site Search:


 
   
story category
Internet Radio Stations React To New Royalty Scheme
New RIAA plan consumes most station's entire revenue stream...
by Karl Bode Monday 05-Mar-2007 tags: Radio · business · content
Tipped by johnt82 See Profile
The longstanding debate between webcasters and the RIAA really hasn't been a hot topic since 2002-2003, when the RIAA pushed hard for some significant royalties that threatened to put smaller operations out of business. Smaller outfits were able to negotiate a revenue percentage deal that kept them operational, but those deals have now expired, and the RIAA has been hard at work trying to get their original fee structure imposed.

As mentioned over the weekend, a controversial decision by the United States Copyright Royalty Board on Friday reheated the feud. The board rejected a myriad of proposals and arguments by webcasters, essentially rubber stamping a proposal by the RIAA's SoundExchange royalty organization. The RIAA's proposal imposes per play charges on webcasters retroactively to 2006, while increasing yearly. It breaks down as follows:
2006: $0.0008 per stream per user
2007: $.0011
2008: $.0014
2009: $.0018
2010: $.0019
So what's the problem? According to the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN), a typical Internet radio station plays about 16 songs an hour, meaning they now have a retroactive 2006 royalty obligation of roughly 1.28 cents per listener-hour. The group says total revenues per listener-hour for that typical webcaster would only be in the 1.0 to 1.2 cents per listener-hour range. That's before composer royalties.

Many Internet stations simply can no longer afford to exist, since royalty obligations will exceed total revenues -- leaving many stations wondering what happens next. RAIN cites the popular Pandora project as one example -- their owed royalties could easily exceed all of their recently acquired rounds of venture capital and all their sales revenues to date. Radio Paradise's Bill Goldsmith runs a small broadcast operation and voices his opinion over at his blog.

"I have watched the medium that I love turn from an essential part of the process of connecting those who love making music with those whose lives are touched by it into a mindless background hum of advertising and disposable musical sludge," he writes. "[The new rates are] a death sentence for all US-based independent webcasters like Radio Paradise, SOMA-FM, Digitally Imported, and many others."

"We’ve done everything right, we’ve paid all of our fees, and they are still coming at us like we’re pirates," says Ram Radio's Pam McClusky to BlogCritics. "As it stands right now, this effectively takes Ram Radio off the air."

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
page: 1 · 2

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

4 edits

United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

For those who have heard of the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress and their parts in copyright management, but have never heard of the United States Copyright Royalty Board, here is a link to their web site:
»www.loc.gov/crb/

Here are the 3 guys who make the decisions on royalty rates:
»www.loc.gov/crb/background/crb-judges.html

Here is the web page with links to written testimony that led up to this decision:
»www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/

Participants in the hearings that led to the decision:
»www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005···icipants
A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

I agree I never heard of it until now.

Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:10

United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

Why dont they just NOT TELL ANYONE THEY ARE STREAMING??

The RIAA sucks pond water!!!!!!

kyramilan

join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
TCH -Actually, they did. Internet Radio Stations did file objections.

You might want to ask the RIAA how that payola scheme went for record labels. I know the NY AG wasn't impressed. I think there were a lot of fines. I know some people were fired at radio stations over it.

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

said by kyramilan:

TCH -Actually, they did. Internet Radio Stations did file objections.
Then where is their filings at the Royalty Board web site?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

kyramilan

join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

Actually, the RIAA and Webcast Radio Stations were negotiating and it broke down. The RIAA clearly wants them out of business because they used to pay a percentage of their revenue (a logical solution).

This is from RAIN:

"The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has announced its decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange(a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)."

»www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/···ex.shtml

Why the arguments are not posted I don't know.

The funny part: Radio stations over the air are not affected since they are not streming. Now, that makes a lot of sense. Oh, wait, the RIAA's members own those mostly.

sirwoogie
Blah
Premium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI
quote:
A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year?

