Some peoples predictions

[R.F. Burns]

There are those who see a great new world of Internet broadcasting which will put everyone on an level playing field. For those who think that the future is bright and we'll soon be able to listen to radio from around the world in our cars, think again. I tried to listen to a few UK internet streams this evening and apparently you can't outside of the UK. Here's what you see;

"Apologies

Our streaming services are only available to listeners in the United Kingdom


Due to a new licencing agreement which came into effect on April 1st between commercial radio companies in the UK and PPL, the body which licences the broadcast of recorded material in the UK, we no longer hold a licence to broadcast in any format outside of the United Kingdom. We have to take reasonable steps to ensure that our services are made unavailable to listeners from outside the UK or face royalty demands from other licencing bodies around the world.

We are disappointed that this action has been taken but recognise the concerns raised by the licencing bodies and so are complying with the order.

Again, we apologise for the inconvenience this has caused.

Some UK-based AOL customers may experience difficulties. Please contact us via the website for further information"


More and more international radio may be a thing of the past. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[PocketRadio]

"Report: Online Radio Rules Are Broken, Here's How Congress Can Fix Them"

"The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released a report that takes the Copyright Royalty Board to task for implementing a royalty system that overwhelmingly benefits terrestrial radio stations to the detriment of online radio stations, many of which could go out of business on July 15th if the new rates are not altered soon. Here's a summary of the thirteen-page report (full PDF), along with excerpts from its three recommendations to Congress... The emergence of digital terrestrial radio (HD radio), and its continued exemption from paying sound recording performance royalties, further illustrates the irrationality of this exemption."

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/05/report_copyrigh.html

Maybe, HD Radio will have to pay, too.

 

[R.F. Burns]

"Report: Online Radio Rules Are Broken, Here's How Congress Can Fix Them"

"The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released a report that takes the Copyright Royalty Board to task for implementing a royalty system that overwhelmingly benefits terrestrial radio stations to the detriment of online radio stations, many of which could go out of business on July 15th if the new rates are not altered soon. Here's a summary of the thirteen-page report (full PDF), along with excerpts from its three recommendations to Congress... The emergence of digital terrestrial radio (HD radio), and its continued exemption from paying sound recording performance royalties, further illustrates the irrationality of this exemption."

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/05/report_copyrigh.html

Maybe, HD Radio will have to pay, too.

It already does. It's radio. radio sattions pay music licensing and have for years. It doesn't matter if the music is on AM or FM or what have you. Radio already pays its music licensing bills. What this means is that because the internet is international they will have to pay rights to every country that receives it's audio.

 

[dbdigital]

There are those who see a great new world of Internet broadcasting which will put everyone on an level playing field. For those who think that the future is bright and we'll soon be able to listen to radio from around the world in our cars, think again. I tried to listen to a few UK internet streams this evening and apparently you can't outside of the UK. Here's what you see;

"Apologies

Our streaming services are only available to listeners in the United Kingdom


Due to a new licencing agreement which came into effect on April 1st between commercial radio companies in the UK and PPL, the body which licences the broadcast of recorded material in the UK, we no longer hold a licence to broadcast in any format outside of the United Kingdom. We have to take reasonable steps to ensure that our services are made unavailable to listeners from outside the UK or face royalty demands from other licencing bodies around the world.

We are disappointed that this action has been taken but recognise the concerns raised by the licencing bodies and so are complying with the order.

Again, we apologise for the inconvenience this has caused.

Some UK-based AOL customers may experience difficulties. Please contact us via the website for further information"


More and more international radio may be a thing of the past. Enjoy it while you can.

And you criticise PocketRadio for being desperate. You're really grasping at straws on this issue.

It simply comes down to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry not having a mechanism for collecting cross-border royalties which means that, at present, webcasters in other countries can't legally stream outside their borders. The IFPI is already working on a solution to correct this and allow cross-border streaming:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070427.html

But it has nothing to do with the health of web radio in this country and as we all know only too well, nothing stays the same.

By contrast some people don't think terrestrial broadcasters are paying enough royalties:

"Groups Increase Push For Performance Right
Recording Academy, RIAA, others send letter to Congress"

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

Be afraid, be very afraid.

db

 

[R.F. Burns]

There are those who see a great new world of Internet broadcasting which will put everyone on an level playing field. For those who think that the future is bright and we'll soon be able to listen to radio from around the world in our cars, think again. I tried to listen to a few UK internet streams this evening and apparently you can't outside of the UK. Here's what you see;

"Apologies

Our streaming services are only available to listeners in the United Kingdom


Due to a new licencing agreement which came into effect on April 1st between commercial radio companies in the UK and PPL, the body which licences the broadcast of recorded material in the UK, we no longer hold a licence to broadcast in any format outside of the United Kingdom. We have to take reasonable steps to ensure that our services are made unavailable to listeners from outside the UK or face royalty demands from other licencing bodies around the world.

We are disappointed that this action has been taken but recognise the concerns raised by the licencing bodies and so are complying with the order.

Again, we apologise for the inconvenience this has caused.

Some UK-based AOL customers may experience difficulties. Please contact us via the website for further information"


More and more international radio may be a thing of the past. Enjoy it while you can.

And you criticise PocketRadio for being desperate. You're really grasping at straws on this issue.

It simply comes down to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry not having a mechanism for collecting cross-border royalties which means that, at present, webcasters in other countries can't legally stream outside their borders. The IFPI is already working on a solution to correct this and allow cross-border streaming:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070427.html

But it has nothing to do with the health of web radio in this country and as we all know only too well, nothing stays the same.

By contrast some people don't think terrestrial broadcasters are paying enough royalties:

"Groups Increase Push For Performance Right
Recording Academy, RIAA, others send letter to Congress"

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

Be afraid, be very afraid.

db

Grasping at straws? All I did was paste comments from a British radio stations site. As of this date they do not provide streaming audio outside of the UK. How is that grasping at straws? You anti IBOC people talk about the world 10 or 20 years from now. IBOC is here today.

 

[Mike Walker]

Everyone who actually follows technology knows that internet raido in this country is in potential peril because increased licensing fees could put virtually every "webcaster" out of business.

Most of us believed the result of this would be that webcasting would simply move to other countries, and that much would still be available. The reaon RF's link is so important is that it indicates that it's at least conceivable that webcasting could be threatened EVERYWHERE. It's pretty ominous, and has many of us who webcast wondering if it's about time to pull the plug.

 

[dbdigital]

Everyone who actually follows technology knows that internet raido in this country is in potential peril because increased licensing fees could put virtually every "webcaster" out of business.

Most of us believed the result of this would be that webcasting would simply move to other countries, and that much would still be available. The reaon RF's link is so important is that it indicates that it's at least conceivable that webcasting could be threatened EVERYWHERE. It's pretty ominous, and has many of us who webcast wondering if it's about time to pull the plug.

I hardly think so given that there is movement both here in the House and Congress and abroad to resolve the royalty fees roadblock. As I said nothing stays the same; what looks ominous now for web radio may not next year. Conversely what looks secure now may not be next year, namely that terrestrial broadcasters may eventually be faced with paying performance royalties, something they have not been required to pay.

I find it both amusing and obvious that when the NAB argues against this proposal they fail to mention HD-Radio, that the digital streams from this technology are of equal or higher quality to web and satellite radio and that the issue regarding the DRM flag for IBOC was never resolved.

After all, it was concern over these very issues by the RIAA and other organizations that started this whole mess.

db

 

[R.F. Burns]

Everyone who actually follows technology knows that internet raido in this country is in potential peril because increased licensing fees could put virtually every "webcaster" out of business.

Most of us believed the result of this would be that webcasting would simply move to other countries, and that much would still be available. The reaon RF's link is so important is that it indicates that it's at least conceivable that webcasting could be threatened EVERYWHERE. It's pretty ominous, and has many of us who webcast wondering if it's about time to pull the plug.

I hardly think so given that there is movement both here in the House and Congress and abroad to resolve the royalty fees roadblock. As I said nothing stays the same; what looks ominous now for web radio may not next year. Conversely what looks secure now may not be next year, namely that terrestrial broadcasters may eventually be faced with paying performance royalties, something they have not been required to pay.

I find it both amusing and obvious that when the NAB argues against this proposal they fail to mention HD-Radio, that the digital streams from this technology are of equal or higher quality to web and satellite radio and that the issue regarding the DRM flag for IBOC was never resolved.

