|
DI.FM in trouble (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 17thfloorplumbe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blizwar2
Explain why am/fm radio stations don't pay royalties then. Advertisement? Because without them, nobody would sell a damn cd? No it's simply those that have control of the media, chooses who becomes popular. People's taste in music change depending on what they hear the most of. With Internet radio that control is lost.
And premium is there to cover the bandwidth/operating cost. If you think streaming 128bit to 50,000 people is easy and cheap, your outta your mind. |
do you really need an explanation why radio stations dont pay royalties???? are you serious?
um its the first principle of promoting... the record companies usually end up paying the radio stations to play the songs they want to hit...
record companies get their bands airtime so they can sell records... in turn radio stations get to play music that attracts listeners and thus makes companies want to buy advertising on that station...
the radio stations arent controlling who becomes popular.. its the record companies... |
|
|
| Yuris |
| quote: | Originally posted by 17thfloorplumbe
do you really need an explanation why radio stations dont pay royalties???? are you serious?
um its the first principle of promoting... the record companies usually end up paying the radio stations to play the songs they want to hit...
record companies get their bands airtime so they can sell records... in turn radio stations get to play music that attracts listeners and thus makes companies want to buy advertising on that station...
the radio stations arent controlling who becomes popular.. its the record companies... |
Lualez. |
|
|
| Blizwar2 |
| That wasn't a literal question, I was trying to say exactly what you just explained. If the am/fm radio station doesn't pay for the royalties, why should an internet radio station do so? Because the record companies have no control over it. It's all lobbiest |
|
|
| cervy |
| but they do pay the publishers (am/fm stations) |
|
|
| Yuris |
my car radio is coin operated
so i think i'm ok |
|
|
| Blizwar2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yuris
my car radio is coin operated
so i think i'm ok |
funny. |
|
|
| Yuris |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blizwar2
funny. |
one time when i played at Vision they had a coin-operated CDJ, that was a crazy gig.
Milo told me we all had to pitch in for royalties on the music that was being played, but i am pretty sure he used the quarters for laundry. |
|
|
| delobbo |
| you know, I always wondered how internet radio stations stayed in business... i.e. not shutdown. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yuris
one time when i played at Vision they had a coin-operated CDJ, that was a crazy gig.
Milo told me we all had to pitch in for royalties on the music that was being played, but i am pretty sure he used the quarters for laundry. |
ELL O ELL
Milo was using the money to pay for the strippers in the penthouse on Saturdays. Yahtzee! |
|
|
| Blake_Jarrell |
| quote: | Originally posted by 17thfloorplumbe
do you really need an explanation why radio stations dont pay royalties???? are you serious?
um its the first principle of promoting... the record companies usually end up paying the radio stations to play the songs they want to hit...
record companies get their bands airtime so they can sell records... in turn radio stations get to play music that attracts listeners and thus makes companies want to buy advertising on that station...
the radio stations arent controlling who becomes popular.. its the record companies... |
you are half wrong and half right.
the record companies do practice payola, but thats not what this is about. its about Public Performance royalties which have little or nothing to do with the record companies, this is handled by the Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC etc). The RIAA, who are contesting internet radio, respresents the entire recording industry (publishers, artists, labels, unions, PROs etc), not just record companies.
in the current paradigm of the music industry, every time a song is played publicly (radio, restaurant, club, etc), the owner of that copyright must be paid. since this is obviously a huge logistical nightmare, there are these weird archaic methods of collecting where radio stations, restaurants, and clubs pay these lump sum blanket fees and the PRO organizations survey and TRY to distribute it evenly. obviously this doesnt work very well, but it is the accepted method. an example would be like excalibur pays a blanket license but since its impossible to survey an entire night, sweet child o mine being played on the jukebox in the basement pool hall gets axel rose paid a piece of that blanket license but milo wahi playing the new sebastien leger track in the vision room gets unrecorded and unpaid for an instance of public performance, and Seb Leg gets no cash.
so now you are probably wondering how this all ties into radio and more importantly internet radio. radio gets tons of advertising revenue and it is accepted that because of the play of these songs (regardless of wheter payola is involved or not) it affects the number of listeners and thus affects how much a station can charge for advert time (exposure etc). Since its the artists songs that are driving people to this station, and the station is making ad money based on the listenership, the artists should get paid a share of this revenue everytime their song is played right? well wheter or not you agree with that is up to you and the way you feel about economic flow in the music industry, but this IS how it works. so on to internet radio:
MOST internet radio is the same as any other radio (without getting into technicalities of presentation: streaming vs broadcasting etc). alot of internet radio stations are run as a hobby or with very little money involved. but there are internet radio stations that do make advertising money and although it may not be as much as broadcast radio, its still enough to catch the radar of the RIAA and artists who would like to see their share of the advertising revenue they have helped create by driving listeners to the internet radio stations. because of this all internet radio stations are being treated the same. the small hobby internet radio stations that dont make money are being lumped in with your bigger DI.FM stations that do.
ive been studying this in school for 5 years and still am on the fence with how i feel about it, but heres some things to consider when picking a side in this argument:
- The RIAA is doing its job: protecting the industry as a whole, NOT JUST THE BIG RECORD COMPANIES, THIS IS IMPORTANT. The RIAA may be doing this not only to collect the money that the artists rightfully deserve (under the current paradigm that is), but also to desaturate an undeniably oversaturated new way of presenting radio. The RIAA may see that it is its job to clean up this mess and organize it to where it becomes both more profittable and efficient for the businesses or people that run these internet radio stations and the artists whose work is being exploited (exploited is a positive public performance term) and creating this ad revenue that is unchecked. Since now it has become reasonably profitable for some internet radio stations to exist, it now makes sense for the RIAA to spend millions in court taking legal action to clean this all up, rather than 5 years ago when internet radios popularity and revenues was a fraction of the size it is today.
- The RIAA is suing for more than DI.FM has made from adverts, but is the RIAA suing DI.FM for more what it would charge other radio stations for licenses? If this is so (im totally not sure on this please feel free to fact check ) is it then the RIAAs fault that DI.FM did not run its business efficiently enough to pay the same blanket license rate it charges other radio stations?
- Is this current paradigm of public performance licenses even relevant today? with all the new ways of presenting music since this current paradigm was designed, it seems nearly impossible to track and pay out performance royalties enough to call it effective or fair...
or should we still try to even regulate the music industry and ponder new ways to effectively and efficiently control the economic flow so that all involved (labels, artists, clubs, etc) still have a reason to exist? |
|
|
| UWM |
| That is a stellar, well-written post. I hope a lot of people read that, even outside of the midwest posters. |
|
|
| Blake_Jarrell |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
That is a stellar, well-written post. I hope a lot of people read that, even outside of the midwest posters. |
thanks
everything i said in it might not be on point to this specific DI.FM case, but i feel like i shared some important facts that some people might not bother to educate themselves on and will better help form their opinion on this. i have not studied this specific case but am starting to read up on it now. its super complex and to be honest i personally would not feel comfortable with forming a firm stance on this issue until i pass a few bar exams and get a masters in economics first.
but it all really boils down to wheter or not people feel the economic flow of the music industry should be regulated in anyway at all. its the old art should be free vs artists need to eat argument. |
|
|
|
|
Privacy Statement
|
