• 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

Music Royalty To Rise 44%

DavidEduardo said:


Obviously, states like AZ and FL that are farther south don't need DST.
Click to expand...


Florida has DST, although it and several other eastern states have talked about getting rid of it, effectively moving to Atlantic Time (UTC-4) year-round.

Hawaii is the other state that doesn't observe DST.

Having lived where sunrise and sunset only varied by a few minutes all year long, I appreciate the consistency of having a single zone permanently.
Click to expand...

I take it you're talking about Quito. I would think that, by definition, anything along the Equator would have its sunrise and sunset at exactly the same time every day. I know the Earth isn't exactly a perfect sphere, so I'm guessing that's why there's a bit of variation.
 
KeithE4 said:
Florida has DST, although it and several other eastern states have talked about getting rid of it, effectively moving to Atlantic Time (UTC-4) year-round.
Click to expand...

Florida has no reason to be talking about it -- at least not for the reason the New England states are. Look at the map. Florida is well west of the westernmost New England state; in fact, part of its panhandle is in the Central time zone. Why in the world would moving Florida into the same time zone as Nova Scotia make sense? The New England states want to join the zone they logically ought to be in to get rid of the 4 p.m. midwinter sunsets and the too-late midsummer sunrises. Eliminating DST would only make matters worse. But, obviously, having Connecticut's Gold Coast in a different time zone from Manhattan would be a huge problem affecting people and corporations with enough money to buy the entire Congress, and allowing only Maine to go Atlantic is not good either, so I have a feeling nothing is going to change.
 
Same issue in Indiana when they weren't going on DST and I was working in TV. Indianapolis stations started delaying network programming during the summer so they could keep the same "clock time" schedule all year. In Lafayette, we followed suit, using 3 one-inch machines rolled 45 minutes apart with around 10 minutes of overlap so we could match colors before taking the next machine. (We rolled backups on 3/4 inch). It really got to be fun with news bulletins. We'd gtake the bulletin live, stop recording and playing, and theoretically everything would sync back up. It never did.

THen for regualr buisness and family members, Indiana was--as David Letterman once quipped--"the state without a time zone". Phone rings at 5:30am, and your cheerful friend or relative says "oh, I thought it was 7:30 there!"


landtuna said:
Actually, in those few years when we did subscribe to DST I did find positives.



As a long time suffering member of the IT industry though I hated that AZ didn't observe DST. It meant a ton of work two times per year adjusting computer offset times to neighboring states and the failure of TV listings to be out of sync for a month each year.
Click to expand...
 
If I remember right, under the most recent legislation, even the Panhandle will be on the equivelant of pemanent EDT. That's just nuts.

CTListener said:
Florida has no reason to be talking about it -- at least not for the reason the New England states are. Look at the map. Florida is well west of the westernmost New England state; in fact, part of its panhandle is in the Central time zone. Why in the world would moving Florida into the same time zone as Nova Scotia make sense? The New England states want to join the zone they logically ought to be in to get rid of the 4 p.m. midwinter sunsets and the too-late midsummer sunrises. Eliminating DST would only make matters worse. But, obviously, having Connecticut's Gold Coast in a different time zone from Manhattan would be a huge problem affecting people and corporations with enough money to buy the entire Congress, and allowing only Maine to go Atlantic is not good either, so I have a feeling nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...
 
gr8oldies said:
If I remember right, under the most recent legislation, even the Panhandle will be on the equivelant of pemanent EDT. That's just nuts.

Click to expand...

I'll bet the tourism folks are behind that! They can trade on the stupidity of the American public, many members of which still believe that DST somehow "adds more daylight," and advertise "Florida, The Sunshine State ... Now, with even more sunshine every day of the year!!!"
 
I have been a tourism folk, and yes I could see that happening!


CTListener said:
I'll bet the tourism folks are behind that! They can trade on the stupidity of the American public, many members of which still believe that DST somehow "adds more daylight," and advertise "Florida, The Sunshine State ... Now, with even more sunshine every day of the year!!!"
Click to expand...
 
CTListener said:
I'll bet the tourism folks are behind that! They can trade on the stupidity of the American public, many members of which still believe that DST somehow "adds more daylight," and advertise "Florida, The Sunshine State ... Now, with even more sunshine every day of the year!!!"
Click to expand...

FloriDUH is way behind in % of total sun at 66%. Phoenix leads the way with 91% and Tucson right behind at 86%.

We ain't called The Valley of the Sun for nuttin'.
 
There was a bill under consideration last month in Arkansas that would eliminate DST if it passed, but I don't know if it passed or if it did pass when it takes effect. From what I could find out they're on DST now, probably for the rest of this year anyway.

In Tennessee there was a bill under consideration a few years back to put the state on DST year round, which would have been insane since the state is split between the Eastern and Central time zones. Thankfully it didn't pass.

And you think Indiana Stupid time was bad... :rolleyes:
 
I may be misinformed but I think for a state to allow/disallow DST it has to be approved by Congress.
 
anotherguy said:
There was a bill under consideration last month in Arkansas that would eliminate DST if it passed, but I don't know if it passed or if it did pass when it takes effect. From what I could find out they're on DST now, probably for the rest of this year anyway.

In Tennessee there was a bill under consideration a few years back to put the state on DST year round, which would have been insane since the state is split between the Eastern and Central time zones. Thankfully it didn't pass.
Click to expand...

At some point, this thread has to get back to discussing music royalties or Frank might start thinking of shutting it down, but I'll add a couple more observations:

1. I remember passing through Tennessee in midsummer years back and being amazed that there was still some brightness to the sky after 9:30 p.m. This was just east of the Central Time line, the far western edge of EDT, and was something I couldn't even imagine experiencing in New England.

