Internet radio royalty rates affect HD Radio

[700WLW]

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

 

[700WLW]

"More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties"

"First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo)."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...cision-on-internet-radio-music-royalties.html

 

[Mike Walker]

And you so hate HD radio that you post a smiley face by this "news"??? This COULD spell the end to all non-traditional methods of delivery. HD would be the LEAST affected, because it's really not what was addressed here. Besides, radio stations have already "paid at the office" for rights, and they pay a percentage of net revenues...which for HD2 streams is ZERO.

Still, if a smiley face is the way you greet this, you obviously hate radio, hate webcasting, hate any method of delivering music to a mass market, and probably shouldn't be posting here...since it's a board for people with an interest in new broadcast technology...something you obviously ARE NOT!

 

[700WLW]

And you so hate HD radio that you post a smiley face by this "news"??? This COULD spell the end to all non-traditional methods of delivery. HD would be the LEAST affected, because it's really not what was addressed here. Besides, radio stations have already "paid at the office" for rights, and they pay a percentage of net revenues...which for HD2 streams is ZERO.

Still, if a smiley face is the way you greet this, you obviously hate radio, hate webcasting, hate any method of delivering music to a mass market, and probably shouldn't be posting here...since it's a board for people with an interest in new broadcast technology...something you obviously ARE NOT!

Wrong, any Internet Radio station, that is acting as a non-interactive station, has to pay royalties, and this includes the HD channels - the HD channels are addressed here. Internet Radio stations will have to pay a royalty for every HD song that is streamed PER LISTENER, and there is no revenue coming in for the HD channels. I love listening to nighttime out-of-state AM radio - Scott Sloan WLW is my favorite ! Now, with HD radios not selling, this just gives new stations more reason not to sign up for HD Radio !

To quote:

The ruling is on a "per play" basis - so Internet radio stations will have to pay the cost of one song to one listener - effective retroactively for 2006. There's also an additional fee of $500 per channel per year - but there's no clear definition of what a "channel" is (which could mean big problems for a service like Pandora which creates custom playlists for listeners).

The rates to be paid are:

2006 - $.0008 per performance
2007 - $.0011 per performance
2008 - $.0014 per performance
2009 - $.0018 per performance
2010 - $.0019 per performance

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

 

[vsa]

Mike Walker wrote: "And you so hate HD radio that you post a smiley face by this "news" This COULD spell the end to all non-traditional methods of delivery. HD would be the LEAST affected, because it's really not what was addressed here. Besides, radio stations have already "paid at the office" for rights, and they pay a percentage of net revenues...which for HD2 streams is ZERO."

You are corect here, Mike. This is not a good development for anyone interested in any kind of radio and has NOTHING to do with over-the-air HD radio.

Not only will everyone who streams be hit very hard, retroactive to January 2006, broadcasters and satcasters may be hurt in an unforseen way. Satcasters who want to merge have testified that competition from Internet streaming means that their monopoly wouldn't really be much of a monopoly. Broadcasters who are lobbying for the right to own more stations per market have cited Internet competition as one of the factors that guarantees a diversity of services. Well, if there's no more Internet radio streaming, hopes for merging or allowing higher per-market ownership counts go bye-bye!

The only winner is the RIAA - and only a very short-term kind of winner at that.

  

 

[vsa]

700WLW,

Please ease back a bit on your anti-HD radio enthusiasm. Keep in mind the EVERYBODY here has a love for radio. We can argue the finer points of delivery methods, but don't forget that all of us have much more in common with each other than anything else.

Thank you.

 

[700WLW]

Mike Walker wrote: "And you so hate HD radio that you post a smiley face by this "news" This COULD spell the end to all non-traditional methods of delivery. HD would be the LEAST affected, because it's really not what was addressed here. Besides, radio stations have already "paid at the office" for rights, and they pay a percentage of net revenues...which for HD2 streams is ZERO."

You are corect here, Mike. This is not a good development for anyone interested in any kind of radio and has NOTHING to do with over-the-air HD radio.

Not only will everyone who streams be hit very hard, retroactive to January 2006, broadcasters and satcasters may be hurt in an unforseen way. Satcasters who want to merge have testified that competition from Internet streaming means that their monopoly wouldn't really be much of a monopoly. Broadcasters who are lobbying for the right to own more stations per market have cited Internet competition as one of the factors that guarantees a diversity of services. Well, if there's no more Internet radio streaming, hopes for merging or allowing higher per-market ownership counts go bye-bye!

The only winner is the RIAA - and only a very short-term kind of winner at that.

Obviously, this is just about Internet Radio, but now, this has killed HD streaming over the Internet, because it is on a per-play/per-listener channel basis. I wonder, if this will eventually go, as far as, digital streaming over iPod-type devices ? With HD radios not selling, the writing-is-on-the-wall. The RIAA finally got its way ! I will just have to enjoy AM DXing, before all terrestrial radio shuts down.

 

[Mike Walker]

First of all, we have this thing in our country called the appeals system. This obviously ain't over. And second it hasn't "killed" anything (past tense) as HD2 streams are still up NOW. It's an interesting, and possibly ominous development. But any damage would be in the future. It hasn't happened yet, so speaking the past tense is kind of alarmist, even for you!

 

[700WLW]

First of all, we have this thing in our country called the appeals system. This obviously ain't over. And second it hasn't "killed" anything (past tense) as HD2 streams are still up NOW. It's an interesting, and possibly ominous development. But any damage would be in the future. It hasn't happened yet, so speaking the past tense is kind of alarmist, even for you!

"New Copyright Fees Set For Internet Radio"

http://www.radioink.com/headlineentry.asp?hid=137060&pt=inkheadlines

It's a done-deal.

 

[RadioStarOne]

It's a done deal until our wonderful "friends" in the Senate and the House get involved in all of this again and they will!

 

[700WLW]

It's a done deal until our wonderful "friends" in the Senate and the House get involved in all of this again and they will!

"SUNUNU: FCC TECH MANDATES MUST BE BANNED"

"The bill, which would be based on a Sununu amendment approved during Senate Commerce Committee action last year, would prevent the FCC from requiring or imposing a specific technology, technological standard, solution, or product on industry."

http://sununu.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267281

Hate to tell you this, but Sununu has introduced this amendment, to his bill that has already passed, that is against FCC tech mandates; Congress would have to be able to over-turn the Internet Radio decision, and who says that they would, or could, get involved - you are grasping-at-straws.

 

[Chuck]

It's a done deal until our wonderful "friends" in the Senate and the House get involved in all of this again and they will!

I've already called my Congressman. I hope you will too.

 

[EasyPeazy]

Simple solution...

The NAB gets involved and tells the recording industry no more adds - period - until this situation is corrected.

I bet we could get this resolved mui pronto. Without promotional support from radio, they won't sell many records.

 

[davideduardo]

Wrong, any Internet Radio station, that is acting as a non-interactive station, has to pay royalties, and this includes the HD channels - the HD channels are addressed here. Internet Radio stations will have to pay a royalty for every HD song that is streamed PER LISTENER, and there is no revenue coming in for the HD channels. I love listening to nighttime out-of-state AM radio - Scott Sloan WLW is my favorite ! Now, with HD radios not selling, this just gives new stations more reason not to sign up for HD Radio !

HD Radio is delivered on the same channel as analog radio stations, but AM and FM. It is not delivered via the Internet, and has separate royalty issues totally different than those affecting web radio stations.

The ruling of last week only affects Internet streams, not HD.

 

[700WLW]

Wrong, any Internet Radio station, that is acting as a non-interactive station, has to pay royalties, and this includes the HD channels - the HD channels are addressed here. Internet Radio stations will have to pay a royalty for every HD song that is streamed PER LISTENER, and there is no revenue coming in for the HD channels. I love listening to nighttime out-of-state AM radio - Scott Sloan WLW is my favorite ! Now, with HD radios not selling, this just gives new stations more reason not to sign up for HD Radio !

HD Radio is delivered on the same channel as analog radio stations, but AM and FM. It is not delivered via the Internet, and has separate royalty issues totally different than those affecting web radio stations.

