Hello gang. We have spent a lot of time talking this semester about the problems facing newspapers. But there are also issues with radio and television. Today we will specifically deal with radio. One of the newest issues is what will happen with stations trying to put their programming on the Web. I asked our local resident expert for his thoughts on webcasting and to discuss some of the key issues.
"The future of college radio station webstreams, and other independent webcasts for that matter, may hinge on reaching a compromise with the Copyright Royalty Board. Under a new system for computing performance royalties that went into effect January 1, webcasters must now chart who is listening on-line at any one moment, and compute the performance royalties based on a "per performance" basis, using "per song, per listener" statistics.
In other words, if twenty people are listening to a particular song on-line, that counts as 20 "performances" of that song for which performance royalties would need to be paid.
The problem for a lot of small webcasters is they don’t have (and may not be able to afford to buy) the logging equipment necessary to keep such exact listening statistics. And while there are some companies who can provide that data, they do so only at a cost that again may be out of reach for many small webcasters – most of whom generate little if any revenue from their operations.
The bottom line is that unless some agreement can be reached allowing reporting exemptions for small noncommercial webcasters, some college radio stations may be forced off the Internet. Independent music and programming lose again."
This is an issue that could also impact news Web sites like ours since we also have use music at times. What do you think?
Jerry
Jerry in Sri Lanka
Helping bathe an elephant
About Me
- Jerry Renaud
- I am a broadcast journalism professor in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
7 comments:
I feel radio could be seen in a different spectrum when it comes to convergence with other media. As far as royalties and performance numbers are concerned, I do feel many of those small, independent stations could be forced off the internet based on financial difficulty with the tracking equipment.
I would like to believe radio will not encounter the severity of the problems newspapers and television stations will have. This could be for a couple of reasons. First, radio survived the rise of the television set. They even came out ahead of where they were before television.
Secondly, I don't feel radio should put as much concentration on the internet as other media. We all drive cars which are usually equipped with a radio tuner. We have the drive times in the morning and the late afternoon. Most people are not logging onto the internet during these times and most likely are using AM/FM for their entertainment and news.
[This is related to last week's discussion of forces transforming newsrooms and the options available. I got crossways with Google Blog somehow and couldn't get it to accept my password. I seem to be good to go now.]
Check out this URL from the PBS website. Their MediaShift columnist Mark Glaser writes about entrepreneurial journalism, specifically, setting up your own online journal or blog:
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_4_mediashiftwithmarkglaser_2008-01-31
In my plaintive email to my friend at the Detroit Free Press, I said I needed a partner with whom to set up an online journal on business and ecology, say, The Green Business Journal.
The audience would be primarily investors looking for socially minded investments and the public, seeking to patronize same. The advertisers should be investment firms looking to tout their environmentally friendly investments and companies looking to make inroads into the market for green products and services.
Footnote: that URL on entrepreneurial journalism and setting up your own online journal or blog takes you to this week's column, up top.
If you scroll down to January 30 -- “Digging Deeper: In Digital Age, Journalism Students Need Business, Entrepreneurial Skills” -- you'll find the blog entry I was referring to.
Radio must be willing to accept the convergence of media by exploring all possibilities left to it on the internet and the public airways.
The advent of satellite radio competeing with "free" programming is an issue that will affect listeners in the future on a long-term basis. Satellite radio has begun to explore internet as a back-up to their satellite focus. I do not believe radio will be replaced by internet programming yet, but with the advent of computer generated playlists for music stations and a lack of entertainment variety it will be difficult to attract advertisers to a market with lower listener numbers.
My hope is radio will chooses to converge with the internet in a variety of ways, keeping it free for everyone. I do not like the idea of satellite radio. I already pay for cable, itunes, onstar, and podcasts. Radio must adapt to the future and bring other avenues of revenue to the independent station and better programming to listeners.
I am a member of NET radio and enjoy much of the programming offered. I also enjoy the in-depth news coverage provided by public radio. This in-depth reporting might be one way to draw interest to radio journalism.
The other future of radio could be completely based on the internet. Independent stations started by independent citizens using their own capital and time to broadcast their own realities around the web for all to hear and see.
It is a difficult topic but one definitely important to our course of discussion.
I think it’s unfortunate that smaller stations or private individuals with music webcasts could go offline for their inability to foot a hefty bill for new tracking systems.
If the money issue is really that much of a problem, one thing that I think radio could do to promote their Web presence is post a rundown of their playlists, split up hour-by-hour with 30-second samples of each song. (I’m not sure whether royalty fees apply to samples.)
I’m sure I’m not the only one who hears a song on the radio and either doesn’t catch the title when a DJ says it or forgets it an hour later.
Whether that amount of information economically viable or able to be automated so it wouldn’t take much manpower, I’m not sure – I don’t pretend to know much about radio.
But imagine how handy it would be to go to a station’s Web site, find the song you want and click on the artist’s name to be directed to either their official site or their MySpace page (for smaller acts).
I like what Emily has said as a way to fix this monetary problem. However, the way that we see the recording industry want to get paid for their product it is concerning to think how this will affect smaller radio stations.
To me this brings the debate back to whether or not an artist should be paid for each song they have played on the radio. In a way they are with RIAA and ASCAP fees, but it remains free to the listener over the air. But the thing that the recording industry fears the most is "illegal recording" of the songs online to people's computers. This could cause file sharing and spread the music without paying the artist for these songs.
However, the question I would like to raise is how this is any different from the introduction of the audio cassette...taping songs off the radio used to be a pastime for me. I just don't know why all of the sudden these unreasonable legislations are being set down.
One performance per listener per song? That's insane...There is no reason why radio stations should have to pay such a fee for online listenership. If anything, these online listeners are helping the recording industry out. It just seems that the recording industry wants to push its potential consumers further and further away.
(I hope I didn't get on too much a rant that may or may not have been off topic...)
Michael and Emily's takes on the Web being a tool for artist and radio is right on. I agree that being able to go to a radio station's Web site and finding more extensive information about who's playing, when and where to find out more would be a fantastic step forward, one that would generate viewership for well done sites and listeners for the artists.
I won't deny the potential for greater listenership thanks to the Web, but I don't see the need for a per-listener, per-play method of royalty payment. Why not adjust what already exists to compensate for greater audience by looking at average user numbers rather than a case-by-case basis that small stations simply can't afford?
Just as Michael said, I too believe this comes down to the recording industry's need to make money. The irony is driving small stations out of online business strips the industry itself of potential buyers and downloaders. Why can't the Web be treated the same way as radio? Is it because more people will listen to a song because they can stream from anywhere? If so, why aren't MySpace and PureVolume paying for each listen on their sites? After all, those reach across the world and attract millions of listeners everyday.
For me, I'm disgusted by how over-arching copyright law is, and I can't help but notice that most decisions concerning recording artists' music are made without consulting the musicians, particularly the independent or small-time musicians who stand to lose the most from college and small radio disappearing from the Web. Do their needs and opinions count for nothing? Obviously so, if an improved medium for them to be heard is about to be stripped away by an industry that would have you believe it's on its last legs. Please. Corporate greed killing the radio star -- talk about biting the hand that feeds..
Post a Comment