Nothing to do with part 15, but since I know several of you have streams, I thought you might be interested:
Nothing to do with part 15, but since I know several of you have streams, I thought you might be interested:
D Day is nearly here, and it looks like your stream will get more expensive. Minimum will be $500 (yearly) to RIAA with reports to be filed for a 2 week period every quarter (year), make sure not to go over the Aggregate Tuning Hours or you will have even more to pay.
I wonder how quickly Sound Exchange will send a bill for the extra from 2006? And how soon they expect the uasge reports from 2006?
by MRAM 1500 kHz
Fortunately, my programming is all independent artists that have consented to having their work broadcast on my AM and webcast.
One artist is listed with BMI but has given authorization to use his work which is within his rights.
I'm told that Sound Exchange will not notify us that payment is now due, we are supposed to know (instictively??) that there has been a change and more money should be sent. That's going to be a little hard for us since we are near the end of our budget year, and everything has been spent.
You are lucky that you have taken the time to set up agreements with the artists. The last time I suggested that we do the same was not a pleasent day. In fact everytime I bring up the licensing issues I become very unpopular. I see bad things in the future of our stream...
In the good old days, artists sold records because of demand created by air play. This was so important that payola became a common practice since the distributors knew that air exposure would promote sales.
I wonder what has changed. As one who never listens to radio (other than while mobile or to my own part 15 stuff) I am ignorant as to what induces someone to buy a CD album from a particular artist. So I post this to seek my own enlightenment as to how music companies get people to buy their products.
It still seems to me that royality free airing of artists' works would promote sales and I cannot understand why they would charge for a radio station to play their music when advertisers must pay the stations to run their adds.
In regards to part 15 operators, I seriously doubt that anyone can determine the number of listeners upon which to base the fees nor even prove that the copyrighted work was aired. Does the fact that the work could have possibly been heard by an unconfirmed listener make this any different than playing the works on one's own stereo in the living room which could be overheard next door (happens here sometimes)? Statistically, the number of listeners to a broadcast station can be estimated but to try to gain meaningful data regarding a part 15 station is nonsense. I know that I am "preaching to the faithful" but your comments will be interesting to me.
????
Neil
by MRAM 1500 kHz
A bit off the topic as far as Part 15 is concerned however, working for the City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio as a Radio/Signal technician I am responsible for maintaining the telephone system and the Music On Hold police got me.
It just so happend that somebody affiliated with one of the licensing entities (BMI, ASCAP, etc.) visitied one of our City Recreation facilities and noticed we use a lot of recorded music for excercise classes and background music.
This person called the City Law department to inquire as to wether or not the City had license to do so which fortunately our Recreation department had. Unfortunately this person was put on hold and noticed our Music On Hold. We now have royalty free generic Music On Hold which had to be purchased to avoid litigation.
They are out there...
Payola is still a common practice, and every once in a while a station will get caught. But you almost never hear of the record companies that get caught.
And licensing for background music and music on hold is a real hassle. It's about as bad as on demand content.
This new RIAA rate will either do a lot for the independant (non-RIAA) record labels, or will drive all but a few (legal) streams off the net. There are still going to be thousands of illegal streams, some illegal by choice, and others by ignorance.
It appears that those of us who webcast can breathe a slight sigh of relief.
SoundExchange blinked.
"Online Radio Is Saved; SoundExchange Will Not Enforce New Royalty Rates on Sunday"
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/07/breaking-news-o.html
"The SoundExchange executive [Jon Simson, executive director] promised -- in front of Congress -- that SoundExchange will not enforce the new royalty rates. Webcasters will stay online, as new rates are hammered out."
Of course this is just a reprieve, internet radio won't be truly saved until negotiations result in a workable royalty rate. It appears, too, that the CRB has now been taken out of the equation. Thank goodness.
C5
I had been told that BMI or ASCAP had workers out in the field calling businesses at random, looking for business using copyrighted music in their on hold systems. When they found someone they would talk to the owner, (who typically knew nothing about why he needed to pay money to play CD’s on his on-hold system, reasonably thinking it was ridiculous) , the owner would refuse to pay. Then the owner would wind up in court and lose 100% of the time because of the laws. Nice racket.
It happened to a business where I was working. We were playing music from CD for on hold music, and we got a letter telling us we were liable for ASCAP & BMI dues. Suffice it to say, we bought an on-hold music service very quickly after that!
Frank
www.easthillradio.com
Yes they do indeed employ people to do nothing but make calls and go to locations that play background music to check on these things. It is definitely not just a rumor.
I also just read about the possible repreave. There is nothing on the Sound Exchange website about this yet, and I hope that they really will send out letters to all the places that pay them directly (like us) so that we know this is absolutely confirmed.