Will internet station royalty fees be going up big time in 2016?

[TheBigA]

Sorry but my wife and I both think it's very practical. When you have to live on a limited budget, then you'll understand that.

I'm not the guy you have to convince. The people you have to convince are the recording artists, musicians, and song writers who make the music you love. They're the ones who get paid by this royalty. As I said, the royalty is not based on ability to pay. So unless you can convince the musicians you love that they need to change their system of royalties, it's very unlikely that "pay what you can afford" will happen. They believe that making music is a job not a charity. They will tell you that the majority of the musicians, especially those who make music for a smaller fan base, do not make a lot of money. If you love music that's not getting played on broadcast radio, they also live on a limited budget. They have testified in front of Congress that they make less than minimum wage, and have no health benefits. So if you enjoy their work, they want you to pay for it. That's not too much to ask.

 

[Music Lover]

If you love music that's not getting played on broadcast radio, they also live on a limited budget.

The music my hubby and I like doesn't get played on broadcast radio because a) of the genres the artists perform and b) because they are not US artists. Many of them are famous in their specific genres and are millionaires. This is where we checked that information out: http://www.celebritynetworth.com

The US artists that we do like have retired off the current music scene and many of them became millionaires during their careers as well.

Neither my hubby nor I consider being a millionaire to be a struggling artist.

 

[davideduardo]

The music my hubby and I like doesn't get played on broadcast radio because a) of the genres the artists perform and b) because they are not US artists. The most famous of them are millionaires.

The US artists that we do like have retired off the current music scene and many of them are millionaires as well.

For every artist that is big enough to command top billings and a hundred grand a show there are dozens who have had hits but not enough of them or not big enough ones to get the big money at the box office. The money is in touring, not record sales. And only the biggest artists make "millions" and keep it.

That's why you see many of the bigger names of the 60's and 70's playing indian gaming casinos when they are in their 60's and older. They are not millionaires.

I'll betcha that most of the "millionaires" you are thinking of are nowhere as rich as you think they are. And in any case, being rich is not a criteria for airplay in the US.

I find it strange you would not at least name a half dozen examples of the rich and famous who don't get played in the US.

 

[Music Lover]

Here's artists that my wife and I like:

Katherine Jenkins - net worth - 21 million
Ronan Keating - net worth - 25 million
Susan Boyle - net worth - 35 million
Jackie Evancho - net worth - 2.5 million - US artist but genre affects her airplay
Josh Groban - net worth - 30 million - US artist but haven't heard him on radio as much as we used to
Michael Buble - net worth - 40 million - US artist but haven't heard him on radio as much as we used to
Idina Menzel - net worth - 10 million - US artist but genre affects her airplay

The site has no info for:
Il Divo
Celtic Woman
Mario Frangoulis
The Canadian Tenors (now re-named The Tenors)
Bond (they're an instrumental group)
Mary-Jess Leaverland
Il Volo
Faryl Smith
Chris Mann
Escala
Mark Masri
Ramin Karimloo

 

[K.M. Richards]

It must be some kind of indicator of something I can't quite get my head around, but the only two artists on that list who I've ever heard of are Susan Boyle and Michael Buble, and I've never heard anything they've recorded.

 

[TheBigA]

Neither my hubby nor I consider being a millionaire to be a struggling artist.

Regardless, the radio stations you listen to are required by law to pay royalties on that music. THEY are the ones paying so you can enjoy it. And THEY have no choice. A lot of these people running these radio stations are living on limited budgets. Some operate these radio stations in their homes. Don't you think they deserve to be compensated for providing you some enjoyment?

 

[K.M. Richards]

Regardless, the radio stations you listen to are required by law to pay royalties on that music. THEY are the ones paying so you can enjoy it. And THEY have no choice.

In other words, TANSTAAFL.

(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)

 

[Music Lover]

Timothy here briefly before my family heads out to our local discount movie theater.

Free streaming is not just limited to radio stations. Many indie artists stream free music on their websites and Myspace, SoundCloud and other social media. They even put out free singles of the week to download on iTunes.

Technology is what’s moved people away from owning and they know that it's better to embrace it. It seems to me that the majors are stuck in the past, while indies are embracing the future.

http://musically.com/2015/04/09/streaming-music-changed-indie-label-strategies/

http://thehub.musiciansfriend.com/bits/indie-artists-labels-what-it-takes-to-play-today

 

[TheBigA]

It seems to me that the majors are stuck in the past, while indies are embracing the future.

Maybe....but all musicians, regardless of label, demand and expect this federally-imposed digital streaming royalty, and the indie artists are more vocal about increasing it. They're the ones testifying in Congress. You may not see or hear what they're saying, but they're not happy about what technology has done.

BTW, the artists who stream music for free on their sites or other places are still responsible for paying royalties. Just because they perform the music doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of paying. If you ask them about it, they'll say they consider the free downloads and streams to be a free sample, which they hope will translate into actual sales or tickets to shows.

 

[Music Lover]

Like my hubby, I'm checking in briefly.

My hubby and I keep up with news about American Idol, The Voice, X-Factor. Many of those contestants have indie careers. Based upon news about them, it's clear that anti-streaming is not unanimous.

 

[TheBigA]

Based upon news about them, it's clear that anti-streaming is not unanimous.

This thread isn't about "anti-streaming." It's about royalty fees going up for streamers. Those royalties will increase regardless of what artists say publicly. Someone will have to pay those increased royalties.

 

[K.M. Richards]

My hubby and I keep up with news about American Idol, The Voice, X-Factor.

If you are as truly concerned about the availability of music via streaming as your posts indicate, your news focus needs to be not on the television programs you list but on Congress' negotiating the new terms of the royalty payments. Whatever is decided on Capitol Hill will determine the financial viability of providing those streams at little or no cost to you.

As TheBigA said, for every stream someone will have to pay whatever royalties are set by federal law. The artists don't even have a say in that, so relying on them as your reassurance that the status quo will prevail is like relying on a Life Savers™ candy instead of a life preserver when you're drowning.

Any stream owner -- be it station-connected or privately operated -- will be on the hook for whatever royalties are legally demanded of them. If it's someone providing the stream as a hobby, you can bet they'll just pull the plug. Others will have to start charging for access (no more "pay what you want" donation business model), and a lot of small market stations will discontinue their streams as well.

At that point, I'm afraid your opinions on the subject will be rendered moot by actual events.

 

[Music Lover]

Timothy here. It's inevitable that the public will just find another way to listen to stuff for free and it won't even be legal ways.

Also, don't lecture me nor my wife about what news we need to follow and not follow. We make up our own minds about that.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Also, don't lecture me nor my wife about what news we need to follow and not follow. We make up our own minds about that.

Please note that my statement on what news to follow was phrased as advice, not as a "lecture". That's why the sentence started with "if".

Believe me, if I'm lecturing, you'll know from my syntax.

 

[TheBigA]

It's inevitable that the public will just find another way to listen to stuff for free and it won't even be legal ways.

Real lovers don't steal from the ones they love.

 

[Music Lover]

Timothy here. It's inevitable that the public will just find another way to listen to stuff for free and it won't even be legal ways.

He's exactly right. When tapes came along, people would make mix tapes of songs off of radio. When CD's came along, people would make copies for friends or family. That kind of thing has been going for years. The only change is the medium used.

 

[TheBigA]

When CD's came along, people would make copies for friends or family. That kind of thing has been going for years. The only change is the medium used.

The difference is that SOMEONE bought the original at some point. Today, it's not just making copies, it's basically stealing the original.

So in order to make up for no one buying music any more, the artists and songwriters are going to the government to increase the streaming royalties. That's what this thread is about. So if they get what they want, the online radio stations will have to pay more to play music, which will make it impossible for them to offer the music you enjoy for free. As we've said, these are government imposed royalties, and they must be paid. The rate charge will take effect next year.

 

[K.M. Richards]

So in order to make up for no one buying music any more, the artists and songwriters are going to the government to increase the streaming royalties. That's what this thread is about. So if they get what they want, the online radio stations will have to pay more to play music, which will make it impossible for them to offer the music you enjoy for free. As we've said, these are government imposed royalties, and they must be paid. The rate charge will take effect next year.

You're wasting your time now, A. Music Lover and Timothy are in obvious denial over the whole idea and will not see that we were right until it happens. <sarcasm>The Internet is free!</sarcasm>

 

[Music Lover]

Timothy here. This guy hits the nail on the head. Music labels are out of touch with the average consumer. http://www.markramseymedia.com/2015/03/music-labels-dont-understand-the-real-value-of-music/

 

[TheBigA]

Timothy here. This guy hits the nail on the head:

You're welcome to agree with whoever you want. But Mark Ramsey is not a musician or a songwriter. He's a radio consultant. He tells radio stations what to do and play. If he's so right, then why can't you find what you like on broadcast radio? Maybe you should ask Mark that question.

The bottom line is this: If no one wants to pay for music, and the whole business is built on free, then no one will be able to make a living as a musician or songwriter. They'll go into other lines of work where they can make money. That's what they're telling Congress, and why it's likely that royalty rates for internet radio will increase next year. Those money has to come from some place, or else there will be no music to listen to.

One idea that the music industry has discussed is a music surcharge on your internet bill. That way, you'd pay for your music listening, and it wouldn't be an additional bill. But the internet providers don't want to get into the collection business for the music industry, and they don't want to be blamed for price increases due to music streaming. But clearly something has to change, because we can't expect musicians and songwriters to work for free while everyone else makes money.