After all, it was concern over these very issues by the RIAA and other organizations that started this whole mess.

db

HD is just another method of broadcasting. Internet streaming isn't. The typical AM and FM station in the US are not international by nature. The internet knows no boundries. You can imagine any outcome you want. Of course if costs go up for radio stations while it would cut into the bottom line it would be nowhere near the problem for traditional broadcasters as it would be for small webcasters. In othere words it wouldn't put radio out of business.

 

[dbdigital]

Everyone who actually follows technology knows that internet raido in this country is in potential peril because increased licensing fees could put virtually every "webcaster" out of business.

Most of us believed the result of this would be that webcasting would simply move to other countries, and that much would still be available. The reaon RF's link is so important is that it indicates that it's at least conceivable that webcasting could be threatened EVERYWHERE. It's pretty ominous, and has many of us who webcast wondering if it's about time to pull the plug.

I hardly think so given that there is movement both here in the House and Congress and abroad to resolve the royalty fees roadblock. As I said nothing stays the same; what looks ominous now for web radio may not next year. Conversely what looks secure now may not be next year, namely that terrestrial broadcasters may eventually be faced with paying performance royalties, something they have not been required to pay.

I find it both amusing and obvious that when the NAB argues against this proposal they fail to mention HD-Radio, that the digital streams from this technology are of equal or higher quality to web and satellite radio and that the issue regarding the DRM flag for IBOC was never resolved.

After all, it was concern over these very issues by the RIAA and other organizations that started this whole mess.

db

HD is just another method of broadcasting. Internet streaming isn't. The typical AM and FM station in the US are not international by nature. The internet knows no boundries. You can imagine any outcome you want. Of course if costs go up for radio stations while it would cut into the bottom line it would be nowhere near the problem for traditional broadcasters as it would be for small webcasters. In othere words it wouldn't put radio out of business.

Well, given that one of broadcasting's definitions is "to spread over a wide area" (Webster's), web radio can certainly be called broadcasting.

But to paraphrase Mark Twain: 'the reports of internet radio's death are greatly exaggerated.' With so many in Congress supporting bill H.R. 2060 there is a more than a very good chance that webcasting will continue as is and grow. In fact this is just the beginning. The CRB's decision has opened up a discussion on a range of issues surrounding royalties and 'fair use'.

Hey, it might even benefit terrestrial broadcasters.

db

 

[Mike Walker]

There is "movement in both the house and the congress"? I think the word you're searching for is SENATE, the other house of congress. Movement doesn't mean that it (reform) will happen. The record industry is a very powerful lobby, used to getting their way. For whatever (stupid) reason, they've decided that all new media is their "enemy". I read with sad amusement their proclaimation that satellite radio was offering "perfect digital copies" of music. Have they ever freakin' heard satellite radio? It often sounds pleasant, but sure as hell never sounds "perfect".

More outlets for music mean more ways to expose new music and artists to new audiences. How obvious can it be that this is GREAT for those selling music? It's a pretty tough competitive environment for stations, but just as with cable...after a half-century the big networks STILL dominate, so it will be with radio. MOST people will listen MOST OF THE TIME to terrestrial radio, analog or digital, but the new outlets will bring exposure to millions of fresh, new music. Multicast HD definitely fits in with this. It's just another way to offer something new and different. Let's not lose this moment. We need ALL new media, and we need to use it to enhance choice.

 

[dbdigital]

There is "movement in both the house and the congress"? I think the word you're searching for is SENATE, the other house of congress. Movement doesn't mean that it (reform) will happen. The record industry is a very powerful lobby, used to getting their way. For whatever (stupid) reason, they've decided that all new media is their "enemy". I read with sad amusement their proclaimation that satellite radio was offering "perfect digital copies" of music. Have they ever freakin' heard satellite radio? It often sounds pleasant, but sure as hell never sounds "perfect".

More outlets for music mean more ways to expose new music and artists to new audiences. How obvious can it be that this is GREAT for those selling music? It's a pretty tough competitive environment for stations, but just as with cable...after a half-century the big networks STILL dominate, so it will be with radio. MOST people will listen MOST OF THE TIME to terrestrial radio, analog or digital, but the new outlets will bring exposure to millions of fresh, new music. Multicast HD definitely fits in with this. It's just another way to offer something new and different. Let's not lose this moment. We need ALL new media, and we need to use it to enhance choice.

