Over-the-air digital signals subject to Internet radio royalties !

[dbdigital]

Re: RadioStarOne

Easypeazy says:

Having Congress effectively price the webcasters out of business is GREAT NEWS FOR RADIO IN ALL FORMS. AM, FM and HD!

Anyone that thinks this new fee structure is going to kill internet audio streaming is totally lost in a dream, living on the edge of reality in the twilight zone. All it means is anyone wishing to be in this business are just going to have to become a bit more creative finding additional products and services to go with the streaming music channels they provide to offset the fees for using the copyrighted material. If your in retail any of the products being sold have to be bought first thats the way it is. First you buy, then you sell for a return on investment! Simple! Internet streaming is no different. This might slow it down but it will never kill it! Talk about whisiling past the graveyard.

We'll see. Personally I could care less, but it sure has the webcasters undies in a wad. They all seem to be predicting doom and gloom in the blogs linked earlier in this thread.

And, similarly, terrestrial broadcasters have been pissing in their shorts over the looming threat of internet radio reaching that last 10 yards, namely, the automobile.

"Oh my God! You mean I'll be competing with some guy and his CD collection during the morning commute?! What about my expensive FCC license, the money I've spent leasing land for my antenna and buying a transmitter and STL? And I just purchased this dang HD-R encoder, what about that?!"

The fear some of you have shown in these threads has been all too evident. But you know, what? The battle over the CRB's decision is just beginning. This issue has been brewing for a long time and I suspect it will turn into a long fight.

db

 

[R.F. Burns]

Re: RadioStarOne

Easypeazy says:

Having Congress effectively price the webcasters out of business is GREAT NEWS FOR RADIO IN ALL FORMS. AM, FM and HD!

Anyone that thinks this new fee structure is going to kill internet audio streaming is totally lost in a dream, living on the edge of reality in the twilight zone. All it means is anyone wishing to be in this business are just going to have to become a bit more creative finding additional products and services to go with the streaming music channels they provide to offset the fees for using the copyrighted material. If your in retail any of the products being sold have to be bought first thats the way it is. First you buy, then you sell for a return on investment! Simple! Internet streaming is no different. This might slow it down but it will never kill it! Talk about whisiling past the graveyard.

We'll see. Personally I could care less, but it sure has the webcasters undies in a wad. They all seem to be predicting doom and gloom in the blogs linked earlier in this thread.

And, similarly, terrestrial broadcasters have been pissing in their shorts over the looming threat of internet radio reaching that last 10 yards, namely, the automobile.

"Oh my God! You mean I'll be competing with some guy and his CD collection during the morning commute?! What about my expensive FCC license, the money I've spent leasing land for my antenna and buying a transmitter and STL? And I just purchased this dang HD-R encoder, what about that?!"

The fear some of you have shown in these threads has been all too evident. But you know, what? The battle over the CRB's decision is just beginning. This issue has been brewing for a long time and I suspect it will turn into a long fight.

db

If you believe this you are only fooling yourself. Knock yourself out and have a great time.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

All over-the-air signals have been subject to internet streaming licensing and royalty requirements for years.

the change came just this past January 1, 2007. For the past year plus, the Copyright Royalty Board and its agent, SoundExchange, have been crafting a revision of the licensing fee and reporting requirements for all streaming audio platforms.

Basic BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. licensing fees for your over the air broadcasts do NOT immediately apply for internet broadcasting as well.

As it was, since the old agreement by CRB expired at the end of 2005, they extended that agreement through 2006 until a new plan could be implemented. That plan was finalized by October 2006 and went into effect on January 1, 2007, with its terms retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The major change was not only a substantial licensing fee increase plus a per performance/per stream fee, but also a requirement that every reportable performance be digitally catalogued with 10 pieces of information, including title, artist, label, composer, and special codes for the digital maintenance of the files. All of this information must be submitted electronically and digitally to SoundExchange.

