• 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

WJCU Website says "audiostream is temporarily off"

K

kirkiefan

Guest
This is a creative station with a huge following.... Support John Carroll Univeristy's homegrown radio by speaking out for their cause.....it is unfair for a college station to pay "through the roof" fees to keep its audiostream on. This station is doing something corporate radio refuses to do...obviously the big guys in the music and radio biz wants WJCU out of their hair!

Knowledge(and creativity and diversity) IS power!
 
It's not just WJCU--WSTB and WZIP also were forced by circumstances to shut their streams.

The problem is with SoundExchange, which wants to impose onerous and, frankly, unattainable reporting and cataloguing requirements on non-comm broadcasters--most of whom are small volunteer/public-community operations or affiliated with educational institutions, along with a per user/per stream/per song fee (i.e., if you play one song over 25 streams to users, you owe on that song to those streams--and you are required to track that usage and report it).

Guess what? The commercial broadcasters don't have the same reporting requirements, and even if they did, they could afford teh time, money, and manpower to catalogue and report these streams. But the NAB was able to lobby on behalf of the comms with SoundExchange, and the commercial operators pay a flat fee, regardless of the number of streams, users, or songs played.

Even going through a stream oepration like Live365 does not take the onus off of the non-comm to report--Live365 is making no reference to the new reporting requirements as part of a license there. Thus, a station could STILL be charged for songs streamed over a Live365 stream.

One more thing: these reporting and cataloguing requirements go back to January 2006--even though it was under the old agreement, the SoundExchange deal apparently also requires back-dated logs.

It's way too onerous a burden on most stations--and you can thank, in part, the NAB's failure to lobby on behalf of ALL broadcasters, but instead just for the ones with money. Nice, huh?
 
Not trying to start a argument here but internet only web casters have these same reporting requirements (reporting artist title album and other info) so why should AM/FM stations be exempt from this? Not saying any of what sx is doing is fair but I dont see why AM/FM stations should get a break on something that internet only broadcasters have been doing for years.
 
One reason they should be exempt: BMI and ASCAP reports for over-the-air broadcasts.

But since Jan 1 of this year, SoundExchange has required even more information for web streamers--even more than before, and retroactive to Jan 1, 2006 (the rules of the Copyright Board are dated October 6, 2006). The information is far beyond merely artist, title, label and the requirements of the past. It also requires a digital database, searchable and submitted by SoundExchange, plus the fee. These cataloguing requirements are far beyond that done for over-the-air broadcasts--and cannot be remedied by licensing through Live365 or other streaming portals.

And that's not the only thing--the rates charged are contingent upon all of that above information, whereas before, there was a flat fee for broadcast stations that streamed.

Now, I am more concerned with the fact that commercial broadcasters were able to get a set fee, while non-comms have been forced to comply with onerous reporting requirements while not being offered the same deal.

The new requirements for non-comms are as follows (from SoundExchange's website):

Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to the Copyright Act, all services are required to submit reports detailing the sound recordings transmitted by them. On October 6, 2006 the Copyright Royalty Board issued an Interim Final Rule establishing regulations on how statutory webcasters are to deliver reports of use to SoundExchange. See 71 Fed. Reg. 59010 (Oct.6, 2006); available at http://www.loc.gov/crb/fedreg/2006/71fr59010-9.pdf. The regulations require digital music services to provide SoundExchange with detailed reports on the use of sound recordings for two weeks every calendar quarter, retroactive to the 2nd quarter of 2004 (Apr-Jun). The reports of use are to include specific identifying information that will enable SoundExchange to distribute royalties to those copyright owners and performers entitled to such royalties. The information music services are required to report is as follows:

name of the service making transmissions;
identification of the transmission category from one of eleven choices;
name of the featured artist;
sound recording title;
album title and marketing label OR International Standard Recording Code ("ISRC"); and
aggregate tuning hours, channel or program name, and play frequency OR actual total performances.
These reports of use must be in a standardized, electronic format (ASCII), and may be delivered to SoundExchange via electronic mail (e-mail), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), CD-ROM, or floppy diskette. Hard copy reports of use are not permitted.

All eligible nonsubscription transmission services must provide reports of use as required in 37 C.F.R., Part 370. For SoundExchange's guide on how services should deliver Reports of Use of Sound Recordings, click here.

For a copy of the Microsoft Excel template to be used for creating a Report of Use, click here.

For examples on where you may locate the data elements identifying particular sound recordings required to be reported under Copyright Office regulations, click here.


Has your internet licensee provided you with these new rules? And are they requiring compliance?
 
I agree the fees for non-comm are not fair, its only hopeful that some of the lobbying and other things going on when everything shakes out will make the level more fair, but that's wishful thinking and right now there are a lot of unknowns.

It's amazing how instead of embracing technology everyone wants to run from it, look many years ago when the industry folks said "we will never allow anyone to sell digital music online"

regarding my licensing, I pay Loudcity and stream content to their licensed portal. They are aware of the new changes and and working with their contacts at the PROs (sx, ascap, bmi, sesac) etc to make sure their aware of all the latest changes.
 
I pay Loudcity and stream content to their licensed portal
Click to expand...

I assume then (and perhaps you also assume) that they are responsible for the reporting requirements? They submit the necessary digital forms, etc.?
 
Johnny Morgan said:
I pay Loudcity and stream content to their licensed portal
Click to expand...

I assume then (and perhaps you also assume) that they are responsible for the reporting requirements? They submit the necessary digital forms, etc.?
Click to expand...

They handle all the licensing, I stream as part of their portal, like those that provide content to live365.
 
But those that stream to Live 365 (as WSTB used to do) are still responsible for the new reporting requirements--Live365 isn't doing it for them, since Live365 isn't the source broadcast, and thus, wouldn't know what titles, artists, labels, cat. #, etc. are being sent through their system.

Does your streaming provider know that? Did they tell you that?
 
Johnny Morgan said:
But those that stream to Live 365 (as WSTB used to do) are still responsible for the new reporting requirements--Live365 isn't doing it for them, since Live365 isn't the source broadcast, and thus, wouldn't know what titles, artists, labels, cat. #, etc. are being sent through their system.

Does your streaming provider know that? Did they tell you that?
Click to expand...

I run a HOBBY internet station using licensing via Loud City its the same thing as personal broadcasting with live365, I am not a PRO, my licensing provider handles everything, I just stream them the music with the various info they require and they do the rest.

YES I am aware of the new requirements being put on non-com and other stations and the new rules in affect of web casters.

AM and FM stations that choose to stream via live365 are not under live365's blanket license thus they have to have their own license directly and report directly, us little hobby broadcasters online we are personal broadcasters making no money and we fall under the site's licensing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom