Internet Radio Day of Silence...What do you think?

Internet radio stations shouldn't be treated any differently than regular radio stations.

I want to see artists paid, but I'd also like to understand the issue better. I'm put off by the claim of "free radio" in the article, becuase Live 365, for example, broadcasts commercials or charges for commercial-free progamming.

Fred, Live 365 is analogous to a collection of stations, each one different. Why shouldn't each one have to pay the artists for what they play?

I guess my opinion rests on how much money (if any) these internet stations are making off of playing these various genres. While I am all for new outlets for music (I hate mainstream radio, for sure) I also think that bands/artists deserve to get paid better as well, especially as CDs keep moving to the wayside.

Bottomline, if these internet stations aren't making money off of playing the music, the bands should just take it as free advertising and let it go. But if some of these webcasters are banking millions....I don't know why the artists shouldn't see a chunk of that.

The fees that are paid are so much more than what any artist gets paid, it is rediculous. If over 70% of the fees were going to the artists then it would be ok. The last time I spoke with ASCAP when I owned my nightclub, the overall percentage was around 7%. That is sad. I believe that no one should have to pay 2500 and know that only 175.00 is actually going to artists.

Again ASCAP and its other cohorts are ripping people off.

I don't know enough about the issue to make a cogent comment, but I'd be interested to hear what the musicians think.

they aren't making anything. It''s a labor of love and disgusting that the RIAA has stooped to the level they are. Vampires really.

If the bulk of the royalties were going to the musicians, I wouldn't have much of a gripe. But after having spent five or six decades in working out methods to screw the musicians, the record companies are now out to screw the listeners, as well as the radio stations. The amount of money spent on A&R nowadays is minuscule compared to that spent on promotion. (Of course, if the music were better across the board, they wouldn't need so much promotion.) And yet most of the newer, smaller, lower-profile bands don't get that promotion, except on bus benches. The actual cost of making a CD is less than a dollar. So where does the money go? Thirty years ago it used to go up the noses of everybody in the process -- from musician to recording engineer to A&R man to rack jobber. In 1977, the cost of an LP (a big black plastic disc which had the music inscribed on both sides of it by electromechanical means) to the retailer was about $5 to $6; the retailer added about two or three dollars per LP; volume was what allowed them to stay in business. But things have changed, and the record companies are raking in bigger bux, proportionally, than ever, while selling fewer "product", yet musicians who want to see any return on their investment in music lessons, guitar picks, cool T shirts, wah-wah pedals and the like must tour. The exposure they get on Netradio is a hell of a lot better than what the record companies provide (unless one is a major international talent, like Babs or Mick or Paris, the very people who don't need that promotion.) Cherchez la moolah.

Somebody's got to pay for all the gold and platinum in those RIAA awards.

The scariest part of the CRB's decision is that royalties in many cases (especially for smaller independents and pubcasters) would end up being more than the current budgets of many stations. That's a difficult business model to support. Many college stations that broadcast only over the web would be gone instantly. And, because there is a min. $500 per stream fee, Pandora, which it could be argued has thousands of unique streams, would be gone. Nobody wants to shaft the artists, but radio pays almost no royalties, satellite pays around %7.5 of revenue and SoundExchange is asking webcasters to pay a per listener fee that amounts to an average of %42 of revenue to begin with (the level goes up each year).

At FolkAlley.com, we webcast folk music, bluegrass, Celtic, Americana, etc... not exactly 50 Cent or Avril. A quarter of our base is overseas, listeners can order CDs or buy songs from iTunes right from our site (they hear it, they buy it) - Folk Alley is taking this music to a public that is spread out around the world. We have no commercials (we're member-based) because we use a public radio model that focuses on the music and not the next used car dealership. And with our format, I think that going commercial would be as bad as shutting down for our listeners.

That's why the Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060) is so important. It creates a more level playing field that requires us all to pay a little more, but not so much that the webcasting industry is decimated.

Good info.

i think internet radio good it give you a chance too hear the music before you buy it i dont listen too radio in my car alway cds that i bought i hear a new artist on a internet i go out and bought it. it nice too hear it too know you like it first

HEAR WE GO----- TIME TO PAY FOR LISTEN TO FREE RADIO.