2. President Trump has weighed in on this with a tweet reading "Making Daylight Saving Time permanent is O.K. with me!" So there we have the next GOP agenda item for the current Congress.
 
Meanwhile, there's more news in the music royalty debate. As a refresher, one month ago, the Copyright Royalty Board increased music royalties for songwriters by 44%. Last week, several streaming companies, including Spotify, appealed the decision. Spotify posted a blog on its website explaining their appeal. Now the National Music Publishing Association has responded to the Spotify blog. This is an indication of how bitter this fight is, and why it's so hard for companies to make money streaming music:

https://musicrow.com/2019/03/nmpas-...ck-to-spotifys-crb-ruling-appeal-explanation/

NMPA: What can we expect from Spotify? We can expect them to attack songwriters to cut what it pays them, and then try to deceive you about what it is doing. Yes – Spotify’s mission IS clear. And for songwriters, and those who care about songwriters, our mission is clear too. This fight has just started.
Click to expand...

The basic thrust of the article is: Unless you accept the 44% increase, you are hurting songwriters. This entire discussion doesn't include royalty payments to record labels, artists, and musicians. Just songwriters. Once the songwriters decision settles, then the labels, artists, and musicians will want an increase. And costs keep going up. This is why I say that you should enjoy free music streaming while you can. There is no way these companies will be able to continue to offer it without a subscription fee.
 
I'm out of the loop regarding streaming music royalties, having pulled the plug on the hobby station back in 2016. But you're right, the ad supported music streaming business model looks like it's ready to crash and burn.

Meanwhile, what's the rate difference between what online-only streaming outlets pay and what simulcast streams of radio broadcasts pay? Or are they basically the same rate?
 
TheBigA said:
Meanwhile, there's more news in the music royalty debate. As a refresher, one month ago, the Copyright Royalty Board increased music royalties for songwriters by 44%. Last week, several streaming companies, including Spotify, appealed the decision. Spotify posted a blog on its website explaining their appeal. Now the National Music Publishing Association has responded to the Spotify blog. This is an indication of how bitter this fight is, and why it's so hard for companies to make money streaming music:

https://musicrow.com/2019/03/nmpas-...ck-to-spotifys-crb-ruling-appeal-explanation/



The basic thrust of the article is: Unless you accept the 44% increase, you are hurting songwriters. This entire discussion doesn't include royalty payments to record labels, artists, and musicians. Just songwriters. Once the songwriters decision settles, then the labels, artists, and musicians will want an increase. And costs keep going up. This is why I say that you should enjoy free music streaming while you can. There is no way these companies will be able to continue to offer it without a subscription fee.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confident that the appeal will fail. What makes you so confident? Is the fix in and the appeals process a sham?

Also, will the streaming doomsday scenario you anticipate affect YouTube, which is now a safe haven for all sorts of free music in all genres, with only certain superstars' recordings (Bob Dylan, Garth Brooks, for example) subject to being taken down for copyright violations? No more homemade photo-album videos of songs like "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" and "Precious and Few"? No more crude karaoke-style lyrics videos -- usually with misspelled or misheard portions -- of any of a number of songs? There are YouTube users who have libraries of hundreds, even thousands of old singles in which you can actually see the 45 being played. Will those users have their libraries deleted? Pleas look into your magic crystal ball and reveal more of the future, oh all-seeing BigA!
 
CTListener said:
You seem to be confident that the appeal will fail. What makes you so confident? Is the fix in and the appeals process a sham?
Click to expand...

TTBOMK, the courts have always ruled in favor of the copyright owners. However, this was a split decision, so who knows?

However, as you can see, the music publishers are not viewing this as an appeal. They view it as an attack.
 
joebtsflk1 said:
Meanwhile, what's the rate difference between what online-only streaming outlets pay and what simulcast streams of radio broadcasts pay? Or are they basically the same rate?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that streams of radio broadcasts receive a small discount on their publishing royalty, not the label & artist royalty. It was a negotiated discount, not a statutory one. This led to Pandora buying an FM radio station, in order to qualify for that discount. They have since sold that radio station.

Pandora is now one of the companies that is appealing the 44% royalty increase in the OP.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
Here's a more detailed discussion on this issue, and why it's not as simple as it appears:

https://www.billboard.com/articles/...ate-decision-huge-deal-songwriters-publishers

Another streaming company that is not appealing this decision is iHeartRadio. Why? Because their rate comes from a direct negotiation rather than imposed by a court.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a strategy that would work for major broadcasting chains and maybe even the biggest of the streamers, but a mom-and-pop radio station or small-time/hobbyist streamer most likely wouldn't even get past the receptionist in its attempt to talk to someone representing the royalty board or the "aggrieved" parties, be they the labels, performers, songwriters or producers. They don't want their product to disappear from the airwaves, and I'm sure they also don't want to prohibit it from being streamed. The question is whether they want to cut off all the small-timers and only play nice with the big boys.
 
CTListener said:
That sounds like a strategy that would work for major broadcasting chains and maybe even the biggest of the streamers
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure I understand what you're saying, but the negotiation is handled for the broadcasters by the Radio Music License Committee, which is the same organization that makes the group deal for all NAB members for standard airplay. So if a mom & pop station has a license to play music on its broadcast station, it also has a license, at least on the publishing side, to stream. However, they need to follow the SoundExchange rules for the label & artist royalty. The smallest hobbyist streamers typically use a streaming company, such as Live365 or similar, and they will handle relations for the license. They still have to complete all the paperwork (and it can be substantial), but the negotiation is handled for them. Of course they're paying court imposed rates in both cases.
 
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