Radio says goodbye to Streaming

[XRQKFM]

Perhaps all of this, is the reason XM/Sirius started charging last week to listen to their stations online. Formerly free, now $3/month. To sweeten the deal, they claim they will feed at a higher bit rate.

XM justified the last rate increase from $9.95 to $12.95 to cover the streaming; which at the time was an additional fee. Your old XM radio paper weight, has been brought back to life for a short time with a 12 channel preview.

We solved the outrageous RIAA & Sound Exchange fees a long time ago by going all Indie artist; outstanding talent without the financial drain or mega ego's! The greedy foreign owned record companies are digging their own grave.



Steve
www.radiooutlaw.com
The All Indie Artist Station

 

[TheBigA]

We solved the outrageous RIAA & Sound Exchange fees a long time ago by going all Indie artist; outstanding talent without the financial drain or mega ego's! The greedy foreign owned record companies are digging their own grave.

You're still liable for royalties unless every artist signs a waiver. When Clear Channel attempted to do that, they got attacked by the Future of Music Coalition.

 

[Zeb Norris]

As noted by other posters, AFTRA's insane fees make it unfeasable to stream the ads. Without the ads, the stream doesn't add to ratings. So from my perspective pulling the plug on the stream would be painless. Not only is the stream not my core business, it is a money loser. Fergedaboudit.

Even if we could simulcast, the stream would contribute very little to our ratings.

 

[davideduardo]

We solved the outrageous RIAA & Sound Exchange fees a long time ago by going all Indie artist; outstanding talent without the financial drain or mega ego's! The greedy foreign owned record companies are digging their own grave.

You're still liable for royalties unless every artist signs a waiver. When Clear Channel attempted to do that, they got attacked by the Future of Music Coalition.

Beyond that, adult formats are not purely current based, and depend on familiarity to function. Most familair music comes under the RIAA affiliated labels.

 

[wgliradio]

But radio needs to seriously organize, not like they have in the past. They let Cquam die, they are at best half-hearted with HD and many were late to the game the first time with streaming and didn't protect content like MLB rights.

 

[Carmine5]

Streams of radio stations used to be 100% simulcasts of the on-air signal.

Yes before METALLICA started thier crap and ended thingsas we had enjoyed them

Exactly. An over-the-hill band's parting fart to an industry that has helped them. Unfortunately, nobody is allowed to leave the room if they want to stay in the game.

At some point all parties, the RIAA/SoundEx, AFTRA and radio (in all forms), are going to have to sit down and work this out if anyone is going to have any stake in an online future. Certainly Congress has been asking for this from the radio and record industries. Only a lawyer can love the contractual shenanigans we currently deal with. This model is broken.

The RIAA and AFTRA, especially, are going to have stop the blind greed, put aside their collective egos, end the pissing contest and get real. With a little cooperation, a little long term thinking (instead of the quick fix), everyone can make money here and serve their audiences.

On a different note: Is Nielsen treating online streams which block AFTRA ads in the same way that Arbitron does?

C5

 

[TheBigA]

The RIAA and AFTRA, especially, are going to have stop the blind greed, put aside their collective egos, end the pissing contest and get real. With a little cooperation, a little long term thinking (instead of the quick fix), everyone can make money here and serve their audiences.

To be honest, the RIAA has no reason to compromise. They have the law on their side here. It's up to radio to push them to the table in some way. I know of only two things that would work: (1) All of radio banding together and dropping their digital services of all kinds, and (2) All of radio banding together and creating some form of content that could replace copyrighted music. In either case, it takes a united radio industry.

As I've said, this is all simply a prelude to what will happen if the RIAA is successful in bringing their royalty to on-air radio.

 

[Nate Wesley]

I also don't agree with this view. Because it puts ISPs and broadband providers in the power situation. They become the new Clear Channel. Why would companies that already own access to the public want to be dependent on outside companies. It's like cable radio.

I believe that the companies that own the internet (Verizon, Sprint, Comcast, etc) will become as hated as the companies that own broadcast (if they haven't already) for exactly the same reasons. At some point, people will have to decide between the nickle and dime fees imposed by ISPs vs. free over-the-air radio. Comcast is already charging for broadband usage. Right now, it's a generous allowance, and few reach the threshhold for an additional charge. But they could drop that threshold and anyone who streams video will get hit with a surcharge.

That's when radio as a transmission system will be revived.

Preach. There's still going to be a public need that can probably be filled with the lowliest AM daytimer or graveyard signal, and with no data charges--plenty appreciable in the event of an emergency.

 

[Nate Wesley]

You're still liable for royalties unless every artist signs a waiver. When Clear Channel attempted to do that, they got attacked by the Future of Music Coalition.

I believe WFMU Radio in New York is working a solution (with artist cooperation) for non-commerical broadcasters with their Free Music Archive:

http://www.freemusicarchive.org/prelaunch/about/

 

[nmoore6676]

Anybody here old enough to remember Payola? Record companies, artist and promotions people paying popular DJs and stations to play their records. In the movie and book "Coal Miner's Daughter" Loretta Lynn and her husband drove across the country stopping at every radio station they found with her first record. That wasn't at all unusual in the old days for new artists in all genres. Those people wanted on the radio to drive sales of their recordings.

I think the biggest problem with the shrinking economy is that as revenues dry up the bean counters always start looking for new streams. I suspect there is a fair amount of illegal sharing over the internet and pirating however that isn't the only cause of sagging sales for recorded music. However if their music isn't heard anywhere there will be even less sales. I think that most people who are fans of any performer or band would buy their recordings as a means of support. However if they shut off radio and somehow the internet then who will know what is out there?

 

[davideduardo]

On a different note: Is Nielsen treating online streams which block AFTRA ads in the same way that Arbitron does?

If identified, yes. That is because ratings are intented to serve advertisers, and showing streams that don't carry the spots amalgamated with the air signal results in overcharging. But, as in the diary, unless the listener identifies source, it defaults to the air signal... this is pretty much a PPM issue.

 

[vsa]

Heavily condensed From Tom Taylor, here at Radio-Info:

"It finally happened in PPM – the stream for New York’s Fresh beat its broadcast signal in one demo.” That demo was women 18-34...the latest New York results for February [week 3] ...show the stream for WWFS [102.7] was #4 with women 18-34. That was ahead of...WWFS-FM’s own broadcast signal...with 18-34 adults, the Fresh Internet stream was a 3.2 and the over-the-air Fresh had a 3.0 share....Putting together the 3.0 and the 3.2 would make WWFS something like #4 with 18-34 men and women..."

We can thank the NAB for giving away the streaming royalty store to the RIAA back in 1996 through 1998 as they were obsessed with getting consolidation passed so public companies could go on a spending spree. Radio lost the future in 1998 with the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Tragic.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio lost the future in 1998 with the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Tragic.

I don't know if you've read that Act, but I have, and I think there are grounds to challenge recent applications of that Act based on its original intent.

Keep in mind that in 1998, the RIAA had sought to impose its Performance Royalty on terrestrial radio. That's the same royalty they're fighting for now. This Digital act was a way to keep the wolf from entering the henhouse. They're still trying. But this has nothing to do with ownership deregulation. That was done long before this battle began.

 

[vsa]

Radio lost the future in 1998 with the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Tragic.

I don't know if you've read that Act, but I have, and I think there are grounds to challenge recent applications of that Act based on its original intent.

Keep in mind that in 1998, the RIAA had sought to impose its Performance Royalty on terrestrial radio. That's the same royalty they're fighting for now. This Digital act was a way to keep the wolf from entering the henhouse. They're still trying. But this has nothing to do with ownership deregulation. That was done long before this battle began.

The NAB's attention was on deregulation. They failed to lift a finger to stop the DMCA's passage in 1998. They quietly cheered on its passage thinking future Internet competion would be killed. Huge mistake.

The original rationale for Internet streaming royalties was purely because the streams were allegedly perfect digital copies of the music that could easily be pirated. The whole rationale needs to be revisited and undone for the crock that it is.

 

[TheBigA]

They failed to lift a finger to stop the DMCA's passage in 1998. They quietly cheered on its passage thinking future Internet competion would be killed. Huge mistake.

Keep in mind that there were no digital broadcasters who were members of the NAB in 1998. I doubt there are any now. A membership organization responds to its members. Most of its members at the time didn't even have web pages, much less digital streams. Don't blame the NAB. Blame the lack of foresight by its members.

The REAL crime was the deal the NAB made with SoundExchange two weeks ago that increased royalty rates to as much as 30% of revenues in five years. That is what this thread is about. And I expect some stations to drop out of the NAB because of that terrible deal.

 

[davideduardo]

Heavily condensed From Tom Taylor, here at Radio-Info:

"It finally happened in PPM – the stream for New York’s Fresh beat its broadcast signal in one demo.” That demo was women 18-34...the latest New York results for February [week 3] ...show the stream for WWFS [102.7] was #4 with women 18-34. That was ahead of...WWFS-FM’s own broadcast signal...with 18-34 adults, the Fresh Internet stream was a 3.2 and the over-the-air Fresh had a 3.0 share....Putting together the 3.0 and the 3.2 would make WWFS something like #4 with 18-34 men and women..."

We can thank the NAB for giving away the streaming royalty store to the RIAA back in 1996 through 1998 as they were obsessed with getting consolidation passed so public companies could go on a spending spree. Radio lost the future in 1998 with the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Tragic.

What you are seing is how one or two PPM devices can distort the ratings when there is abnormally high usage. The Fresh stream jumped out of nowhere to a double digit share in Women 18-34 for the third week of the February measurement period. It had shown up with ratings in that demo just three weeks ago after more than 20 weeks of no ratings at all... zips. And then, in the most recent week, over a 10 share in middays.

If anyone thinks that is real or representave of anything, I would have to ask them what they were smoking. It's a couple of new panelists, likely in a single household.

This is like KTDD in Riverside / San Bernardino, an AM with 5 kw days and 500 watts night at 1350 which went into the top 5 in the market from having had 0.1 shares for 6 months... including a #1 in the market 7 share for nights... on a 500 watt AM in a market that is geographically enormous.... one of the larger ones in the US.

Using the streaming nonsense from PPM does not help your case... it likely negates it.

 

[Carmine5]

The RIAA and AFTRA, especially, are going to have stop the blind greed, put aside their collective egos, end the pissing contest and get real. With a little cooperation, a little long term thinking (instead of the quick fix), everyone can make money here and serve their audiences.

To be honest, the RIAA has no reason to compromise. They have the law on their side here.

And how often has their been a conflict between what's legal vs. what makes sense?

One of the objectives of net radio's Day of Silence last year was to show the RIAA just what a day without streaming would look like to the record industry's bottom line. The RIAA can have the CRB rates in its pocket, but if it doesn't make sense economically for a station to stream its content, no amount of law is going to prevent that station from taking it down. Thankfully, there is nothing illegal about that course of action.

It's time once again for the record industry to feel the effects of its greed. Apparently, they didn't learn their lesson last year. What Jerry Lee is doing and whoever else is joining him is a good start. But we need a concerted effort from the entire industry over a prolonged period--with or without the NAB's support--for it to be effective. Maybe, just maybe, the record industry will then get a clue.

C5

 

[bossbill]

We're in a small unrated market in Washington State. We have just cancelled our NAB membership and have made the decision not to stream any music. Only our news/talk AM is streaming.

Streaming is affordable to many now simply because the listener count is low. The concept of paying royalties based on the number of listeners we have is not something I can buy into. And their is no incentive to acquire listeners if we have to pay something like $150 or more per year per listener. It's a no-win. And almost as bad as the Federal Income Tax.

 

[Silkie]

Radio lost the future in 1998 with the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Tragic.

I don't know if you've read that Act, but I have, and I think there are grounds to challenge recent applications of that Act based on its original intent.

Keep in mind that in 1998, the RIAA had sought to impose its Performance Royalty on terrestrial radio. That's the same royalty they're fighting for now. This Digital act was a way to keep the wolf from entering the henhouse. They're still trying. But this has nothing to do with ownership deregulation. That was done long before this battle began.

Give them an inch and they go for the yard, turning liberty into licentiousness.

 

[willcail]

I've have an iPod Touch and uses various applications to stream out of market and in market webstreams. This is one way I'm cutting back on my electricity usage by using the iPod Touch WI FI to connect to my AirPort (router) and leave my TV and Mac Mini off.