THE MUSIC IS GREAT. WE CAN'T SAY THAT IS MY MUSIC STORE. THANKS FOR INFO. I JUST HOPE WE CAN KEEP LISETN TO THE GREAT SOUNDS OF THE PAST AND PRESENT. WE ARE ENJOYING MUSIC WE WOULD NEVER REALLY LISTEN TO AT HOME. THE MUSIC IS ON THE INTERNET(HEADPHONE OF THE MONTH). THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD SONG. HEADPHONES ON--THE SOUND COMING---ENJOYMENT----INTEERNET RADIO. LET US KEEP HEARING THE SOUNDS WE WOULD NOT PLAY HOME.

took me 5 minutes to contact my 2 senators and 1 representative.

if you care at all, please consider doing the same.

http://www.freepress.net/netradio/=callin

Something that is fair to all seems appropriate to me ..........

Here is what TCB (Take Country Back) Blog for today had to say on what is going on:

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

To: Everyone who supported the Day of Silence by making a heck of a lot of noise -- YOU made a difference....Keep the calls going to your members in the House and Senate -- keep the momentum going!

From SaveNetRadio:

According to a SaveNetRadio spokesman, Web traffic reported by Capitol Advantage's Capwiz program by late morning was "far more" than the back-end service provider had ever experienced in a single day. The firm reportedly was "diverting all the resources they have to handle this traffic," the official said. Capwiz is considered one of the most robust Web-based advocacy services in Washington and works with about 1,500 organizations. "It's definitely the highest traffic we've seen in a long time for any sort of single issue," said Mark West of Capitol Advantage.

And then of course comes the wet blanket PR move from SX:

SoundExchange Reacts To 'Day Of Silence'
Not surprisingly, digital royalty rights collector SoundExchange had some serious heartburn on Tuesday over the Internet radio "day of silence," during which thousands of webcasters turned off their music streams to protest the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision to hike fees paid to artists and record labels.

Richard Ades, a spokesman for the organization that supports the board's ruling, told Technology Daily that he listened to some of the special programming being played in between pockets of dead air. "It's pretty amazing that they talk about how much they love music and how important it is to stream music, but you don't hear them talk about the people who create the music," he said.

On one webcast, Ades heard someone claim that legislation, introduced in the House and Senate to stop the fee increase, is fair to artists. "The bill on the Hill would not only vacate CRB decision but would cut rates by 75 percent from what the old rate was. That's their idea to fairness to artists? That's an insult," he said.

"If there's no music, then there will be no radio stations. It's the artists and labels that create the music and there will be no music for them to build their businesses on," Ades said. "Why they don't want their musicians and recording artists to have a fair share of the pie is mind boggling."

To which I reply:

If there are no webstations there will be no music being played and no royalties at all being collected - so, since we agree that we're all in this together and interdependent on each other then the solution seems to simply be a rate by which everyone comes out a winner ---

The labels don't create the music, Mr. Ades. They merely sell it. And occasionally impose upon the artist a producer who doesn't understand the music and will botch the entire album. But mostly, just sell it.

Clear Channel has a vested interest in killing most of internet radio, as they also own a large portion of traditional radio stations (which pay NO royalties). AOL similarly is a part of a large multimedia conglomerate. LastFM really doesn't care because it's based in the UK and subject to different laws.

Ask any intelligent person how much they like mainstream radio these days. Internet radio is about the only place to hear new music that isn't mass produced garbage, and a godsend to new artists just getting started who wouldn't otherwise get any airplay. The amount of royalties the artists would get is a pittance compared to what the record companies would get. And that's what its all about. Lining their own pockets while catering to the lowest common denominator - and the rest of us get left with zilch.

Will Wheaton and David Byrne (of Talking Heads) have written pretty intelligently about this:

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2007/05/geek_in_review_.html

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2007/04/4107_your_gover.html

Being an artist, seems like David Byrne would have in interest in more royalties - he doesn't.

I think SoundExchange has a radically different idea on the size of the pie. Most webcasters make reasonably sized pies intended to feed their families. Their are very few (AOL, Yahoo) that are making huge, industrial-sized pies (Clear Channel has moved on to HD side channel broadcasting - they could shutter their web product tomorrow and not really care). There was an argument made in the initial CRB hearings that since webcasters were taking in so much more money from advertising, they could afford to pay more in royalties. Again, that perception is based on a very few, highly commercial stations. Among the pubcasters, even big names like WXPN and KCRW have very little web-only advertising. And Pete, you are so right about the labels. Working with so many folk artists, we see a lot more independent or small label releases that get equal (if not more) airplay because of their quality. We play dozens of artists that Sony would probably brush off for aligning themselves with a niche genre. In the digital age, major infrastructure support is no longer necessary for success.

