Pump It Up for Web Radio
|
Of course that song is nearly thirty years old so I doubt that Elvis Costello and the Attractions were talking about Web radio. But much of the anger and contempt that Elvis was directing at commercial radio of the time holds true for the controversy raging today over Web radio. Here's the history of the problem: As the ability to stream quality audio over the Internet has improved over the years, a huge benefit arose in the form of Web radio. By providing the ability to listen to music over the Internet, it enabled many benefits, including the ability to listen to hometown stations after moving to another area, niche music programming that would never occur on standard radio, and, best of all, the ability for independent and unsigned musicians to easily promote their music to wide audiences. Now to you, me and pretty much everyone else in the world, this all sounds pretty good. But to the Recording Industry Association of America, anything that lets people listen to what they want to listen to rather than what the RIAA tells them they should listen to—especially anything that lets musicians promote themselves without first signing away their souls to RIAA member companies—is very bad and must be destroyed. So a course was laid out to destroy Web radio. Now in a sensible world, one would say that when it came time to make sure that Web radio stations reimbursed artists, that the logical course would be to charge commercial Web radio stations the same rates that traditional broadcast radio stations pay. But when it comes to the RIAA and their minions, logic is almost never involved. Instead the plan was to charge Web radio stations exorbitant per channel fees that for most Web radio stations would result in fees that were many times what the stations made in profit, essentially forcing most Web radio stations to shut down. And using their pals in government and the copyright office, the RIAA and its "non-profit" subsidiary SoundExchange had these exact rules put in place that will basically cripple the still nascent Web radio movement. Of course once people found out about this there was a pretty big outcry, which resulted in lots of lobbying and a bill submitted to Congress (called the Internet Radio Equality Act) that would put the rules into a more equitable percentage of revenue model for collecting fees from Web radio. While the bill's chances in Congress aren't looking that strong right now, it has had one good effect. Faced with this bill ruining their plans, SoundExchange and the RIAA have begun negotiations with some groups of Web radio stations to come up with more equitable terms for Web radio fees. This is good but in my opinion it isn't enough. For one, not all Web radio outfits are covered by the groups in these negotiations. Plus, without the force of law, there's no guarantee that these agreements won't change (especially after the threat of Congressional action goes away). So that's why I think now, as the Congress returns from its vacation, is the right time to put the pressure back on to get the Internet Radio Equality Act passed, either by contacting your representatives directly or through the SaveNetRadio Coalition at www.savenetradio.org. Now you may be thinking, what does this Web radio stuff have to do with my business? I think that many of us have become so used to the Web and its innovations that we forget how young and fragile it still is. There are still many entrenched and well connected interests out there that see the innovations of today as threats to their established business models. Today it's Web radio, tomorrow it could be your technology that's facing the results of special interest legislation. Because if radio really is a sound salvation, let's keep as many options and outlets open as possible. Otherwise, to quote Elvis Costello once again, "Radio is in the hands of such a lot of fools trying to anaesthetize the way that you feel." |
In the classic song "Radio Radio," Elvis Costello sang the words, "They say you better listen to the voice of reason. But they don't give you any choice because they think that it's treason."For more IT related content on the blogosphere, check out www.ithub.com
Comments (12)
Jim, as usual, you are right on. Where I live in northeast Pa. I can't get cajun or bluegrass in on air radio and may favorite Cajun Station, KBON, presumably in response to RIAA pressure, has had to institute a pay to listen business model that cut that source off as well. WE get the music feed from both satellite services, so I get bluegrass that way, but for any niche musical interest we are essentially SOL.
Posted by Richard Coloeman | September 7, 2007 2:25 PM
If I were disingenuous and believed that RIAA had everyone's best interest at heard, I would still be of the opinion that the high royalty fees for Internet radio would be like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
It's not too hard to understand that exposure is good for any new music, and that Internet radio is good for the music industry (at least the musicians) in the long run. The royalty scheme is a patently obvious ploy to destroy a perceived rival.
Posted by Phil Somerset | September 7, 2007 3:17 PM
I thought I'd never get the chance to say this:
That was truly an excellent article, Mr. Rapoza.
Wow, that felt weird. If I ever find myself writing:
You're right about Microsoft, Mr. Vaughan-Nichols.
...I'll know I've lost it completely. ;)
It'd be great if the ZD editorials returned to the strong Libertarian-bent we enjoyed in the past. This article is a good first step back in that direction...
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle | September 7, 2007 3:32 PM
Broadcast radio does not pay fees such as these for everything they play. They take occasional samplings of what they play and pay percentages of who knows what to who knows who.
Eliminating a rival, exactly! Limiting the power of new and unsigned groups and musicians, of course!!
The airwaves once belonged to the people and now that big business has swooped that up. and are busy leveraging their single analog stations into multiple HD broadcast radio channels. They feel that they must muzzle the net radio threat or hem it in till they can buy it up or shut it down and they have sent in the dogs in this boldface attempt to put the horses back in the stable.
The fate and future of music is unsafe in the hands of the bean counters and enemies of real talent and culture.
Posted by Tony Fleming | September 7, 2007 3:46 PM
It must really scorch their shorts to find out people want to listen to something besides Rush Lameboy and corporate playlists.
It's also sad, and indicative, that everything we once enjoyed is so ensconced in the pursuit of profitability.
Greed created the need for other ways to promote music, so they reap what they sow, finally...
Posted by b. wilkinson | September 7, 2007 3:53 PM
1. Internet streamers are told they can't run commercials
2. Internet streamers are then forced them to pay outrageous fees for playing records
So from where is their revenue to come? In my area I have a choice of listening to Clear Channel radio stations or Cox radio stations which means I can listen to "top" 40 or country - I don't like either. I-Radio allows me to listen to stations throughout the world and select the music I like. Because of this I have purchased many CD's that I would not otherwise have purchased (since I would have never heard the music). My suggestion to I-Radio is to charge advertising fees equal to any royalty fees.
Posted by W Ghram | September 7, 2007 3:57 PM
The problem with the advertising revenue model suggestion is that advertisers and their marketing and PR minions make media buys only where they get the most attention and biggest audiences.
Smaller more niche net "radio" stations, and usually the more interesting and creative, don't have the reach or pull to lure in any but most budget-strapped or specialized advertisers.
There has to be another way.
Posted by T. Fleming | September 7, 2007 4:09 PM
1. Internet streamers are told they can't run commercials
2. Internet streamers are then forced them to pay outrageous fees for playing records
So from where is their revenue to come? In my area I have a choice of listening to Clear Channel radio stations or Cox radio stations which means I can listen to "top" 40 or country - I don't like either. I-Radio allows me to listen to stations throughout the world and select the music I like. Because of this I have purchased many CD's that I would not otherwise have purchased (since I would have never heard the music). My suggestion to I-Radio is to charge advertising fees equal to any royalty fees.
Posted by W Ghram | September 7, 2007 4:25 PM
The RIAA is not above using gangster tactics to enforce their will. A certain bowling alley would not knuckle under to the outrageous fees they demanded to play music at their " ten bars under 1 roof ". Shortly thereafter, they had a mysterious fire that caused $5 Million and closed them for a while. This is nothing more than the same strong arm tactics. That is why I use a TP avatar with RIAA written on it...And haven't bought a CD or listened to " Top 40 of ANYTHING " in years. GIGO....
Posted by Art | September 7, 2007 10:21 PM
Great article! I believe similar tactics are being used against satellite radio, also?
The SaveNetRadio Coalition site only promotes "calling" your representatives. Does anyone have a petition or letter-writing campaign organized/
Leigh
Posted by Leigh Littleton | September 11, 2007 12:21 PM
The RIAA is taking a position for their own greed only. They have not benefited artists or consumers for decades. Their interest is just for $$$.$$ into their own pockets!
Posted by William Wacker | October 9, 2007 4:56 PM
As the only one on here that actually has an internet radio show thus far, I know all too well the RIAA's greed, my show make no money... none, we don't advertise, and we host it through a friend (the same can be said for many other shows).
When 'All over it Radio' started, we played a little music from unknown artist, but it was mostly talk... Once the law got passed, we could no longer play original music, even if we had their permission (the artist).
The law says royalties must be payed to SoundExchange regardless of if they are a member of the RIAA or not. What the h*ll kinda bull Sh*t is that!!! Any music we play now, must be less than 30 seconds and talked over (fair use law). In other words, if there is a band that makes original music (independent or not), we have to get the RIAA's written permission, (and the band can't opt out of it unless they play live) or pay the SoundExchange, and any fees the band might require. Radio stations only need to pay ASCAP.
Just a recap... We make no money, we don't advertise, its hosted by a friend, and we (no longer) play underground music that most record stores don't even carry.
The real kicker is there are a lot of other internet radio show that are the same. Theres more music than you've ever dreamed about out there, and the RIAA is trying to keep you from hearing it.
Burn down the SoundExchange building (no, not really) stop the RIAA, and give us some slack. Its fair if they want us to pay a ASCAP license fee or base it on our listener count. I mean really, whats 2 or 3 hundred people listening to music that you can't find going to matter.
Listen to us at
www.alloveritradio.com (site is a work in progress)Tuesday 9pm pst. Or listen to past shows at
www.alloveritradio.com/archive
(yeah yeah yeah, this is the only way we get to advertise)
Posted by Paperclip | October 9, 2007 6:49 PM