As stated in the various blogs and posts (omitted on BBR story post), the webcasters were present via their representative organizations (e.g. International Webcasting Association (»www.webcasters.org/), etc.). The recommendations and arguments made by those organizations were ignored.

Another good forum thread is over at RP:

»www.radioparadise.com/content.ph···&start=0

The blog post by Bill from RP has greater detail and links.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Romney2012:

...
A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year?
what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all.

This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation.

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

1 edit

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

said by nasadude:

what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all.

This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation.
The backgrounds of the 3 judges on the Royalty Board don't indicate a pro-business anti-consumer bias:
»www.loc.gov/crb/background/crb-judges.html
Mr. Sledge ... served twelve years on the Alabama State Council on the Arts, where he was chair for two years. Other arts jobs include service as a director on the regional Southern Arts Federation, representing Alabama, a director of the Alabama Symphony Orchestra and Alabama advocacy captain for Americans for the Arts.

Dr. Wisniewski ... has served as vice-chair of the certification and review committee and member of the governing board of Central Maryland Health Systems Agency; as a member of the Montgomery County Commission on Aging; as a member of 1999-2000 Governor’s Task Force on Regulatory Reform in the State of Maryland.

William J. Roberts has been appointed as a copyright royalty judge with expertise in copyright law. Mr. Roberts began his legal career in the Copyright Office in 1987. He was a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel attorney for the entire twelve-year history of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. Mr. Roberts is currently an adjunct faculty member at the George Mason University School of Law where he teaches copyright law.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

sirwoogie
Blah
Premium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??

I don't disagree that their background seems to favor being on the webcasters side. Those judges being as educated in economics, copyright law and artistic areas I find it hard to believe they came to this conclusion.

Something else stinks here.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ??


kyramilan

join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
said by nasadude:

said by Romney2012:

...
A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year?
what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all.

This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation.
Exactly!
markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO

Yawn, just start in other countries like most do already.

Stream from russia or some other nation don't have to worry. problem solved. I listen to most stations now that just rebroadcast songs from the USA stations now.

King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Vonage

Or just don't use RIAA branded music.

iChannelMusic.com plays only unsigned artists that aren't involved with the RIAA, and I'm pretty impressed with the bands they are playing. We have a link to their streaming player at our site too.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com
stevecraig

join:2006-12-05
Traverse City, MI

Re: Or just don't use RIAA branded music.

Hear Hear! Or hear there... or wherever...

studios and producers will get the message eventually... or RIAA will be the last ones left to "turn out the lights"

Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY

Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters

I guess RIAA wants to destroy smaller webcasters so only left will be large RIAA-partners like maybe iTunes. That way RIAA can control what's played and encourage specific tracks for users to buy, by for example, cutting them in half or interfering with messages, ads.

Now small webcasters promote less known music not heard on mainstream radio stations and offers HUGE variety and decent quality.

It's like radio and RIAA doesn't get it, they still think webcasts are threat to radio like mp3s to CDs even though older offers more flexibility.

If only DI.fm was offered on satellite radio, I would get it right now.
--
Semper Fi

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS

Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters

The RIAA could care less who is playing the music whether its a small time site or something like iTunes (although I don't beleive they stream, you get the idea). All they care about is getting their money. And because streaming doesn't get them nearly as much as you buying a CD, they don't like streaming.
--
Go Colts

Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY

Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters

I always thought that it is better to get paid less but by more sources than getting paid more from very limited sources. I guess they want people to force them into online music stores.
--
Semper Fi
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters

I agree with one modification -- I always thought it was good to get paid at all. If, as the Internet broadcasters claim, they go out of business, then the RIAA gets nothing. I guess they must assume the revenues will go elsewhere?

Does anyone know how the Internet broadcaster royalty structures compare to XM or Sirius? Both are commercial free and totally funded by subscribers, right? At $12/month, how much goes to the RIAA vs. songs played per month.

