|
19 Jul 02 - 10:58 AM (#751083) Subject: The end of Webcasting? From: Allan C. Today I attempted to "tune in" WFMT's Midnight Special archive. Rich Warren, who has hosted the show for many years, posted the following note: After many years of generously providing WFMT's live stream and "The Midnight Special" archive, Yahoo! Radio will discontinue the live stream and archive on July 12, 2002. At that time, Yahoo! Radio will cease all radio streams and archives on the Web. You will discover as the year progresses that fewer and fewer music radio stations will be available on the Web. The reason for the end of most music Webcasting is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was passed by Congress at the behest of the recording industry, along with the usual campaign contributions from the industry. The DMCA levies substantial royalties for use of recorded music in any digital transmission. (It does not apply to analog broadcasting.) These royalties are above and beyond the royalties levied by the Performance Rights Organizations (PROs), ASCAP and BMI, on all broadcasters and music presenters. The PRO royalties go to the composers of the music. The royalties levied by the DMCA go to the record labels, and supposedly to the performing artists. The DMCA also restricts pre-announcing songs, publishing playlists prior to Webcast, and how many songs from a single recording you can play in an hour. You can see how this might inhibit good radio programming, and the reason why Yahoo! and so many others have abandoned Webcasting. For example, the DMCA forbids a "Midnight Special" archive if we have the playlist posted in advance, as we had done for the past four years. Most independent record labels and individual artists oppose the DMCA. Most of the labels and musicians we play on "The Midnight Special" would not receive a nickel even if we could afford to pay the DMCA royalty to continue archiving the program on the Web. (Most songwriters don't even receive a percentage of what we pay ASCAP and BMI.) Although the Librarian of Congress has reduced the original DMCA royalty, it remains far higher than most broadcasters/Webcasters can afford. Radio broadcasters receive virtually no additional advertising sales nor higher rates for existing ad sales from Webcasting. Donations from Web listeners constitute only a small fraction of total listener support. You can help redress this situation by contacting your Congressperson and Senator and asking them to repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You'll also be helping librarians around the nation as well, since the same act eliminates much of the Fair Use Doctrine and will severely limit the Internet as a source of information. Let's prove that people do have power to influence legislation, and not just big money. WFMT is making technical and financial arrangements to continue the live Web stream for a period of time. Please check our Website weekly for updates and links. Rich I think this doesn't actually indicate an end to Webcasting, per se; but it certainly puts a crimp on the many wonderful archives that have become available in recent years. Bummer! |
|
19 Jul 02 - 11:03 AM (#751087) Subject: RE: BS: The end of Webcasting? From: Allan C. I forgot to mention that Rich posted a number of related links. If you look at The Midnight Special homepage and click on "Information and updates about WFMT and 'The Midnight Special' on the Internet" you will find them. |
|
19 Jul 02 - 01:35 PM (#751151) Subject: RE: BS: The end of Webcasting? From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie I guess what I don't understand, is why are the webcasters treated any differently from regular radio stations? I don't understand how very much money is lost with digital broadcasting - most people are not going to forego their regular radio, at least not yet. I still have a regular radio/CD player here at my desk. The only time I listen to radio on the Net is if I tune into a European station. I don't particularly have a gripe with the PROs maybe wanting a fee for the artists... I guess I'm not yet educated enough to fully understand the situation. Does it have anything to do with Big Radio & Record Labels wanting to keep the Little Guy from being Totally Independent? |
|
19 Jul 02 - 02:06 PM (#751169) Subject: RE: BS: The end of Webcasting? From: Ron Olesko Webcasters are being treated differently because ANYONE can technically setup a webcast. A radio station is granted permission to broadcasting by the FCC and ASCAP and BMI charge broadcast stations royalty rates based on a number of different factors - market size, commercial vs. non-commercial, etc. Rich wrote "although the Librarian of Congress has reduced the original DMCA royalty, it remains far higher than most broadcasters/Webcasters can afford. Radio broadcasters receive virtually no additional advertising sales nor higher rates for existing ad sales from Webcasting. Donations from Web listeners constitute only a small fraction of total listener support". He is 100% correct, but what the DMCA is planning is for what they perceive as "the future". Technically non-commercial (or commercial radio stations) CAN sell advertising on the internet for rates that differ from normal broadcast rates. IF, and that is a might big IF, internet broadcasting really takes hold, there is potential for some radio stations to have more listeners on the internet. At the moment the internet reaches a small audience. However 10 to 15 years ago how many of us spent this much time at a computer? Many of us would have had serious doubts that we would willingly spend hours in front of a computer doing our work, gathering news, and finding entertainment. The publishing and record companies are trying to plan for a potential future. Already companies are working on internet radio receivers which would be used only for audio transmission. While I don't agree with the DCMA decision, I do feel that artists need protection of some sort. I believe that a reasonable solution will be reached, one that will protect non-commercial use of the Internet as well as protect the rights of artists that are being used. Already there are some stations that are benefiting from the Internet. I believe KPIG is a success story. I couldn't possibly predict what the future will bring, but it will be interesting to see where we are. This isn't over!! Ron Olesko |
|
19 Jul 02 - 04:05 PM (#751222) Subject: RE: BS: The end of Webcasting? From: Stephen L. Rich Ican't find the little sheet of paper upon which i wrote down how to make a link, so I'll just print the URL and suggest that you check it out on your own. http://www.saveinternetradio.com That's three words written as one word: Save Internet Radio. A system of payment and reporting of royalties for internet airplay is being set up that is so labor intensive and costly that only the big, multi-national corporation will be able to afford to provide music streams in the future. Note that this is NOT about Napster or its clones. Napster is irrelavent to the discussion. This is about WFMT, your local public OR commercial radio stations providing simulcasts on line. It is about the ability of out fits like Hober Radio to be able to continue in buisness. It is about Sony, AOL/Time-Warner and other multi-national media interests trying to squeeze everyone off the web but themselves. They are using the government (in this case the Library of Congress) to stage a HOSTILE TAKEOVER of ALL webcasting. WFMT and other radio stations already pay royalties for the copyrighted material which they broadcast. The proposed system would charge them a second time. Webcasters like Hober Radio have no aversion to a costeffective royalty system. They never have. THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO DODGE THE PAYING OF ROYALTIES!!! There is much more to be said, but I'm becoming too upset to be coherent. Please, for all of our sakes, check the website noted above. Most of you questions can be answered there. Stephen L. Rich |
|
19 Jul 02 - 05:03 PM (#751255) Subject: RE: BS: The end of Webcasting? From: Ron Olesko I would like to say to Stephen and anyone else who is panicking - relax a moment. It is true that this issue posts some major roadblocks, but this issue needs some careful thought. If you read the report issued by the Library of Congress, there is one paragraph that I find very interesting. The ruling does exclude "1) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (e.g., the sound recording is not copyrighted); 2) A performance of a sound recording for which the service has previously obtained a license from the copyright owner of such sound recording..." I'm not a lawyer, but I do know from conversations with other broadcasters that this issue is not cut and dry. Ron |