Are Part 15 stations exempt of royaltys

[Mid West Clubber]

I was told by another poster on another board that I am subject to royaltys, but my station is a Dance Music Mp3 player that covers about 200 to 500 feet,, its just an FM Modulator, but it is unmodified and FCC Certified, so I can see how this is different than somone with an Ipod or Sat radio, except its a 24/7 station that has a name, and other listeners. Their is nothing illegal going on with the TX, it is unmodified and covers the approximate 200 feet on a portable radio. Its a 30 dollar TX, its nothing like the Rangemaster AMs with several miles of coverage...

 

[RadioMan203]

I was told by another poster on another board that I am subject to royaltys, but my station is a Dance Music Mp3 player that covers about 200 to 500 feet,, its just an FM Modulator, but it is unmodified and FCC Certified, so I can see how this is different than somone with an Ipod or Sat radio, except its a 24/7 station that has a name, and other listeners. Their is nothing illegal going on with the TX, it is unmodified and covers the approximate 200 feet on a portable radio. Its a 30 dollar TX, its nothing like the Rangemaster AMs with several miles of coverage...

Your train of thought is exactly what I tell people on my board. Could you imagine buying a $20 FM modulator for your iPod and being told you owed somebody $200 to play music through it? Absolutely absurd! Yf you are running your FM modulator as a hobby station I think you can safely forget about it. I can't imagine if they were so anal to push the point that the associated cost of any legal action would outweigh what they would be able to recoup.

Personally, I would think Part 15 AM would be viewed in a similar light since its range is also limited, but perhaps not as much. The only caveat would be for stations either operated as a business or on a school campus. They may, and I stress may be liable for royalties.

 

[LibertyNT]

Don't worry about it. The FCC does not see you as "broadcasting" Your Exempt.
You think the Record Companies can seriously ask you for money if your not "Broadcasting"
How silly. It would be like asking to pay $.50 every time you play a song on your Ipod.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Don't worry about it. The FCC does not see you as "broadcasting" Your Exempt.
You think the Record Companies can seriously ask you for money if your not "Broadcasting"
How silly. It would be like asking to pay $.50 every time you play a song on your Ipod.

You are not paying attention to the news, my friend. It is not an FCC issue! It is a copy right issue and any government involvement will involve some other part of government, if government gets involved. Since I am not streaming, I have not committed all this info to memory, but if you will Google around the neighborhood I think you will find that in the last year the right to collect royalties from webcasters was reduced to writing and there has been much "wringing of hands" The monthly royalties in many cases are larger than all other expenses combined from what I hear, and more than the income of most streamers.

Actually, copy right may not be the correct term. Performance Right may be more accurate. This new requirement is to send money to the recording industry for the record companies and supposedly the artists. The recording industry is so giddy over their win that they are now revved up to start collecting performance fees from broadcasters, in addition to the copy right fees now being paid.

There is something that is NOT broadcasting that can cause you pain: When you burn some music to a blank CD and give it or sell it to a friend, you become liable for MULTIPLE fees. They don't have enough lawyers to file enough court cases to stop that one-on-one business, but when you go on the Internet where hundreds or thousands may get involved in the transaction, you put yourself in the cross-hairs of the recording industry. (Just in case you have not yet met the species known as "Trial Lawyers", look up "Junk Yard Dogs" in Wikipedia. ;D

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Here is a link to a blog I sometimes follow by a broadcast law attorney.

<http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/tags/streaming-music-fees/>

For more info from more sources, Google: "music performance fees for Internet streaming"

 

[LibertyNT]

Now Rodeo... You Know Part 15 And Webcasting and making CD's are 3 totally different things.

If you stream on the internet, legally you HAVE to pay.
Part 15 is so small I wouldn't bother with paying them.
I can hear some kids Ipod 300 feet away, I guess he would have to pay RIAA, ASCAP, ect...

