AM to operate after July 14?

[Rick and Roll]

Help me out here.......

"I just want to get back to helping webcasters get business and figuring out how get more ad revenue," said Johnie Floater, general manager of media at Live365. "We've been spending all of our time playing lawyers and lobbyists."

I read this quote and it sounds to me that Live365 is fighting to use music for free to enable internet radio to make profits.

You see the inconsistency? This is not the same fight we have. Not only are we non-profit (which doesn't mean non-exempt from this) but we do this for no reason but to have fun. We do not sell ad space! We play music.

While I think that Sound Exchange is reprehensible in their tactics, they do have a valid point. And in the end, I cannot see how Live 365 can say this and expect not to get whacked.

So by association, we will eventually be swept into whatever happens with the "big boys". And that's a shame - we're HELPING artists and that's it!

So watch a good thing be forever dissolved, while your kids steal music and hurt artists.

Lovely!

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Help me out here.......

"I just want to get back to helping webcasters get business and figuring out how get more ad revenue," said Johnie Floater, general manager of media at Live365. "We've been spending all of our time playing lawyers and lobbyists."

I read this quote and it sounds to me that Live365 is fighting to use music for free to enable internet radio to make profits.

You see the inconsistency? This is not the same fight we have. Not only are we non-profit (which doesn't mean non-exempt from this) but we do this for no reason but to have fun. We do not sell ad space! We play music.

I'm not going to read into what their statement meant. I will say though that this whole internet radio thing is new and many have yet to figure out how to make money from it. Do you remember the .BOMB era of the late '90s. Sights were running in the red but stocks for them soaring. This was all on a lot of speculative gambles that the web would win them fortunes -- it did not. There are sites from that era that did survive and make it, but there are many more that failed. Unless you are actually "selling" something, making money on the internet is dicey at best. Many of the sites we all visit are littered with ads sold to pay for the space. For example, my favorite, mywaste.com People go there and setup pages for free. GREAT, I suppose, and companies pay for ad space to make this possible. However, is there really any gain from these ads? In many cases, it's difficult to prove.

The RIAA and SoundExchange have been buffaloing the public that streaming radio is making big money. I don't believe it and even if it did, why should streaming radio pay humongous amounts to do what the traditional air-waves broadcasters do for free?

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

While I think that Sound Exchange is reprehensible in their tactics, they do have a valid point. And in the end, I cannot see how Live 365 can say this and expect not to get whacked.

So by association, we will eventually be swept into whatever happens with the "big boys". And that's a shame - we're HELPING artists and that's it!

WHich is why the artists are following the links on sites like savenetradio.org to voice their opinions. The non-big-label artists will never see a single iota of the money SE collects. For that matter, I wonder how much money the big-label artists will see.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

So watch a good thing be forever dissolved, while your kids steal music and hurt artists.

I do not think it is right to download music unless it is explicitly sanctioned by the artist(s) as a free download. I personally enjoy the tangible media.

While most of what is downloaded I could care less about, I do have to look at it as if it is music and artists that I do. Unless the music creation model changes, free music is not free. Steve Hogarth has spoken at length about his/Marillion's ideas for changing the model when they did their album pre-orders. It sounded like a really great idea but I doubt it could ever truly work.

I still think that the "traditional" model of exposing a listener to the music and then, if they like what they hear, they purchase is a model that will be with us for a long time. If the RIAA/SE/LoC CRB have their way, this model will be corrupted. Strange is that this is how they've been making money for as long as music radio has been popular... at least the past 50 years... maybe more.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Many of the sites we all visit are littered with ads sold to pay for the space. For example, my favorite, mywaste.com People go there and setup pages for free.
I still think that the "traditional" model of exposing a listener to the music and then, if they like what they hear, they purchase is a model that will be with us for a long time.

Very salient points, vax, but my entire rant has to do with the fact that we seem to be wanting to protect a medium that wants to operate like regular radio. Live 365, etc. they're companies. They want to make money.

That's not what we're doing here. This is a community. Regardless of whether the existing model is right (and we all know it's f'd up) if someone wants to operate an internet station for profit, expect the fees to be levied. I know it's obscene....

As for the above, the artists use myspace exactly to promote the traditional model. They give out samples of their work and then the opportunity to buy it. I couldn't care less about the ads. Annoying, you bet. But let them fight and make money. I operate an account because I was suggested that it was a great way to promote the show. It's been great.

[Rick and Roll]

Jt, I like your ideas. One thing though....

To charge based on profit would reduce the incentive. There are only two types here.....accepting advertising revenue or accepting only donations.

To my knowledge we only accept donations. There's no money for those a'holes to grab....so we'd be left alone I'd hope.

[mossy]

I seem to remember after having read the complete diatribe regarding rates, in the beginning, that there was a fee model based on the small non profits, in addition to the large for profit stations. According to the fee structure for the small non profit, it wasn't a completely obliterating amount. I need to find that document and read it again...it was legaleeze and very long. Unless they've changed the content, iirc there was a clear difference in definition and treatment between the two types of station - profit and non.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by mossy

I seem to remember after having read the complete diatribe regarding rates, in the beginning, that there was a fee model based on the small non profits, in addition to the large for profit stations. According to the fee structure for the small non profit, it wasn't a completely obliterating amount. I need to find that document and read it again...it was legaleeze and very long. Unless they've changed the content, iirc there was a clear difference in definition and treatment between the two types of station - profit and non.

Yes Mossy. It may be semantics, but it's what type of revenue that is accepted to me should be the determination. Donation supported stations should get a break.

There's really no such distinction between profit and nonprofit. It's just that's all these people understand, I guess.

[jtmckinley]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Yes Mossy. It may be semantics, but it's what type of revenue that is accepted to me should be the determination. Donation supported stations should get a break.

There's really no such distinction between profit and nonprofit. It's just that's all these people understand, I guess.

Here's what goo posted in a previous thread:

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

In summary, first, we determine that the minimum fee applicable to Noncommercial Webcasters is an annual non-refundable, but recoupable* $500 minimum per channel** or station payable in advance. <snip> Second, the following rates apply to Noncommercial Webcasters***: (1) an annual per station or per channel rate of $500 for stations or channels will constitute full payment for digital audio transmissions totaling not more than 159,140 ATH**** per month and (2) if in any month a Noncommercial Webcaster makes digital audio transmissions in excess of 159,140 ATH per month, then the Noncommercial Webcaster will pay additional usage fees for digital audio transmissions of sound recordings in excess of the cap as follows: a per play rate of $.0008 for 2006, a per play rate of $.0011 for 2007, a per play rate of $.0014 for 2008, a per play rate of $.0018 for 2009 and a per play rate of $.0019 for 2010.

Quote:
* In effect, payment of the $500 minimum administrative fee by Noncommercial Webcasters whose monthly ATH is below the cap will satisfy the full royalty obligations of such webcasters because it fully encompasses the per station usage fee. <snip> Therefore, as a practical matter, recoupment does not come into play for such webcasters.

** This $500 minimum fee is applicable to each individual station and each individual channel, including each individual "side channel" maintained by broadcasters. "Side channels" are channels on the website of a broadcaster that transmit eligible transmissions that are not simultaneously transmitted over-the-air by the broadcaster.

*** Noncommercial Webcasters include such licensees who are eligible nonsubscription transmission services or new subscription services, irrespective of whether they transmit music in large part or in small part.

**** Aggregate Tuning Hours or ATH refers to the total hours of programming transmitted to all listeners during the relevant time period. <snip> The number of ATH in a month could be calculated by multiplying the average number of simultaneous listeners by the average potential listening hours in a month or 730 (i.e., 365 days in a year multiplied by 24 hours in a day then divided by 12 months).

The problem with the "non-commercial" definition in the above fee structure is that it's based on some arbitrary number of listeners (namely 218 24/7/365 listeners). It shouldn't be user count based IMHO, that could mean one starts the year at a low rate and then sometime during the year your user count exceeds the threshold and now you're liable for outrageous fees that you can't afford. I guess one could limit the stream count for the station, but that won't work for AM since patrons each get a dedicated 128K stream, so unless the 56/24K streams get reduced each time a patron is added the limit would eventually be exceeded if the user base continues to grow. And at some point there would be no more free streams and the next patron to donate would put you over the limit.

Also notice that the per song fees proposed above arbitrarily increase over time. I guess I could see setting a current fee and then tying that fee to the consumer price index or something, but they more than double it from 2006 to 2010.

[jtmckinley]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Help me out here.......

"I just want to get back to helping webcasters get business and figuring out how get more ad revenue," said Johnie Floater, general manager of media at Live365. "We've been spending all of our time playing lawyers and lobbyists."

I read this quote and it sounds to me that Live365 is fighting to use music for free to enable internet radio to make profits.

You see the inconsistency? This is not the same fight we have. Not only are we non-profit (which doesn't mean non-exempt from this) but we do this for no reason but to have fun. We do not sell ad space! We play music.

While I think that Sound Exchange is reprehensible in their tactics, they do have a valid point. And in the end, I cannot see how Live 365 can say this and expect not to get whacked.

So by association, we will eventually be swept into whatever happens with the "big boys". And that's a shame - we're HELPING artists and that's it!

So watch a good thing be forever dissolved, while your kids steal music and hurt artists.

Lovely!

To my knowledge nobody is arguing that they should be able to stream music without paying the publishers/artists for using their content, but rather that there is a large disparity between terrestrial radio which only pays publisher fees (paid to songwriters & publishers of the original tune), satellite radio which pays publisher fees as well as 7.5% of profits as artist fees (which pays the performer of the tune regardless of whether they wrote it) and internet broadcasters which have been hit by the vastly more onerous fees that have caused the current furor. The point is that there should be a level playing field regardless of broadcast medium. Your point regarding whether the station profits being a deciding factor in usage fees may have some validity and we can hope some provisions are made to help out non-profit broadcasters like AM, but the larger issue is the difference in fee structure based on the transmission medium IMHO.

It seems to me that SoundExchange (and therefore the RIAA and therefore the large media companies) are just trying to shut internet radio down because they can't control it. Pretty much anybody can be an internet radio broadcaster, it has a much lower barrier to entry as the business folks say, due to much simpler transmission equipment and no need to license frequency spectrum. So the current entrenched regime is fearful because they see their oligopoly slipping away. At least that's what it looks like to my eyes.

It seems to me like a basic charge of $500/year + 7.5% of profits might be a reasonable across the board fee rate, that way artists get paid by everybody, non-profits just pay a flat $500/year and the for-profit big stations share their profits and the artists get exposure as well. If this were used for all broadcast media it seems it would be a fair system IMHO. I guess stations would need to keep some kind of track play count as well so SoundExchange would know how to divvy up the fees from each station.