- November 22, 2019 at 12:43 pm #113401
I think this won’t affect part 15 but who knows. Don’t know if Canada has this in place but here, with our part 15 equivalent no over the air station has to pay fees.November 24, 2019 at 4:46 am #113494timinboveyParticipant
Total posts : 652
Not true. An over the air station has to pay fees to broadcast music from BMI. They have the licensing forms and contract info on their website. ASCAP and SEASAC have informed me in writing that no license is necessary.
Of course most Part 15 operators don’t bother, and that’s up to you. But even if you make no money, or lose money, you pay BMI for the rights to broadcast their music if you’re legal.
I’ve spent well over 40 years working with music rights from all sides — broadcasting, performing, song writing, operating a record label, etc. And actually have a copyright attorney on retainer should questions come up. I’ve written several very long explanatory posts on this site that you can probably get with a search.
The issues that come up in the above article surface every few years. It has yet to pass.
TIBNovember 24, 2019 at 5:25 am #113497
I was waiting for you to reply Tim. Quite frankly I’m confused, the article states that currently OTA stations pay no royalties and this proposal aims to change that.. You say OTA stations have always been required to pay. If that’s the case then why the proposed act? Who’s correct on this copywriter issue? Congress or you?
“Senator Marsha Blackburn and Rep. Jerrold Nadler today introduced the Ask Musicians for Music Act (AM-FM), which aims to revise existing copyright law for radio stations and musicians. Under the current copyright system, radio stations can use sound recordings over their airwaves without paying royalties to creators who own a stake in the sound recordings. The AM-FM Act would require all radio services to pay fair-market value for the music they use..”November 25, 2019 at 11:40 am #113509November 27, 2019 at 8:39 am #113532
I’m still confused.. In the U.S, if OTA stations have never been required to pay royalties for the music they play (except for their online streams), then where did the idea come from that OTA part 15 stations need to pay royalties?.. I always interpreted it as because it’s considered a “public performance’ like jukeboxes or even live bands at events or in bars (required to pay, but no one seems to actually do).
Now I’m reconsidering the whole thing… When and how was it ever determined that part 15 stations have to pay, but not licensed OTA stations? It doesn’t seem to make sense!
BMI had explained years ago in a Radio World article that the ONLY reason they created a Part 15 License at all, about fifteen years ago was because they suddenly had got a rush of request for such a license from the part 15 broadcasters themselves (I presume to present a sense of legitimacy for their part 15 stations). https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/bmi-adds-part-15-radio-license
November 27, 2019 at 2:47 pm #113537ThelegacyParticipant
- This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by RichPowers.
Total posts : 280
As I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again I’m not the least bit worried about getting sued for operating a part 15 station as I’m not profit (I know I’ll hear “The Law is The Law”) but sorry you can’t expect a non com station that has the coverage of 200 Ft to 2 miles depending on if your AM or FM to pay anybody squat period. If it were $10-20/Yr maybe at best but I’m not paying as long as licensed Radio does not pay. That is discrimination and should be fought to the death if necessary I say.
At that limited range who is to determine how many listeners I’d get? Who’s to determine rather they have an Emerson AM Radio and only hears me 200 Ft or a Toyota Corolla Radio listening at 5.5 miles away? How many listeners do I have with a Toyota Corolla or Camry? Who determines who has the Terk AM Advantage loop on their AM Radio and is listening 1.5 miles out?
And finally (If I Were to Advertise which I don’t) How monetary is my station based on listener ratings and coverage? Its a rip-off at best and I’m not about to entertain that philosophy. I understand artists SHOULD get paid but if it were not for Radio they would not be in business in the first place.
It would be like a job less person on Welfare and food stamps charging the food bank because they failed to provide food of good taste! You don’t get FREE promotion and then ask the provider of your FREE meal ticket to pay you too for providing that FREE ticket.
There comes a time Americans fight taxation without representation and this is an example of that very fact. I sure hope they have plenty of jail space for all those Christmas Light part 15 stations out there playing music without any payments to these folks.
If you didn’t have certain part 15 operators who have more money than sense pocking the pro’s in the eye asking that question this would not be a part of anyone’s conversation. Heck even the FCC made no comment to me about paying for a music license but did tell me NOT to play commercials on my station to avoid any legal business licensing issues.
So put me in the category of someone always wanting something for FREE, whatever I just am not going to try and make sense of nonsense.
The NAB has the money and resources to fight this into the ground so we’ll see what these guys do but in the end it won’t look pretty for these greedy folks and at may even reverse Internet Radio too. Its a case where greed will destroy them.November 27, 2019 at 4:56 pm #113539
All this is news to me as I always thought radio stations always payed through the nose for the license fees. I think in Canada they always have as when I contacted the few license regulating organizations here and was told no fees are needed for BETS-1 I was also told but if you are a commercial station or streaming you pay, and a lot if you are a commercial station.November 27, 2019 at 7:55 pm #113541
Ok, I think I kind of get it now.. OTA stations in the US do have to pay BMI, who in turn pays only the original writer of the song, but stations don’t pay other royalties to anyone else.. Not the artist, neither singer or band, not the composition or production, not anyone other the writer. – Is this correct?
If so, then that would better explain the BMI part 15 license, and our obligations.
I’m one to lean towards a legal operation, hopefully most hobbyist do. But unless your part 15 station is a serious venture in some manner, then it’s perfectly reasonable and proper (as I see it) not to incur the cost of a BMI license to enjoy your hobby.
But if your station is notable and/or popular with a public audience, then it’d be wise to get a BMI license.
Of course none of this explains why the US is the only country in the world that does not pay royalties for the artist that make the songs a hit.November 27, 2019 at 9:58 pm #113542
We’ll it seems that this proposed legislation is supposed to fix that.
But I can’t see BMI in the USA wanting $200 a year for a hobby station over the air that covers very little ground except the block around you and if you have a large property like a couple of acres, just your property and 1 or 2 listeners maybe. There are 3 main license fee companies in Canada and none of them even knew what BETS-1, Canada’s “part 15” was. I had to try to explain it to them and was told on all inquiries that no fees are in our requirements for this. BMI used to be in Canada but a long time ago. In the late 70s it was taken over by SOCAN I believe. They collect music fees that are 1.9% of your operating expense but when they asked me about that and I told them I have no known listeners, no operating expense, just the one time purchase of a computer, transmitter and compressor and make no money and they had no clue what BETS-1 was and didn’t know what to tell me at all. The others did check into it and was told by the managers no fees are collected for this.
Resound, another Canadian, music fee collection organization said if I was doing it in a mall or store where it was a business making money there would be some fees but not for what I/we are doing. Streaming yes, that’s different.
$200 a year is not that big a deal but it’s the other things like keeping a log and having to submit other things to them. Although Play it Live keeps a log….times dates and the info with the song, title artist etc.
But this may not change anything with part 15 as it is now if this passes. You hope. The FCC could be contacted to find out.November 28, 2019 at 7:41 am #113545RFCCLebanonParticipant
Total posts : 22
Now what about public domain content (music and old-time radio reruns)? Surely we can’t be charged if we’re playing public domain content can we?November 28, 2019 at 12:54 pm #113548ThelegacyParticipant
Total posts : 280
Even if you stream only Creative Commons material you are not charged but keeping track of that is a huge hassle and on the net if Sony Music, BMI, SESAC scans your station to see what you play your toast. Live365 has many tiers to suit your actual lister demand.
Hope this helps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.