The ruling of last week only affects Internet streams, not HD.

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

"More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties"

"Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear..."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...cision-on-internet-radio-music-royalties.html

"Free HD Radio streaming online"

http://digg.com/music/Free_HD_Radio_streaming_online

We know, David - thanks !

 

[EasyPeazy]

Wrong, any Internet Radio station, that is acting as a non-interactive station, has to pay royalties, and this includes the HD channels - the HD channels are addressed here. Internet Radio stations will have to pay a royalty for every HD song that is streamed PER LISTENER, and there is no revenue coming in for the HD channels. I love listening to nighttime out-of-state AM radio - Scott Sloan WLW is my favorite ! Now, with HD radios not selling, this just gives new stations more reason not to sign up for HD Radio !

HD Radio is delivered on the same channel as analog radio stations, but AM and FM. It is not delivered via the Internet, and has separate royalty issues totally different than those affecting web radio stations.

The ruling of last week only affects Internet streams, not HD.

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

"More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties"

"Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear..."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...cision-on-internet-radio-music-royalties.html

"Free HD Radio streaming online"

http://digg.com/music/Free_HD_Radio_streaming_online

We know, David - thanks !

Well, I actually read a few of the articles and I can't see how this will effect HD Radio at all.

As one person pointed out in response to one of the articles, this isn't so much about royalty collection as it is about content control and recording industry marketing initiatives. Essentially, all of these moves are designed to preserve the monopoly status that traditional radio enjoys. The RIAA is much more interested in that than collecting what amounts to small change as royalty payments from webcasters.

The recording industry likes the status quo. It likes being able to go to one medium (traditional radio) and expose artists to wide audiences. It's inexpensive marketing for them, and the radio/records partnership has performed very well for them.

Realistically, HD Radio is just another tightly controlled avenue for the record labels to get the exposure they want. As much as some webcasters would like to lump HD Radio in with themselves as a "streaming" medium, it is first and foremost radio. The recording industry likes and needs radio.

 

[700WLW]

Wrong, any Internet Radio station, that is acting as a non-interactive station, has to pay royalties, and this includes the HD channels - the HD channels are addressed here. Internet Radio stations will have to pay a royalty for every HD song that is streamed PER LISTENER, and there is no revenue coming in for the HD channels. I love listening to nighttime out-of-state AM radio - Scott Sloan WLW is my favorite ! Now, with HD radios not selling, this just gives new stations more reason not to sign up for HD Radio !

HD Radio is delivered on the same channel as analog radio stations, but AM and FM. It is not delivered via the Internet, and has separate royalty issues totally different than those affecting web radio stations.

The ruling of last week only affects Internet streams, not HD.

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

"More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties"

"Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear..."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...cision-on-internet-radio-music-royalties.html

"Free HD Radio streaming online"

http://digg.com/music/Free_HD_Radio_streaming_online

We know, David - thanks !

Well, I actually read a few of the articles and I can't see how this will effect HD Radio at all.

As one person pointed out in response to one of the articles, this isn't so much about royalty collection as it is about content control and recording industry marketing initiatives. Essentially, all of these moves are designed to preserve the monopoly status that traditional radio enjoys. The RIAA is much more interested in that than collecting what amounts to small change as royalty payments from webcasters.

The recording industry likes the status quo. It likes being able to go to one medium (traditional radio) and expose artists to wide audiences. It's inexpensive marketing for them, and the radio/records partnership has performed very well for them.

Realistically, HD Radio is just another tightly controlled avenue for the record labels to get the exposure they want. As much as some webcasters would like to lump HD Radio in with themselves as a "streaming" medium, it is first and foremost radio. The recording industry likes and needs radio.

As the article pointed out, it is a per-channel/per-listener fee, and that the streaming HD channels are included. So, if you believe that the Orbitcast article is incorrect:

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

You had better email them, to let them know !

 

[EasyPeazy]

As the article pointed out, it is a per-channel/per-listener fee, and that the streaming HD channels are included. So, if you believe that the Orbitcast article is incorrect:

"Internet radio royalty rates decided (Verdict: it ain't good news)"

"The death of Internet radio, and the damage done to HD Radio, could affect federal regulator's decision for the merger and the definition of the relevant market."

