Internet Radio vs the Government and Music Industry

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

Internet radio lost. All Internet radio site's have been effected by the new Government rules, CARP, which is not a fish but is fishy. All broadcasters regardless of hobby, self supported or whatever must pay a flat monthly royalty fee for songwriters and such. There is a fee to run the station and now there is a fee to play the songs. At the present time it's not a lot of money. The monthly station cost is $13.00 which includes royalty fee's. The fee is for all music regardless of Independent or self written , go figure. So I would ask the dumb question to the fee administrators, How are you going to administer this payout ? Who gets the money and for what ? One thing we all know from history, fee's go up.

Just thinkin' out loud here..
tp

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 29 June 2002 at 10:16 AM.]

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

I suspect that 99.999 % of this monies go to the GREEDY music fatcats. Not even a small portion will ever get to the artist/musicians !!

Again,the GREEDY @#$%^&*'s have managed to BUY congress and surpress the free style radio. Personally,I feel that we should recall every person that volted for this POS !!

May they rot in hell !!

(I really don't care if anyone don't agree with my thoughts........ I'm tired of special intrest groups screwing the little guy, all for the sake of a damn dollar. And this isn't just confined to the music area.)

Del Rangel · From: Clayton, NC

I couldn't agree more. These officials are in the pockets of the corporate interests and could care less what we think or want any longer. They have destroyed the working-class and its interests and continue to whittle away at small business people. Most of these sad sacks have got to go.

Larry Bell · From: Englewood, Florida

Tony,
Are you saying that if I had recorded a bunch of CDs with my original tunes -- owned by me -- and wanted to broadcast them via the net I would have to pay royalties to SOMEONE ELSE??????

I don't get it.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

Larry, join the club. Yes, if you were to broadcast on LIVE365.com which I believe is the largest .com Internet radio site you would have to pay a minimum royality fee of $5.00 month. They recommend that all unsigned and original artists file for royality fees, thats how they get around that nonsense. I believe that LIVE365 has over 1500 stations blasting out Internet music so they are collecting a minimum of $7500 monthly and sending it to someone somehwere..Live365 is still fighting the issue but now that fee's are set, try to get them reversed. Remember our temporary taxes thru the years..they are labled temporary but what they really mean is these taxes are temporary, temporarily !

tp

Larry Bell · From: Englewood, Florida

Vot a COUNTRY!

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro

Miguel e Smith · From: Phoenix, AZ

Although we're all at least somewhat familier with the the whole internet concept, it's still a new and emerging industry. Even newer than the industry itself is the structure and rules for the use of music through this media.
Governmental legislation is necessary (in this case) to enable organizations such as BMI, ASCAP and SESAC to collect royalties on behalf of songwriters and music publishers. These companies are called "performance rights organizations" (or P.R.O.'s). If a song you write (including an instrumental)is played on an AM or FM radio station (or TV or cable), you will get a royalty. The royalty per play is very, very small and it takes a ton of plays to amount to anything significant. But, if you as a writer have songs being played many places around the world and many times at each place, it can add up. For musicians and singers who also write, many times this amount, whether small or large, is a vital part of their income. Bottom line, and I think we can all appreciate this, is that if you do work, you want to get paid for it. Songwriters are unique in that they usually have to wait a very long time to see even a small check (if any at all), while those of us who, for example, play a live gig with the band at the Elks Lodge work the gig and then get paid at the end of the gig. Instant compensation! It'd be great if it worked tht way for writers too.
Up to this point, it seems that many of the internet radio operators have enjoyed operating their site for the joy and love of the music (and in our case, the love of the instrument). I'm very supportive of that type of dedication. The fees will, undoubtably, go up in time, just like the price of gas and food and everything else. This may also increase the need to sell advertising time to offset expenses.
The politicians are having to answer to their constituants concerning what affects them or their business in usually a negative way. If something is taking money out of their pockets, they lobby to have the government make change. Sometimes change is good, sometimes not so good. It all depends on which side of the fence you might be on. A few years ago some restaurant associations raised enough of a cry concerning having to pay flat fee royalties for the use of music in their establishments (less than 30 cents a day) to the point a congressman tried to push a bill that would do away with the royalty altogether. The music industry fought back and won for the most part. Had they not fought for writers and publishers earnings, the amplified affect this could have had on the music industry could have been devastating. The theory among many is that music should be "free". But where the line is drawn is the issue. If the restaurant industry had won, there would certainly have been other attempts to do the same thing throughout the entire media chain...elevators to radio to television and even to record sales themselves. If writers can't be compensated for their work, why do it? The die hard songwriters would have to resort back to street performances for tips. Publishers couldn't stay in business without cash flow, the record companies would have little supply for their demand, well...it "can" happen. The record industry is already in terrible shape, especially Nashville (another story altogether).
Will the writers get their share? As rules are established for the playing field, yes. There are already a few in place with specific organizations and I can say first hand that I, as a small writer/publisher, have gotten paid. This is a new frontier and we're all blazing paths where no one has gone before (I'm hearing the Star Trek theme in the background). If we'll all be involved with the music industry and the media, we can be part of the change or help make a change ourselves. So far, the price to blanket license the use of music for internet radio broadcast is still quite small but I suspect it will stay affordable for a long, long time. My opinion is that there is nothing personal whatsoever in these new laws. In reality, the rules are just getting caught up late with technology.
The P.R.O.'s will continue to seek new ways to provide writers a fair wage for their labor. If they finally figure out how to tap into our brainwaves, I'll probably even have to pay a royalty for imagining I heard the Star Trek theme above).