maybe I got this wrong.. but if I did forgive me but tell me *nicely* in an email..
but time to pay for free internet radio? next thing you know it will be time to pay for podcasts.. and vblogs..
not going there. the www is a free space and seems to be unlimited.. while I love my kcrw.. and know a lot of people there or who have played there.. this is a solidarity thing

This whole thing is really filling my brain today. It really bothers me as small radio stations rely on streaming media to reach their (often worldwide) audiences! Although when I log into streaming media I'm listening to Sirius with a paid account I do like to listen to the .org type radio stations that are hurting enough for funding as it is. This is sooo sad how many companies are going out of business because of this. This is also making the US look foolish worldwide (which of course we are very good at making ourselves look lame)

Also--before I forget--here's a great org that you all should check out:
Down Hill Battle

Of course, webstreaming isn't really free to start off with. Unlike radio, there is no economy in expansion. Radio, broadcast to one or to 100,000 - same price. Internet, each stream costs the station money.

So who pays royalties to "do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do"?! 'Cause everyone else is fighting over the dollars and not one person has mentioned them!

As an enthusiasts I say, music should and must remain free for the masses. Greed has permeated every facets of our society and although I am sympathetic to the cause of artists and respect the right of them to make money and be paid for their work, my circle of artists and entertainers would continue to do what they do, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T GET PAID. That's what we call love for the game, period, and that's what's the problem with the industry, the crazy money, record profits, etc. when kaput with the advent of the internet and they're not letting go easily. Music should have never gotten into the business side, it has distorted the vision of artists and suits alike.

Free radio, in any format, will have to be supported by ads, plain and simple, in order to be vaible, but it's a necessary component of the music experience. We must continue to have fre radio and I'll fight the good fight as long as it takes.

"Do you think that internet radio stations that stream music to the listener for free should be forced to pay these high royalties on every song listened to? "

A new model needs to be developed; one that is more fair to artists and less generous with traditional labels. (fortunately for me, I don't have to do it because...what a mess!)

"Should they have to pay retroactive royalties for every song listened to in the past year?"

Hmmm. Sort of. I think they should develop the new model and then pay retroactively based on that.

"Retroactive royalities" looks suspiciously like ex post facto laws.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, or even a free lunchtime concert. But as I and just about everybody else in the thread agree, the royalties should go to the artists, not the labels and their enforcers. The labels deserve some royalties; just not the largesse they currently demand.

If you're concerned about this issue, check out http://www.savenetradio.org/

The site will tell what you can do and how to contact your Representative.

Y'all are late on this one I posted an article and links to the savenetradio.org back in April... http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976971519
I guess the day of silence worked if it got this many people on gather alone to comment in support of Internet radio. The major portion of Internet radio stations play music that Clear Channel won't play. The artists played by Internet radio wouldn't be getting ANY exposure if Clear Channel and AOL were the only radio networks out there.
Most of the musicians I know depend on our local college radio station and their streaming audio for airplay and exposure.
Most Internet radio stations are small low budget operations that are more often a labor of love than a profitable business. Most Internet radio groups depend on member support like public radio and public TV do. The only people who will benefit from this prohibitive rise in cost will be the owners of Sound exchange and Clear Channel, AOL, SONY, BMG etc. most artists won't ever see any of the funds collected by this 'tax'.

Well, it help the artist sell their product if every song was great and not three quarters junk like it usually is nowadays..... IMHO

I vote absentee from Japan, but here is the letter I have just sent my two Senators and one Representative:

Dear ---


As a 32-year expat in Japan, I have never felt more connected to life back home in the US than since the maturation of the internet and the development of streaming internet radio. It has been a blessing to me, personally. Most of the stations were created by individuals with a passion for some particular niche. Their diversity provides a wonderful alternative to ordinary broadcasting, but now that the internet has become such a big resource, these pioneers are being forced into untenable financial positions. I hope that some way can be found to help these niche netcasters survive while also respecting the copyright concerns of musical artists.

Thank you for your consideration

Jim Swan
-
-
Jim Swan's "None-Too-Great Hits" now on iTunes.
Un-HOT!!! un-lewd, un-mindless. Not the usual Top-40 stuff.

I think Internet music is great. I listen to Pandora a lot. I think that Internet radio stations should not be taxed with high royalities. If you listen to a good song on the Internet radio, it makes you want to buy the CD. That in turn makes the artists money. Regular radio is free so why should Internet radio be taxed. I support your position 100 percent.