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

[landtuna]

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.

The compensation was supposed to be in the form of a tax on blank CD/DVD was it not? Did that not happen or is the current compensation in addition?

And with HD radio you cannot say OTA radio is analog only. I can record off the air from HD as easily as from analog and the quality difference would not be obvious to the majority of listeners. Just wondering why this distinction for radio - or perhaps it was directed more at online downloading instead?

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.

Are you sure? I keep reading about the wired car with dire predictions for analog radio once it reaches some sort of perfection (which, admittedly, might be years off).

While your second sentence makes sense from an Oldies or Classic Hits perspective it makes less sense from an avant garde or progressive sense. New music, whether broadcast from an OTA station or an Internet source would seem to be as valuable to the newer or more obscure artist. Even though Internet numbers are less significant it is still free exposure that the artist/label doesn't have to pay for - and any possible revenue seems almost worthless, especially now that they have effectively killed the online version.

 

[TheBigA]

The compensation was supposed to be in the form of a tax on blank CD/DVD was it not? Did that not happen or is the current compensation in addition?

Two different things. Copying royalties vs. performance royalties.

And with HD radio you cannot say OTA radio is analog only.

HD is not truly digital. It is a hybrid, still using analog platform.

I keep reading about the wired car with dire predictions for analog radio once it reaches some sort of perfection (which, admittedly, might be years off).

When analog radio transitions to digital internet distribution, it pays a digital performance royalty too. This was covered under the CRB decision last week.

Even though Internet numbers are less significant it is still free exposure that the artist/label doesn't have to pay for - and any possible revenue seems almost worthless, especially now that they have effectively killed the online version.

No point discussing this with me. Take it to the judges. They're the ones who have made this decision, based on the testimony from all interested and affected parties.

 

[TheBigA]

IIRC, after the CRB set the previous rates, SoundExchange was willing to meet with internet broadcasters to negotiate potential discounts, based on the factor you mentioned. If an internet station can demonstrate that it is providing sizable exposure that's not available elsewhere, they may get a discount. But in the case of oldies, all of that music is available on Sirius and Pandora, so there's no exclusivity factor I can think of.

 

[CTListener]

IIRC, after the CRB set the previous rates, SoundExchange was willing to meet with internet broadcasters to negotiate potential discounts, based on the factor you mentioned. If an internet station can demonstrate that it is providing sizable exposure that's not available elsewhere, they may get a discount. But in the case of oldies, all of that music is available on Sirius and Pandora, so there's no exclusivity factor I can think of.

Sirius XM may have a ton of oldies in its hard drives, but many of them never get played and never will. If a hobbyist wants to build a station around low-charting singles and other pop obscurities, couldn't it claim exclusivity if SXM -- which has tightened its oldies playlist considerably since the Sirius takeover of XM (which those lying liars call a "merger of equals," lol) -- has the songs but doesn't plan to ever play them?

 

[TheBigA]

If a hobbyist wants to build a station around low-charting singles and other pop obscurities, couldn't it claim exclusivity if SXM?

Sure, but once again, why should those musicians subsidize the hobbyist? How much is a spin on this site worth?

You can claim anything you want, but it doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't lead to tangible results. Typically, listeners already have these songs in their own library, so it's not inducing any sales or attendance to concerts.

 

[b-turner]

I can see the logic of landtuna's argument that OTA radio would not be 'friendly' toward the small internet streamer in fear they might make an impact on OTA radio listening in the future.

From my vantage point, I do not see the small internet station even being on OTA radio's radar. There has, at times been real animosity against LPFM stations supposedly taking revenue and listeners from full power stations. I suppose that might be a real threat in a small market, say a small town with a full power and a LPFM looking for revenue and listeners. The argument would be all the costs involved in operating a full power versus low power FM.

From what I have seen, it is the OTA stations and their various online versions that eat up almost all the share of internet listening and I suspect they feel like they are king of the mountain at this point and the small streamer is insignificant to them. Many internet only streams are hobby stations, just like a good number of LPFMs that are not feeds for a particular Christian denomination satellite programming service. A few savvy internet only stations that choose to try to compete, possibly on a local level, might eventually change that thinking.