That's right, House and Senate. So much for my multitasking skills.

But that is how we need to see web radio vs. terrestrial radio. The one service augments the other.

We all know the problems inherent with IBOC and how they will have a devastating effect on stations that are low power, rimshot or short-spaced. In their case webcasting will play a major role in their survival. Everyone wins.

But no one wins if webcasting is snuffed out. Gloating over the possible demise of web radio is a wrong-headed attitude.

db

 

[radiopilot]

But that is how we need to see web radio vs. terrestrial radio. The one service augments the other.

db

One thing the FCC should have stepped into was PREVENTING terrestrial radio from getting into the webcasting or streaming of terrestrial radio into the internet, just as terrestrial radio cannot get into the satelite radio business, and the satelite radio XM & Sirius should have never been allowed webcasting their signal onto the internet either, these three entities should have never been allowed to co-mingle on the internet!

This was the main reason for the DRM flag as you mentioned.

Thsi surely then would have allowed the DRM & RIAA to set the proper rates and fees for webcasters, as such just as RFBurns indicated the terrestrial radio broadcasters will foot the bill nicely while the REAL webcasters many of them will be put out of business or severly hindered both financially and operability with the mandatory logging of hours played per listening hour.

Again the NAB put the screws into the competition!

Radiopilot

 

[davideduardo]

One thing the FCC should have stepped into was PREVENTING terrestrial radio from getting into the webcasting or streaming of terrestrial radio into the internet, just as terrestrial radio cannot get into the satelite radio business, and the satelite radio XM & Sirius should have never been allowed webcasting their signal onto the internet either, these three entities should have never been allowed to co-mingle on the internet!

The difference is that the web has essentially no cap on stations. Anyone can create a web stream while spectrum limits restrict the number of satellite broadcasters or AM and FM radio stations.

Anyone can start a newspaper... which is why there is no FNC (Federal Newspaper Commission).

Restricting radio companies from distributing their content would certainly bring up First Ammendment issues as well, as the Internet is an unregulated environment.

This was the main reason for the DRM flag as you mentioned.

DRM has to do with restricting the abilty to copy copyright material. It has nothing to do with the channel itself (except that it must be a digital channel).

Thsi surely then would have allowed the DRM & RIAA to set the proper rates and fees for webcasters, as such just as RFBurns indicated the terrestrial radio broadcasters will foot the bill nicely while the REAL webcasters many of them will be put out of business or severly hindered both financially and operability with the mandatory logging of hours played per listening hour.

The streaming fees are the same for all. Radio stations that can not monetize streaming via ad sales will not be streaming, particularly because streams do not add listeners to the ratings of the terrestrial stations that originate the stream.

 

[davideduardo]

We all know the problems inherent with IBOC and how they will have a devastating effect on stations that are low power, rimshot or short-spaced. In their case webcasting will play a major role in their survival. Everyone wins.

Listening to a wb stream does not add to the radio station's ratings... in many cases, it reduces them. Because so few streams are 100% identical to the radio station programming, Arbitron does not add the listening to streams to the local ratings of streamed stations unless they are 100% identical (which, at stations that have any agency business, is essentially never).

 

[PocketRadio]

"The Battle is Joined on the Performance Royalty for Over the Air Broadcasting"

"Two letters in one week indicate that this summer may be a hot one for broadcasters on Capitol Hill... The royalty being discussed would be one new to broadcast radio in the United States, but one well known to non-broadcast digital music providers such as Internet radio – as it is the same royalty that has been the subject of so much controversy since the Copyright Royalty Board released its Internet radio royalty decision in early March... Recently, the radio industry has been fighting the perception that it is an industry with declining growth and increasing competition, leading some publicly owned radio companies into stock doldrums as investors seek sexier investments. If a performance royalty was added to the costs of operating terrestrial radio stations, what impact would that have on the performance of these companies?"

http://tinyurl.com/2voq72

It gets real hot here in Washington, D.C., during the Summer months - LOL !

 

[davideduardo]

"The Battle is Joined on the Performance Royalty for Over the Air Broadcasting"

This has nothing to do with streaming or HD or digital in general.