Trouble for Stream Licensing Licensees!

I sent a message to Stream Licensing last night inquiring about the situation.  Their reply states that their agreements with the PRO's are "pending" and those who are concerned should consider switching to "Live365".

In case anyone doesn't know "PRO's" refers to "Performing right organizations" which includes: BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, Sound Exchange and SOCAN.

This may take some time for them to sort out.

TIB

Thanks Tim my Sponsor and I have been concerned about this.  The Last thing I need is a lawsuit from the RIAA's ilk.  He pays $80-100/Mo for my AOR station.

At least Live365 does all your Radio directory listings for you and I may not even have to make all those Ad Trigger Files.  Again my sponsor should know about updates.

When did SL's website put that statement up there?  I know they keep kicking me off every month and my sponsor has paid each time.  Please let me know.

That's a concern.  They DON'T say that on their website. On the site it's business as usual. But after reading a couple news articles about it I emailed them yesterday to ask what's up.  The email I received back from Paul at Stream Licensing said:

"The agreements with the PRO'S are in a pending status.
I don't have an update.
If you are feeling unsure of things, i am going to suggest that you move to live365."

It doesn't really apply to me since I don't stream, but it seemed like something that Stream Licensing clients should be aware of.

TIB

Yup looks like I'll have to open a dialog with my sponsor all about this.

The only way I'll ever stream again is to play all public domain material.  I'm thinking about it - I have a playlist with vintage jazz that is in the public domain in Canada, as well as Old Time Radio and older classical music recordings.

This issue goes to show that you can't trust anybody in the licensing community, and ultimately, you as the streamer hold the ultimate responsibility.

I'm not going to give up streaming on the internet. Unfortunately public domain stuff doesn't cut it although I do stream some of it doing a 100% public domain show would pretty much kill the experience of what my station is all about.

Marvin Glass has ran a pretty good ship. It's BMI that is causing the biggest issue. I have been apart of many of these conference held by streamlicensing in the corporation managers explained what is really going on.

It's like the Creedence Clearwater Revival song which says the only answer is more more more. That's what the pros continue to want they're not satisfied with what they're getting. What they don't understand is the internet radio is going to be radio of the future. Causing all these high fees to continually climb they're only cutting their nose off in spite of their face.

In the end if need be I will switch to Live365 and all will be well and done. It's just getting my sponsor 2 decide what he wants to do rather continue to invest in streamlicensing or go with Live365 or he can obtain licensing from the pros himself as an entity.

A - 1 audio Networks is his Network and he also owns Pro streaming along with several other companies. Believe it or not my album rock station could possibly hit satellite radio. Yes you heard that right if he decides to do that I won't have to worry about this fully powered stuff because I will have my album rock station on satellite radio. I'll probably continue to stream it or have it on the part 15 system however. But that's in the future and I'm not going to get ahead of myself there.

The main point here is I'm not giving up and just because we have a few backbiters in the music industry does not mean that I will give up. Unlike the rest of the folks I do have a sponsor who does have a well-equipped money source.

Again as I've said it before the genre of music I'm associated with does have members that are like an elite cult. They pay heavily in donations for those that are really passionate and show that they work hard to keep it afloat.  So maybe with that in mind I won't have to worry about it so much.

Just wish that earlier in life I didn't find some of these boats that I have found recently in the last couple of months. I do a lot to those people as I've said it's a different group of people who really do have kind hearts.

We have been using Live365 for almost a year now. We feed the audio from our LPFM with the No-Ad package. Customer service is very good.

The Copyright Revenue Collectors Keep Most of the Money

Musicians Only Get 12%

I was just listening to a discussion the other day (amazingly, on the radio), which talked about the fact that musicians are increasingly going on tour instead of the recording studio, as they get to keep a much greater portion of the money.

That is a smart way to go.

Musicians get ZERO of the money paid by radio stations to BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC.  This PRO's collect royalties for the SONGWRITERS ONLY.  So of course they get none of this money.  Unless perchance the musician also was the sole writer of the song, in which case the royalties are generally split between the writer and his publishing company (which is often owned by himself as well).  So this article is a little misleading.

And the middleman including "AM/FM radio" get some of the money?  What ARE those fellas smoking? I've been in commercial broadcast radio for 45 years now, and no PRO has ever sent us a check. Neither has any record company.  Although we send them tens of thousands of dollars  year  for the rights to use the music on the air.

Musicians are turning to touring to make money?  Duh.  That IS their job. The concept of making records and getting them on the radio was originally intended to make bands become known to the public and get people to turn out for their shows. The record companies were the ones to make the money from records sales while giving the musicians publicity and a small royalty. The musicians job is to play music, not write a song once and collect royalties forever.  Don't have time to go on... but I'd like to.  Take a few moments and look up tour revenues for, say, the top 100 acts and tell me how they're struggling to make ends meet without more music royalties. The record companies were the ones who took the chances, recording, distributing, plugging for airplay, hoping for sales, taking the risks. A songwriter can write a flop song and it cost them nothing except a bit of time. A record company spent thousands putting out a record hoping it would catch on.  A very SMALL percentage of records pressed and distributed ever became "hits"

TIB

As well they should. It's their JOB to play music.

TIB

Taking a Deep Look

Acting on instinct, I expect this link might give further light to the detail mentioned by Tim:

Who Earns and Who Doesn't When It Comes To Music

This link is submitted for your review, and later I'll actually read it, but I seriously guess that it sets the record straight in accordance with what Tim said.

I'm always amused by these articles that reference the "loophole" for broadcast radio where they don't have to pay the performers, just the writers.

That's because radio IS paying them. And congress has upheld the payment every time it's come up.

What is the one and ONLY revenue source for broadcast radio?  The SALE OF AIRTIME.  That is how radio earns it's money. It sells airtime, filling it with commercials.  AIRTIME is our commodity.  We exchange that airtime for the use of a song. If they want to be paid for a "performance" every time that song is played, fine.  As long as they won't mind being billed for, and paying for the air time. Every time your song plays you owe us for four minutes of airtime. Depending on the market that 4 minutes can cost several hundred dollars. Multiply that times the number of times a popular song gets played, times the number of radio stations playing it, and you can see that on a daily basis that performer who is demanding a royalty is exchanging that for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of airtime every day.  Of course to avoid calling it payola, the stations will have to make it publicly known that they are getting paid to play the songs.  Maybe that's the new business model.  Radio will pay the performers, and the performers or their labels will pay for the air time. I LIKE it.

Not only that, but radio airtime is a limited commodity. A station can run out.  There are only so many minutes in a day.  And only so many of those minutes can be sold before the number of commercials turns listeners away from the station.  So not only are we GIVING recording artists FREE airtime, our ONLY commodity, but it's a commodity that's limited.  The number of CD's, mp3's, streams and downloads is unlimited. They can always make more.  We can't make more minutes in a day.

It's not a blasted loophole.  It's an exchange of one valuable commodity for another.

What is one of the BEST ways for an artist to get discovered, or for the public to learn about a new song? Getting it on the radio.  To this day, despite streaming, downloading and all that other rot, record companies still each have a bastion of promo guys who call, e-mail, and visit radio stations to convince them to play songs on the air, especially in key markets, so they can have another "hit".  No matter what you read, what survey's you study, radio is still a major factor in making hits.

Radio has a unique hit making ability that downloads and streaming don't. Radio can make crappy songs a hit. And it's been done for decades. Ever hear a song and think "that sucks" but the station keeps playing it and it grows on you? Eventually it becomes a hit. Hits are made by breeding familiarity. You hear it over and over and you like it.  Obviously not always. Something could be so bad you throw your radio against the wall.

I grew up a rock and roller. But my first full time radio gig was at a polka station. It was awful.  But it paid the bills.  After a few months I really started enjoying the stuff and now I'm doing a weekly polka show and enjoying it 40 years later.

After that I moved to country music stations.  Knew nothing about the stuff and generally hated it.  After a few months it grew on me. Now, 40 years later I'm running a country Part 15 station and enjoying it.

Familiarity makes songs a hit. Artists don't get that with streaming and downloads. It's too easy to click the "next" button. or tell your device to not play that group, or whatever. Now, sure you can hit the station on your radio too, but if you're at work, or doing stuff around the house, etc you're not going to do that.  If you're out in the garage working on the car and a song comes on the radio that you hate, you're not going to stop what you're doing and go change the station on the radio on the workbench. But if it's your smart phone streaming the song, you can hit the "ick" button and your device will move on and mark that as unacceptable and you won't get it again. When it's a device on your person, or a computer you're sitting in front of, it's easy.  When you have to go to the radio it's not.  And even if you punch to another station, assuming it's the same or similar format, odds are that station will play the same song you hate.  Very few people who are listening to, say a typical top 40 station are going to hear a song they hate an punch to the classical station, or the country station, to get away from that song. Their taste in music doesn't change.

It reminds me of people who call the station who are torqued off for some reason. Maybe the announcer just insulted their favorite President, or dissed their favorite sports team, etc. And they say "I'm never going to listen you your station again" and hang up. Really?  Well, here in a small market, that means they now have to change their taste in music and programming, as we're the only station that plays this format and offers these specific programs, etc. SO, since we torqued them off in one 5 second segment, they now are going to, for example, never listen to classic rock again and are moving to the country station.  LOL. Not likely.

OK. I'm rambling now.

Musicians.  Playing music is your job.  Go play somewhere. Stop trying to live off your royalties.

TIB