True. My YouTube suggestions today include an hour of Art Roberts on WLS Chicago from April 1967. Low audio quality, full songs, and only 650 views (651 now, lol) since it was posted in October 2022. The user's library is full of similar items with low viewership. A 1968 half-hour of WABC's Dan Ingram has 119 views in six months online, despite containing such big hits as "Woman Woman" and "I Second That Emotion" in glorious over-the-air AM audio!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Streaming Costs Going Up in 2024
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
YouTube pays digital royalties for music.
However, I was led to believe that YouTube has a policy against posting music radio shows on its site.
Sites that have deep playlists pay the same rate as other sites. However the more popular the site, the higher the rate.
So the cost isn't based on the number of songs, but number of users.
I understand the fee schedule, but an established streaming site like radioparadise.com by no means is getting the same bang for the per-play buck as Spotify, which tailors the playlist to what a listener either inputs or based on their habits.
RP is more like a typical AAA radio station with an eclectic playlist that plays in (relative) realtime, so tune-out has to be a factor. In other words; a streamer like RP is playing deep cuts which cost them the same as more popular songs. At the end of the day, that has to be a factor in revenue to expense.
Spotify pays a higher rate. On-Demand listening is higher than curated listening.
Because RP's listener base is smaller than a site that only plays hits, its rates are lower.
Also RP is based on global listening, not like a typical local AAA radio station.
A policy it must enforce only when someone asks it to, based on the sheer volume of radio shows posted on that platform, including many full concerts. Here are a couple:
Steve Goodman, WXRT:
Bon Jovi, SiriusXM:
The Band, syndicated:
It's still the Wild West out there!
All of those are illegal. The poster doesn't own any rights to those concerts or those radio shows. Call the internet police.
I saw a thread here about a guy who sells old Casey Kasem shows. What he's doing is illegal. He doesn't own those shows or the music in those shows. All illegal. The law is that you can have music or radio shows in your own private personal collection. You can't broadcast them to the world.
Sure, but that means streamers like RP also need to pay European and Asian rights fees and taxes. I don't see how tracking and paying out rights fees based on the geographical location of listeners adds to the sustainability of the service:
EU Parliament Calls for Major Overhaul to Boost Streaming Pay for Music Creators
The proposal calls on the industry to explore “fairer models of streaming revenue allocation” for artists, including pro-rata and user-centric models “or totally new ones.”
www.billboard.com
They've been doing it for 20 years. They somehow figured it out.
I don't know that the fees are based only on geographical location. The number of listeners is also a factor.
If as in the link I posted, the U.K. is going to add an additional tax to streamers, there sure is.
This is the same hoo-ha I hear from musicians here too.
The rate isn't a problem for the musicians who make popular music. If they keep making user royalties too high, they will kill the golden goose.
Seems like everyone these days is trying to push the limits on cashing in on streaming royalties, including governments who want to get into the game through taxes.
When record labels sold physical product, they set the prices. Now that they don't, they don't know the real value of what they do.
The hardest part of running a business is setting the price. You want to make the most, but you don't want to price yourself out of business. So when the Parliament discusses this, both sides will testify.
The "real value" is probably yet to be determined. Right now the idea of sites being 'too big to fail' (Spotify, Pandora, etc.) is a factor standing in the way of determining the full market value of streamed music, i.e., just how much the music consumer is willing to pay for it to cover the actual costs. The average consumer is probably not paying fully for what they are getting -- not like the CD sales and MP3 sales days. Unless "Free" is the new "Pay".
The average music consumer is getting their music for free, which is a big difference from when they bought physical product. The only place where the consumer directly pays for music is in the live concert business.
There is no such rule. It's more like, "it's illegal and very, very bad to upload copyrighted material without permission... but if you happen to do so despite our stern warning, we'll look the other way, because the copyright owners make money by running ads on your video, and we get a cut of that revenue, too."
There are some artists who are steadfastly against allowing their music to be posted online, and will file copyright takedowns against anyone they catch doing it. Roger Hodgson of Supertramp and Don Henley of the Eagles, for example. But they are getting fewer and fewer, as they either die off, or sell the rights to their music.
The first 20 minutes of that WLS aircheck I mentioned earlier contained only the fade of the Beatles' "Hello Goodbye" between two complete songs by other artists. Whoever edited that aircheck must have known exactly what material was likely to be flagged.
Last edited:
And other such artists, like the Hendrix estate, got smart, and now tons of Jimi Hendrix former bootlegs and other Hendrix recordings are officially on YT, and making the estate some money in the process.
Or likely the video did get blocked, in which case YouTube offers you the ability to mute or remove the part of the video that caused the copyright block.
I’m gen z. I’m one of the few who will say it, but I’ll say it anyway. I hate streaming. I see no advantage whatsoever in having to pay for a myriad of subscription services just to watch a few limited shows or games that I want to watch. I’d much rather have a regular old cable subscription. Yeah, it’s not cheap, but I find that most of the content I want to watch is readily available. And there’s no hidden fee.
I'm kind of in between. I like streaming, especially the free channels like Pluto TV, but there are some channels that don't have a streaming option for the full channel without having it through either cable, satellite, or a streaming package. The two main channels I'd like to get through streaming are TCM and ESPN during college football season. ESPN is planning for that in the near future. I'd like to get the Watch TCM streaming app by itself but it isn't available without a cable subscription. So I'm holding on to a small cable package because of that.
Last edited:
- Status