Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Basically, the small broadcasters will go bankrupt in 2 weeks.


Read all about it here:

http://www.savenetradio.org/index.html

For or Against?
I find web radio to be the "FUTURE" in both diversity and quality, and with this measure they will nip the bud of its potential.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,530 Posts
I used to DJ for an independent station a while back. This ruling is absolutely going to kill what that station was all about.

My thoughts. Artists definitely deserve their share. But, when it comes to online stations like these.. I think it should be bitrate dependent. If you're broadcasting your stream at 160kbps.. that's pretty much perfect quality (near CD) therefore, anyone tuning to the station could easily copy those songs in great quality. This is the major concern for the record labels, etc...

However, if the station is broadcasting under 80kbps for example.. the quality is much deminished. (Most stations broadcast under 64kbps) If any of you have listened to these stations, you know what I'm talking about when you have a tunnely sound.

That said. Most online radio is completely free of charge and most stations are run by people who fork over their own money to keep the station alive. It's a community, much like ehMac except that it's built off the music, instead of Macs.

Most can't afford to broadcast at 80kbps, let alone 128 - 160kbps. It's too expensive. Therefore, leave them be... there's absolutely no threat from these stations and on top of that.. really, they're allowing people to hear some music that they otherwise might not hear.. which, in turn may generate sales for you.. ADVERTISING FOR $0.. :confused: Why would you mess with that?

On the other hand.. if you're going to broadcast at a higher bitrate.. obviously, you have some money already. The cost of having listeners connected at 160kbps is absolutely incredible. 12 listeners at 160kbps is around 2Mbit (a little more to sustain it) upload.. I don't know anyone with that kind of home connection. So, when we're talking hundreds of listeners.. you'll see where that money is coming from. If they can afford to have listeners at that bitrate, they can afford to pay their share of royalties as well. It's only fair.

I'll be the first to admit that I love a good quality station. But, it's just not feasable with the rates.. the only way to keep one alive is to ask your listeners for money and well, you've just turned your business into a "for profit" venture, rather than "non profit."

I could talk about this for hours.. but, my idea is that.

Leave the non-profit stations out of this stupid hike in prices... it's just silly, and they're not hurting anyone. On top of that.. no one would even want to record anything they hear off of these stations.

That's the problem in a nutshell.. the system doesn't discriminate between the people who make money off of it.. and the ones that do it for fun and front the money themselves. Silly.

/rant :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,247 Posts
Don't worry, radio isn't going anywhere in the US. I expect that the independents will do what amounts to a 21st century version of what Wolfman Jack did 40 years ago (sent the tapes of his show by courier from Los Angeles to a high powered AM Radio transmitter in Mexico, where FTC power limits didn't apply, and thus he could be heard in 20 states).

I do know that nobody will be paying the RIAA the new higher performance fees, because the RIAA wants to extend them to regular radio stations, who don't currently have to pay them (they only pay the publishers/songwriters). Since most of the radio stations online are related to, if not a direct mirror, of regular broadcast station, and that regular broadcast station will do anything to stop the new copyright fee, you can expect a stubborn answer; shut the online broadcasts down and let the foreigners provide the radio online.

Since the US government claims to prefer free enterprise except, of course, when there's no Americans providing said product, they will change the law rather than have only foreign stations online. The RIAA will buy that because they will extract a promise from the feds to extend a much lower royalty rate to regular broadcasters, who are not currently paying a performance royalty, who will agree because they fear the higher royalty which they believe is in the works anyway, which is the actual goal of the RIAA in the first place. End of problem; you just have to realize that a few bluffs have to be called before it gets settled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
I got quite irate about this fiasco this morning after listening to a [email protected] podcast from a few weeks back so I wrote an article on a boycott that I am proposing. The idea is pretty much, DON'T BUY MUSIC ON MAY 15.

The movement is taking off now on Twitter, Jaiku, Digg and a handful of blogs.

If you want to support the movement on Twitter or Jaiku, post this message:
May 15, the music will die. Hit the music industry back, don't buy music on May 15 and show support for internet radio. Everyone tweet this.
If you want to fly a banner, there are some that have been made and are posted on nikfletcher :: blog

If you want to keep the idea and the article alive and spread the word, you can digg the original article announcing the movement: Digg - Don't buy music on May 15th

We have to fight back.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top