• 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

Is that hobby Internet radio station worth $500 a year out of your pocket?

I just got the $500 email, EVEN THOUGH I told them I was done. We have to understand what is going

on here. Yes, another revenue source, but the NAB has pushed this for years, to eliminate internet radio.

Yes, an agenda! Plain and simple. My station is hobby only, never made a cent. This entire deal is beyond ridiculous.

Bill
 
TheBigA said:
Not true. The copyright owners are in charge here. They're the ones the court listens to.
Click to expand...

True enough, but I don't think the broadcasters will be filing an amicus curae brief should the hobbyists -- or a business like Live365 -- decide to take this matter to court. I'm sure no tears were shed at the NAB when the CRB decision came down. I foresee an increase in offshoring Internet streams (in nations unsympathetic to claims by American lawyers) and pirate over-the-air radio. And in these insane times, I have a nagging fear of terrorism against radio stations and record companies. I hope I'm wrong on that.
 
I have no problem at all with artists receiving their royalties.

The issue is what is basically 17 cents per 100 songs played

is nonsense for a small(30-50 listener) hobby internet stream.

Those facts can be found here: http://www.loc.gov/crb/rate/

$500 a year plus $50-$100 A MONTH is just wrong. No other way to

spin it. It's just abuse. Now, those fees to Pandora or iHeart is another matter.
 
One other thing, 2 or 3 internet stations thumbing their nose at this would do nothing.
Now, 100s would be a different matter. Prosecuting cases is not cheap. I bet if you peeled back the surface you'd see
a definite connection to our present "Government Situation", if you follow.
 
CTListener said:
I'm sure no tears were shed at the NAB when the CRB decision came down.
Click to expand...

Just because they're not a friend doesn't make them the enemy. At the end of the day, the artists and musicians shouldn't be losing money because some hobbyist wants to play radio. Had internet radio become the huge success some expected it to be, things might have been different. The hobbyists have to demonstrate value to the copyright holders. They didn't. That's not anyone else's fault.
 
Here's the thing. I am all for artists and musicians being treated fairly.

They have not in many instances. This is another deal that we've seen in recent

years to regulate everything that money can be made! Like the attempt to regulate

water someone gets from their own well. Or a mileage tax. Ridiculous. The never ending

"1984 Mentality" in this country. Lets pay artists, but this is more than that!
 
Oh yeah, well that is a huge part, AND "control".
You see it now throughout our culture. Well, more so in the last 7 years----:>>
 
I'm paying $32 a month royalties right now. As bad as $40 sounds that would still be better than $100. But I agree .00017 per listener is too high.
 
Y-100 said:
The ultimate 'slam' is to go news talk, sports. THEN they stand with their mouths open.
Click to expand...

And you have to pay for that too. Divide the salaries of the talkers you'd have to hire by the number of listeners and tell me if that's more than .00017.
 
CTListener said:
I foresee an increase in offshoring Internet streams (in nations unsympathetic to claims by American lawyers) and pirate over-the-air radio.
Click to expand...

You may have noticed, in the furor over torrents, etc., that a lot more countries are cooperating with copyright infringement claims brought to them by other countries. They're not going to see the difference between piracy and streaming, if that common thread of "someone who was supposed to be compensated for that music wasn't" exists.

It's not a question of being sympathetic to lawyers ... it's when there are sufficient numbers using a particular server that all of the claims can be routed through international legal communications, government-to-government, that you'll see a lot of those offshore streaming services either geofence or go offline. For our purposes of discussion, either is death to the Internet broadcaster.

Bottom line: The number of places to hide is dwindling quickly these days.
 
You're welcome K.M.! I agree with you the loss of streams will be staggering and unfortunate.

R
 
K.M. Richards said:
You may have noticed, in the furor over torrents, etc., that a lot more countries are cooperating with copyright infringement claims brought to them by other countries.
Click to expand...

Exactly...there's something called reciprocity. This royalty situation exists throughout the world. It's not just a US thing.
 
TheBigA said:
Exactly...there's something called reciprocity. This royalty situation exists throughout the world. It's not just a US thing.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I have this correct.

OTA radio is not obligated to pay music royalties because artists/labels/whomever consider the exposure "free" publicity for their product BUT mom and pop Internet hobbyists are forced to pay per spin because they do not provide an equal value?

Or perhaps there is more to it than that.

Perhaps OTA radio also wants to penalize the hobbyists because they are taking share, perhaps insignificant mind you, away from their audience. Even though the numbers are not large enough currently to damage OTA radio now it is the growth they are trying to stop before it does.

I'm no expert on the revenue artists receive as a result of their recorded music sales over radio but based upon multiple interviews I have read from the artists themselves it seems as if it is almost an insignificant part of total revenue to the successful artists. Those artists seem to make most of their money by selling concert tickets and t-shirts. The ones that seem to be hurting are the fringe artists who are not concert draws.

Any of this make sense to you?

And in the interest of full disclosure let me make it clear that I do not, except in rare instances, listen to online music streams and have no subscriptions to them or support them otherwise.
 
Last edited:
landtuna said:
OTA radio is not obligated to pay music royalties because artists/labels/whomever consider the exposure "free" publicity for their product BUT mom and pop Internet hobbyists are forced to pay per spin because they do not provide an equal value?
Click to expand...

First, no they don't, but that's not the point. There are different platforms covered by different laws. OTA radio is an analog platform, the internet is digital. Back in 1998, the recording industry was concerned about the public being able to download digital quality copies of its music. So the Congress passed a law to compensate them for their losses. OTA radio isn't digital, so we're not a threat, but a partner, in marketing music.

TTBOMK, no one in OTA radio cares about hobbyists. However, the music industry is asking why it should subsidize someone else's hobby. That's the issue here. These small internet stations don't attract enough audience to benefit artists in terms of exposure for publicity. To them, they're freeloaders.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom