Question for Licensed Radio Station Broadcasters?

[andhow]

Seeing that we pay our share in licensing fees and royalties, do you think it is fair that other's flaunt the law and don't pay their fees just because they don't feel that they have to?

 

Some licensing bodies even have a special rate for not-for-profit and hobby radio stations. The plus side is that if you pay your license/royalty fees you are entitled to free music from the record companies, but you have to ask for it.

 

Your thoughts?

[wsimkins]

I know this is a old post, but I have to agree with you. In the U.S. the licensing agencies are being extremely aggressive on making people get legal.

 

I mean, face it, blanket coverage is so darn affordable, there really is no reason for people to pirate music!

[galaxymatt]

For alot of internet radio stations, the owners don't have a long term plan or much to invest in their venture. they are set up over night and often go down over night. I think it could be considered ok for people to 'test the water' a bit before deciding if they are going to continue with their station and pay royalties.I think it would also be very hard for a licensing authority to proove any wrongdoing or link stations to a particular person.

[sljaxon]

I am a fan of aggressively going after unlicensed internet stations. I pay a ton for ASCAP licensed music (yeah, in the US we don't get free music from the record companies), broadcast licensing, etc. and would like others to do the same.

 

But Matt has a point: people who set up unlicensed stations don't really intend to put a whole lot of resources in to their station so their stations are unlikely to be successful. Those who don't put money into licensing are also unlikely to put money into imaging, websites, promotion, etc. As much as I'd love to have the licensing obligation off my back, $22.50/month from StreamLicensing is extremely reasonable. I take care of most of my other bills through RadioLoyalty, and I can make money from my station with services like theirs because I'm licensed. So those who don't get licensed are unlikely to be successful anyways.

[wildun]

There are plenty of unlicensed stations, they just don't have listeners. I don't pursue them because they hold no threat to me or my station. Check the SC directory and you'll find most are just listening to their own stations or have no listeners. I firmly believe in being licensed and royalties should be paid within reason.

[djgary72]

I just hope that they rule against ASCAP again when it comes to internet radio as they did with downloads!

 

I firmly believe its Artists/Composers that got greedy not those having to enforce the Rules ... you Buy an artists CD you should be able to do with said piece of music as you wish They got paid from the record contract!

 

Im likening this to the Farce in the UK regarding Football coverage Greed has become the main factor there ... the world is in a Place where its all gonna go snap then no one will have money!!

 

Oh well im prepared to get shot down!!! But i wont be listening!!

[Spinny]

PROUD TO BE UNITED STATES BASED!!!

 

I am not shocked by the lack of responses in this post. I waited quite a while before posting because this is a good example of what is happening with internet radio these days. Very few voices to express the concerns of this exploding, exciting, and fun business. Very few voices to represent internet radio in the United States and yes, this includes the NAB.

 

I am a small brodacaster who is opening a station soon and am licensed through StreamLicensing. And I am United States based and DAMN PROUD OF IT!

 

ANDHOW - licensing bodies? are you referring to the Big 4? ASCAP, BMI, SOUNDEXCHANGE and SESAC? Yes, they provide many different pricing schedules. However, the best part about these 4 is they have actually worked directly with the licensing providers for U.S. Internet radio (small broadcasters) to make it affordable for everyone. A good example is the press release by SESAC when they partnered with STREAMLICENSING. For those of you that think STREAMLICENSING and LOUDCAST are a joke or are not legitimate, think again. I have seen posts on other forums that are "lacking the knowledge of an ant" when it comes to this issue. ANDHOW - check Amazon, they routinely put up free music for folks to grab. Check

out the Free Music from Rising Artists section. I'm not sure about the legality of broadcasting this free music. My attorney is still checking on that.

 

WSIMKINS - Yes, they are getting aggressive. There are reasons for this that are too lengthy to put in here. One attorney with Soundexchange is actually visiting sites they believe are U.S. based. I know this because I was at a station not long ago that, not only was visited, but received several e-mails from him. I suspect they somehow got the customer base from SWCAST and are using that to seek out the U.S. based stations. Many stations have been visited by this attorney from SOUNDEXCHANGE. I am betting many more will receive a visit as well.

 

Why shouldn't the Big 4 be aggressive? Why do people think that because they are on the internet they don't need to be licensed? The DMCA applies to everyone in the U.S., and there are international treaties that involve this. If AM/FM and Satellite Radio have to follow the rules in this Act, than why not the Internet Stations? I seriously doubt that many of you unlicensed broadcasters have even read the DMCA. The unlicensed folks should read that Act. Copyright rules apply to all of us. And if you are licensed in the U.S. , many of the Terms of Service you agree to for your license come right out of this Act. If you do read it and have questions about the sections that apply to broadcasters and sound recordings, e-mail your attorney or e-mail the license provider. In the case of STREAMLICENSING, Marvin WILL respond.

 

GALXYMATT You bring up some excellent points. Unfortunately because of the DMCA, testing the waters is out of the question right now in the U.S. I see you're in the UK and I can't speak for that area of the world, but U.S. based stations start and stop like a bad engine on a car. That may be why the NAB hasn't taken internet radio seriously......YET. The DMCA is very specific about sound recordings. I agree we should be allowed to "test the waters" for 30 or 60 days. Unfortunately, we have no voice to revise the DMCA. And don't believe for one minute that tracing unlicensed internet broadcasters is hard to do. It isn't, and is already happening.

 

At present, we have to hope that what the lobbies in Washington DC do for AM/FM and Satellite Radio helps us. One thing the NAB is doing that is GREAT is opposing the Performance Tax issue. In addition, they support

H.Con.Res.244 - Local Radio Freedom Act which helps Internet Radio even though we are referred to as "other business." Now I am betting that many of the unlicensed folks know nothing about this and maybe even some of the licensed folks. These same stations probably won't write in to support the LFRA because they don't want to bring attention to themselves being unlicensed.

 

And here lies the problem.

 

As an unlicensed U.S. broadcaster, you are hurting this industry. That's right, I said HURTING this industry. You can't really speak up, you can't e-mail the Big 4, you can't e-mail the NAB, you can't e-mail your representatives, and you can't speak up for your rights as a small broadcaster. Maybe your afraid it will bring too much attention to your station and the fact you are unlicensed. This hurts the industry how? We need voices. We need the NAB to take internet radio seriously, and we need more license providers. The only way we get those voices is for the licensed people to speak up!!! Some of you are already doing that and I for one LOVE it. Right now there just aren't enough legitimate voices! Because this is a young industry (the first internet radio broadcast here in the U.S. was November 1994 and in England was Virgin Radio London in 1996) there aren't many of us around to do so! We need e-mails flying to the NAB, the Big 4, representatives in DC, and anyone else that will listen.

 

Can all of you imagine if AM/FM, Satellite and Internet radio all worked together for the common good of radio? It would be as powerful as it gets. Radio has a rich and beautiful history. We need to keep that history going. A bad and poor history is not something we all want for radio. You unlicensed folks, that are supposed to be licensed, are helping with that poor and bad history.

 

Internet radio is here to stay, period end of sentence. The Big 4 know this already or they wouldn't have worked out deals with loudcast and Streamlicensing. The NAB needs to take us seriously. The DMCA (of 1998) is archaic and needs to be revised (in my opinion). We need voices and a lot of them. The only way we get that is for you unlicensed folks to GET LICENSED. Why do you think the other radio entities have strong lobbies? Do you really want the Big 4 telling us how to run our businesses? Do you, as internet small broadcasters want your representatives taking the word of a union or someone not familiar with this "other business?"

 

Yes, I said "other business." That's what we, the internet small broadcasters, are referred to as in the Local Freedom Radio Act. Personally I take offense by being referred to as "other." We provide a good service on the internet. I'm not sorry it eats into AM/FM or Satellite business. Healthy and LEGAL competition is a good thing. And lets face it, there are huge differences between the types of radio broadcasters.

 

SLJAXON You are correct. I agree completely. If you aren't licensed, GET LICENSED. As said above it's affordable now.

 

Unlicensed Stations: Don't say you can't afford it. YOU CAN NOW. The only excuse there is for not being licensed is laziness and stupidity. And don't say you are confused by whether or not you are U.S. based. Most of you unlicensed folks in the U.S. know you are U.S. based. Sorry, but I'm gonna be rough on this issue.

 

GARYUKBALDY I don't know what your referring to for ASCAP, but if it's the Performance Tax, it probably won't pass. There's little to no support for it. We have the strong radio lobby and the NAB who does NOT support this tax and we should be thanking them for that opposition. In fact, if any of you ever e-mail the NAB please say thanks for opposing this tax and supporting the Local Freedom Radio Act. Make sure you mention you are a small broadcaster on the Internet. Some estimates I have seen say that 70% of the current internet stations would shut down if this performance tax passes. Who knows for sure what would really happen if this passed. But we would definitely be paying more for our licenses. And this tax affects all kinds of related businesses including this site.

 

We licensed folks all have a unique opportunity here. To be heard and help shape the future of internet radio. Are we really going to sit back and allow the Big 4 to do it for us without involving the NAB or other potential organizations that will help internet radio? Allow licensing and royalty boards to make decisions for us without hearing us? Allow laws to be written that may or may not hurt us without some kind of voice? I firmly believe we are all very powerful right now as small broadcasters on the internet. We just don't have the organization or lobby, the powerful organizations like the NAB, or our own representatives to back us up and support us. And we won't until the unlicensed folks become licensed and get involved. Unlicensed broadcasters give us all a bad name. They hurt this growing industry more than you can imagine. I FULLY support the Big 4 and any other organization for going after the unlicensed stations.

 

As far as who I recommend for obtaining a license (there will be more license providers soon), mainly for the outstanding customer service, I recommend StreamLicensing. Marvin, who owns Streamlicensing, is fantastic and responds to every e-mail. He is LEGIT! It took my attorney 30 seconds to say yes, this company is legit, after he read the press release from SESAC and checked the site out. Marvin will help when you are confused and he will give you tech support for tracking and reporting (it's much easier than you think for the actual license holder). If it wasn't for people like Streamlicensing and Loudcast, we'd be paying outrageous rates for licensing through the Big 4. Think before you post slams about these two. I know SWCAST hurt a lot of people. I know there are going to be more scam artists out there (there always are). But it's fairly easy now to tell the scams from the legitimate license providers. It only takes a minimal amount of research and e-mails to know for sure.

 

I would make this recommendation to BW and the Professional voice over artists and production companies, for which I have the utmost respect for, and do business with. Don't provide FREE services to nonlicensed stations. Unless of course a license is not required. Every license provider has banners they give to their customers who become licensed. Those banners are displayed on the station site. Almost all of us license holders are proud to display these banners, I know I am. Most of us have signatures that involve our stations. My station signature will be on my posts when I officially open the station. If it isn't there to verify on a request for free services, than I respectfully ask you all to ignore the FREE request.

 

I am PROUD TO BE UNITED STATES BASED and LICENSED. I say so on my new station site that will be opening soon. I also think the licensed folks in the other countries are also PROUD! Unfortunately many of you unlicensed folks, who are required to be licensed, can't say the same. Nor will you ever be heard and taken seriously as a small broadcaster. For that I say SHAME ON YOU! Stop hurting this exciting and fun industry!!! Be a part of shaping the future of Internet Radio and GET LICENSED, than GET INVOLVED or at least support an organization that is involved!

 

Thank you for taking your valuable time to read this.

 

Tom

[djgary72]

http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/97285/supreme-court-ruling-goes-against-ascap?ref=mail_recap

 

 

[Spinny]

Yep I saw this Gary, A huge victory. Thanks for posting.

[djgary72]

As i said i just hope they Rule in favour of the internet broadcasters too .... the music industry is greedy and theres also a lot of stars dodging tax bills so why should we pay them several times if they cant pay their bills!

[Spinny]

I agree Gary....there's too much greed...my point is in all the above....every other broadcasting entity has to pay for some sort of license, we shouldnt be exempt...but...we should be able to afford it. These license providers like Loudcast and Streamlicensing are handling the negotiations for us and making it affordable. It sucks we pay, but we pay a lot less than AM/FM and Satellite.

[andhow]

I don't think it has anything to do with greed, except for the attention greedy broadcasters who refuse to pay their fees. Why is it that everyone thinks that it is ok to flaunt the law because of their self-righteous, supposed "anti-greed" mantra. Would it be ok if you just worked for free and didn't get paid to do it?

 

I think that licensing and paying for your royalties separates the men from the boys. Legitimate & professional radio stations will pay their fees. Ones that don't usually don't last anyway as they are second-rate, wanna-be radio hacks.

 

Additionally, I have no reservations of reporting ANYONE that I know of who is not paying their license fees (especially the ones who flaunt the law) as I pay mine every year and have for a number of years, as well as a large number other "real" radio station broadcasters that I know.

 

It is the law. If you don't like it, then get the law changed, until then pay your way or get out.

[andhow]

A few years old, but a great legal explanation of the licensing fees. [h=1]Internet Radio—The Basics of Music Royalty Obligations[/h]

[Spinny]

Beautifully said above andhow.

[andhow]

Beautifully said above andhow.

 

Thanks Spinny.

[andhow]

I am a fan of aggressively going after unlicensed internet stations. I pay a ton for ASCAP licensed music (yeah, in the US we don't get free music from the record companies), broadcast licensing, etc. and would like others to do the same.

 

But Matt has a point: people who set up unlicensed stations don't really intend to put a whole lot of resources in to their station so their stations are unlikely to be successful. Those who don't put money into licensing are also unlikely to put money into imaging, websites, promotion, etc. As much as I'd love to have the licensing obligation off my back, $22.50/month from StreamLicensing is extremely reasonable. I take care of most of my other bills through RadioLoyalty, and I can make money from my station with services like theirs because I'm licensed. So those who don't get licensed are unlikely to be successful anyways.

 

Good on ya, sljaxon! Well said.

[andhow]

There are plenty of unlicensed stations, they just don't have listeners. I don't pursue them because they hold no threat to me or my station. Check the SC directory and you'll find most are just listening to their own stations or have no listeners. I firmly believe in being licensed and royalties should be paid within reason.

 

Hear, hear! Well said!

[wsimkins]

Tom,

 

WELL SAID! I was going to use the quote feature but I agree with everything you said and it was just too lengthy. LOL. I know you posted this back in October, but I have been out of pocket (in development mode) and just got a chance to read the rest of the thread.