That's my 2 cents...

Mike

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

Mike, nice post, and I'm sure none would argue the case for the songwriters. BUT..at the present time no one has asked for a songlist or set list or who the writers are.
When that happens my station will be out of business as there would be no way to manage that. So I would still ask, who's getting the money they are collecting and how is is divied up ?
tp

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Mike,

GREAT post (worth way more than 2 cents

)

Quote: “The monthly station cost is $13.00 which includes royalty fee's”

That seems pretty cheap to be able to broadcast others people’s music over the Internet, even if the only one enjoying it is yourself.

Quote: “I suspect that 99.999 % of this monies go to the GREEDY music fatcats. Not even a small portion will ever get to the artist/musicians !!

I think that is what a lot of people seem to think and justify using other people’s music. I know I was very involved in Congressional and Senate lobbying for ASCAP during the restaurant dispute over royalties. One of our Senators was convinced the record companies received all the money. Once he understood the way the PRO’s collected the monies and are actually non-profit organizations-and that the songwriters and publishers actually were the beneficiaries—he came around to vote on the side of intellectual copyright.

Quote: Again,the GREEDY @#$%^&*'s have managed to BUY congress and surpress the free style radio. Personally,I feel that we should recall every person that volted for this POS !!
May they rot in hell !!
(I really don't care if anyone don't agree with my thoughts........ I'm tired of special intrest groups screwing the little guy, all for the sake of a damn dollar. And this isn't just confined to the music area”

Surpress the free style radio??? Meaning you can have a radio station and play my music without permission? And if I don’t agree, I (and/or the government) is squashing your rights??? I think that is up to me and the organization I choose to represent my copyrights. And I would work darn hard to recall any representative that did not protect my rights, as well.

On the other hand, I suppose if you wrote all the music, and only played your material (or material by other artists who gave you the permission) you would have a point to not paying a performance royalty. By the way, this is legal in the restaurant issue. You should opt out of the PRO’s and handle your own business. However, if by chance one of your tunes ever made it into the mainstream, I wonder how fast you’d be complaining about not making any money on it.

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

John, well stated, but once again, no one, especially a musician or song writer would take a side against being paid a royality for a song written or peformed. CARP is not really about performance ( although thats what they say it's about ) but rather the songwriters, and the imposed fee supports this 100%. At the present time, there is no way to include the songwriters in the playlist and they are not asking for them as well. So I would ask again, who is the money for ? , if it is intended for the songwriters and no one knows who they are, how will they get paid ? If it was about performers, then Jim Cohen,Mike Headrick, Joe Smith, Jim Loesberg, Ricky Davis etc, all of the players on the show would be receiving checks soon, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Initially there was supposed to be a hobbyist station exemption as opposed to a full stream of a commercial radio station based on monthly listening hours. I agree that $13 month is a minimal amount of money to broadcast, but who ever heard of the Govt stopping at what they initially proposed. Why are there fee's for Independent artists who have given full permission to play their music ?, What happened to the rights of those artists who are not commercially accepted or known ? IF they operated their own station of only their own music they would still have to pay a royalty fee and who gets it ? I would hope that all of us would not take the acceptance of a new tax and make the statement " Oh., it's only a few dollars, it's ok "..truth is, it's not ok. The station " Steel Guitar Unknown Heroes" is about Steel Players having fun and sharing their talents and also a venue for those that have CD's to be heard. There is over 8 hours of tracks sent in by players from all over the world . Last month there was over 600 hours of listening time logged by fans of the Steel Guitar. Many of the players who have sent CD's for the show are hard working musicians and are looking for an alternative venue to have their music played, they are not signed, they are not commercially accepted and they will not be collecting any royalties. I do this for fun and out of full respect for my Steel playing friends, selfishly I do get to receive music in the mail and that is always cool. There are no passed on fee's and never will be. When the Broadcast fee's reach a point where I feel it is a burdon, I will sadly turn it off and "They" will have won. The Unknown Heroes will be really unknown once again. This all started with Metallica back several years ago when they complained about MP3's and Napster. I still have the opinion, If they had an album worth a hoot folks would buy it. Many of the top acts are selling trash, 1 maybe 2 quality songs on a $15 CD that cannot be returned to Walmart for poor quality. Why is that ? The music Industry created this entire mess out of total greed and they ain't done yet. Right now $13 /month is not a lot for a self supported hobby station, but how much is a lot? $25, $50, $100 ? I'm convinced the underlying long term goal is to shut down Internet radio like they did with Napster, but it's not going to be that easy. But they can accomplish the goal with increased fee's so that only the commercial broadcasters who Internet stream will survive. After all we can't have Metallica songs digitally recorded off of an Internet radio station now can we...What I am afraid of is that many of the LIVE365 Internet broadcasters will drop their stations, which means lost revenue for LIVE365 and their only alternative to stay in business will be to increase the monthly fee's to make up for the lost revenue, you know business 101.It may not be this month but I suspect not to far down the road. Remember, the Internet radio sites, the majority of them ,are just plain folks like me having some fun and I doubt they will have the passion to maintain monthly fee's for common music as opposed to great Steel Guitar playing.
I'm done
tp

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 01 July 2002 at 03:15 AM.]

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 01 July 2002 at 03:53 AM.]

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

Mr.Smith and Mr.Lacy......

I think you both missed the point here. All the artist/musicians (Most whom are unknown,useing the Net-Radio as a means to get their music out) have givin Net-Radio permission to play the music. Givin' the Payola needed to get on a "Playlist" of a "Clear Channel" radio station, (True saying, The cost is in the range of $100,000 to $250,000. Yea, I know Payola was suppose to been stopped many years ago, but you should just try to get your non-descript aka "Killer" song played on a local Clear Channel radio station) the little guy don't stand a chance !!

When I play a gig, I get payed (as someone said in a earlier post) right then and there. As small as the pay is/was,I still was paid. Now, if writers were paid for the material when it was presented to the publisher,ASCAP,BMI,etc,etc, we wouldn't be in this quakmare.

You all (writers,artist) have been duped by the GREEDY #$%^^& into makeing you think that you shouldn't get paid for your work untill the song/music make them a $Million dollars cash flow. Even at that, you,the artist/writer only receive 1/10 of a penny on a super seller ! They justify this by stateing concert cost,promotional cost,and overhead cost. All smoke and mirrors......

They, like the other big Company's, are cooking the books to retain 99.99% the monies that rightfully belong to you.

Don't tell me I am wrong here, The little guy don't stand a chance with the fatcats. Net-Radio has done far more for the struggling artist/writer than big music Company's will ever do.

[This message was edited by Bill Crook on 01 July 2002 at 04:21 AM.]

Miguel e Smith · From: Phoenix, AZ

Tony, I truly don't know the details of CARP and I would expect that there is either a "sampling" of the broadcast or some other form of accounting which should be in place now or soon. "Sampling" is a controversial subject for me because it brings to play the accuracy of that accounting, especially when you're talking about instrumental music that probably won't be recognized by whoever is listening for the sample. I think you have a very valid statement/question concerning that.
I think I can speak for John Macy also in saying that anyone in the music biz who either does or attempts to do business with the large companies is opening a huge door to pain and disappointment. It's easy to spend a lot of personal energy trying to keep from being plowed under while at the same time attempting to get ahead. I don't deny or try to hide the dog-eat-dog approach in the music industry at-large. It's just what it is and has continued to be and my choice is to either accept those terms and try to navigate within those boundaries or....simply get out and find something less stressful. "Fair" is not a term I can pull from my non-business life and put into the mix when dealing with these companies. There exists another floating term for "fair". But, my opinion is that every industry can have the same degree of shrewedness and all-consuming attitude. I wish things were different so... I'm doing what I can to make sure that I keep my nose clean ethically. Then again, my ethics may not agree with everyone ( I should have said "won't agree..").
If I've missed the point (as mentioned by Bill Crook), it won't be the first or last time. But I'll continue to add my simple perspective to these type of topics just the same. Does the system (whatever system we're talking about) need work? YES! Whose going to do that work? If anyone, it has to start with us. When I get pissed about something long enough, I try to take care of it. Maybe these discussions are the seeds of that change (?). As for me, I'll do some research into CARP and see if I can begin with getting educated.
If anyone cares to start a thread so that we can just blast our grievances against the music industry, I'd end up having volumes to print. Bob would certainly shut it down because my articles would take up too much space. So...I'll just take up space this way instead. : )

Mike

[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 01 July 2002 at 09:23 AM.]

[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 01 July 2002 at 09:25 AM.]

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Dang it, Mike, we've been duped! You would have thought with our combined 60+ years in the biz, running publishing companies and labels and such, we'd have figured that out by now...

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

Hey Mike and John , I don't really think anyone has missed the point as we all look at things from a different point of view, and thats a good thing. Although I am not and was not part of a music production company, family members have been and have had the success of a top 5 national hit on the pop stations. I did see first hand what can happen to a lot of money when a few lawyers get involved. I will re-state for all who may be reading, I have no problem with royalty fee's for artists or writters, but I do have a problem with an Industry, whatever it may be, gaining calculated control or domination over that particular Industry. Royalties that are collected for one reason or another that never reach the intended destination or like stated earlier, an Independent who authorizes the use of his or her own written and performed music and they still must pay up, now thats a hard one to rationalize. The logistical control of collecting royalties from the Radio or the Internet Radio is a eye opening nightmare of cash all by itself. My little minimal no one cares opinion is that long term they want these Internet radio sites shut down. Look at Napster, they shut them down , now just a short time later an off shore server does the exact same thing with the exact same software ! Most likely this will happen with Internet radio as well. There's no easy answer, right now I'm just glad to be hearing Steel Guitar music at all over the Internet. Thanks for your reply's.
tp

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

Tony, it's not clear to me what you are saying about performance rights organizations. Are you saying that you think that the way they have been collecting and distributing money for the last few decades is unfair?

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

Ernest, not at all. I am not opposed to collecting royalty fee's I support it. The current CARP Internet regulation collects fee's for what they say are the writers but they don't know who the writers are. AND..they are collecting fee's for music played by Independents who write, perform and authorize the use of their own material. I have a problem with that. If an Independent, maybe you or me want to use an Internet Radio station to showcase our material, we still have to pay a royality fee. Who gets it and where is it going is all I'm asking here. It's not an objection or an argument to collect royalty fee's, it's a question.
tp

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Tony,

I agree that if you are broadcasting only your own material, or material of others that give you permission, you should not have to pay for the use of it. If you are playing steel CD's by other artists that are using material other than their own, then it becomes an issue. The courts said that even Napster is free to distribute legally obtained material--you just have to make sure your permissions are in order.

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

Fred Jack · From: Bastrop, Texas 78602

Howdy Gentlemen! This post is not in direct response to the subject but I think its a neat story so I'm goin to post it. I was talking with Ralph Mooney the other day and he said that he had received a letter from Sony/Tree recently and they asked him for a tax id #. He said he filled out the form they sent to him and returned it. Thinking he would probably get a check for $6. The day we were talking he had just came in from his mailbox which had a check in it. $10,200.99!! A song he wrote years ago called Moonshine. Said he always wondered why he didn't receive any money from that song but..... I suppose an audit of some type turned it up.. who knows ... he sure ain't asking. Miss Moon immediately needed paint, carpet, drapes, furniture. I thought this was a nice story and does speak well of the "police dept". ( BMI ASCAP etc) regards, fred

RON PRESTON · From: Dodson, Louisiana, USA

Oh, This Land of The FREE!

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

The whole "royalty system" stinks to high heaven! Linda Davis is one famous artist who has many "chart records", and has made dozens more. She recently said publicly she has never received a single dime of royalty payments!

I imagine that some of the biggest of stars might make some money on royalties, but most other stars' money is probably just eaten away by the, ahem, "administration fees".

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Whose administration fees????

Chart singles don't always mean royalties to the artist unless they write the song (and then they are worth a lot to the writer). Lots of singles "charted" back then with little sales, and unless the album sold well...not much royalties.

If she did actually sell a lot of records and did not see a dime in royalties, she got some really bad legal advice, or was signed to a production deal outside of the label that took her (let's see...who might have had her signed to her production company...hmmm).

No matter how one-sided the label deals are, she should have made $$$ if her records sold.

Forum Index > Upcoming Event Announcements		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic