HD versus Internet Radio at Wal-Mart

[R.F. Burns]

EasyPeazy wrote: "If you don't believe the recording industry needs radio, you're fooling yourself....A station I worked at pre-consolidation made as much off independent record promoters as it did off ad revenue."

(1) I never said that. And (2) you must be proud.

EasyPeazy also wrote: "Do you really think the RIAA wants to piss off radio? If so, you're dreaming."

The RIAA had no problem pissing off radio by forcing radio to pay royalties for every song they stream from their websites, thanks to the 1998 DMCA. The NAB went to court and eventually LOST.

I'm trying to warn you. Here's what SOMA-FM's Rusty Hodge said today:

"...In a panel here at SXSW last week. The panelists (mostly label-related people) were talking about how the US is the only country that doesn't make broadcasters pay a fee for the performance of a sound recording. They also pointed out that the US is the only country that has a "Fair Use" clause in their copyright laws. They of course were saying this in the context of we need more euro-style copyright legislation here."

Be on your guard. Don't just assume. Be pro-active to keep webcasting options open for everyone, including broadcasters.

Boy, imagine what is facing XM & Sirius who's livelyhood depends on music. While mnusic is very important to radio, it's more important to the record companies. Why do you think they provide free record service to stations? They might just find that they killed the goose that layed the golden egg. Losing broadcast radio is more of a loss for the record companies (Jukeboxes are really a thing of the past when it comes to new music) then losing any other music distribution method they have had for many years. All other methods have miniscule audiences compared with traditional radio. Maybe things will be different iin 2015 but this isn't 2015.

 

[EasyPeazy]

EasyPeazy wrote: "If you don't believe the recording industry needs radio, you're fooling yourself....A station I worked at pre-consolidation made as much off independent record promoters as it did off ad revenue."

(1) I never said that. And (2) you must be proud.

EasyPeazy also wrote: "Do you really think the RIAA wants to piss off radio? If so, you're dreaming."

The RIAA had no problem pissing off radio by forcing radio to pay royalties for every song they stream from their websites, thanks to the 1998 DMCA. The NAB went to court and eventually LOST.

I'm trying to warn you. Here's what SOMA-FM's Rusty Hodge said today:

"...In a panel here at SXSW last week. The panelists (mostly label-related people) were talking about how the US is the only country that doesn't make broadcasters pay a fee for the performance of a sound recording. They also pointed out that the US is the only country that has a "Fair Use" clause in their copyright laws. They of course were saying this in the context of we need more euro-style copyright legislation here."

Be on your guard. Don't just assume. Be pro-active to keep webcasting options open for everyone, including broadcasters.

No, I alone pointed out that the recording industry needs radio. That's a fact webcasters would like to overlook.

The recording industry has now said they don't need or want webcasters providing competition to the monopoly they've built with radio. The rates the CRB has decided on may seem high to independent webcasters, but they're nothing compared to the real revenue generators of the recording industry. I'd be willing to bet almost anything they only amount to a fraction of a percent of annual revenues for RIAA members.

To me anyway, it appears they were imposed exclusively to put small webcasters out of business. RIAA members produce 90% of the music sold in the USA. I'm sure they'd like to push that number higher. Limiting exposure for independent, unsigned acts helps them with that goal.

Like I said before, the RIAA needs radio. They can't make their billions without us. If they ever got the notion to try to squeeze broadcasters through copyright legislation against radio's real revenue source, terrestrial broadcasting, they would have one hell of a fight on their hands. In the end, I suspect nobody would win. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm sure someone at the RIAA will figure that out.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Does it really matter? With the recent copyright royalty board decision all the webcasters are going to be out of business anyway.

Perhaps not:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=JokEMX7M9P0%3d&Version=0

You are confusing webcasters with HD radio.

 

[stevenNOLA]

Does it really matter? With the recent copyright royalty board decision all the webcasters are going to be out of business anyway.

Perhaps not:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=JokEMX7M9P0%3d&Version=0

You are confusing webcasters with HD radio.

I don't think so... "The increases affect radio stations that stream audio over the Internet but do not affect free, over-the-air radio broadcasts."

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Does it really matter? With the recent copyright royalty board decision all the webcasters are going to be out of business anyway.

Perhaps not:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=JokEMX7M9P0%3d&Version=0

You are confusing webcasters with HD radio.

I don't think so... "The increases affect radio stations that stream audio over the Internet but do not affect free, over-the-air radio broadcasts."

Analog AM and FM broadcasting is grandfathered in, under the "compulsory license" provision of the copyright laws. But HD digital radio is not. Those rates are still under discussion (dispute?).

 

[Mike Walker]

One thing that consolidation has brought in the last few years is the return of payola, BIG TIME! If airtime on radio isn't worth anything, why are the record companies willing to pay, or bribe (drugs, women, what's your weakness?) programmers and jocks?