But, the biggest rub came from the absolutely unconscionable agreement SoundExchange made with the major commercial broadcasters, which permitted a yearly fee in lieu of the massive reporting requirements (not that Clear Channel or CBS couldn't meet them anyway). This agreement for a lump sum was NOT extended or offered to smaller broadcasters, nor was any arrangement made with and/or for the benefit of non-commercial broadcasters. They get a (modest) break on the licensing fee, but the massive, laborious, and burdensome reporting requirements remain. Most non-comms subjected to the requirements are school or community stations, run by volunteers, and do not have the capital or labor to catalogue their music library according to the CRB requirements.

It's a shame that the NAB lobbied SoundExchange and the CRB only on behalf of the commercial broadcasters and not ALL over-the-air broadcasters. But, then again, what do you expect from the same organization that forgets that anything under 92.1 MHz or under Class B exists for anything other than translators.

 

[Mike Walker]

The best option for most small broadcasters seems to be to use Live 365 for streaming, pay their fee, and let them worry about the specifics. Quite handy, actually.

 

[vsa]

Not anymore.

Since Live365 will have to pay the higher fees to SoundExchange/RIAA, guess who's gonna be paying Live365 the big bucks, plus a profit? I wonder if Live365's contract holds their clients liable for the higher fees retroactive to January 1, 2006. If it doesn't, Live365 could go belly-up over this.

Stations will pass the new $500 per year minimum to SoundExchange/RIAA with an AQH audience above 5 listeners. That's right - FIVE AQH LISTENERS. That's for 2006. By 2010, it will drop to less than 2.5 AQH listeners. The only broadcasters who can now afford to stream are those with a handful of listeners or stations/groups with very deep pockets.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Live365 does not guarantee that every reporting requirement is met. They only encourage broadcasters to fillin the ID3 tag--which is NOT the only information required under the SoundExchange-CRB rules effective January 1, 2007.

The broadcaster is still responsible for the reporting, and Live 365's contract does not maintain they are liable in place of the broadcaster.

 

[board_manager]

Several posts have been relocated to Take It Outside

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,65739.msg466095.html#msg466095

 

[MarvinMiles]

All over-the-air signals have been subject to internet streaming licensing and royalty requirements for years.

the change came just this past January 1, 2007. For the past year plus, the Copyright Royalty Board and its agent, SoundExchange, have been crafting a revision of the licensing fee and reporting requirements for all streaming audio platforms.

Basic BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. licensing fees for your over the air broadcasts do NOT immediately apply for internet broadcasting as well.

As it was, since the old agreement by CRB expired at the end of 2005, they extended that agreement through 2006 until a new plan could be implemented. That plan was finalized by October 2006 and went into effect on January 1, 2007, with its terms retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The major change was not only a substantial licensing fee increase plus a per performance/per stream fee, but also a requirement that every reportable performance be digitally catalogued with 10 pieces of information, including title, artist, label, composer, and special codes for the digital maintenance of the files. All of this information must be submitted electronically and digitally to SoundExchange.

But, the biggest rub came from the absolutely unconscionable agreement SoundExchange made with the major commercial broadcasters, which permitted a yearly fee in lieu of the massive reporting requirements (not that Clear Channel or CBS couldn't meet them anyway). This agreement for a lump sum was NOT extended or offered to smaller broadcasters, nor was any arrangement made with and/or for the benefit of non-commercial broadcasters. They get a (modest) break on the licensing fee, but the massive, laborious, and burdensome reporting requirements remain. Most non-comms subjected to the requirements are school or community stations, run by volunteers, and do not have the capital or labor to catalogue their music library according to the CRB requirements.

It's a shame that the NAB lobbied SoundExchange and the CRB only on behalf of the commercial broadcasters and not ALL over-the-air broadcasters. But, then again, what do you expect from the same organization that forgets that anything under 92.1 MHz or under Class B exists for anything other than translators.

Now did you really think the government was going to let us little guys run our own internet stations without the big boys stepping on us.

Typical good old American Greed at work.