"Smaller terrestrial radio stations will probably abandon online streaming as they'll be paying more for online streaming then they will for regular broadcasts (and for far less of an incoming revenue stream). This applies just the same for HD2 streaming."

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/i...-rates-decided-verdict-it-aint-good-news.html

You had better email them, to let them know !

Naah... I'll let them slide - I'm not obsessed with blogs.

Follow the money. The whole reason the RIAA is in this is control over content and distribution. For them, HD Radio is part of the solution - not part of the problem. HD Radio is no more "streaming" than HDTV.

After all, isn't that what all the HD bashers have been saying - HD Radio is just more of the same old crap?

That's exactly what the recording industry wants.

The ONLY commentary I've seen from the RIAA on HD Radio is that it wants it to be protected by DRM so people can not record freely from it. If such measures were implemented, that means even more control for the RIAA with HD Radio. From their perspective, what's not to like?

Here's the bottom line - you can buy made to order legislation. The RIAA has proven this again and again and this time is no different. The RIAA wants and needs radio. That's why radio's relationship with the RIAA - including HD Radio - will not change substantially as a result of any legislation aimed at curbing internet streaming.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if language were included specifically excluding the web streams of traditional broadcasters.

The DMCA of 1998 specifically excludes broadcasters from restrictions on duplication as necessary to facilitate airplay. The recording industry recognized that broadcasters would need to copy their songs onto other formats for airplay and had the DMCA written to accomodate it.

 

[700WLW]

Naah... I'll let them slide - I'm not obsessed with blogs.

Since, you do not care for blogs, here you go:

"New Copyright Fees Set For Internet Radio"

"The Copyright Royalty Board on Friday issued a decision that sets per performance rates that Internet radio stations must pay each time a single listener hears a song. In doing so, the board rejected the pleas of Internet radio providers that sought royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue... The minimum fee is $500 per channel per year, although Oxenford notes there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "channel" for services that allow users to create individualized playlists. The rates to be paid are as follows:"

http://www.radioink.com/headlineentry.asp?hid=137060&pt=inkheadlines

A particular poster here, tried to claim that these fees were going to be based on a percentage of revenue, and since the streaming HD channels do not produce revenue, this would be no concern for HD Radio - as we can see, it is a set fee per-channel/per-song/per-listener. Sorry folks, these fees will affect non-interactive Internet Radio broadcasters and the HD channels are included. Maybe, the RIAA will find a way to go after terrestrial HD Radio - let's hope so !

 

[EasyPeazy]

Since, you do not care for blogs, here you go:

"New Copyright Fees Set For Internet Radio"

"The Copyright Royalty Board on Friday issued a decision that sets per performance rates that Internet radio stations must pay each time a single listener hears a song. In doing so, the board rejected the pleas of Internet radio providers that sought royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue... The minimum fee is $500 per channel per year, although Oxenford notes there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "channel" for services that allow users to create individualized playlists. The rates to be paid are as follows:"

http://www.radioink.com/headlineentry.asp?hid=137060&pt=inkheadlines

A particular poster here, tried to claim that these fees were going to be based on a percentage of revenue, and since the streaming HD channels do not produce revenue, this would be no concern for HD Radio - as we can see, it is a set fee per-channel/per-song/per-listener. Sorry folks, these fees will affect non-interactive Internet Radio broadcasters and the HD channels are included. Maybe, the RIAA will find a way to go after terrestrial HD Radio - let's hope so !

Allow me to put on my Captain Obvious hat for a second...

The entire article you cite is about royalties on INTERNET based streaming. Anyone with the reading skills of a 2nd grader could easily see that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with HD Radio - period. I realize you're desperately grasping at straws and praying for some bad news for HD Radio, but there is simply no connection between the royalties being imposed on webcasters and HD Radio - zero, zip, zilch, nada, none!

This entire thread, like so many of the mindless blog posts here has been nothing but a huge waste of everyone's time. It's not relevant to the board at all and is merely idle speculation.