The W
Views: 101437478
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 0826
The W - Current Events & Politics - Webcasting music getting much more costly
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.21
Pages: 1
(486 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.90

And many small webcasters will probably have to stop:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070304/223155.shtml

The per-play will also be charged retroactively to netcasters, so some will be in debt they never thought they'd have to face.

Originally found at Glenn Hauser's site:

www.worldofradio.com



As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.37
And this should be a surprise why?

The whole Wild West mentality of the internet was exciting but the reality is that it wouldn't last. And although it was great because of exposure etc. that opened up to indie people and the common Joe, it presents two problems. Artists have to eat and the amount of utter crap swamps the good. I wonder where this all ends up.



Perception is reality
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 508 days
Last activity: 469 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
I don't know how it's legal to charge them retroactively though.

Both the RIAA and MPAA are filled with idiots who keep attacking new technology, when embracing it could make everyone much more money.




Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    I don't know how it's legal to charge them retroactively though.

    Both the RIAA and MPAA are filled with idiots who keep attacking new technology, when embracing it could make everyone much more money.


The Copyright Royalty Board regulates can pretty much tell broadcasters to pay what they want them to pay for whatever period of time.

The RIAA and MPAA can't get away with this one their own. They have the help of the federal government, who also has no clue about what they're regulating (see also: Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens R-AK, or the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006).

The funny part is, this punishes stations for being too successful by PROMOTING the very music that's now financially choking the stations.

Not too mention, if you're a regular radio station that also webcasts, you have to play royalties twice for the same content - ASCAP and BMI royalties for your regular station, and the new SoundExchange rates.







"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 163 days
Last activity: 3 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by Leroy
    Not too mention, if you're a regular radio station that also webcasts, you have to play royalties twice for the same content - ASCAP and BMI royalties for your regular station, and the new SoundExchange rates.

It's slightly different than that. 'Regular' (terrestial) radio stations only pay composer royalties. Net radio stations have to pay performance royalties in addition to composer royalties. This was established in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (from 1998). So, music labels benefit (in terms of free publicity) from terrestial radio stations but not Internet stations? Interesting logic. And, logic that could not have come from anyone who actually buys music.

Here's a site (http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml) that crunches some numbers and finds that the performance royalty fees for 2006 (before the fees escalate) would exceed total revenues for the web stations. And, this excludes the composer royalties or any other costs.

Lastly, I think the RIAA is being unbelievably obtuse and is damaging themselves. I can't remember the last time I bought music because of what I heard on the radio. But, I buy things all the time I've heard streamed on an Internet radio station. You can't beat the ability of the web stations to customize a playlist, and I buy more music now because I hear more stuff I like. Also, when I hear a song I like, I can immediately click and find out the song/artist/album, be directed to a site to listen to other samples, buy their music, etc.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.37
I agree that ASCAP & BMI may be short sighted butlook at it from an artists view. How much money has been lost with every advent of new technology. I remember when cassettes came out and there was a similar hue and cry but things eventually settled out. What bothers me is how many think it is their right to steal (and that is the right word) the work of artists. Not saying you all do but part of loving an artist should be supporting them financially.



Perception is reality
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 508 days
Last activity: 469 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
Unfortunately, most of the money online goes to the record companies and not the artists.

This blog entry does the math, and says that Weird Al Yankovic receives $.31 per song if you buy his CD (The W at Amazon) on Amazon, but $.045 per song through iTunes. Apple gets somewhere between $.15 and $.30 for each sale, and the rest goes to the record labels.

The only artists who stand to lose are the very highest selling (the Metallicas of the music industry). For those who are trying to work their way up, or who have fallen back down, free music = free exposure, and free exposure is a good thing.

Take Jonathan Coulton. He has no record label. You can listen to all of (and download a good portion of) his songs for free on his website. All his songs are released under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license, which means that anyone can use his songs in any way as long as they provide attribution, are used for non-commercial purposes, and release the new content under the same license. Results: Hundreds of videos on YouTube, many of them fan-created music videos. A rabid fan base, who take it upon themselves to promote him (myself included). And he's doing fine financially, making more money through $1 downloads of DRM-free music that he already let you listen to, donations, and touring than "real" bands like the Dresden Dolls. He's coming to Wisconsin in May, and even though the tickets are $40 per person (a portion of the money is going to charity), I'd sell my right arm (disclaimer: I am left handed) to be there.

Or take Janis Ian. She wrote an article telling how she thought free downloads could be good for business.
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
She put her money where here mouth was, put some free mp3s on her website, and merchandise sales went up 300%. Giving the people something for free is not a bad thing. Free downloads = increased exposure = more opportunities for people to buy things.

Basically, I'm saying music should be sold like crack: The first taste is free, then make your profit when they get addicted.

And if supporting a band means paying $18 so that they can get $4, then you might have to count me out. I adore certain musicians. I've got no love for the middle-men who attach themselves barnacle-style every step along the way. I'd rather download it with my favorite p2p client and send $10 to the artist directly.




Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I agree that ASCAP & BMI may be short sighted butlook at it from an artists view. How much money has been lost with every advent of new technology. I remember when cassettes came out and there was a similar hue and cry but things eventually settled out. What bothers me is how many think it is their right to steal (and that is the right word) the work of artists. Not saying you all do but part of loving an artist should be supporting them financially.


The RIAA doesn't represent every artists - it mostly represents artists who are signed to major labels (and some smaller labels too). Some artists would even agree that the RIAA is more of problem than an advocate.

The business model that the RIAA is trying to keep in place is a dead one. They can require DRM all they want, unencrypted formats are what people want. I stopped purchasing music at iTunes for that very reason, because my main tower at home runs Linux, and there's no way to play iTunes purchased music in a Linux machine. I went to eMusic - that's the format I'll financially support.

Back to the webcasting issue....

I am the Chief Engineer at a community radio station (this isn't totally my area, but I do deal with some of this). Our station is sent CDs by record labels, and then the record label's A&R reps will call us station asking how certain albums are charted, when they were added, how much rotation they got, what charts got sent to the College Music Journal, etc. Some reps will actually asks to play an album during a very specific period of time : "We want X album to be added March 12 and to chart for March 19." If you don't report what your station is playing, then labels have no reason to send you music.

If I am a radio station that is also webcasting, I now have to pay twice to play an album that the label ASKS me to play. So I am paying royalties twice to an industry that WANTS me to play their music.

It's like a reverse payola.





"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Thread rated: 6.21
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Because I'm The Taxman
Next thread: Funny Benny video
Previous thread: Bad Dentist!
(486 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Must have been a slow news day-- even though John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination like, three months ago, Ron Paul has just now officially announced that he is dropping out of contention for the honor, and will focus his time on his new organi...
The W - Current Events & Politics - Webcasting music getting much more costlyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.126 seconds.