I would agree that the parties involved in setting rates for internet streaming could care less about the very small streamer. In fact, I wonder if administrative fees do not absorb almost every penny they get from a hobby streamer. I can see the attitude that the streamer has a financially unsustainable business plan and needs to monetize itself in order to pay the rate. I think in the scheme of things, life would be much easier in the minds of Sound Exchange, etc., if the hobby streamers just went away. I doubt they do have a significant impact on music sales nor do they effectively register on the bottom line in the fees they pay. I'm thinking the artists might agree.

In addition, what I term record sales (because I remember those black vinyl things so well) might surprise folks. I recall the Runaways not selling enough to get a contract renewed after their first two albums. I recall a group that only sold a bit more than 3,000 pieces on their nationwide release on a major label. A guy I knew that worked for, then, Columbia/Epic, told me labels released a bunch of product and they made enough on a few to lose money on most albums they released. In that respect, not much different from the book publishing business. My point is the small streamer might be responsible for a few sales on a fairly unknown signed artist but not enough to send it to the column with black ink. I suspect with splintered formats it is even harder to get sales up there enough. On the other hand, the music industry is equally at fault by standing on a technologically outdated platform versus exploring other ways to monetize the product they offer.

 

[TheBigA]

I think in the scheme of things, life would be much easier in the minds of Sound Exchange, etc., if the hobby streamers just went away. I doubt they do have a significant impact on music sales nor do they effectively register on the bottom line in the fees they pay. I'm thinking the artists might agree.

Internet radio simply hasn't been the cash cow everyone thought it would be. Everyone, from the artists to the labels to the radio operators. No one is happy with the current situation.

 

[b-turner]

I would certainly have to agree. Listening numbers are incredibly small compared to radio. When major market players have numbers in the hundreds per quarter hour, mostly lower hundreds, when AQH might be 35,000 for over the air, it is easy to see why people are disappointed.

I'm one of those folks that tries to break things down to simple statements. I believe the issue is the internet is not thought of as a radio but an actual radio tuner has but one dedicated service...listening to radio. I think the 'habit' of listening online has yet to develop in 'mass appeal thinking' while the radio receiver has been ingrained for decades. At best, the percentage of 'internet' time spent listening to streams is still a tiny amount of that time spent online.

 

[oldies76]

By chance, do any of these new restrictions taking place affect streams from terrestrial radio stations from other cities? Also, the "Top 40 Time Clock" stream has fallen victim to this as announced on their FB page. They will cease operations effective 11:59pm 12/31. So darn unfortunate!! Such good music.

 

[davideduardo]

By chance, do any of these new restrictions taking place affect streams from terrestrial radio stations from other cities? Also, the "Top 40 Time Clock" stream has fallen victim to this as announced on their FB page. They will cease operations effective 11:59pm 12/31. So darn unfortunate!! Such good music.

Do you mean "from other countries" rather than "other cities"?

The radio broadcast streaming rate has actually come down. And it is applied uniformly to all streamed OTA radio stations.

 

[CTListener]

Do you mean "from other countries" rather than "other cities"?

The radio broadcast streaming rate has actually come down. And it is applied uniformly to all streamed OTA radio stations.

So there's a chance that the BBC's many stations -- I love some of the programs on the regional services - will be geoblocked after 12/31?

 

[oldies76]

Do you mean "from other countries" rather than "other cities"?

Streaming classic hits from FM or AM stations from cities within the USA, at home.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Also, the "Top 40 Time Clock" stream has fallen victim to this as announced on their FB page. They will cease operations effective 11:59pm 12/31. So darn unfortunate!! Such good music.

We have been trying to tell you for some time that these streams were on the endangered species list, oldies. You just kept along saying it wouldn't happen, that the "suits" were wrong. Now comes what I would think is something akin to Armageddon for you. I do feel sorry for you, actually, but that sorrow is tempered by the tone of the arguments we've had over the past year or so.

Even though the broadcaster stream rate has been lowered, the severe cutback of non-station streams is likely to bring an increase in out-of-market listening come Friday and going forward. It has been pointed out by more than one of us that such listening is an expense to the station which does not bring it revenue, and if that added listening becomes a financial burden, I honestly believe you will see geofencing next. That is inevitable as well, and again I feel sorry for you but not as sorry as I might have.

I think you and many of those who share your philosophy are going to be reduced to playing your own MP3 libraries before much longer. At least then you'll get the songs you want to hear, though ...

 

[K.M. Richards]

As of today, Live365 is still in business ...

... and the layoffs rumor is unsubstantiated at this time.

Consider it substantiated:
http://www.insideradio.com/free/crb...cle_465d424e-aee0-11e5-a3bf-8bf4ae050c02.html

Note also, in reading the above, that Live365 also lost their investor base as a result of this, and under the circumstances it's going to be very difficult for them to find replacement financing.

You might want to read this article at Hypebot, which is linked to the Inside Radio article, to get a better understanding of just what is happening here:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015...out-the-copyright-royalty-board-decision.html

 

[CTListener]

We have been trying to tell you for some time that these streams were on the endangered species list, oldies. You just kept along saying it wouldn't happen, that the "suits" were wrong. Now comes what I would think is something akin to Armageddon for you. I do feel sorry for you, actually, but that sorrow is tempered by the tone of the arguments we've had over the past year or so.

Even though the broadcaster stream rate has been lowered, the severe cutback of non-station streams is likely to bring an increase in out-of-market listening come Friday and going forward. It has been pointed out by more than one of us that such listening is an expense to the station which does not bring it revenue, and if that added listening becomes a financial burden, I honestly believe you will see geofencing next. That is inevitable as well, and again I feel sorry for you but not as sorry as I might have.

I think you and many of those who share your philosophy are going to be reduced to playing your own MP3 libraries before much longer. At least then you'll get the songs you want to hear, though ...

A rare example of the genie successfully being put back in the bottle, thanks to crafty lawyers, lobbying pressure and the FCC.

 

[davideduardo]

Streaming classic hits from FM or AM stations from cities within the USA, at home.

That rate actually came down. But in the absence of all the microcasters, those stations may get increased listening. In that case, they will find it useful to geofence as the expense could be considerable and of zero benefit.

Read the link that KM posted.

 

[oldies76]

That is inevitable as well, and again I feel sorry for you but not as sorry as I might have.

I think you and many of those who share your philosophy are going to be reduced to playing your own MP3 libraries before much longer. At least then you'll get the songs you want to hear, though ...

I don't mind playing the MP3 library, it's what it's intended for. I guess there's one thing hearing the songs you like over the air vs. playing DJ yourself. I think most of us prefer the first choice, because that's what we grew up on. Things change and that's the way it is. Those two links you shared from a musicians perspective are interesting.

If radio is forced to pay their share, like the hypebot link is suggesting, what could that translate to in their future broadcast plans to deliver, say...classic hits? On the other hand, doesn't radio already pay royalties thru ASCAP, BMI..etc.. We can use KWRP or any station as an example.

As for the arguments, it's old news. I'm over them, certainly, if you are. It's all good. Let's begin 2016 on the right page.

 

[TheBigA]

On the other hand, doesn't radio already pay royalties thru ASCAP, BMI..etc..

They do. They pay the writers, who are the real creators of the music.

 

[joebtsflk1]

Playing devil's advocate: shouldn't broadcast radio also pay the artists? They do in most other countries.

BTW, I looked at the effective royalty rates per song that the Roadhouse was paying: on the order of $0.0003 per play or 3¢ per 100 plays. That's a rounding error in the major players book. It demonstrates to me the large amounts of $$ Pandora must be generating to stay afloat with a .0013 rate, soon to be .0017.

While we're understandably sad about the Roadhouse's pending demise, we realize we've had a pretty cheap date the last four years. We were at $360 annually for royalties. A raise to $500 a year would have been doable. But setting up a 501c3 for the privilege of providing free music to people, that is a non-starter.

There's only one way I see micro-casting being commercially viable going forward. Instead of just having liners play every few songs, we play spots which would contain metadata just like we do with copyright material. Instead of just reporting royalties, our intermediaries such as StreamLicensing would report the ads played. If the ads played according to the flight, then StreamLicensing gets paid. The problem is the ads that didn't run per flight instructions...too hard to police that with thousands of hobbyists playing traffic director each week.

 

[TheBigA]

Playing devil's advocate: shouldn't broadcast radio also pay the artists? They do in most other countries.

Lots of laws are different in other countries. We don't have a Prime Minister here. Most countries have one.

The artists receive benefits that exceed the money they'd make from a royalty. That's why artists who get airplay are richer than those who don't. If there's an artist receiving FM airplay who isn't a millionaire, he needs a new manager. Because the money is there.

In point of fact, AM/FM radio pays the people who the law says we should pay. We are following the law. And when we stream, we pay digital royalties.