Internet Radio In Danger of Extinction in United States 229
An anonymous reader passed us a link to a Forbes article discussing dire news for fans of Internet radio. Yesterday afternoon saw online broadcasters, everyone from giants like Clear Channel and National Public Radio to small-fry internet concerns, arguing their case before the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). The CRB's March 2nd decision to increase the fees associated with online music broadcasting will have harsh repercussions for those who engage in the activity, the panel was told. "Under a previous arrangement, which expired at the end of 2005, broadcasters and online companies such as Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL unit could pay royalties based on estimates of how many songs were played over a given period of time, or a 'tuning hour,' as opposed to counting every single song ... [They] also asked the judges to clarify a $500 annual fee per broadcasting channel, saying that with some online companies offering many thousands of listening options, counting each one as a separate channel could lead to huge fees for online broadcasters." There was also a previous provision for smaller companies that allowed them to pay less, something the March 2 decision did away with; in the view of the royalty holders, advertising more than pays for these fees, and they're ready for higher payments.
ditch corporate music (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also ready for higher payments!
That means I automatically get them, right?
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of their arrogance the music industry wil now have 0 revenue where before it could get something.
Re:Outsourcing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish that were true. Sadly not enough people are motivated enough to make anything near that reality possible. Plus the RIAA has their hooks in many different industries now (blank media for one). How many people do you know personally that actually say "I'm making an effort to no longer support the RIAA"? I don't know any, sadly. I think I'm the only person I know that tries to spend my money on music not controlled by them and even that is impossible to do all the time.
While I think the steps they are taking is having an effect on the public, I don't see it killing their profits.
Re:It will sort itself out... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make the presumption that the labels want internet radio to succeede and their profits from internet radio to be maximized. What if what they really want is for internet radio to go away?
Why would they want to do this? Because right now the labels act as the gatekeepers to the radio. That is why musicians sign horrible contracts with them. You want a hit record, you need to get on the radio. You want to get on the radio, you need to sign with a big label. If internet radio takes off, suddenly you'll have new outlets which the labels don't control. In the long run, maintaining this control is more important then any profits they might make of internet radio.
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but plenty of people are still buying CDs.
Counterproductive (Score:3, Insightful)
In the long run, this move by the RIAA is hurt its own interests. The current situation is actually pretty good for them. They're getting paid (though perhaps not as much as they would like), their music is reaching the ears of potential customers, and the broadcasts are at bitrates good enough to expose people to music while low enough nobody wants to fill their hard drive up with an archive of it.
So what are Internet radio listeners going to do if this succeeds? Sure, some might switch to a more RIAA-encouraged form of entertainment, but a lot will just change the station. Once the RIAA wipes out the stations promoting their music, that leaves the ones playing independent and international music. "Drive your customers to discover competitor's product" is generally not the missing "2. ???" step that leads to profit.
Speaking as a musican (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think to apply the same (or at least similar) royalty fees to these Internet Radio Stations is pretty unfair. As a composer and a musician, I despise that I have to agree with Clear Channel on this one, because I think that they are RUINING terrestrial radio if in fact they haven't ruined it already. I side with Internet Radio as an artist because it is exactly the freedom from some of the industry regulation that makes it possible for someone without Warner Brothers or Sony behind him/her to get exposure. There's no friggin' way I'm going to get my music played/heard on a Clear Channel station or in a Warner Brothers movie soundtrack without EVERYBODY getting a piece of the pie. On the other hand, if I find a niche Internet Radio Station, I can submit my stuff and get it heard by a smaller, but hopefully more targeted audience and perhaps eventually generate some revenue from licensing deals with them or CD sales.
I guess my point is, while it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon as an artist and hope for the "big score" of more royalties, doing so would choke the "small time" Internet Radio Stations and make it once again a field of only "heavy hitters" with whom I stand little chance of getting heard. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think keeping things affordable with regard to royalties is exactly what's making it fertile ground for emerging artists and what's keeping Internet Radio a viable alternative for people looking for something more diverse and different than traditional radio.
I'm surprised... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
The RIAA doesn't like that model, though. It lets tiny garage bands into the same market with a 10MB file, there's no massive production, shipping, and marketing costs required. The RIAA wants to continue deciding which bands succeed and which do not -- it is hard to convince a puppetmaster to give up puppeting.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ditch corporate music (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but see, I won't buy *any* CD if it's crap -- RIAA or otherwise. My principle has always been to buy the CD for the whole album if it's good, never for a track or two.
I'm not exactly old now (almost a sophomore in university), but I can still remember being puzzled a good eight years or so ago when people I knew would buy a CD costing ~$25 CAN for only a track or two. It's as if they didn't know that the recording industry uses singles for that purpose, most of the time... Not like that's a perfect solution, since I think a lot of music out there is crap, and yet... The public seems to like it anyways.
Then again, it has its purpose I suppose... It gives Weird Al some good material, and it gives me another reason to be annoyed with the general populace. Huzzah!
Careful With Your Blanket Statements (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps that has been your experience. Mine has been considerably different. I've currently got about 600 "real" CD's (I did a purge about 10 years ago, otherwise it'd be about 1000), and I'm willing to wager that, on at least three quarters of these albums, more than half of the tracks are much better than mediocre.
Then again, I don't buy CD's willy-nilly just because I heard one song I liked on the radio. Look hard enough and you find thirty second clips for nearly all albums somewhere online.
You might buy crap albums, but just because you do doesn't mean all albums are "engineered" that way. Like there's a group out there that tells bands, "Okay, now, we're up to three good songs - radio engineering standards dictate that you half-ass it for the rest of the tracks."
Identification problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
. .
It is good that you can purchase just the songs that you feel are 'the good ones' but it is a double edged sword. You never get exposed to those 'other songs' that never got any radio play that you still love.
I still hope that there is a massive enough shift in the market that a serious mainstream alternative to the RIAA evolves. When they become enough of a monopoly that they can stop caring about the customer or their suppliers (artists) they need to be slapped back into reality.
Re:Speaking as a musican (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope beyond all hope that this pushes the DIY ethic into the mainstream. We that dwell in the scene have been doing it ourselves for quite awhile, and could really care less about the RIAA. Who exactly gives a shit if every single RIAA-endorsed artist is taken off of internet radio? Why exactly is that a bad thing? Internet radio will adapt, and in an extremely good way: More unsigned and independent artists, more esoteric genres of music, more concentration on music as an art-form, less cookie-cutter feel-good bullshit, and more than anything else, less people in it for the money.
Another aspect that may have a chance to thrive is community. Until now, the community has been relegated to local scenes. The internet can change that significantly, yet for the most part the insanely popular band or plastic-pop-singer-of-the-week has managed to drown all semblance of this out. Maybe as more internet radio stations distance themselves from the RIAA labels this will change.
In short, I really only see good things coming of this. The moment I heard about these new insane regulations and fees, I couldn't stop smiling. Everyone says that the RIAA is perpetually shooting themselves in the foot, but this time, I think they have finally fucked around and managed to shoot themselves right in the junk.
My only hope is that they don't tone it all down after of the backlash.
Re:Careful With Your Blanket Statements (Score:5, Insightful)
As an "enlightened music listener" you should be MORE likely to examine the lesser known works. Otherwise you're not enlightened - you're a sheep, just like the masses, going wherever you're pointed. Enlightened appreciators will look at the sketches because art is progression.
I've been a musician for 25 years (guitar primarily, with classical training and jazz aspirations), and I, too, would consider myself an enlightened listener. It's a matter of looking for the gems. I've ordered 36 albums this past calendar year from overseas (I'm in Canada) because the stuff typically on the shelves here doesn't draw me strongly. If you put in the time, you'll find PLENTY of great albums.
No, it's not counterproductive... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what they want. They don't want the venue to exist, so they'll get the government to tax the hell
out of it so it'll go away. I wouldn't mind helping my favorite internet stations pay the bill if I thought
that the money would go to the artists I listen to (All unsigned in the case of the stations- I like listening
to Celtic, Celtic Rock, and Renaissance Festival music on the streams. I don't listen to much else...) but
I know that this big spike in fees happens to go to the pockets of RIAA directly and then to the labels.
Not to the artists in question.
Not to someone who's at all a legitimate rights holder for the stuff in question.
Just to RIAA.
Tell me again WHY the radio stream providers have to do this?
They want this stuff off the air because they see themselves as being the gatekeepers of culture.
Re:Identification problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Truer words have not been spoken!!
Many a band has had MEGA-hits with songs they didn't really care that much about. Heck, I recently saw an interview with Ben E. King...he really came close to never cutting and releaseing "Stand By Me"..arguably one of the major classics from the 60's. I've seen and read interviews by many of the classic bands that were really shocked at what became hits for them.
" It is good that you can purchase just the songs that you feel are 'the good ones' but it is a double edged sword. You never get exposed to those 'other songs' that never got any radio play that you still love."
Yup...I'm sure glad this kind of thinking wasn't set in stone back in "the day". Otherwise we might not have had such classics as Sgt. Peppers, The Dark Side of The Moon, The Wall...