• 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

Does this spell the end of the 60s Oldies format?

scott.cason said:
And secondly, is any of them playing that music anymore?
Click to expand...

They don't have to be playing it now. The lawsuit doesn't say it happened recently. Just that it happened. Then again, why didn't they sue 10 years ago? Obviously the lawsuit is opportunistic, following on the Turtles lawsuit against Sirius. The lawsuit is only for a few million dollars, which those companies CAN afford. But that's not the point. If the radio stations lose, they have to pay, regardless of ability.
 
scott.cason said:
The joke is on them, none of those companies have the money to pay out a multi-million dollar lawsuit. And secondly, is any of them playing that music anymore?
Click to expand...

Those companies all have the money to pay a lawsuit settlement and can not plead otherwise.

CBS is profitable and has little debt. Cumulus and iHeart both have positive EBITDA, and could be ordered to pay.

The real issue is whether terrestrial radio, which has never paid a label/artist royalty ever, can be made to pay today for a portion of the recorded music it plays that is differentiated by age.
 
DavidEduardo said:
The real issue is whether terrestrial radio, which has never paid a label/artist royalty ever, can be made to pay today for a portion of the recorded music it plays that is differentiated by age.
Click to expand...

The thing of it is that state copyright law does not grant a performance right or royalty. If there was a royalty, the rate would need to be set, and the money would need to be collected and overseen by an authority. Sirius overlooked those facts and simply paid damages to the major labels, which is not the same as a royalty. From what I can see in this suit, the plaintiff is a demanding payment for damages, and not a royalty.

But it gets back to something I said on another board, which is that broadcast radio was sent these recordings by the record labels for the expressed purpose of seeking airplay. That alone could be interpreted as a granting of license.
 
That's a great point. Radio stations either directly or indirectly at that time and in years after, were sent music for the intent of gaining airplay on the station. If radio does not win this battle then when will all the other venues also fall to this tactic. Will it come to the point nobody will take a chance so as to create the true starving artist? Without promotion you cannot fill seats at concert venues and sell your music. I see where 'marketing' is a double edged sword but at what point does marketing become a deterrent to the artist, record companies and writers? Without the publicity, where would they be? When will You Tube and others have to defend themselves? I've actually heard songs on You Tube and thought I have to buy that CD and did. So, while downloads are more popular, some that hear the song will make a purchase as I did.

It seems to me that any provider of music is being bit for what the listener chooses to do. If the venue playing the material can't control the listener's actions then why are they the guilty party. If people are not getting their fair share, maybe they made a bad deal. In radio's case, radio simply gave a stage to musicians and writers that may have never experienced the success they had without the 'marketing' broadcasters offered. Sure radio made money like the artist, writer, etc., but radio didn't charge for the free advertising either.
 
b-turner said:
When will You Tube and others have to defend themselves?
Click to expand...

The difference is that YouTube is digital. In the Congressional hearings that granted a performance right for digital airplay of post 1972 music, Congress agreed that digital airplay allowed consumers the opportunity to get CD-quality music without buying it. That's not the case for broadcast radio, which isn't digital, nor is it CD-quality.

But once again, this right only extends to post-1972 music, and there are no performance royalties in state copyright law. So no royalty will apply.
 
TheBigA said:
The difference is that YouTube is digital. In the Congressional hearings that granted a performance right for digital airplay of post 1972 music, Congress agreed that digital airplay allowed consumers the opportunity to get CD-quality music without buying it. That's not the case for broadcast radio, which isn't digital, nor is it CD-quality.

But once again, this right only extends to post-1972 music, and there are no performance royalties in state copyright law. So no royalty will apply.
Click to expand...

If being digital is the only specification, how does HD Radio get around it?
 
One thing I think misses the point is not recognizing the distinction between high quality downloads and crappy sounding transmissions like 64kbps mp3 streams and AM Radio.

What possible "damages" can be incurred by allowing songs to be played on AM Radio? Is it the fear that the relative handful of oldies fans who make up a subset of the handful of people who listen to AM Radio will dust off their cassette recorders and "steal" the songs by recording them off the staticy, muddy AM air? C'mon! Even if they do, so what?

As b-turner points out, publicity is necessary and good. In the digital app world you give away a slightly compromised version of your work in order to attract orders for the premium version. The recording industry doesn't get that.
 
wadio said:
One thing I think misses the point is not recognizing the distinction between high quality downloads and crappy sounding transmissions like 64kbps mp3 streams and AM Radio.
Click to expand...

The distinction that is stated in the law is between analog and digital. So AM is exempt. The low quality streams were not considered in 1998 when the law was written.
 
TheBigA said:
The distinction that is stated in the law is between analog and digital. So AM is exempt. The low quality streams were not considered in 1998 when the law was written.
Click to expand...

In the law (DMCA) yeah. But the in lawsuit according to the linked article: "The plaintiff, ABS Entertainment, is suing the three largest terrestrial radio broadcasters in the country, CBS, iHeartMedia and Cumulus, for unpaid royalties it claims they owe them for playing its artists’ songs on the radio."

The recording industry would collect royalties from people who hum to themselves or even hear songs in their heads if they could. ;)
 
wadio said:
The recording industry would collect royalties from people who hum to themselves or even hear songs in their heads if they could. ;)
Click to expand...

A royalty can only be claimed if it is spelled out in some form of law. That part of the suit is fatuous.
 
wadio said:
In the law (DMCA) yeah. But the in lawsuit according to the linked article: "The plaintiff, ABS Entertainment, is suing the three largest terrestrial radio broadcasters in the country, CBS, iHeartMedia and Cumulus, for unpaid royalties it claims they owe them for playing its artists’ songs on the radio."

The recording industry would collect royalties from people who hum to themselves or even hear songs in their heads if they could. ;)
Click to expand...

So would ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.
 
So AM is analog and FM is digital? I missed that one...
 
CBS just made this much more interesting in terms of the legalities of copyright. Rather than multi-post, read it here.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom