Should there be better regulation and enforcement of Internet Radio?

[oaktree]

There are thousands of Internet Radio streams. The exact number is unknown. Some say 10,000 webcasters, others say 40,000. Some say many are unlicensed (for ASCAP, BMI & SESAC) and others (like me) find the additional royalty problem with the CRB and Sound Exchange maddening.

Should Internet Radio be licensed at all for copyright protection through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC and Sound Exchange? Should it be enforced against those who don't license? Why aren't more licensed? What about the "must go through this portal" licensing such as Loud City, adding another step to the process of lisening to your stream? Problems with that?

What problems does this "industry" face outside of outrageous royalty fees?

What really works on Internet Radio, in your opinion?

 

[Shiny Knob]

What works for me is for the mother flogging record companies to send me a check for my promotion of their crap in the exact amount they expect from me for the "rights" to play their crap.

 

[4dude]

Excellent

 

[JbeJay]

What works for me is for the mother flogging record companies to send me a check for my promotion of their crap in the exact amount they expect from me for the "rights" to play their crap.

Oh! Look! A flying pig!

 

[oaktree]

And donkeys, too... What will those poor people at ASCAP, BMI & SESAC who have been getting royalties forever by terrestrial broadcasters, as well as everyone else that plays music do?

Oh, that's right "We bought the CDs so we shouldn't have to do anything because we own it." Yeah, think again.

The labels have never been an issue before, and, in fact, have bypassed terrestrial radio for the promotion of their product, so, the point is not wasted.

It's the "other" licensing that I am asking about ... the "performing rights fees" to ASCAP, BMI & SESAC. If broadcasters pay those fees, should webcasters, also?

 

[ricoontheradio]

Yes, webcasters should pay licensing, but it should be based on revenues earned from their stream. Making it based on the # of listeners (like they're trying to do) isn't justified. If some station is getting an artist's music thousands of listens, but makes no money, then the artist just got tons of free promotion/exposure. If the station IS making money, then yes, they should share in that with the artists as the station is profiting from the performer's work.

 

[ASO]

What works for me is for the mother flogging record companies to send me a check for my promotion of their crap in the exact amount they expect from me for the "rights" to play their crap.

But they can survive without YOUR promotion - you can't survive as a mass-interest station playing non-copyrighted material. So who should pay who? They don't need you, you need them - sounds like a one-way street.

And the main recipient of the royalty payment is the artist, who is also trying to earn a living, as opposed to PROVIDING a living for you!

You wouldn't expect to be able to stream television shows or cinematic movies from your site, even if it's non-profit. Why should music be any different?

 

[vsa]

Oaktree wrote: "It's the "other" licensing that I am asking about ... the "performing rights fees" to ASCAP, BMI & SESAC.  If broadcasters pay those fees, should webcasters, also?"

On the air, broadcasters pay ASCAP, BMI and SESAC publisher/songwriter fees. Broadcasters pay no performance fees (to SoudExchange).

On the Internet, everyone pays ASCAP, BMI and SESAC publisher/songwriter fees. Everyone also pays performance fees (to SoudExchange).

There is no such thing as a "performance" fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. SoundExchange handles "performance fees.

 

[jcolletta275]

But they can survive without YOUR promotion...

Not for much longer they can't. Traditional radio is dead with my generation. My peers can't stand it anymore. They're all listening online, and that's the demographic the record companies are trying to sell to. If you're not promoting online today, you're dead in the water, and the record companies are trying to drown themselves faster than anyone I've ever seen before.

You wouldn't expect to be able to stream television shows or cinematic movies from your site...

Check Shoutcast TV. Plenty of people are doing it... legally.

 

[JbeJay]

Traditional radio is dead with my generation. My peers can't stand it anymore.

It is true that teen listening is down.

An interesting development, though, is that PUR's for 25-34 have increased slightly.

I guess not everyone's peers "can't stand it anymore".

Jay

 

[ASO]

But they can survive without YOUR promotion...

Not for much longer they can't. Traditional radio is dead with my generation. My peers can't stand it anymore. They're all listening online, and that's the demographic the record companies are trying to sell to. If you're not promoting online today, you're dead in the water, and the record companies are trying to drown themselves faster than anyone I've ever seen before.

You wouldn't expect to be able to stream television shows or cinematic movies from your site...

Check Shoutcast TV. Plenty of people are doing it... legally.

But why can't the Record Company start their OWN ONLINE stations? They have much more capital for promotion than you. They could certainly attract MORE listeners than your site - again, what can you do for them that they can't do themselves? Terrestrial stations have gov't licenses, the labels don't have those. ANYONE can have a website, therefore, if it comes down to surviving online, they can survive playing THEIR own product on THEIR own internet radio stations. Again, you cannot!

How do you attract visitors to YOUR website? Do you even OWN a site, or is it a free angelfire site? How many hits per month do you get? Do you realize how many hits the labels get per month? They will not suffer without your support. If you are not getting a half million or more hits per month on your site, you are not even a blip on the label's screen.

Not arguing the principle of your complaint, simply stating the obvious.

And streaming television or cinematic movies from your site ... LEGALLY? That can only mean you are paying a performance or rights fees, otherwise, it's ILLEGAL!