• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

When will they take time to balance the budget?

As long as our 'voluntary income tax withholding' dollars continue to flow into WASHinton to pay towards the cost of doing business and as long as lobby dollars flow into the trough of the pigs, err.. politicans AND as long as they can borrow against your children's future incomes...

It will never fix itself.
 
This is an interesting bill, and it has the support of the NAB, major radio companies, and even Pandora.

Amazingly, MusicFirst, the RIAA, and the recording industry oppose it.

My view is that it's just another attempt to force the hands of the labels and radio to negotiate this thing, rather than having legislation passed. The fact is there is no proposed legislation that everyone likes. We now have two radio companies who've bypassed the situation, and shown that it's possible to negotiate directly with copyright holders, and get a fair deal. If the other labels can get their collective greed under control, they'll see this is the right solution to the problem, and allow an impartial group to handle the negotiations for the entire industry. Then there will be no need for legislation, and everyone will be happy.
 
TheBigA said:
This is an interesting bill, and it has the support of the NAB, major radio companies, and even Pandora.

Amazingly, MusicFirst, the RIAA, and the recording industry oppose it.

My view is that it's just another attempt to force the hands of the labels and radio to negotiate this thing, rather than having legislation passed. The fact is there is no proposed legislation that everyone likes. We now have two radio companies who've bypassed the situation, and shown that it's possible to negotiate directly with copyright holders, and get a fair deal. If the other labels can get their collective greed under control, they'll see this is the right solution to the problem, and allow an impartial group to handle the negotiations for the entire industry. Then there will be no need for legislation, and everyone will be happy.
Click to expand...

The RIAA will oppose anything that could ultimately result in less revenue for the labels. By leveling the playing field for internet radio, the labels will get less money and that cannot be allowed. Plus this does not address the lack of royalties paid by broadcast radio. The RIAA want the playing field leveled. But their idea of leveling is to have everyone, including broadcast radio pay 60-70% of their revenue in royalties.
 
Casey said:
By leveling the playing field for internet radio, the labels will get less money and that cannot be allowed.
Click to expand...

The point is that a lot of people don't stream music because it costs too much. If the rate was lower, more people would do it, and consequently they'd make more money. They need to ask themselves do they want a handful of people paying 70%, or millions of people paying 4%. If you do the math, the lower rate makes more money for the exact same content. Plus, CC and Entercom have proven that if the labels will lower the digital rate, the broadcasters will be willing to share some of the OTA money. I really don't see why the labels are balking. This is a no-brainer.
 
Because they don't look that far ahead. They want their money now. It would take several years for a lower royalty rate to surpass what they currently receive and I don't see them waiting that long.

There are some artists/labels out there that still think Pandora and internet radio in general cuts into their music sales. These people want Pandora to pay more and will fight for higher royalty rates no matter what. Some go as far as to threaten to sue Pandora for playing their music. I read yet another artist blog recently about how they threatened Pandora.
 
Casey said:
There are some artists/labels out there that still think Pandora and internet radio in general cuts into their music sales. ]
Click to expand...

Anyone who is in the music business for CD sales has been asleep for the last ten years. The future is in copyright management. I think UMG understands that, and it's why they bought EMI. The chief componant of copyright management is the licensing of that copyright for radio.

These folks are so short-sighted, they wanted to charge Amazon for the :10 snippets they play at their site. People won't buy music they can't hear. Period.
 
Exactly, Radio, Streaming, and other media is the new promotional tool to drive music sales. If you can't hear it, odds are you won't buy the music. So, MusicLast needs to consider this as does SoundExchange. If performance royalties get forced upon us, we should charge the record labels advertising time to compensate. And enough to ensure us some profit. This is a two way street. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom