|
INTERNET RADIO WILL DIE, HELP SAVE IT! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| deltablues2 |
I am a former broadcaster on Live365. I ran my own retro station for several years and recently closed it, in part, due to the potential crippling of the internet radio industry. It's a very real threat that will shut down most online radio if something isn't done. Normal radio stations don't have to pay these fees, of course, because they are PAID to play records. Otherwise known Payola.
I can understand that average music listeners likely don't know or don't care. They'll just do somewhere else for their generic music and stations that play the same crap over and over. But those of us who know music and care about it are hoping to keep something bad from happening that will silence one of the few refuges that true music lovers have left. |
|
|
| swisstoni_uk |
curious about something
how will a station that plays dj mixes non-stop be affected by the new legislation?
say for example, asot on di.fm, you can contact the 20 artists featured on the show, i doubt any of them will be arsed about royalties from getting a track promoted, is mike foyle gonna get a cheque in the post for $1 because 567 listeners heard his track on asot last week? :D
so just who are the music/radio authorities championing here?
i can understand the situation where webstations play the latest chart hits by beyonce and co... but dj mixes seem a different matter. |
|
|
| flavdave |
| quote: | Originally posted by deltablues2
I am a former broadcaster on Live365. I ran my own retro station for several years and recently closed it, in part, due to the potential crippling of the internet radio industry. It's a very real threat that will shut down most online radio if something isn't done. Normal radio stations don't have to pay these fees, of course, because they are PAID to play records. Otherwise known Payola.
I can understand that average music listeners likely don't know or don't care. They'll just do somewhere else for their generic music and stations that play the same crap over and over. But those of us who know music and care about it are hoping to keep something bad from happening that will silence one of the few refuges that true music lovers have left. |
If you are talking about AM/FM stations, they have to pay fees to the FCC and organizations such as ASCAP/BMI. It's easy for them to afford these fees because they get most of their money from advertisers. They don't get paid to play records, at least they shouldn't because it's illegal. |
|
|
| Ojay |
| quote: | Originally posted by swisstoni_uk
curious about something
how will a station that plays dj mixes non-stop be affected by the new legislation?
i can understand the situation where webstations play the latest chart hits by beyonce and co... but dj mixes seem a different matter. |
You are right as it seems. Check the DI.fm calendar, they are heavily adding shows at the moment - no sign of retirement and-the-like.
I think we will see a DJ-set only DI.fm in the future (with a few exceptions maybe)... |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ojay
You are right as it seems. Check the DI.fm calendar, they are heavily adding shows at the moment - no sign of retirement and-the-like.
I think we will see a DJ-set only DI.fm in the future (with a few exceptions maybe)... |
Umm, don't go thinking they wont still have to pay royalties. |
|
|
| A.B |
| Too much of the same generic crap doing the rounds on internet radio anyway. |
|
|
| bilkin |
More than 200 Internet-based radio stations have shut down because of a royalty fee that
takes effect in September, and more are closing daily.And I want also to appeal to Copyright
Royalty Board for not doing like this. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Congress and SoundExchange have heard loud and clear the amazing outpouring of support for Internet radio from webcasters, listeners and the thousands of artists they support. A commitment has been made to negotiate reasonable royalties, recognizing the industry’s long-term value and its still-developing revenue potential.
During negotiations SoundExchange committed temporarily not to enforce the new royalty rates so webcasters can stay online as new rates are agreed upon.
This development is due in great part to the millions of people who have let their Congressional representatives know about their support of Internet radio. Over 125 representatives have cosponsored the bill to this point.
We urge listeners to continue calling their Senators and Representative to ask them to co-sponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act. Thank you. |
http://www.savenetradio.org/
| quote: | | In an interview with RAIN last night, Simson explained, "For the people who want to comply with the law and are in bona fide negotiations with us, we don't want those people to be intimidated. And we don't want them to stop streaming." Simson qualified his statement by noting, "That's just so long as they're continuing to pay under the license they had." |
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/n...307/index.shtml
Score one for the net radio fans. :) |
|
|
| TigerClaw |
Things are getting a little crazy. It appears that SoundExchange wants Internet Radio to adopt DRM in exchange for a better rate. This acording to arstechnica.com
| quote: | DiMA: SoundExchange is leveraging absurd fees to push DRM on web radio
By Ken Fisher | Published: July 19, 2007 - 01:08PM CT
Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the July 15 deadline for webcasters to start paying new royalty rates and per-station fees was temporarily put on hold for all but the largest webcasters. The eleventh-hour deal from SoundExchange at first appeared to be the breakthrough that was needed to keep Internet radio alive and kicking, but as we reported, the deal was a bit of a Trojan horse: SoundExchange wants webcasters to adopt Digital Rights Management (DRM) in exchange for better rates.
While the sources I talked to about the deal clearly saw the writing on the wall, the Digital Media Association (DiMA) understood SoundExchange to be asking for something far less: cooperation in investigating the impact of streamripping, but no requirement to commit to any particular solution. Now that they've come to realize that SoundExchange is only interested in pushing DRM, DiMA says that SoundExchange is fronting a bad deal. That signals rough waters ahead, as DiMA represents some big hitters in webcasting, including Live365, Napster, Pandora Media, and Yahoo. DiMA says that the DRM requirement was not discussed at the roundtable last week.
Jonathan Potter, executive director of DiMA, said in a statement that SoundExchange is leveraging high royalty rates to push DRM. "DiMA and our members are happy to cooperate on issues of common interest even if outside the scope of the CRB decision, but SoundExchange has demanded enforceable technology mandates that are unreasonable, unworkable, and way off-topic," he said.
"They seek to leverage this absurd fee to impose mandates that they have unsuccessfully sought elsewhere," he added. Potter characterized the developments as a "disappointing turn after what we thought had been a very productive roundtable."
Potter's reference to mandates unsuccessfully sought elsewhere can only be a reference to the PERFORM Act, ill-fated legislation aimed at both implementing a broadcast flag for radio and forcing the use of DRM for all streaming media services, whether online, on cable, or through satellite radio and TV.
The original bill died in committee last year, but it was one of the first pieces of legislation resurrected at the beginning of the 110th Congress this year. The new legislation was billed by its backers as being more palatable since it would permit the recording of content by station or time, while making the disaggregation of music illegal. In other words, you can record "X103" from 3:00-4:00pm, but the use of technical means to disaggregate that recording into individual songs for playback later would be illegal. The bill has languished and doesn't look likely to go anywhere.
Under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, consumers have the right to make noncommercial analog and digital copies of broadcasts. It's hard not to agree with Potter's take: having failed to push any of this legislation through, the next best thing for the music industry would be to force the issue via contractual deals.
DiMA says that it is prepared to convene working groups to talk about such technical measures but that it believes that such "off-topic" matters should be divorced from the issue of royalties and fees.
Update: SoundExchange has responded to DiMA's statement, and the war of words is escalating. SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson lambasted what he calls the "Digital Media Association's (DiMA) pattern of misinformation, mischaracterization and political maneuvering ," but he failed to address any of the concerns about DRM. Instead, Simson only talked about SoundExchange's user reporting requirements, which clearly are not anyone's primary concern.
At this stage, the two groups are carrying out a semi-public battle over the proposed settlement, but neither one of them are putting their finger on the issue explicitly. SoundExchange won't simply come out and say "we are asking for DRM" in plain English, and DiMA hasn't detailed what SoundExchange actually asked for at last week's roundtable.
Update 2: Anne Broache over at CNet has more details on the dust-up between SoundExchange and DiMA, particularly starting before DiMA's latest statement. I recommend checking it out.
As it turns out, there was bickering between the two parties on Monday when SoundExchange executive director John Simson said (in the first of two instances) that DiMA was mischaracterizing SoundExchange's offer, which Simson said included an agreement "to implement technology related to streamripping... provided such technology is feasible and is available on reasonable terms." SoundExchange's position on the matter is that DiMA is engaging in political posturing, but as we've seen, DiMA says the same thing about SoundExchange.
Gee, and I thought everyone in the business world loved DRM because it's such an enabler. Turns out, it's a hot potato. |
|
|
|
| mndeg |
| internet radio stations will be going offshore for sure |
|
|
| llavoe |
| Internet radio is not going anywhere, it's just going to be structured differently. By that I mean that the US is going to it all up... |
|
|
|
|