Does anyone know how much fees the Internet broadcasters are paying under the percentage of revenue rules? Perhaps the RIAA felt that the Internet broadcasters were not under any pressure to generate revenue without per song fees. For instance, even if a broadcaster has millions of listeners, if they are not generating sufficient advertising revenue, the RIAA may not be getting what it considers is a fair fee for that many listeners.

I'm certainly not defending the RIAA but if getting paid is better than not getting paid, they have to have some reason to charge fees that would put these stations out of business. Granted, there's always the cynical view that they want to drive the revenue elsewhere for a hidden agenda but I don't know enough yet to determine if that's a realistic argument.
pabster

join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
said by cdru:

The RIAA could care less who is playing the music whether its a small time site or something like iTunes (although I don't beleive they stream, you get the idea). All they care about is getting their money. And because streaming doesn't get them nearly as much as you buying a CD, they don't like streaming.
It's more than that. Streaming presents an opportunity for PIRACY! Those thieves!

This is typical RIAA at work. I guess enough cash flew under the table to bribe the necessary people, per usual.
AnonShawUser

join:2006-06-17
Calgary, AB

Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters

I haven't seen fit to download any music to save on my computer, since Winamp 5 was released and I discovered their online shoutcast media library feature.

Guess I'll have to go back to downloading my music the old fashioned way.
daslog

join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH

So what's the problem?

They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.

Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post?

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Re: So what's the problem?

said by daslog:

They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.

Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post?
If you read about monopolies and how they relate to destroying the theory of capitalism you will see why this should not be allowed.
Adam Smith is a good starting point to start reading.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide

»myspace.com/mlsquad
Carnivore

join:2003-01-06
said by daslog:

They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.

Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post?
daslog, nobody is looking for a way to pirate music here. Webcasters currently pay high rates for the rights to legally stream music. The RIAA and their copyright board just jacked those rates so high that it will now cost the webcasters more than twice as much in royalties to play those same songs as they can make in revenue. The copyright board has made their business model unsustainanble for all but the richest mega-corporations. This is RIAA greed to the max.

If anything the RIAA is encouraging piracy, because now the only way for these legitimate webcasters to stay in business now is to move offshore and skirt U.S. law.

idjk

@sprintlink.net
said by daslog:

They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.

So the power co. decided to raise your rates- would it be ok if they made it retroactive- after all they own the power?
Pearadio

join:2007-03-05
Fort Mill, SC

3 edits
You're 100% correct with that logic daslog.

That said, clearly this is the RIAA's twisted utopia and not beneficial to the general public good as spelled out in the core value of copyright law.

My overall feeling is that commercial entities (namely the Big 4 record labels) attempting to convert the Internet into a "viable cash cow" with this skewed decision consider the public trust nothing more than a line item on their balance sheets. We have the power to talk to one another like never before and the economic principle of demand has shaped itself into it's most literal form.

This new medium responds only to respect, not control. Armed with but a few basic Constitutional rights and a network, we ultimately have the power to shape today's market. You'd think by now most would be plugged in enough to adopt this as the new found conventional wisdom. Companies and organizations that wish to join us back at the bargaining table will prosper. Those that refuse will expire.

However dead on you are with your statement daslog, it's fairly evident you're really not as familiar with this matter as you should have been before your fired this misguided pirate analogy shot over the bow. And you're reminding us of kneejerk , "easy to post" abuses?

It won't, but should this decision result in killing off the small independent webcaster....do yourself a favor and bet your bottom dollar that the record industry's sales numbers will plummet to a point barely above Davey Jones locker.
tgilberg

join:2000-10-06
Norman, OK
Wow.

You're a real worthless git.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
said by daslog:

They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.

Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post?
Nah.... People SHOULD pirate it because anything that damages RIAA interests and works to deny them funding is the just and righteous thing to do. Why hand them the weapon they need to kill you with, eh?


--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD

Re: So what's the problem?

here, here!

Down with the RIAA!

To many artists have been screwed by this "association" of heathons and devil worshippers! Only Satan could come up with a retro-active money SCHEME like this...
DJC2006

join:2006-10-10
Goshen, NY

ummmm....

I said this to the last post about the RIAA and I'll say it again. FUCK YOU!

AnnaS8

join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD

Just the usual...

RIAA bending them over. Greedy bastards.

jwardl

join:2000-08-12
Spring, TX

SOP

Man, the RIAA is slowly digging their own grave -- they just don't see it yet.

Every radio (internet, satellite, or conventional) station playing a song amounts to an advertisement for the RIAA's products. Most producers of a product have to PAY OTHERS to get their product publicized.

I know a guy who invented a new water filtration system. Maybe he should produce an entertaining commercial, then charge TV and radio stations to air his ad. That way, he can't fail!

Sheesh -- even people who sell through mass marketers have to give away free samples.

Good going, RIAA. Drive your advertisers out of business by nickel and diming them to death, and keep blaming college students for your declining sales. Heck, extortion is much more profitable, anyway.

johnt82

join:2002-09-13
Richmond, VA

Think of schools....

A friend of mine who now works on air for Cox Radio used to be the program manager at a local college station. About 10 years ago they had almost shut down the station because of these fees. At the time something was worked out, to tell the truth - since it really didn't impact me at the time I didn't pay to much attention to what he was telling me. But now looking at this, it would seem to me that this might cause many schools to shut down their stations to aviod paying these higher royalties.

In the end this hurts everyone.
averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA

Re: Think of schools....

Now do you understand why so many Comm Colleges go "talk radio/news" or "sleepy time classical (semi/public domain)?
wev567

join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA
Anyone have a firm idea on how much a major market commercial station pays on average? At 1.2 cents per listener hour, figure 20,000 listeners on average in a typical top 20 market, the RIAA would take about $5500 a day. Does that sound right? Sounds too high for even a thriving, proven enterpise, let alone on where the revenue streams may be weak.
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Think of schools....

20,000? Think higher then that. Consider the Washington, DC Metro area during rush hour. Several Million people on the road trying to get home.
Another interesting note, Digitally Imported Radio, they post how many people are online at a given time and I've seen it upward of 60K. Now they have something like 10 or 12 streaming channels, but still.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time.

ScottFromWyoming

@bresnan.net
said by wev567:

Anyone have a firm idea on how much a major market commercial station pays on average? At 1.2 cents per listener hour, figure 20,000 listeners on average in a typical top 20 market, the RIAA would take about $5500 a day. Does that sound right? Sounds too high for even a thriving, proven enterpise, let alone on where the revenue streams may be weak.
Wrong! The answer is ZERO! This is a royalty that FM radio does not pay. ClearChannel, with all their stations and listeners, pays not one nickel. All radio stations, FM and internet, pay Composer royalties via ASCAP, BMI etc. But this ruling is about "Performance" royalties, supposedly shared with the bands. Everyone agrees it's a good idea, a band getting paid when a song of theirs is played, but traditional radio never has paid this royalty. Only internet radio has. But now RIAA seeks to impose huge increases (a 1000% increase or more) on Performance royalties on webcasts but still allow FM to not pay. It's all discussed in great depth on the RAIN site and at radioparadise.com.

Boricua65
Premium
join:2002-01-26
Sacto Sh*tty

1 edit

Keep on keeping on.

I just keep listening to songs I downloaded, and burned on a CD, on my 10-disc CD changer.

RIAA can kiss my dark Puerto Rican a33. They are nothing but a two-bit thug trying to get as much money as possible. "Damn, Guido, I taught I told you to take care of it?"

EDIT: for clarification.

Dagda1175

join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Charge them like a radio station

just make the same rules apply that always have for regular fm radio stations. i dont think a new system is needed.

Brazbit
Premium
join:2003-10-22
Port Orchard, WA

Re: Charge them like a radio station

Or charge the regular stations like they are charging these folks... You owe us $X for every radio receiver within range of your broadcast signal for every play of every song since they might tune in to your recklessly insecure signal. That would fly.
--
My train of thought wasn't so much derailed as it was a simple case of the track not being fully laid out when the train arrived.

NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS

join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL

Another example...

Of how America moves closer to being a communist country.

Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2

Re: Another example...

said by NowVOIP:

Of how America moves closer to being a communist country.
huh? WTF does anyone understand what "Communism" means??

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Re: Another example...

In my honest opinion you must live under communism to understand it.

The definition alone does not truly describe communism.

As the old saying goes "People don't know what they lost till its gone."
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves.
tgilberg

join:2000-10-06
Norman, OK

Re: Another example...

I'd certainly say you don't. Or rather, you're using the term "communism" to refer to something else entirely.

FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD

Re: Another example...

Cuban's, an I mean Cuban's as in those people living in CUBA, don't see anything wrong with a communist/socialist economy. heh.

TrueAudio
192khz
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Richmond, CA

Killing them softly

Seems to be these guys are just alienating themselves and the artists they promote/own from the direction that media and content is heading to in this Digital Age. But apparently they are only interested in short-term profit.

Solution: Don't play RIAA artists on your stations.

They must have A LOT of crazy bald heads working in that firm. No up and coming marketing Guy/Gal would be coming up with these wacky ideas, policies and procedures to lead the company forward.

Eh, what do i know though..
Dydion

join:2001-03-07
Baton Rouge, LA

Re: Killing them softly

So where is a list of non-RIAA musicians that we can listen to?

TrueAudio
192khz
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Richmond, CA

Re: Killing them softly

You can start here »www.riaaradar.com/

rf_engineer

join:2003-08-04
USA

Re: Killing them softly

Yeaahhhh! The Internet radio station I was working on that will play 24 hour Elliott Yamin and Harry Connick Jr. is RIAA-free

mrchris
Out and around
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Yet again RIAA

FUCK OFF.
brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
40303
kudos:1

hmm

RIAA killed the internet star.

If the RIAA charges all of them, then they won't have a constant source of income. They should charge them lass and let them regenerate their money and sue again. This is not logical

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Re: hmm

Get ready to pay for online radio with monthly subscription fees in a few months if there donation system simply does not work.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves.

DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Forestville, CA

1 edit

..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to..

When the recording industry finally allowed internet music stations back online a few years ago, they were saddled with several restrictions RF broadcasters weren't aren't and will never be stuck with. A few:

  • Artist and Album can only be announced/posted after the particular selection begins to play. No "Coming Up" tracklists.
  • A mandatory 60-minute delay shall be observed between taking a song request and playing it.
  • Four hours must elapse after playing one selection by any particular artist, before playing another by same.


I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what their "major malfunction" is; it's either: (1) Blood supply, and therefore oxygen, is being restricted to their collective brain via a spincter tightly clenched around their neck, or (2) Chronic constipation, caused by a lower intestinal blockage the size on an adult's crainum (!) Take your pick.

-NK

Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets?

N10Cities
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Lavaca, AR
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx

Re: ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to..

said by DOStradamus:

When the recording industry finally allowed internet music stations back online a few years ago, they were saddled with several restrictions RF broadcasters weren't aren't and will never be stuck with. A few:

  • Artist and Album can only be announced/posted after the particular selection begins to play. No "Coming Up" tracklists.
  • A mandatory 60-minute delay shall be observed between taking a song request and playing it.
  • Four hours must elapse after playing one selection by any particular artist, before playing another by same.


I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what their "major malfunction" is; it's either: (1) Blood supply, and therefore oxygen, is being restricted to their collective brain via a spincter tightly clenched around their neck, or (2) Chronic constipation, caused by a lower intestinal blockage the size on an adult's crainum (!) Take your pick.

-NK

Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets?
I can tell you what's wrong....they are scared someone is going to stream-rip the music. Once again, assuming everyone out there is a pirate...

DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Forestville, CA

Re: ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to..

said by N10Cities:

I can tell you what's wrong....they are scared someone is going to stream-rip the music. Once again, assuming everyone out there is a pirate...
You're exactly correct there, and remember please that "home taping" is explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Act as being "noninfringing" (legal). So, WTF is going on here? They just put "the camel's nose under the tent" towards eliminating the consumer's right to "fair use" of the content of audiovisual media he owns --

Sayeth I:
"The entertainment industry is dragging the public into a DRM-laden world, and the cynical bastards will not stop until we are charged a tidy sum each time we want to listen to/watch any song/movie that we might (only think we) have already purchased a copy thereof.
No more taping an album to listen to in your car on your way to work; you'll have to buy another copy for those environs. Worse yet, sell your car, buy a new one, and you won't be able to play it in your new car! Have a "favorite song"? Wear out the disk that it's on, and you'll equally wear out your MasterCard!
I'll add here, that the main reason Windows Vista runs so damn slow is that the Protected Mode Video Path and Protected User Mode Audio support processes are furiously doing their thing 24/7, akin to a rent-a-cop high on coffee and doughnuts!

Thank God I'm an oldster of 44 years, already have a sizeable collection of DRM-free content I can listen to or watch whereever and on whatever I darn please, and find that most of the entertainment content currently marketed at the public is pure crap. When I *do* need some new music to listen to, there's a good used-disc store in town that I can purchase some good ol' 20th-Century, DRM-free jazz and country to add to my rock-dominated collection.

-NK

ScottFromWyoming

@bresnan.net
said by DOStradamus:

Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets?
»www.soundexchange.com/

DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Forestville, CA

Re: ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to..

said by ScottFromWyoming :

»www.soundexchange.com/
.. is run by the RIAA!

ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

No more free ride

They already get a bunch of money off of ads. Click on the song being played you'll get directed to amazon or where ever to buy it.

See 8 replies to this post
JazzJRabbit

join:2003-09-27
Naperville, IL
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..

Hard to believe...

Here's a different link.

»www.save-internet-radio.com/2007···t-radio/

That's just fabulous. Charge rate per performance per customer, i.e. if you have one song playing and only one listener is listening to it you pay x amount of money, if you have 5 people listening to it you pay 5x amount. Wonderful. Not only that, to make up for 3% percent inflation raise rates at 25% per year. And to top an icing on the cake make sure rates apply retroactively back to 2006, so even if some station goes down under and closes its operation it still owes RIAA $112,000. WTF?

I mean, this is so amazing that I find it hard to believe.

TigerLord
Resident pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal
kudos:6

*Sight*

Well if all my revenue would be striped away by some lunatics I would react too.

Mospaw
What, too soon?
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1
Host:
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, and ..

Perhaps the stations can use "settlement-o-matic"

That's only $1,000.

It won't prevent them form going out of business, but it might bypass that asinine retroactive clause.

I used to get upset when I read stuff like this, but I'm come to realize that the RIAA is just digging their own grave a little faster.

TigerLord
Resident pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Acanac
Host:
International Broa..
Videotron

Re: Perhaps the stations can use "settlement-o-matic"

said by Mospaw:

I used to get upset when I read stuff like this, but I'm come to realize that the RIAA is just digging their own grave a little faster.
So wise... I can already read the tumbstone.

disconnected

@snet.net

First, the FCC, now the RIAA

First, it was the FCC that killed community radio.
The feds said "go and broadcast on the internet".
Now along comes the RIAA, making the internet inaccessible to community broadcasters again.
One tends to wonder if the NAB was quietly behind this coup.

Sunday, 03-Jun 17:21:27 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.