Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Lancaster, PA

    Decision on Web radio reached


    The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government panel had proposed in February.
    Matt Kaufman
    [email protected]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Ye a shame that, just go back to pirate radio guys, your internet radio shows where not really any good anyway.
    Professor of crime at St Andrews university.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Vienna, Austria
    .....But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own the copyrights to songs.....
    and poor Metallica, Sugar Ray and others would have to eat just slice of bread and drink water,

    some ppl just cant get enough money

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Lancaster, PA
    how is the copyright office supposed to track how much music you play anyway..and how many listeners you have?
    Matt Kaufman
    [email protected]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    North Carolina
    The greedy RIAA has not learned any lessons from the Napster days. Here you have a new technology that will generate a new source of income for them and they are still as greedy as ever.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    New Zealand
    web radio stations are already closing down in large numbers...
    watch for it to increase more and more in the near future - Boredom Killers: Coming Soon. Never be bored again!

  7. #7

    * A little insight on how it works...

    Being a recording artist/producer for a living, I have to say that we're getting ready to see a major change in the music industry anyway. The paradigm currently held isn't a stable position to project future trends from anymore. Anybody getting into streaming broadcast audio would be wise to consider that. And from the music biz point of view, this is probably the main reason besides current bandwidth costs that we aren't seeing more development of it right now.

    90% of artists aren't making diddly squat on broadcast publishing royalties, trust me. Probably less than you all are making on bandwidth leasing per client. Broadcast copyright/liscence issues are more about controlling what gets played, so that the mass audience only hears what the labels want to sell. Unlike TV where shows are designed to attract certain advertisers and audiences, in radio the songs themselves are advertisements. Music isn't marketed, it is the marketing itself. That's why we hear more and more cookie cutter boy/girl bands on the radio and less Joni Mitchells.

    There are very few if any industries more corrupt than the music industry. And the whole payola scene stops working if everybody can play anything anytime anywhere. It's entirely possible for a visible display and instore playback of a CD single for one weekend at WalMart to cost more money then that artist will make in their entire lifetime. Or to get a new single played on your local pop radio station on Friday night between 5 and 6pm.

    Though lack of sales hurts everybody, most major artists and producers get the majority of the money that they are ever gonna see up front; and if it doesn't sell, have to pay it back over time - like a giant credit card account. That's why an artist who is $150k in the hole can still have a Malibu address with a kickass studio downstairs and a Bentley in the driveway.

    Free broadcast exposure is in the best interest of the artists. Especially for artists not signed to major labels - which is the majority of us. For every artist you can name, there are a thousand unknown, working artists trying to make a living with their music. And if they aren't willing or able to play the payola game, their music will never ever ever get played on a single broadcast station, besides the local college station at 3am.

    There are several new technologies on the horizon for the distribution and sale of recorded music over the web - really good ones to. I personally am aware of a great one that unfortunately I've signed a non-disclosure agreement about. But I can say that what's around the corner is truly exciting.

    But unfortunately, most standard artist contracts don't account for new sales technologies that aren't currently being used or in production when the contract is signed. That's great for the labels, but horrible for the artists. I personally had to fight about full royalties being paid on internet download sales in my artist contract four years ago, since the label didn't really recognize or understand how much of an impact online direct sales would have to our business. And they only agreed because they're really nice people - a major label would have never agreed without lawyers involved that I couldn't possibly afford. And even still, I know it's not being accounted properly.

    Most artist contracts signed over five years ago have no specific provision for royalties of online sales to the artist, unless they have renegotiated the contracts since then or had an awesome lawyer team. It's not the audience stealing money from the artist - it's the labels. If Napster had originally paid royalties to Metallica's label as standard practice, Metallica would probably never have seen full royalties from those online sales anyway, and would have had to sue their record label to get them. And that wouldn't have made front page headlines, since it happens everyday unnoticed by the public.

    Technologies like Napster and online broadcast stations have brought these issues not only to the forefront of the industry, but to the conscious awareness of the artists and producers as well. Artists should be thankful that Napster made artist rights and royalties a household discussion. That didn't make the labels happy you know. They make a good show of it in public, but privately it's business as usual.

    You might not be aware of this, but probably 98% of signed artists do not own the copyrights and publishing to their own material. All of that is owned by the labels and recording facilities. And when the initial contract term is up, the label no longer has to pay royalties to the artist. So if the artist is given $150k to make an album, and only sells enough product worth a $100k of royalties in the initial contract period, but the label sells product worth $100k in royalties the year following the contract period, then the artist actually owes the label $50k.

    And if that artist wants to perform the material live at a paying performance, then the artist has to have permission and pay the label a royalty to perform their own songs. Yes, Paul McCartney has to pay publishing royalties or get permission to perform "Let It Be" in public. Betcha didn't know that did ya?

    Now you know why when you go see an older band, they play mostly new or unheard material instead of their classics. It's not really because they're tired of playing those songs, it's because they have to pay their label from twenty years ago to do it.

    Though the artist can try to purchase the copyright to their own material, it's extremely difficult to do. This kind of mess is why Michael Jackson owns the copyright to the Beatles catalog instead of Paul McCartney.

    Imagine owning all of the content of the websites you are hosting in perpetuity. All of their graphics, text, articles, products, whatever... anything ever posted or sold on your server became your property for life. And any income generated from a client's site went directly to you the host, and you agreed to pay that client approximately 3% to 7% of the income generated by their website. And when a client moved to a new host after the term of their original contract was up, all of their original material had to stay on the server and you could use it in any fashion to make money, without ever having to pay the client anything for the rest of their lives. And if they wanted to use, sell, or reference any of that material themselves, had to ask permission and pay you a 20% to 70% royalty to do so.

    That is exactly how it works in the music business.

    So you can see why the record labels and recording facilities don't want it to change. But the access of the internet and home recording technology to the artists and audience threatens to screw it all up... and is.

    Many labels are initiating new practices that are going to dramatically change the industry. Artists will own the rights to their material after the initial contract is up. Instead of paying out massive royalties on the front end that have to be paid back, labels will have a more immediate accounting setup that pays their artists like normal employees on a salary type income based off current and projected sales.

    Online broadcasting facilities and record stores will employ extremely complicated encrypting systems tied into the hardware of individual computers. They will be aligned with labels and artists directly for copyright permissions, not massive teams of corporate lawyers and publishing houses. Recording facilities will migrate to online services and broadcast technologies now that artists can make pro quality records in their living rooms. Smaller labels with a good artist base that don't rely on a single superstar to carry the weight of a massive catalog will become the standard practice.

    Our label is initiating the practice of giving artists ownership of their copyrights after their initial contract is up, whether they stay with our label or not. This is extremely appealing to prospective artists, which guarantees a stronger catalog. Eventually, broadcast stations will deal directly with an artist for permission to play their material.

    So it's all going to change. I know this was long, but I feel close to this issue. And I have confidence in the future of online media as a viable source of income. The days of mega-millionaire artists and executives are coming to a close. It's all going to get a lot more reasonable and sane in the next decade or so.

    If you're a host and see or hear of a new type of streaming media technology, give it a serious listen. Don't base your opinion on it from experiences with past technologies. Consider aligning your service with a label's catalog directly and non-exclusively. Be open to radical changes in the way things work. Think both globally and regionally when considering online media possibilities.

    It probably won't make any of us millionaires, but could be a viable and healthy source of income for all of us in the long run.

    My two cents.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Blackpool, England
    Metallica drummer always made me laugh when he kicked up the fuss about napster - i mean how many more millions of dollars can he possibly want in his bank account!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Dayton, Ohio
    Beeeeer goooooood....

    Napster baaaaaaaaaaad.....
    -Mat Sumpter
    Director, Product Engagement
    Penton Media

  10. #10
    Originally posted by The Prohacker
    Beeeeer goooooood....

    Napster baaaaaaaaaaad.....
    ...I remember that one. LOL

  11. #11
    yeah it was funny that. but how much does he want. as much as HE is entitled to for HIS work. how miffed would the lads at plesk be if i said nah i already have a few licences your richy enough already im have the rest for free. theft is theft. ohh yeah im naughtly i have mp3s. i also have the vinyl and cds for em all. i just like to wander round the house with em and its easier to change tracks. the music industry is going to have to change but thats only cos of the theavin little scroats who cant be bothered to work for something cos its easier to STEAL someone elses work and whine that theyre rich enough. you should credit them for being so damn good they can do something worth that much not steal their work. look at the flaming people get for stealing designs. its no different. i have to side with the muscians on this. too many brats ripping stuff off, get a paper round or something. whats a cd? two hours work on that sorta job. for an adult a cd every 20 - 30 minutes maybe? and you begrude the artist their dues for their work and the record company for theirs. thats life.

  12. #12
    I agree with the musicians too. Just wanted to clarify that.

    An average CD project takes anywhere from 6 months to a year to complete, and can easily total up to 1000 hours of work. And that doesn't include the time and sweat it took to write the material in the first place. Then the producer, engineers, studio costs, and extra musicians all come out of the artist's cut. The average artist is extremely fortunate to receive over 80 cents per album sale, and usually get only half of that or less for overseas, direct mail, catalog, and internet sales.

    Most labels follow the practice of "artist reserves", which holds up to half of the artist's wages in an account for the term of the contract, usually up to 7 years, against returns and promotional sales to the label. And then most sales have a nine to twelve month turnaround policy, and the artist gets a royalty statement either bi-annually or annually.

    So if an average artist sells 20,000 copies of a CD it took them 500 hours to make, in about a year and a half from release they would receive a check for around $8000 - then the producer, engineer, studio, and band/musician expenses are taken out which is usually more than half - so let's say $4000. And in about 6 years they would receive another $4000. That averages to an income of about $16/hr, spread out over a seven and a half year pay period. If the artist is a four piece band, that gets split four ways to equal about $4/hr before taxes. So the drummer in this band would make about $1000 off record sales in a year and a half.

    Of course, if an album sells 200,000 copies, that gets it up to $80,000, etc. And again, this is a sizeable over-estimation of what a standard artist would actually end up getting. Costs are high, and it's rare for labels to have fair and prompt accounting practices.

    It's very difficult for a musician to make a serious living with record sales alone, unless they pass the 200,000 sales mark. Most record companies consider less than 50,000 sales to be a loss, and write off the costs - which come out of the artist's pay. The more that sells the better chance the artist has of ever seeing anything.

    So if you're concerned about supporting your favorite artists, go see them play in concert and buy a CD or Tshirt at the show. They make a lot more that way, since they've usually bought the CDs they're selling from the label at wholesale cost and are making a direct profit immediately instead of a royalty; and they get a good cut of the ticket price.

    Never buy a CD from a catalog or mail order company, and try to avoid buying CDs online until a few new online music technologies that are around the corner come out. At this time, most artists get full royalty from instore sales only. Don't accept a large multi-artist package deal or special promotion, since most artists don't get paid any royalty on special promotion or package sales.

    Get out... Go to a concert and buy a CD there. Find a CD online you like? If you care about the artist, go down the street to your local store and order it from there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts