• 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

Buh-bye, Taylor Swift. What to do with GMR artists come January 1st?

J

joebtsflk1

Star Participant
Have been following the GMR story for a couple of weeks and have been wondering how smaller stations are planning their playlists come January 1st.
http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/music-lawsuit-radio/

How much is GMR wanting per station to use their repertory? Reportedly GMR represents 7.5% of all music airplay. I'm betting GMR wants almost as much as ASCAP and BMI get.

Make no mistake: The old, symbiotic relationship in the USA between radio airplay of music helping the music industry sell recordings is over.
 
joebtsflk1 said:
The old, symbiotic relationship in the USA between radio airplay of music helping the music industry sell recordings is over.
Click to expand...

That's not what the judge said to The Turtles.

http://rbr.com/siriusxm-pre72-supremecourt/

The fact of the matter is that there still is no better platform to break new music. When you look at the songs people are streaming, they heard them all first on FM radio.

At some point, a judge will say the same to Azoff.
 
TheBigA said:
That's not what the judge said to The Turtles.

http://rbr.com/siriusxm-pre72-supremecourt/

The fact of the matter is that there still is no better platform to break new music. When you look at the songs people are streaming, they heard them all first on FM radio.

At some point, a judge will say the same to Azoff.
Click to expand...

I sure hope you're right on that one...but I think in the interim, smaller stations would do well to rid themselves of GMR songs come January 1. Large market stations may have no competitive choice but to pay Azoff's GMR or lose a substantial number of currents.
 
joebtsflk1 said:
I sure hope you're right on that one...but I think in the interim, smaller stations would do well to rid themselves of GMR songs come January 1. Large market stations may have no competitive choice but to pay Azoff's GMR or lose a substantial number of currents.
Click to expand...

Not so much currents, but I see a ton of classic rock: Tom Petty, Springsteen, Steve Miller, Eagles, etc.
 
First, we had Geo-Fencing because of royalty costs. Now, it looks like maybe we'll have some Artist-Fencing for the same reason?
 
boombox4 said:
First, we had Geo-Fencing because of royalty costs. Now, it looks like maybe we'll have some Artist-Fencing for the same reason?
Click to expand...

More like "song-fencing." This is a songwriter royalty issue. And this will be an issue for digital too.
 
Tom Taylor's newsletter has a story on this today. He says that iHeart and Townsquare have cut direct deals with GMR to cover songs played on their stations. All others are not covered as of January 1, 2017. They risk getting sued by GMR.
 
Just what I was afraid of. I've been curious about what GMR has been extorting, rather, demanding from stations to use their repertory. It seems clear as mud to me when I go to the GMR website. And there doesn't seem to be a clear breakout of the songs in the GMR repertory. I'm guessing they are following the SESAC playbook to the letter.

Stations that contact GMR may risk divulging information to them that GMR can use against the station, it seems to me. How can stations de-GRM (transposition intentional, as in GeRM) their playlists?
 
The following link is from the RMLC site, so not sure if this appropriate to share here. If not, guess we'll find out soon enough.
http://imgsrv.radiomlc.org/image/rmlc/UserFiles/File/GMR%20Interim%20License%20Offer%20Blast%20Created%2020161222%2034533%20PM.pdf

Not sure if I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think stations get to find out the GMR repertory unless they sign the contract. Furthermore, the GMR repertory cannot be shared with outside parties to the agreement.

If I did interpret it correctly, this is akin to "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill" tactic used to push through Obamacare.
 
Groove1670 said:
This is for RMLC member stations.
Click to expand...

That's correct. But even those member stations must contact GMR individually for their specific rate. So apparently there will not be an RMLC negotiated rate as there is with the three other PROs.
 
In big letters on the middle of their home page, GMR promises "transparency." Yet, you can't find out who their artists are or how much they're charging you or what they're basing your rate on...and you must swear to never reveal anything to anyone else or they won't license you. Transparency? I think Mr. Azoff has a different dictionary than I do.
 
Fine Young Cannibal said:
In big letters on the middle of their home page, GMR promises "transparency." Yet, you can't find out who their artists are or how much they're charging you or what they're basing your rate on...and you must swear to never reveal anything to anyone else or they won't license you. Transparency? I think Mr. Azoff has a different dictionary than I do.
Click to expand...

Transparency for the arists/songwriters/publishers most likely. They are the only people they really care about.
 
Thought I'd Google what's been going on between the RMLC and GMR. I found this email from Ed Christian that isn't at all encouraging. Basically it's going just like I thought it would, bad.

I've been delegated the task of monitoring the GMR situation for my friend's small-town station back in the midwest. I don't want to make contact with GMR; they don't need their address. They probably have it anyway and can probably cross-ref those stations that have contracted with GMR and those that haven't. I don't need to attract any undue attention.

Carving out the GMR artists from the playlists will be a tedious task, but I think it may have to be done. Am I over-reacting? Anyone here already licensed with GMR, and are their rates onerous or is it a situation where in the big scheme of things, not that big a deal. $100 more a month is a lot but manageable, $300 more a month might be a different story.

I don't think my friend's station is an RMLC member. I'm thinking they may need to pay up their dues if it isn't too spendy.
 
joebtsflk1 said:
I don't think my friend's station is an RMLC member. I'm thinking they may need to pay up their dues if it isn't too spendy.
Click to expand...

Are you a gambler? Do you like to take chances without insurance? That's what this is. Lots of variables if you want to avoid their songs.

If the station isn't an RMLC member, how are they handling BMI and ASCAP? Even if the station flips to talk or sports, there's always a chance of "incidental music."
 
TheBigA said:
Are you a gambler? Do you like to take chances without insurance? That's what this is. Lots of variables if you want to avoid their songs.
Click to expand...
"Insurance" may not be the right term. "Protection racket" comes to mind. That doesn't change the fact there's a lot of risk if you don't throw Azloff's sharks some meat.

TheBigA said:
If the station isn't an RMLC member, how are they handling BMI and ASCAP?
Click to expand...
I think they may be paying BMI/ASCAP directly. But I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom