and a lot of us do (and a lot don't...) to be legally licensed.
This "fee" by the CRB is to pay labels and musicians (unlike publishers and composers) is hugely more expensive than our terrestrial cousins. It has nothing to do with paying a royalty (which we should) to composers and publishers through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC.
I hate to say this, as a fan of I-Net Radio, but it isn't the listeners who matter in this decision. It's the deep pockets of the labels, the RIAA, SoundExchange and their political lobbyists, as well as their expensive legal counsel.
A shame.
It's been proven that the labels get the money, not the artists. It's also been proven that there is no balance between what terrestrial broadcasters and Internet stations pay in royalty fees. (from 3 times to 12 times as much.) No one says that webcasters shouldn't pay fees and a lot of us do (and a lot don't...) to be legally licensed.
This "fee" by the CRB is to pay labels and musicians (unlike publishers and composers) is hugely more expensive than our terrestrial cousins. It has nothing to do with paying a royalty (which we should) to composers and publishers through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC.
I hate to say this, as a fan of I-Net Radio, but it isn't the listeners who matter in this decision. It's the deep pockets of the labels, the RIAA, SoundExchange and their political lobbyists, as well as their expensive legal counsel.
A shame.
Oaktree,
I believe your observations here are right on track.
I've been webcasting for 6 years. Right now I'm using Live365, and they pay the royalties under my "P"
package.
In an article on CNN.com, Live365 CEO N. Mark Lam said, With these royalty rates, "there is no industry."
The future is very uncertain for a lot of webcasters. As far as those on Live365, I believe you will very
likely see the X5000 stations (many which have listings on iTunes,) and others broadcasting under the now-null SWSA cease broadcasting around May 15. These are stations like SoulsVille Online, Meander Comedy Radio, RocklandUSA and about 45 others. Some may last a while after that, but some of these stations will have SX bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kind of like paying a penalty for being successful.
Other stations' staying power may well depend on whether their streaming providers can survive this.
My station fits into this category.
It is very sad, as I know how much work goes into these stations. And, ultimately, the listening public will
lose, as the remaining stations will be just as homoginized as AM/FM stations (I guess, since I haven't
listened to the radio for 7 years, except for a couple of trips to Tennessee.)
**This post brought to you by a local radio market veteran of nearly 20 years whose job was eliminated. He
opted to take early retirement rather than keep fighting an unwinnable rat race.**
I believe your observations here are right on track.
I've been webcasting for 6 years. Right now I'm using Live365, and they pay the royalties under my "P"
package.
In an article on CNN.com, Live365 CEO N. Mark Lam said, With these royalty rates, "there is no industry."
The future is very uncertain for a lot of webcasters. As far as those on Live365, I believe you will very
likely see the X5000 stations (many which have listings on iTunes,) and others broadcasting under the now-null SWSA cease broadcasting around May 15. These are stations like SoulsVille Online, Meander Comedy Radio, RocklandUSA and about 45 others. Some may last a while after that, but some of these stations will have SX bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kind of like paying a penalty for being successful.
Other stations' staying power may well depend on whether their streaming providers can survive this.
My station fits into this category.
It is very sad, as I know how much work goes into these stations. And, ultimately, the listening public will
lose, as the remaining stations will be just as homoginized as AM/FM stations (I guess, since I haven't
listened to the radio for 7 years, except for a couple of trips to Tennessee.)
**This post brought to you by a local radio market veteran of nearly 20 years whose job was eliminated. He
opted to take early retirement rather than keep fighting an unwinnable rat race.**
Alan - Thanks much for the kind words. I feel bad for webcasters like you who have invested a lot more over the years than I have (just one year ... but lots for music, liners, jingles, web site, licensing and more) just to see this royalty thing get out of control.
I've also been in terrestrial radio in all market sizes for 38 years and have never seen the business as bad as it is in many ways.
We've only got a month. Hope we can, collectively, do some good on this issue. Thanks again.
I've also been in terrestrial radio in all market sizes for 38 years and have never seen the business as bad as it is in many ways.
We've only got a month. Hope we can, collectively, do some good on this issue. Thanks again.
Brian Donegan said:Raise your hand if you think that the money paid to the RIAA and SoundExchange by webcasters are being stuffed in their pockets and don't go to the artists and bands (raises his hand)
I'm guessing that it goes straight into the gas tank of John Simson's Porsche.
And just to ask again, anyone here think either of these components of the music cartel are in violation of antitrust laws?
Anti-trust of what?
Here is the definition of Sound Exchange, from their website @ www.soundexchange.com
"...a nonprofit performance rights organization jointly controlled by artists and sound recording copyright owners through an 18-member board of directors with nine artist representatives and nine copyright owner representatives. We have been designated by the U.S. Copyright Office to collect and distribute statutory royalties to sound recording copyright owners and featured and nonfeatured artists. Our board members and staff are dedicated to providing exceptional service and advocacy for artists and copyright owners to ensure the fair compensation for the use of copyrighted sound recordings.
The government (US Copyright Office) suing itself for being anti-trust. Riiiiight. The organization has been around for more than 20 minutes (a few years, in fact) and was formed by record labels on behalf of the artists they represent. To them, the "monopoly" was the paying of license fees by broadcasters (of all types, including webcasters) to "only" composers and publishers through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC (the perfoming rights organizations in the US representing composers and publishers.)
So, the labels and "artists" said "We want our share." Since "composers & publishers" get their piece of the action, unless you're a songwriter or a publisher, you, as a performer/musician get nada.
"But wait...how about the Beatles, and all those "royalties" they got?" Of course they did. They were ALL songwriters/composers ... and the Beatles owned, collectively, their own publishing interests.
The government, through the labels (allegedly on behalf of their artists) then enpowered this select organization (Sound Exchange) to do the collecting of royalty fees...effectively giving thanks to the government the long-arm of the law to Sound Exchange in order to collect these new fees from one and all, "because the government told us we could."
It's the same as a city or town council approving a special tax collection to an outside agency. With that approval, the agency only has to collect the fee because, "the government told us we could and you must comply, or the government can allow us to levy your property, add more penalties and fines, etc."
The government says, "Well, better than us to collect the fee that we know is unpopular, but these people have the support of the businesses (labels/artists) that says they deserve this. We're not in the music business, but they are, so...we approve them to do as they "need" in order to be fair to the (poor) labels and (poorer) artists/performers. After all, the people that wrote the songs and the one's that publish it as a "copyright" get paid, don't they?" And singers vote, too...
And so it goes. No anti-trust monopoly here.
It's up to Congress, and my feeling is that the Dems will not cave-in on this. Their "hand-out" will be to the labels and artists, not the entrepenurial webcasters or terrestrial stations who will surely get hit next.
The Republicans, on the other hand, would, in my opinion, be more supportive of the "growth" of capitalism by webcasters who would, in turn, sell a lot of "new" CD or digital product...but the "wait and see" is whether artists can or will benefit.
That has not been proven that they will whatsoever.
North Carolina Republican Senator, Jesse Helms, saved the day for webcasters on the fee issue six years ago. The Senator left office in 2003.
Who, now, to replace him as an advocate? That's what we need...and with a Democratic Congress & Senate, we'll need more than one Jesse Helms.
And so it goes...
Here is the definition of Sound Exchange, from their website @ www.soundexchange.com
"...a nonprofit performance rights organization jointly controlled by artists and sound recording copyright owners through an 18-member board of directors with nine artist representatives and nine copyright owner representatives. We have been designated by the U.S. Copyright Office to collect and distribute statutory royalties to sound recording copyright owners and featured and nonfeatured artists. Our board members and staff are dedicated to providing exceptional service and advocacy for artists and copyright owners to ensure the fair compensation for the use of copyrighted sound recordings.
The government (US Copyright Office) suing itself for being anti-trust. Riiiiight. The organization has been around for more than 20 minutes (a few years, in fact) and was formed by record labels on behalf of the artists they represent. To them, the "monopoly" was the paying of license fees by broadcasters (of all types, including webcasters) to "only" composers and publishers through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC (the perfoming rights organizations in the US representing composers and publishers.)
So, the labels and "artists" said "We want our share." Since "composers & publishers" get their piece of the action, unless you're a songwriter or a publisher, you, as a performer/musician get nada.
"But wait...how about the Beatles, and all those "royalties" they got?" Of course they did. They were ALL songwriters/composers ... and the Beatles owned, collectively, their own publishing interests.
The government, through the labels (allegedly on behalf of their artists) then enpowered this select organization (Sound Exchange) to do the collecting of royalty fees...effectively giving thanks to the government the long-arm of the law to Sound Exchange in order to collect these new fees from one and all, "because the government told us we could."
It's the same as a city or town council approving a special tax collection to an outside agency. With that approval, the agency only has to collect the fee because, "the government told us we could and you must comply, or the government can allow us to levy your property, add more penalties and fines, etc."
The government says, "Well, better than us to collect the fee that we know is unpopular, but these people have the support of the businesses (labels/artists) that says they deserve this. We're not in the music business, but they are, so...we approve them to do as they "need" in order to be fair to the (poor) labels and (poorer) artists/performers. After all, the people that wrote the songs and the one's that publish it as a "copyright" get paid, don't they?" And singers vote, too...
And so it goes. No anti-trust monopoly here.
It's up to Congress, and my feeling is that the Dems will not cave-in on this. Their "hand-out" will be to the labels and artists, not the entrepenurial webcasters or terrestrial stations who will surely get hit next.
The Republicans, on the other hand, would, in my opinion, be more supportive of the "growth" of capitalism by webcasters who would, in turn, sell a lot of "new" CD or digital product...but the "wait and see" is whether artists can or will benefit.
That has not been proven that they will whatsoever.
North Carolina Republican Senator, Jesse Helms, saved the day for webcasters on the fee issue six years ago. The Senator left office in 2003.
Who, now, to replace him as an advocate? That's what we need...and with a Democratic Congress & Senate, we'll need more than one Jesse Helms.
And so it goes...
captex said:it will be a sad day. may 15. no choice of good music anywhere. back to the old old cd's and tapes.
Been giving this a lot of thought. As someone who quit Live 365 because of this, I am mad. If I have to, I'll go pirate radio over the 'net and maybe make downloads available on Rapidshare or something. Can't do legal Part-15 here as the airwaves locally are absolutely packed full and I can't afford to buy a station.
I won't give up, though. I will find a way to keep at it. Let's all resolve to not let the SOBs beat us.
Captainfirst said:If I have to, I'll go pirate radio over the 'net and maybe make downloads available on Rapidshare or something.
That's what I'm saying. I really don't care. I mean, I'd try to get in contact with every artist I can in an offer to pay them royalties directly, but I'm not going to deal with SoundExchange through this crap. If I have to bypass the whole system, I will. It's pure BS and I won't put up with it.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.