The end of internet radio in July?

[DToTheJ]

Only two are going silent: Greater Media and Cox.

I just pulled up the stream for Cox's WBAB/Long Island and I just heard a Pat Benatar song.

 

[4dude]

Ah man!!

 

[CrankyYankee]

Every post I have read about the "end of internet radio" has concerned itself with music streaming.

Can someone explain what, if anything, would be changed concerning news and talk stations?

Thank you.

 

[Walter Graff]

Every post I have read about the "end of internet radio" has concerned itself with music streaming.

Can someone explain what, if anything, would be changed concerning news and talk stations?

Thank you.

This is about music, and with that fees for playing music. I am in support of this. I do not want my music played for free. Artists create music and deserve to be compensated. The web has become a thieves paradise and if you want to play someones music you deserve to pay a fee. Now whether that fee is reasonable is another issue. I would imagine a proper fee schedule needs to be set up. I believe what they are asking for is reasonable based on listenership and narrow casting.

 

[BRUSSTAR]

Every post I have read about the "end of internet radio" has concerned itself with music streaming.

Can someone explain what, if anything, would be changed concerning news and talk stations?

Thank you.

Yankee, regardless of what happens with the "Internet Radio Equality Act", so-called "Internet radio" will NOT be coming to an end. Legal, RIAA-playing music channels may be much fewer in number, but the online audio station industry will not be going anywhere.

Quite frankly, I'm pretty tired of the misinformation being put out there by music streamers. I've been in support of them for the most part, but there's a LOT more to Internet-delivered audio stations than playing the same music terrestrial AM and FM stations have been forcefeeding the American public for years. I'm getting tired of my listeners and advertisers being told "Internet radio" will be ending on July 15th.

I run what is primarily a news/talk/sports audio station, and will be launching more in the future. Much of my roots are in music radio, as a terrestrial broadcaster and as someone who has been in the music business for most of his life. Obviously I don't want to see the ridiculous CRB ruling stand as law, because as Federal law, it's in my name as an American. And I do not believe those rates are even close to being "fair". (I also don't believe it's fair Clear Channel, CBS Radio, etc. should continue to get a Federally-sanctioned free ride when it comes to performance royalities when I have to pay out the buttocks, but that's another topic.)

I also, as a businessman, realize it's in my best interests to have RIAA-music readily accessible on Internet-delivered stations. The stronger "Internet radio" is, the stronger my channels (though much of the programming is spoken word) will be. In the '40s and '50s, the smartest TV broadcasters chose not to fight other stations' coming on the air. They knew the more stations on-air (within reason), the more TV sets likely to be sold. And the more sets sold, the more money advertisers would spend on their stations. Same thing here.

This is about music, and with that fees for playing music. I am in support of this. I do not want my music played for free. Artists create music and deserve to be compensated. The web has become a thieves paradise and if you want to play someones music you deserve to pay a fee. Now whether that fee is reasonable is another issue. I would imagine a proper fee schedule needs to be set up. I believe what they are asking for is reasonable based on listenership and narrow casting.

I hope Mr. Graff as a musician has one hell of a manager, because his last statement in the quote above shows he has no clue about how either business or the economy works.

Let's say I need a business to sell my stuff. I charge that business three dollars a widget knowing the most it'll be able to sell said widget for is a buck-fifty. The business says, "We love your product, and know we could sell millions, but your price is too high." I don't budge. The business either goes under, or, finds something else to sell. I now have nothing. Yeah, sounds good Mr. Graff.

It's hard to get your music out there, regardless of its quality, when no one can afford to play it. Then again, maybe Mr. Graff considers himself to be like those wacky 18th or 19th Century artists who kept their wonderful art hidden behind locked doors in order to deprive the world of their genius. I don't know. We'll see.

 

[smashedcd]

Every post I have read about the "end of internet radio" has concerned itself with music streaming.

Can someone explain what, if anything, would be changed concerning news and talk stations?

Thank you.

This is about music, and with that fees for playing music. I am in support of this. I do not want my music played for free. Artists create music and deserve to be compensated. The web has become a thieves paradise and if you want to play someones music you deserve to pay a fee. Now whether that fee is reasonable is another issue. I would imagine a proper fee schedule needs to be set up. I believe what they are asking for is reasonable based on listenership and narrow casting.

really?? then FM stations need to pay those same fees then!!

 

[BDBopper]

With the Day of Silence being held in the middle of the Immigration bill debate can I safely assume that no impact was felt at all and my station is boned? No offense...the Amnesty bill had to go but it seemed so unfortunately that the "Day of Silence" had t coincide with that debate. I am sure for every call and E-mail to Capitol Hill about the plight of Internet Radio on Tuesday, there were 50 calls/e-mails about the immigration bill.

 

[RadioMan203]

The very fact that I didn't see one mention on any of the mainstream network newscasts I watched makes it pretty clear on how this is perceived by the media at large. Add to this the fact that most radio stations didn't silence their online streams in spite of how the rate increases will affect them.

 

[Walter Graff]

The very fact that I didn't see one mention on any of the mainstream network newscasts I watched makes it pretty clear on how this is perceived by the media at large. Add to this the fact that most radio stations didn't silence their online streams in spite of how the rate increases will affect them.

I guess many of you don't get it. This is not about anything but mainstream radio eliminating any potential competition.The fees real radio would pay is nothing to them, but this will put all the little mom and pops out of business. Not that they have large audiences (hence why no news orgs care or would bother to do a story), but any audience not listening to old fashion radio is a threat and as a result this action is secretly made so old fashion radio losses the competition. Remember how real radio streaming went silent a while back over similar 'fees'. They now made a deal that gets rid of any outside internet entity through a sham of ridiculous retroactive fees. NAB lobbyists paid more than you or anyone could afford for this to happen, you just don't know that the big guys are behind it. It's the same crap they are trying to do to satellite through the NAB.

 

[BDBopper]

Was this apart of NAB's strategy to doom the XM/Sirius merger because it is easier to debunk the Satcasters argument that there is a ton of competition with the Internet Stations run out of business?

 

[4dude]

This is about music, and with that fees for playing music. I am in support of this. I do not want my music played for free.

Your insane....... Lets see what you say when you have to pay to use your analog radio!!!

 

[oaktree]

"This is about music, and with that fees for playing music. I am in support of this. I do not want my music played for free."

Then, possibly, Mr. Graff (and I would like to know what music you are involved that we might know of,) I might suggest that you not be in the music "business" because without promotion (which YOU pay for,) you shouldn't expect those promoting your product to pay "exhorbitantly" so that you can make a living when they can't.

I mean, if you don't feel the need to promote your product, why, then, have one in the first place?

Why not negotiate your "payment" with those who directly "buy" your product, such as labels, artists, publishers, etc?

You've discovered the newest RIAA wrinkle of a "cash cow" and you want your due...without paying yours. Writing a song doesn't mean the world owes you a living. Having a song performed entitles you to something, certainly. But as an artist, to think that you deserve more than what "deal" you make with your "promoter" ... that's wrong.

How would you like to pay every radio station (if you could) to play your product? They deserve to make money, too ... just as you do. Gauging them in not the way to bite the hand that feeds you.