The title used by TheLegacy in Post # 14: "Radio should be worshipped as a God to artists" contains the germ of a large idea.
In the correct hands radio is an artist's medium, and we could argue that art resides at the top of human achievement along with invention.
However, unlike paint, pencils, canvas and musical instruments, radio is contolled for the reason it is a limited resource.
The FCC is the guardian of the limited radio resource, and requires citizen over-sight to be sure it dispenses its duty fairly in light of public ownership of the precious resource. In this small arena of unlicensed low power broadcasting the FCC is remiss in fully detailing the use of spare portions of spectrum.
No more obvious platform exists to voice criticism and objection to slack public performance by the communications commission than right here at Part15(dot)us.
American citizen artists should not kneel in praise of grand federal masters. We are their masters and they have been lazy long enough.
We wish to utilize excess air space. Kindly make way.
Radio World just published an article right on point titled PERMISSIONS, the complexity of getting copyright right for podcasting:
http://www.radioworld.com/article/so-you-want-to-podcast-legally-good-luck/277270
I was told by a good friend experienced in Radio that many Classic Rock stations only have 3 different songs per artist. For Example The Cars - Just What I Needed, Best Friend' Girlfriend, Candy O, Rush - Tom Sawyer, Limelight, Spirit Of Radio, Pink Floyd - Money, Another Brick In The Wall, Eclipse, Foreigner - Double Vision, Head Games, Waiting For A Girl Like You. This is why probably they do this. Probably have a certain copyright catalog. And so it goes that none of the other songs from that artist will be heard. I've heard High School and college stations go totally indie because of the cost of music license. In fact WDBM was quite successful for a while at this. But that would totally kill an Album Rock station. it would have to go Alternetive Rock mostly. I still find all of this stuff interesting.
The real reason for 3 songs per artist - They only play "Tested" songs. Ie. ones they "know" won't cause anyone to tune out.
In reality all this causes is a short playlist that repeats a few times everyday.
In the not distant future I'll be covering (LPH) the cultural world of legal free music available for downloaders, broadcasters, streamers and podcasters.
Recently I provided a link to Episode 1 of the "Radio Survivor" podcast with the subject "Free Music Archive.' Some of our members said they listened to it, but may not have recalled the importance of the free music.
Legal music without spending money in many genres. Diifferent terms apply to different sources, such as giving attribution (a plug) for the artist:
Hey Carl some of the Progressive stuff on that site could fit the format of my Album Rock station. They even have Garage and psychedelic Rock too over there. Could be a great way to discover some new artists. I'd mix that stuff in and or have a Indie Hour. Sort of like the College stations did and yet played some good stuff from time to time.
first: we must remember these rights agencies are a relatively new phenomina in radio. they go back to maybe the late 60's early 70's. in the grand scheme of things they are still babies. maybe being 40 years old. they are currently going through a mid life crisis. all these agencies were born out of the payola scandals, before that only the RIAA exisited and it was a Standards agency like NTSC, ATSC, etc.
Now if they want compliance, they need to overhaul copyright law. here is a wikipedia on the copyright act of 1790, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 , look at the original intent of copyright law and not the intent as has been distorted through excessive lobbying. copyright was not intnended to give a purpetual lock on creative content for eternity as it essentially is today. it was intended to give a limited monopoly on creative works and allow enough time for the artist to make a reasonable reaturn on their investment. it was not intnded to give the original artists and their heirs a purpetual never ending source of income. like many laws it has been distorted and rewritten beyond it's original intent by our fonding fathers.
if anything with mass media and marketing the way it is now, artists can make a vast return on their investment in a very short time compared to when original copyright law was enacted.
also if we are to have these rights agencies, we should have only one, maybe two.
one for streaming, one for over the air, fee's should be simplified with a hobbyist exemption for people not generating income, and the compliance requirements for small hobbyist operations should be simplified.
this hobby has been available to all since the 30's but now through extensions of and stetching of the law it seems is being relagated to only those who are financially (or whos parents are) well off.
then we get to the actual implementation of the law within these multidudes of agnecies. most of the money recived (even though here in the US might be more evenly distributed than in CA) get eaten up in so called administrative costs, billions of which go to pay lobbyists, lawyers and the respective CEO's of these companies, in the grnad scheme very little of each dollar collected actually makes it to the artists.
so let's not delude ourselves into thinking they are really there to protect the artists.
the government who passed many of these laws could care less about the individual artists.
they care more about the record and movie companies and of course a little black and white mouse and all the purpetual taxable income they generate for the politicians campaign coffers.
if it was merely about individual artists sans disney and the major record compnies and movie studios the government would care less and we would still have the 14+14 not to exceed the death of the author originally passed in 1790.
Just to get my two cents in.
This has come up in past posts but I will post again my thoughts on this. I'm in Canada and here Socan is the organization of concern.
First I want to stress that Socan is NOT an arm of the government and has NO law enforcement power....they are a private organization.If I were to take my guitar outside and play elvis songs sitting outside on my porch in public so anyone outside can hear, can they come along playing mafia and say you have to pay us to do this?....the person from the house across the street could do that too.
Anyway, putting that aside, Artisan Radio, my fellow Canadian part 15 forum member, has said on this forum that they didn't want his money as the on air part of the station was to micky mouse for them to even care.
I, a little while ago, called Socan on the phone, and talked to someone there and after trying to explain BETS-1(part 15) to him he had no idea and asked what are you playing and how many listners do you have? I said my format and maybe if 2 or 3 people were listening that would be good! He asked my operating expense and I said there is no operating expense, just a one time purchase of a transmitter, compressor and a music source....$500 at most. "well I really don't know anything about this I'll have to get back to you". OK, here's my number let me know what's what. Can I have your name please?.....He told me his name and I didn't remember 'cause I needed to learn another language to pronounce it! Still waiting to hear back and really couldn't care less.
Oh ya, didn't Artisan also say that in Canada if the song is 50 years old or more then it's public domain?(correct me if I'm wrong). If that's true I could change my format to not include songs after 1965.....licence exempt?
Here's the Socan rules with non commercial broadcasting:
Don't know if it will show up on your end but the fee is 1.9% of your operating cost.....in my case, what operating cost?
That's my input on this....
Mark
For what its worth I'd have no commercials on my Internet stream and no PSA's every 3rd song to trigger the ads if it were not for having to pay the PRO's for streaming. StreamLicensing is trying to work out a more reasonable approach for Hobby Webcasting. I do know there is something in the works but don't have a link to it for non profits like NPR and LPFM and if that does happen maybe part 15 could fall into that category and me exempt. Keep an eye on the Royalty laws for Streaming and over the air rates for 2016 as this could effect us in the future. If StreamLicensing, Pandora, Spotify and Live365 get their way it may be cheaper. Live365 is our friends for real as they are trying to get hobby webcasters exempt from the new rates. Otherwise according to Marvin of StreamLicensing could be the death of Hobby Internet Radio (In A Legal sense). All I can say is that if you are a client of StreamLicensing read their forums they can give you a feel for what is in store for the future.
Hope this helps and sorry I don't have direct links for you to read.
are going to squeeze the golden advertising goose until it's dead, after the golden goose dies so do they.
Off and on, I play music from artists that aren't tied to a label or have their own label (with the artist's permission of course. If I come across a good song on bandcamp.com or reverbnation.com I contact the artist and 90% of the time they give me the green light. Also, my friends/acquaintances or former high school/college classmates have songs they want me to play, so I play those as well. Believe it or not, most of these songs could compete with what's on terrestrial radio, others are just there to fill my schedule (originally podcast two or three times a week, but now possibly 24/7 when I finish beta testing my LPAM) Right now, I'm testing on 1620 in the Middle Tennessee area with instramental indie songs.
I have no doubt that you've found some independent music that is better than what's on most broadcast radio. But you would have a tough time convincing the public at large that is so.
Remember, if any of these bands are doing cover songs (e.g. they didn't write them) to be legal you'll need to license your music for broadcast and/or streaming. Artist permission doesn't matter. Over the air requires clearance for the SONG not the artist or band or label. Broadcast radio pays only the song WRITERS. Radio does not pay labels, bands, studios, or anyone else, except for the song writers. If you're streaming you need clearance for the song and the artist. But only for the wong if you're only broadcasting. If they're doing originals only you're good to go, and don't have to worry about it.
TIB
Here is a personal story I can relate. A couple decades ago before I changed careers to Engineering, I was a Journeyman meatcutter in the retail meat business. I quit my job as a Chief Journeyman (Meat Manager) at a smaller chain to go to a big chain as it paid better. Being the new guy or "Low Man", I was put on night work. Well in every chain that I worked for, it was customary for the night crew chief to rubber band down the PTT mike of the PA system and rubber band the mike to the speaker of a boom box so the crew could hear rock music instead of the Muzak as this was good for productivity. Well the difference was the previous two chains I worked for were not open 24/7 and this chain was. One day all of us who were working a certain night were informed that we were being assessed a $500 "fine" by this organization for re-broadcasting copyrighted material without licensing it! Now back then (early 80s) $500 was nearly a week's take home pay! The best I recall either my employer or my union paid my "fine". So it seems these copyright police have nothing better to do than scope out supermarkets at 3 AM to see if they can raise some revenue. Tim's warning is well founded.
Every song I've aired that has vocals is self-written by the artists that sings them, plus there's a good number of instrumental stuff in my rotation as well.