Internet radio broadcasters will need to fend for themselves in the face of efforts by the music industry to raise royalty fees, as Congress refuses to intervene

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070628_409386.htm?cha n=top+news_top+news+index_technology

Yeah. Larger companies will get a break on rates - squeeze out the smaller broadcasters.

It can't really be a surprise - but it still stings.

You REALLY need to re-read the article juggler.

It states that under the current plan, the definition of "small" is so small that very few webcasters qualify for the rate. They suggest that the break-point between the definition of "large" and "small" be upped so that more small intenet radio stations will fit into the lowest, cheapest tier.

This is NOT a battle between large internet radio providers and small internet radio providers. It is NOT a battle between internet providers and terrestrial providers.

This is a battle between those who play music, and those who write and record the music over compensation.

This will make your day...

http://www.loc.gov/crb/

If the link doesn't open "google" copyright royalty board.

"Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel" (CARP)

Should that not be:
"Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel"

Point taken, danner. I did give undue and perhaps untrue weight to a couple lines from the article. It's been a long, complex process for me and there are many levels that still escape my pea brain. I do understand whom the battle is between. It's been a hobby of mine for a long time and come July 15, I will have to just wait and see how various streaming providers decide to implement the new rates.

Live365, hosting mostly hobbyists, seems more vulnerable to the hike - and that will trickle down, quickly, to the individual broadcaster. In fact, unless Live365 shifts their business model radically, I don't see very many people staying aboard. The 500 bucks per channel stings - as does the rate.

So it's just " wait and see " for me.

It makes me wonder if there's some secret non-public research that says internet streaming audio can be extremely profitable - as long as the number of stations is curtailed (so everyone is forced to listen to the *SAME* stations, plus however many minutes of commercials every hour, as well as wrapped in a privacy-breaching flash player that also serves flashing .gif ads that claim the users computer is "broken" and to fix the "problem" they need to install a spyware toolbar), and the penalty for operating an illegal station is similar to that of operating a pirate broadcast station.

Sorry if I spoiled someone's parade.

Like I said, China has plenty of servers just waiting to host your internet radio stations. Either that or Denmark! If it's not based in the US...."Can't Touch This"!

It's not a battle between those who play music, and those who write and record the music, it's a battle between the body that represents the artists/labels and those who play music. Sound Exchange wants more money for performance than the majority of the market will bare. Internet radio is asking that we pay the same rate as Satellite radio which is about 7.5%. We have had a revenue based rate option until the 2006+ rates were announced in March 2007. Most of us paid an average of 11% of gross revenue to Sound Exchange.

Broadcast radio doesn't pay these fees. The performance is considered promotion. I guess no one listens to internet radio???

As an internet programming provider, I am not too happy about the jump in fees. It's like drinking a gallon of milk and then have the dairy tell me a year later I owe $400 for the milk. When it used to cost $2.00.

Established web portals like Yahoo and AOL have more than one revenue stream to cover the money-losing webcasts. Most of us don't.

Do these fees apply to Creative Commons music and or Independant music?

KSKD - I believe you would have to show that you play no music covered by copyrights to avoid the fees.
Newflyer - The top secret non-public research study you speculate about is in the top secret research non-public safe next to the report on who really killed Kennedy. (To say nothing of the one which says the public is dying for DJs to talk endlessly about the unfamiliar music they're about to play.)

Cool.

If it were me, I would begin that process. I would do it via a slow blend from fee based music to non-fee based music. Hook a pool of listeners with already hammered in tunes, mix in personalities that can connect to people and get the relevance established. At this point, one has cool on a daily or at least recurring basis.

Then, fit the non-fee based music into this cool, weaving them in with context, one tune at a time. Run brief liners that get the advocacy done, and let it all run the course.

Done right, over time, a solid perception can be crafted, that people can relate to, that is essentially old music vs new music and or media in general. A nice side effect of this is an alternative distribution channel for open media that has enough potency to stand on it's own.

We then have competition and that is good.

