Artists DO deserve some financial compensation for their work.
That being said, this is not rocket science, and taking your money should be a whole lot less confusing and easier.
Here in Canada, there are multiple agencies surrounding the copyright issue. However, you only have to deal with one when considering broadcasting royalties - SOCAN (unless, of course, you're using independent music, and there you have to go directly to each source to get permission). SOCAN has agreements with licensing agencies all around the world, and handles the interactions between them.
From what I gather, things are a lot more complicated in the U.S. No wonder so many skirt the issue. There's not a whole lot of money involved unless you're doing Part 15 as a business, and they'd probably get a lot more people complying (and paying) if the entire process became more user friendly.
Artisan makes a central point... artists deserve compensation for their work. Absolutely, and about this I have no reservations and will even throw in free lunch.
The complaint I make has to do with streaming which requires agreements and payments to at least three separate entities, with artists at the other end saying they either never get any mony or get .40-cents a month. So some middle men are keeping all the money. But let them. Let's talk about the inconvenience for hobby streamcasters:
I understand the royalties are disproportionately high and the required record keeping and reporting is massive and completely gets in the way of enjoying the hobby.
Then there's the obvious fact that by playing someone's music a station is actually promoting the recordings, composers and musicians and therefore it is radio stations who should be paid, although I think most would be content to call it an even swap and just allow it to happen.
But all that complaining aside, does anyone actually know the contacts and formulas and actual facts about royalty licensing beyond the atmosphere of legal threat?
Like Artisan says, it should be user friendly.
The '50's/'60's were a good time. Pay to Play, Payola, call it what you will. The stations are offering a service by promoting the artists. How else you gonna reach the masses to sell your music. I guess that's part of the reason so many AM's went talk format-costs too much to "use" the music not to mention streaming.
Now, I agree the artists need to be compensated. I thought they were when you bought their music. I just hate to see some greedy middle man grabbin' the majority of the royalty check that should go to the artist.
It's like telling me I have to pay a fee everytime I read a book I've purchased. What's the difference.
Personal friends who receive royalty checks laugh at the payouts. The cost to process and send the check is more than the payout.
It's gonna take a boycott, perhaps only playing Indie music such as I do, to shut them down.
You mention payola. I chummed with some very fat and happy DJs and program directors who had slick cars and all the girls.
Meanwhile there I was skimming minimum wage and never offered a payola deal. What did they have against offering me some payola? On second thought that's probably why I am not in jail.
Maybe a streaming station could offer to spotlight a new artist's music for $250 per play? Legal payola.
Seriously, for non-commercial and especially educational program producers "Fair Use" exists in copyright law especially to allow employment of copyrighted material as part of an instructional presentation. Makes you wonder if an oldies format "portraying a historic decade," such as the 1960s, might qualify as Fair Use.
The system is so adversarial that one feels he is waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination just by asking such a question.
Another dimension is "permissions," wherein one seeks the permission of the composer and the orchestra. That would seem reasonable, but nothing is ever so simple.
I have permissions by e-mail to air the radio programs I carry, why can't the same thing work for music? Or maybe it can.
Except when they don't reply. I wrote to a singer who actually could use a little exposure and asked permission to use a song, but there was never a reply. I guess that means "No."
I would like to see the fees paid go directly to the artists involved as well. The way things are set up now benefits the big artists (who get richer), while leaving the little guys with virtually nothing - that's why more and more independents are popping up.
But MRAM's analogy is flawed. If you buy a book and read it, no matter how many times, it is only you (who paid) that is getting the benefit. Similarly with a CD and listening to it. But if you buy that music CD, and then broadcast it, it is not only you, but many others (your listeners), that are getting that benefit. They don't have to go out and purchase the CD if they only want to listen casually (if they want to listen to it at their own schedule, then they would have to go out and buy it).
I understand the argument that a radio station is promoting the content they play. But if you're making money off of that content, then the artists that provide the content should get compensated. If you're not making money, that's another matter. In Canada, that's reflected in the minimum licensing fee for streaming, which is quite low. If you're a commercial, revenue generating station, then you pay much higher fees (and your record keeping is correspondingly more detailed). I can't speak for any other countries.
the problem i have with this is legally part 15 is suppose to be a connection from a music device to your stereo as far as the law is concerned. if we classified these stations as requiring to pay royalties under present law every kid with a mr microphone and joe/jane blow just wanting to transmit from his/her media center or music source to his/her stereo's through out the home will now have to pay royalties. the fact that we have figured out how to stretch these small signals a little further than was originally intended does not change the original intent or classification of these stations. i for one am on a very low and fixed income and could not afford the rights fees in either the usa or canada. canada comes close to getting it right for small no income broadcasters but $1k/yr is a little steep still. my whole income is only about $9k/yr. i agree if it is a business selling commerical/airtime or is otherwise attached to a money making enterprise of somekind then royalties should be paid. but jane/joe hobbyist operating from home as a hobby should either not have to pay royalties or pay a simple fee say 20-50 dollars a month to one organization instead of having to deal with the current 4 or 5 we have here in the states each charging ridiculously high fees. if hobbyists are required to pay royalties here in the states as the system is currently structured then the typical hobbyist will be priced out of the the hobby.
The minimum fee in Canada is $100. And that's for an Internet streaming license, which can be picked up anywhere in the world. They didn't care about the Part 15 (here it's BETS) component.
As for books, I was thinking of the audio book programs. These were popular on the FM SCA channels for the blind.
And what if I read a news paper or magazine article. The old President would have been in big trouble for his Fireside Chats when he'd do the same all those years ago.
And besides, it's the commercials that pay the bills not the music. Music programming costs money. If you want to listen to the music you gotta be interrupted by commercials or pledge drives for non-coms to pay the bills.
Paying royalties based on revenue, my station makes a negative profit. They owe me money!
wonder if i use a canadian based shoutcast server to stream if i could get under canadian royalties and pay them a 100.00 fee versus the present cluster f#$% we have here in the usa.