AS For CD's You had better not sell them and mass produce them! From what I hear that Is a BIG no-no like bootleg DVDs.

 

[RadioMan203]

Re: Are Part 15 stations exempt of royalties

Not to digress off topic, but the greed of the music industry is their own worst enemy! I was a webcaster for years and paid the royalties and I finally got burned out throwing all that money down the toilet and for what? I pulled the plug on my webcasting venture almost two years ago as I feel there's no way for a small hobby operator to stay afloat due to royalties that are way out of line with the potential earnings from the medium.

I've been in cities where the car radio had been so loud you can hear it down the block - how much longer will it be until the suits from the RIAA have people start walking up to cars and handing performance rights invoices to the drivers of these cars?

If the music industry plans on going after everybody with an iPod modulator or other Part 15 radio device they will have more of a public relations nightmare greater than any potential for earning money - there are still stations in my area playing the no performance tax radio spots. People look at the music industry as yet another lobbying group looking for a handout. Where the hell is the hand out for the taxpayers who must pay for the sins of these idiots who can't make their business model work?

 

[TheBigA]

There was a thread somewhere on this board that BMI was sending letters to Part 15s demanding royalties.

I know of several college-owned Part 15s that were shut down by their universities just because they couldn't afford to pay the royalties.

Can you avoid them? Perhaps. But are you exempt? I don't think so. If you are transmitting music in some way, the PROs feel you should pay for use of their content.

 

[RadioMan203]

If you are transmitting music in some way, the PROs feel you should pay for use of their content.

Like I said before, you tell the guy with the $20 iPod transmitter that somebody expects him to pay $200/year for the honor of hearing his iPod on his car radio!

 

[TheBigA]

If you are transmitting music in some way, the PROs feel you should pay for use of their content.

Like I said before, you tell the guy with the $20 iPod transmitter that somebody expects him to pay $200/year for the honor of hearing his iPod on his car radio!

Not the same thing.

 

[LibertyNT]

If you are transmitting music in some way, the PROs feel you should pay for use of their content.

Like I said before, you tell the guy with the $20 iPod transmitter that somebody expects him to pay $200/year for the honor of hearing his iPod on his car radio!

Not the same thing.

How so?

 

[TheBigA]

Intent. iPod transmitter is for private use, but a carrier current college station (for example) has the intent of reaching other, unrelated people.

 

[Silkie]

Now Rodeo... You Know Part 15 And Webcasting and making CD's are 3 totally different things.

If you stream on the internet, legally you HAVE to pay.
Part 15 is so small I wouldn't bother with paying them.
I can hear some kids Ipod 300 feet away, I guess he would have to pay RIAA, ASCAP, ect...

AS For CD's You had better not sell them and mass produce them! From what I hear that Is a BIG no-no like bootleg DVDs.

As for the CDs thing you are absolutely correct, and the same with cassettes even. I had a small store in which I had a super collection of all manner of records and CDs. I paid the fees, and they were not cheap. There were a few people who always showed up and rented space very close to where I was. I remember the day someone showed up from ASCAP and called the police on the bootlegger. Sure enough another one would show up with bootleg music to take that one's place, but they always got knocked off eventually.

Don't assume that Congress isn't getting crazier by the minute, however. We are dealing with people who live in a very surreal world most of the time - to the point that most normal people cannot even begin to comprehend being so far out of touch that they destroy entire industries.

 

[edarmsttrong]

Don't assume that Congress isn't getting crazier by the minute, however. We are dealing with people who live in a very surreal world most of the time - to the point that most normal people cannot even begin to comprehend being so far out of touch that they destroy entire industries.

Amen, brother!!!

 

[Tom Wells]

I'm not at all sure the "royalty people" are to be trusted. If a majority of the performances aired are by obscure groups on "lost" labels,
that barely charted or never charted, are they really to be trusted to hunt down these obscure artists and make sure they or their
heirs get paid? I think they'll just be put the money in their pocket. I need to see some documentation to prove that
all artists, not just the "biggies", get royalties. It would seem to me that without such an accounting back to the "station", that
the royalty payment is legal theft. The accounting would show the total paid to the "agency", the agency's costs, the distribution of
payments to each individual artists, writer, or performer from that particular broadcast performance point, penny by penny.
Without it, there is no way to make sure you are supporting the artists you chooose to air the works of.
This lack of reporting is what makes the "request" for payments immoral, unfounded and morally unenforceable, even if legally enforceable.

In the REAL world, artists were appreciative of airplay, figuring any publicity is good publicity.
How's it any different from the fact that the "royalty people" don't recognize the value of airtime, and they don't wish to pay for that?
Seems to me both airplay and recording have about equal value, support each other, and are worth more together than apart.
It is in such conditions that the value of "shared growth" makes it wise to trade value for value and treat it as an intangible of agreed
worth but no agreed actual cash price. Naturally the solution for a part 15 is to send them a bill for airtime equalling or exceeding the
cost "charged" for royalties. Since we aboilished usury laws years ago there is no legal reason not to send them a bill for many thousands of dollars for the airtime they've already used..

 

[TheBigA]

I need to see some documentation to prove that
all artists, not just the "biggies", get royalties.

Have you ever been to BMI or ASCAP? They have the documentation. They spend a lot of time and money to make sure their information is correct, and that the money gets to the right people. And while just about every record label has been sued for royalties, it's rare that the PROs get sued. Of course, we're talking about two different royalties. Sales vs. airplay. But airplay is easily documented, and the PROs are experts at it. They see themselves as the bankers, the most trusted people in the music business, and they act the part. The artists and writers trust them. But no one trusts the labels.

The royalties we're discussing here are songwriter royalties, not the RIAA artist & label proposal. That whole proposal is filled with problems, and terrestrial radio is smart to fight it. Part 15s are exempt because they aren't digital, and are covered for the same reason terrestrial radio is exempt.

 

[DJ Alan]

Until my station is bringing in cash, I'll not pay royalties. When the cash comes in then I am fine with passing along a fair share... And when all is said and done it had better be a fair share- or else.

I for one know the value of radio airtime and exposure. Promotions people at least used to know it too. If the recording industry (no matter what part of it) makes playing music too expensive with out of touch royalties, then radio will switch to the 'infomercial' model that TV has adopted. In case anybody is unclear about what that means; Radio stations will not play 'music' at all in the way we know it now. Instead, radio will offer record companies longer airtime (say 10, 15, and 30 minute blocks) to promote thier new releases as 'radio infomercials'.

Is there anybody that doesn't get it that the recording industry will then have to buy this airtime from the radio stations- and no copywrite or performance royalties will be paid at all (by radio) for airing these long form commercials that would be record company produced (or royalty exempt if station produced for 'the client'). So really now, How much does that 60 sell for? How much would a 15 minute slot sell for? How much will the record industry have to pay for that airtime that they used to get for free?

A fair share is one thing, and I am all for it. But it sure does look like the same moronistic attitude/thought/business practices that sunk the music industry ship years ago are still in play and there is a chance that they could totally kill themselves off.

It would be really cool if we could all play nice in the sandbox again, HUH?

DJ Alan

 

[TheBigA]

Until my station is bringing in cash, I'll not pay royalties.

That's not how these royalties work. You're expected to pay regardless of whether or not your station makes money. A bunch of internet broadcasters went in to negotiate with SoundExchange, using that as an excuse. They were told how to change their operation to bring in revenue so they could pay their royalties. No exemptions were given. They don't want you to use their music as content at your station unless you pay. No pay, no play. They have the law on their side, and they can take you to court if they feel like it.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Take me to court and all you'll get is a judgement that you can wipe your ass with. :-*

 

[TheBigA]

I'm just the weatherman, telling you snow is about to come. I don't in fact control the fact that it snows.