Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Stripey

bad news for internet radio

Recommended Posts

Create Digital Music May 15 Could be End of Internet Radio; US Legislation to Intervene

American legislation is going to force independant streamed radio stations off the air.

The clock is ticking for Internet radio, from public broadcasting streams from stations like KCRW to Internet-only streaming services like Pandora. The Copyright Royalties Board recently approved new rates and restrictions that would increase costs for streamers by three to twelve times their previous rate. This month, the CRB rejected an appeal by broadcasters to reconsider the rates. As a result, by May 15 streamers will have to not only begin paying the 2007 rate but also back-dated royalties going back to the beginning of 2006. Without changes to the rules, many stations will simply shutter on the 15th of May.

This is just another example of music industry mafia attacking digital music distribution so they can get control of it, ala itunes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If internet radio stations are subject to the same conditions as conventional 'broadcast' radio stations then i don't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If internet radio stations are subject to the same conditions as conventional 'broadcast' radio stations then i don't have a problem with it.

Northsound et al make money.

Some kids in college who is just spreading the word about artists who wouldn't otherwise get played on radio, and are subsisiding their pursuit (buying equipment, CDs etc) shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If internet radio stations are subject to the same conditions as conventional 'broadcast' radio stations then i don't have a problem with it.

That's the problem, there will be a big imbalance in the rates terrestrial radio stations have to pay.

Terrestrial (AM/FM) radio pays nothing. Satellite radio pays about 3-7% of income. And yet online radio will be charged per listener, per song and will be subjected to fees regardless of proportionate income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northsound et al make money.

Some kids in college who is just spreading the word about artists who wouldn't otherwise get played on radio, and are subsisiding their pursuit (buying equipment, CDs etc) shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, so to speak.

No, i disagree. They should both be treated the same as they are both doing the same thing and should incur the same fees for the performance rights of an artists songs.

That's the problem, there will be a big imbalance in the rates terrestrial radio stations have to pay.

You see that isn't fair. If terrestrial broadcasters have to pay nothing then internet broadcasters shouldn't have to pay either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, i disagree. They should both be treated the same as they are both doing the same thing and should incur the same fees for the performance rights of an artists songs.

Its not really the same though, is it? The way you are looking at it is a bit black and white.

For instance, lets say a child care company operates a number of childcare facilities. It is a money making venture, set up to make money.

Now lets say that there is a community run childcare centre, which is run to provide a service, run by volunteers, non-profit.

Should they be fored to pay the same hypothetical childcare tax system, based on how many children they look after, how frequently, no matter what their income is?

If it wasn't for 'pirate' radio, things would be a lot different, without a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northsound et al make money.

Some kids in college who is just spreading the word about artists who wouldn't otherwise get played on radio, and are subsisiding their pursuit (buying equipment, CDs etc) shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, so to speak.

Most of my favourite shoutcast stations are completely nonprofit and rely on donations to keep going, but still have a huge amount of listeners, and are run by people purely in it to spread the music.

It's disingenious to push these stations off the air, if anything they are increasing the likelyhood that an artist will get sales as people discover them through listening to the stream, being exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't hear on terrestrial radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of my favourite shoutcast stations are completely nonprofit and rely on donations to keep going, but still have a huge amount of listeners, and are run by people purely in it to spread the music.

It's disingenious to push these stations off the air, if anything they are increasing the likelyhood that an artist will get sales as people discover them through listening to the stream, being exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't hear on terrestrial radio.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not really the same though, is it? The way you are looking at it is a bit black and white.

For instance, lets say a child care company operates a number of childcare facilities. It is a money making venture, set up to make money.

Now lets say that there is a community run childcare centre, which is run to provide a service, run by volunteers, non-profit.

Should they be fored to pay the same hypothetical childcare tax system, based on how many children they look after, how frequently, no matter what their income is?

If it wasn't for 'pirate' radio, things would be a lot different, without a doubt.

Eh? By those examples the community one would be subsidised by the government, so it's not a valid comparisson. Maybe internet radio should be subsidised too. A lot of internet broadcasters aren't non-profit, in fact there are probably more profit making internet broadcasters than non-profit.

If you want to get hypothetical: I pay National Insurance every month from my wages. I haven't been to the doctors in years yet i pay more than a junkie who is there every week for all sorts of 'treatments'. Is that fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of internet broadcasters aren't non-profit, in fact there are probably more profit making internet broadcasters than non-profit.

There aren't. Nowhere near.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There aren't. Nowhere near.

podcasts aren't broadcasts, they're narrowcasts, so if you're including them you're wrong. If not then fair enough, but there'll be a lot more money than you'd think behind properly run internet radio broadcasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh? By those examples the community one would be subsidised by the government, so it's not a valid comparisson. Maybe internet radio should be subsidised too. A lot of internet broadcasters aren't non-profit, in fact there are probably more profit making internet broadcasters than non-profit.

If you want to get hypothetical: I pay National Insurance every month from my wages. I haven't been to the doctors in years yet i pay more than a junkie who is there every week for all sorts of 'treatments'. Is that fair?

It is a hypothetical example, there was no mention of goverment subsidies in the hypothetical example, therefore it doesn't come into the equation.

Do you have anything to back up your inkling about the majority of internet broadcasters being profit making? Otherwise its just an inkling, and is silly to base an opinion on it.

That isn't a hypothetical situation, assuming you do pay your National Insurance, and aren't at the doctors every week. This comparison has no grounds whatsoever, as it is comparing two users of the same system, as opposed to two similar companies, the only difference between them being that one is non-profit. Where is this 'junkie' going to get 'treatments,' a honky-tonk doctor? A back alley doctor? Otherwise, he/she is just getting treatments, not 'treatments.' And to answer the pointless question, yes that is as fair as it is going to get with a national health system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
podcasts aren't broadcasts, they're narrowcasts, so if you're including them you're wrong. If not then fair enough, but there'll be a lot more money than you'd think behind properly run internet radio broadcasters.

No, I'm not including podcasts at all and I don't know where you got that from. All I'm saying is that if you look at all of the streaming radio stations currently online today then the vast majority are non-profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't a hypothetical situation, assuming you do pay your National Insurance, and aren't at the doctors every week. This comparison has no grounds whatsoever, as it is comparing two users of the same system, as opposed to two similar companies, the only difference between them being that one is non-profit. Where is this 'junkie' going to get 'treatments,' a honky-tonk doctor? A back alley doctor? Otherwise, he/she is just getting treatments, not 'treatments.' And to answer the pointless question, yes that is as fair as it is going to get with a national health system.

Ok, hypothetical was the wrong word. The comparison has grounds: i have money, our average junkie doesn't- profit making internet radio stations have/make money, non=profit ones don't.

the apostrophes weren't implying that their treatments weren't justified, just that i couldn't be arsed going into specifics.

And in case you missed the point earlier, i don't think either should have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it cost to podcast?

Not necessarily. You can make a Podcast and then get someone else to host it for you for free. The actual cost of making a Podcast would be negligible as it would just be software and equipment (microphone etc.) you'd need to concern yourself with.

However, we are talking about streaming radio stations which is a completely different ballgame and where hosting any popular radio station has a very significant cost as you have to pay for the bandwidth your listeners use.

Podcasts and Internet radio stations are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm not including podcasts at all and I don't know where you got that from. All I'm saying is that if you look at all of the streaming radio stations currently online today then the vast majority are non-profit.

I was saying "if you were including them" not "you're a dick, stop including podcasts" don't get your panties in a twist.

I'd be surprised if half the streaming internet radio stations didn't take money from sponsors, advertisers, subsidisers and artists/agents/management/record companies. How many of those stations are self-supporting and run 'only for the music'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was saying "if you were including them" not "you're a dick, stop including podcasts" don't get your panties in a twist.

Steady on! I'm not having a go and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Chill out.

I'd be surprised if half the streaming internet radio stations didn't take money from sponsors, advertisers, subsidisers and artists/agents/management/record companies. How many of those stations are self-supporting and run 'only for the music'.

Well, I have some knowledge of this through listening to many different online radio stations over the years and having a go of running a radio station of sorts here in the past, on aberdeen-music.

If you listen to many of these radio stations you will soon discover they are completely ad-free and often rely solely on people making donations to them through an associated web site in order to keep going. Considering they are often paying for server(s) as well as bandwidth in order to broadcast then their on-going costs can easily run into the hundreds and thousands of pounds a month for the really popular radio stations. That's a lot of money if you are relying completely on donations from listeners and revenue coming from a few ads on your web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have some knowledge of this through listening to many different online radio stations over the years and having a go of running a radio station of sorts here in the past, on aberdeen-music.

If you listen to many of these radio stations you will soon discover they are completely ad-free and often rely solely on people making donations to them through an associated web site in order to keep going. Considering they are often paying for server(s) as well as bandwidth in order to broadcast then their on-going costs can easily run into the hundreds and thousands of pounds a month for the really popular radio stations. That's a lot of money if you are relying completely on donations from listeners and revenue coming from a few ads on your web site.

Yes, that's true but a lot of the launch sites carry ads rather than having them broadcast. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't internet radio stations that are 100% non-profit but we all now that the 'popular' ones are as susceptible to backhanders from management companies etc just to big up new acts as the profit making ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×