katzendogs wrote: 
It's listeners, not library size. (size still matters)

There's a fee schedule for payment based on # of listeners. It's decided by, of all people, the Librarian of Congress.  

 katzendogs wrote: 
That would be censorship of a sort.  Doubleplusungood!

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 


May be why songs are rejected on the lrc. Too close to the threshold.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Yeah this time it's Pandora leading the charge to get some payments restructured. Musicians are up in arms, but there's something about the way the law is currently written that (according to Bill) severely punishes webcasters whose revenue surpasses a modest threshold. I assume RP is at that number and it's a good problem to have, I guess, but the net effect is we cede non-terrestrial broadcasting to the big guys (Sirius) and force little stations to remain little. Is what it sounds like... but I'd like to have Bill et al really lay it out for me.

 

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
It's greed season again?  It seems like it comes sooner and sooner...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Oh no. Not again.

I'd love to have Bill and David Lowery sit down and hash out a solution. But once again there are hearings going on and I can't plow thru the arguments well enough to know what's going on.

 Manbird wrote: 
Ok choo-choo charlie. you rock

 jagdriver wrote: 
What I do is hand out miniature bags of good n plenty with RP's logo and website address on them. People dig the fact that they get a sweet little edible treat. It works really well. The candy is really cheap and I have the stickers printed for next to nothing. 

 Coaxial wrote: 
Yeah, I put it up on FB earlier today after seeing another FB/RPer friend do the same. My motive was merely to advertise RP to many of my FB friends back in MI who are not yet aware of RP.

Usually I promote RP in other ways on FB, but this seemed like a good video to repost as it clearly conveys what RP is all about. It also gives me an opportunity to drive traffic to my old blog.

In this case, I like to compare listening to RP to the experience Detroit-area listeners (like me, back in the day) had when listening to the old, long-lamented WABX: http://floydslips.blogspot.com/2009/07/freeform-radio-masterdave-dixon-on-wabx.html 

 Coaxial wrote: 
4 years? Wow...I must be living in the twilight zone. Yep, its that desert heat all right... Either way good PR for RP? I thought Bill looked a little young...LOLOL

 Shesdifferent wrote: 
This is almost 4 years old.

The discussed deal with the recording industry and the NAB might involve royalty payments by over-the-air broadcasters and a chip in every cell phone to allow broadcast radio reception. I wonder what effect this could have on RP and Internet radio in general. 

 

Radio Stations Propose Paying to Play Music

By JOSEPH PLAMBECK, The New York Times

For more than 70 years, over-the-air radio stations have played music without paying the performers who recorded the songs.

That could be changing.

This month, the National Association of Broadcasters released what it described as a framework of a deal in which stations would pay a total of about $100 million a year in performance fees.

“It’s a crack in the dam,” said David Kaut, a regulatory analyst for the research firm Stifel Nicolaus.

The association’s outline suggests that the largest stations pay a performance fee of 1 percent of net revenue, and smaller stations a lower rate or none at all. While labels and musicians have long sought performance fees, broadcasters have argued that the stations provide important promotion for artists, and that a fee might put small stations out of business.

Even if a final compromise is reached, it would still need Congressional approval.

(Full story)

Not exactly a royalty rate issue, and certainly not yet a decision, but the movement for broadcast radio to pay royalties to artists is gaining momentum and might help level the playing field for Internet radio stations.

 

Dispute Heats Up Over Proposed New Fees for Playing Songs on the Radio

By JOSEPH PLAMBECK, The New York Times

Kesha may be the voice of her hit single “Tik Tok,” but when her royalty check arrives for its play on the radio, the money is for her role as co-writer of the song. 

For more than 70 years, royalty payments for air time have flowed to the songwriters and music publishers but not to the musicians or record companies. Now there is a renewed drive to revisit that arrangement, and in recent weeks the volume of the discussion has increased several decibels.

For the radio industry, that has meant taking the battle to a place it knows: the airwaves. Over a recent 10-day period, a 60-second advertisement distributed by the National Association of Broadcasters was broadcast free almost 35,000 times on radio stations across the country, according to Media Monitors, which tracks radio advertisements.

One version of the ad describes a performance fee as a tax that could “bankrupt local radio stations.” And who gets the money? “Giant record companies, most of which are in foreign countries,” the ad says, in reference to the four major labels, three of which have corporate parents outside the United States.

In response, the MusicFirst Coalition, a group that includes the record companies and hundreds of artists, began an ad campaign of its own, though on a much smaller scale. A print ad, which ran in Roll Call, a Washington newspaper popular on Capitol Hill, featured a pig with an antenna for a tail and its head buried in a pail labeled “Bailout Funds.” A radio spot ran on a local Washington station. The group also introduced a new Web site, piggyradio.com.

“We just want to make a couple of points” with the ads, said Marty Machowsky, a spokesman for MusicFirst. “The broadcasters have the free use of airwaves and are making billions of dollars each year without paying artists.”

(Full story)

Judge cuts $2M penalty in MN song-sharing case

By PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press Writer

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge on Friday drastically reduced a nearly $2 million verdict against a Minnesota woman found guilty last year of sharing 24 songs over the Internet, calling the jury's penalty "monstrous and shocking."

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis reduced the $1.92 million penalty a jury imposed against Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd to $2,250 per song, or about $54,000.

"The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music," Davis wrote.

Davis also denied Thomas-Rasset's request for a new trial. He gave the Recording Industry Association of America seven days to either accept the smaller penalty or to ask for another trial to set new damages.

Cara Duckworth, spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the group's attorneys were still analyzing the ruling and would have no immediate comment.

Reached on her cell phone, Thomas-Rasset said the ruling was positive but that her attorneys are planning an attempt to get it lowered further. "Whether it's $2 million or $54,000, I'm a mom with four kids and one income and we're not exactly rolling in that kind of dough right now," she said.

Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset's attorneys, said he was pleased with Davis' decision. Now, he said, the only question is whether the remaining damages are constitutional - an issue he could appeal to the 8th Circuit.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

Under federal law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but the law allows the jury to raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful.

(Full story)

 chance4phun wrote: 
Doesn't say but yeah. He's doing okay.

wow...never knew this.....
"It's unclear which online music models will survive, said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the nonprofit that collects royalties for recording companies and artists."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/online.music.kazaa/

who collects the interest of money collected in a nonprofit organization.....

how much money does John make....

wow....and I gave up drinking and Vicodin this week so RP would come in clearer.....

Bill is this sensationalism journalism or are you going to have shell out 25k.....if so I can donate my friend's Chevelle...after I take it for a ride thru the halls of soundexchange...ok maybe the tires will have road kill on it...but I won't tell....

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/07/14/Court_Tosses_$500_Fee_for_Music_Webcasters.htm 

 RParadise wrote: 
I'm sure Bill will summarize it for us.

This just in on the NY Times Web Site:

Music Labels Reach Royalty Deal With Online Stations

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?hp

I hope this is good news.