HD Radio may be paying new royalty fees !

[Mike Walker]

I agree with radiopilot (perish the thought). Fair is fair. But the solution isn't to punish terrestrial radio, it's to have the same deal for everyone...a percentage of gross income.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the difference isn't just in how much is paid...it's in who it goes to. Radio's fees go not to record companies or bands, but to songwriters. That was find when the record companies and bands got their money from sales of physical media. Whatever the result of this, it needs to be the same for everyone. That's cool. New media (internet radio, etc) DO provide access to types of music we'd never hear if we waited for the Clear Channels of the world to play stuff a little bit "off the beaten path". If internet radio dies, everyone loses (imho).

We have more media now. Everyone has to compete harder. But the public WINS!

 

[dbdigital]

I agree with radiopilot (perish the thought). Fair is fair. But the solution isn't to punish terrestrial radio, it's to have the same deal for everyone...a percentage of gross income.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the difference isn't just in how much is paid...it's in who it goes to. Radio's fees go not to record companies or bands, but to songwriters. That was find when the record companies and bands got their money from sales of physical media. Whatever the result of this, it needs to be the same for everyone. That's cool. New media (internet radio, etc) DO provide access to types of music we'd never hear if we waited for the Clear Channels of the world to play stuff a little bit "off the beaten path". If internet radio dies, everyone loses (imho).

We have more media now. Everyone has to compete harder. But the public WINS!

I need to get my eyes checked. I'm actually agreeing with Mr. Walker, although this is not so much a matter of 'punishing terrestrial radio' but simply leveling the field.

Personally, I find the RIAA's desperate search for additional cash (like looking for loose change under sofa cushions) rather pathetic.

db

 

[davideduardo]

That was find(sic) when the record companies and bands got their money from sales of physical media.

Record companies are continuing to get their income, just the delivery has changed... to downloads. And artists make much of their income from concerts and appearances, and the CD or songs only reinforce the desirability... and price... of a concert.

Whatever the result of this, it needs to be the same for everyone.

The RIAA fees for the web and such are for digital media. AM and FM are analog at this point. There will probably be a compromise for HD, in proportion to receivers and listening.

 

[fritobandito]

Attention webcasters, your severely bloated egos are showing!

Get real guys. Radio sells records. Period.

When webcasts develop a daily audience of 278,000,000 in the USA then you can talk about being on equal footing with radio. Since most online listening is to the streams of terrestrial stations, and I have to subtract those from your total, you've got quite a battle ahead of you. Go get 'em boys!

I can think of only one song I was exposed to by a non-traditional medium and actually ended up buying. It's a song called "Tony the Beat" by a group called The Sounds and I first heard it on a myspace profile.

I have a collection of 300 or so CDs that contain songs I first heard on the radio.

I suspect this latest ploy from the labels isn't about money at all. They want control. For example, Nashville has been complaining for years that country radio isn't playing enough new country acts. Well, there's a reason for that, they suck. I'm sure some 11th hour compromise will be reached between the labels and radio that gets more on air exposure for the major labels underperforming acts.

Then the labels won't have to rely on payola or concert flyaways to get crappy songs on the radio. They'll be able to get it on for free by issuing SoundExchange credits to stations that play the songs they want played.

Hmmm. Clear Channel Records. I like the sound of that!

 

[fritobandito]

And to the guy that started this wonderful thread, even if additional royalties were imposed on just HD Radio, it's not going anywhere.

We could program talk or stereo dog farts. We could do all weather or all traffic. It's not going anywhere.

 

[Mike Walker]

No it's not going anywhere. Radio has demonstrated once how we (though I wasn't born then!) react when music publishers try to muscle us for unfair fees (record companies listen up)...we create our own publishing business. No reason we couldn't do the same with record companies. Only from the start they'd be web based. Not being stuck in the past, as the record companies are, we wouldn't be so damned stupid about waiting to adopt new technology. The record companies should have begun selling LEGAL downloads in 1998, when the first mp3 players hit the market...and before illegal downloading really took off. If they'd done that, we'd be having a very different conversation.

There's a lesson there...GET AHEAD OF NEW TECHNOLOGY (like HD). Don't let anyone discourage you. Keep your "eyes on the prize"...your company's FUTURE. Have downloads killed cd sales? Of course not. Hell, even lps have a (tiny) market after all these years. But they ARE the future. HD won't "kill" analog for a very long time either...if ever. But the momentum WILL begin to swing that way. It's a digital world. Media=packets of data. Only the delivery method for those packets is in dispute!

 

[PocketRadio]

No it's not going anywhere...

"NAB Radio Board Adopts Rate Resolution"

"The NAB Radio Board, by a unanimous vote, has adopted the following resolution regarding the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision on Internet streaming rates: The radio board of the National Association of Broadcasters recognizes that the new streaming rates established by the Copyright Royalty Board will cause significant harm to broadcasters that stream over the Internet. The radio board supports a comprehensive approach to addressing the CRB rate determination, including legislation that vacates the CRB decision and establishes an interim royalty rate structure."

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=137995&pt=InkHeadlines

Yup, you guys are so right !

 

[davideduardo]

Yup, you guys are so right !

Irrelevant.

What is under discussion per the header of this thread is the RIAA proposal to charge radio stations fees for artist / label rights on the radio, not in Internet streams. This has not been done previously over the 85 year history of American radio; ASCAP... and later, BMI, too (plus SESAC, ASEMLA, etc) fees for the authors and composers of songs go back to the 30's.

Internet streaming is a "single concept" as to artist / label rights whether the streaming is done by a radio station or a stand-alone webcaster and the RIAA / DRM issue is in dispute based on the impact of fees that are onerous to streamers, whoever they may be.

Internet streaming is a separate issue from fees by the RIAA on terrestrial radio signals.

 

[PocketRadio]

Yup, you guys are so right !

Irrelevant.

What is under discussion per the header of this thread is the RIAA proposal to charge radio stations fees for artist / label rights on the radio, not in Internet streams. This has not been done previously over the 85 year history of American radio; ASCAP... and later, BMI, too (plus SESAC, ASEMLA, etc) fees for the authors and composers of songs go back to the 30's.

Internet streaming is a "single concept" as to artist / label rights whether the streaming is done by a radio station or a stand-alone webcaster and the RIAA / DRM issue is in dispute based on the impact of fees that are onerous to streamers, whoever they may be.

Internet streaming is a separate issue from fees by the RIAA on terrestrial radio signals.

My bad - you will still have to deal with this:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,71903.msg519340.html#msg519340