I remain convinced our traditional media giants are not seeing the level of competition they need to in order to seriously continue to add value. I also reject the very long copyright system we've crafted for similar reasons.

Given the recent SCOTUS rulings, and the current leaning of the court, there isn't gonna be an answer to that matter anytime soon.

So, it's all about establishing a new channel that can compete and leverage more open models.

This is possible to do and will bring us new media forms, stories, etc...

Seems to me all creative works are covered by copyright. That change happened a while ago. Really what is needed is to vet the material for it's incorporation into he major fee collectors.

If one produces Creative Commons music, for example. The majors have no legal leverage to collect fees, but said music is still under copyright. The difference is the creator permits different distribution and use rules.

The recent WTO struggle over a broadcasters right reflected this reality. It failed, but had it passed, broadcasters would have been able to limit the use of anything they distributed, regardless of what the author / creator had in mind. Direct shot across the bow of the new copyright efforts.

Essentially, we've a very large pool of content that has been locked up. Use is expensive and limited and is being challenged all the time. I'm never quite sure what fair use really is, and that's an issue.

Movements toward Indie and Creative Commons works are aimed directly at leveraging that aggressive copyright, by creating an alternative pool of works where fair use is explicitly stated, thus permitting innovation given sharing and openness, generally speaking, is returned in like kind.

The difficulty comes in the extreme legal leverage the major fee collectors have. I'm sure a successful effort will see a challenge just to diminish competition or simply through misunderstanding of what is being done.

Re: Talking about unfamiliar music.

I remain in the camp that believes a relationship between a presenter, operating in a venue, can be used to promote unfamiliar music.

The key to this is daily relevance.

Let's say we've a DJ playing familiar stuff. Said person gets some creative freedom to weave a storyline, express themselves, whatever during this time. That requires a balance, but is not a difficult one, particularly given the Internet and it's ability to connect one to many in a two way fashion.

Said person gets to know a significant portion of their audience, takes feedback, closes the loop.

Having done this, they have estabilished daily relevance. Their presence is then a welcome thing, and a thing that might be missed, if changed, diminished or gone.

An introduction then leverages this context, brings meaning to the tune being so played and with that comes familiarity!

It comes down to this. When we hear a piece of music out of the blue, it's difficult to just relate to it and incorporate it into our mindset. This is true for all but a few people seriously interested in music, or media in general.

(that's us, as you rightfully have said over and over)

Now take that same tune and have a good friend introduce it, convey meaning and context and you've got something completely different, and that's where my point here has been over and over and over.

People can connect to new music on more than it's simple appeal and general relevance. To ignore this is to ignore the dynamic of sharing between people that is a part of us always.

A solid example, on air here in Portland right now, is Tara @ KNRK. She does exactly this with solid results. The tunes she has introduced, via her new music pick, have context above and beyond the usual, "New music, check it out" bit, and that matters.

A highly specific example was Fairground Attractions' "Perfect". I heard this played out of the blue a while back. This is a great little tune I would have easily ignored, or wondered just what the heck it was doing on the station. Having daily relevance in play changed this significantly.

The tune expressed some of what Tara is about, had a great sound, and though not part of the regular rotation, was a nice entertaining diversion for the day. Truth is, I'm not sure the tune itself resonated enough to justify it getting added to the daily rotation, but it did add considerable value to the KNRK experience as a whole.

IMHO, this is a serious value add.

It is completely possible for people to express themselves in this way, build connections and establish relevance without diminishing the value of the station as a whole. Doing this on a regular basis can and will also ferret out regional or local tunes that matter.

It also means being able to introduce local artists in a way that makes sense, while not losing so much familiarity as to disturb the station listeners as a whole.

My greater point here is that focusing on DJ talk, in a vacuum without due consideration for the potential human drama, story telling, etc... has for relevance will lead to what I believe to be false assumptions about what is and what is not effective radio communication.

Said assumptions then self-select radio to a lower common denominator that has, over time, set expectations for the medium lower than they would otherwise be.

Radio has issues of it's own making and this is why.

Based in Isreal:
http://www.listen2myradio.com

Gotta love a global Internet. Maybe the attorneys and CEO's will learn someday.

To make my earlier post really clear, I am not saying radio has that many core problems, because it doesn't. And I am not saying the ideas posted above are the core of the ones it does have.

It's a contribution, given due consideration, that would significantly enhance the overall radio value proposition. There is totally room for lots of different broadcasts. A station that puts things in context can easily compete with one that is focused on other things, and that's really my greater point.

Having a few stations differentiate themselves in this way, just adds to the pool of potential listeners. Given the number of media delivery choices there are, making the most of any given medium is a big deal. Every ear counts.

Since we've essentially a ton of room on the FM dial now, I believe some innovation, exploration, etc... that takes the general idea of daily relevance into consideration, is not only warranted, but mandatory if the industry as a whole is to see the maximum potential for return on their digital investment.

Having an outlet like an internet radio broadcast started out benign enough - but BOY did internet streaming providers create a monster. That monster could have been kept warm and fed. People discovered the broadcasts, created that addictive quality that broadcasters share and now it's all in jeopardy. Some do it as a hobby. Some do it as a business. If the July 15th rates get implemented, as I understand them, it will force those who can't shake the bug to find a different route. That route will be overseas providers or flat out pirates.

I'm not saying that as some sort of weak threat. I'm just saying that people ALWAYS find a work-around when it comes to being able to scratch some kind of creative itch.

Always.

I found Live365 while trying to figure out whether or not terrestrial radio was going to work out for me. I suspect that I ended up having more fun with my station than I could have working for someone else. AND, as a bonus, I got to make plenty of money doing something else for a living. I'm not a greedy man. But I need that kind of balance between radio music and paying my bills. I got VERY lucky and got both.

My monster NOW is that I won't let either of them go quietly. They are both important to me.

If the July 15th rates get implemented it'll be a lot like alcohol during prohibition, but hopefully without the organized crime element! The onshore streams might just go underground, on an invitation only basis or something like that. How hard would it be to hide a stream in a seemingly unrelated website? Like, you'd have to know just where to click and then you'd have to know a password.

I dunno about that . . . making it easy for listeners to tune in, nevermind even knowing of your internet station, is a full time job (or $$$ spent on marketing) in itself. "Hiding" a station is a sure-fire way to zero listeners.

Hiding your station is no way to make money, for sure. I was thinking more about the people who are just doing it for a hobby.

Well, you know, finding out someone was actually listening was the biggest thrill for me. Later when I was getting 14-15 listeners at once, it started becoming addictive . . .

I'm thinking a decent number of internet broadcasters pulled their stations after (for whatever reasons) their "ratings" declined (of course they'd never admit to this). I'm thinking having an audience is part of the lure.

I wonder if the number of angry calls, letters, and e-mails to terrestrial radio stations will increase if internet streaming gets the plug pulled, because people that have been dissatisfied with programming on local stations have had the option to listen to online streaming audio.

How hard would it be to hide a stream in a seemingly unrelated website? Like, you'd have to know just where to click and then you'd have to know a password.
Ugh... it got bad enough when Live 365 required login/registration just to listen. I haven't listened to anything streamed through them for several years.

My station is just a hobby. I pay Live 365 $12.95 per month plus $5.95 to listen to all personal stations without commercials. I enjoy playing the songs i like without dj's and i can even run local psa's in my stream. This month i'm running the "support internet radio" psa even in my non commercial stream.
http://www.live365.com/stations/rockhitsradio
If the rates go to unaffordable , i will become part time broadcaster, and just tell my local friends the stream address, maybe.

Looks like it's not over yet!

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/07/breaking-news-o.html

I'm wondering if people did not see the Senate bill that dealt with this issue? Y'know, the one that Ron Wyden and Sam Brownback got involved in?

you cant count on ron wyden for anything.