friskybri Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I was reading an article in the paper about how radio stations have to pay royalties to the record companies if the law passes. Now I know that we are really small potato's but if they get that law past wouldn't you think they would come after us next. What does everyone think. you never know how hungry these fat cats are in the music industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimswinder Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Radio stations already have pay to play songs...so I don't think this is a new law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Fischer Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The real issue here is if our displays are considered "public performance". It's a gray area at best.A couple of users have claimed to have contacted ASCAP/BMG/etc and been told that if it's a private home and not for profit, they don't care.I'm personally not too worried about it. Carson Williams was given back-stage access to a TSO concert when his video went viral -- and that wasn't just using the song in a display but also posting it on the 'net. There are so many displays that are far bigger and draw more people than me that I just don't worry about it, at least yet.I do list the music on our website, with "buy it" links to Amazon, which helps to give the artists credit. This year I'm adding video, and will also give song credits there. So hopefully we'll give the artists a bit of promotion.If you're doing a commercial-type display that charges money (e.g. drive-thru display) then I'd definitely look into getting clearance/licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friskybri Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 It is new. been floating around in congress for a year or so.Stop Radio Royalties Bill 848A bill has been introduced in Congress that would keep your favorite radio station from playing the music you love! And, we need your help to stop it. We are asking you to call your Congressman or Congresswoman and tell them to oppose the Radio Royalties Bill...H.R. 848.Stop the Radio Royalties Bill in CongressHelp us stop an unfair attempt to force radio stations to give a big bailout to record companiesHave you heard about this? A bill has been introduced in Congress that would keep your favorite radio station from playing the music you love! It’s true! You see, most of the record labels are now owned by foreign companies and they’re demanding that Congress pass new laws requiring radio stations to pay them millions of dollars a year or… quit playing music! We think they’re looking for a big bail out at radio’s expense. Music stations would have to turn to talk, news or sports to try to make a living. You would have to find another way to hear your favorite music without having to pay for it yourself. This is just not right.Since the very beginning… American record companies and artists have encouraged radio stations to play their songs. That relationship has been a big factor in the careers of artists like Garth Brooks, Kenny Chesney, Carrie Underwood and scores of others who have openly thanked radio for getting their music to you.A Radio Royalties Bill...H.R. 848...has been introduced in Congress. Please, help us stop this bill by calling your Congressman or Congresswoman and telling them to oppose the radio royalties bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-klb- Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Even a not for profit city display, that accepts donations and business sponsors needs to pay attention to the royalties. Thankfully cities sometimes already hold blanket licenses for other purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimswinder Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Here is the actual Bill:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-848Sounds like they are just trying to collect more money from little stations that make under a certain amount of money. They are not trying to stop radio stations from playing music...how would that benefit the Record Companies?It also states that "religious activities" would be exempt...Hey, this is a Christmas display...can't get more religious than that, huh? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-klb- Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Looks like a new bill to revamp the existing royalty tracking process. The summary does not make it entirely clear who is going to profit from it, and who will loose, but it looks like one of the provisions is to greatly reduce the actual per play tracking for royalties, and substitute a blanket fee. I can't guess if this will help, or hurt small market stations.But, I don't expect it to make any difference for most non profit home displays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iresq Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 To clarify...Currently radio stations do pay fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. These fees (after expenses of course) are distributed to the writers and publishers. Typically, the artist does not receive these monies.This traditionally has worked well as the airplay would expose the masses to the music who would then go out and purchase the album.With the advent of the illegal download (and other reasons), artists and labels just aren't making the money they once were. The RIAA to the rescue. They have lobbied Congress to add another fee to the radio stations. This is the bill that friskybri mentioned. The bill passed the legislative committee and is in both houses for final passage.Radio stations are currently taking a beating with add revenues way off. If passed, you will probably see many smaller stations switch to a non-music format.If passed, how would that effect us? Most of us are not operating radio stations (at least that's what we tell ourselves ). So we would not be required to pay any such fee. If, for whatever reason, you are required to pay fees to ASCAP or BMI (own a bar for example), they are not currently being targeted by the RIAA. But if this bill passes, they could be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 RIAA= Real Idiots and A$$hole$!Let them come after displays. I'll have the dememted elf cut a voiceover saying, this musicless display is brought to you by the RIAA... taking the spirit out of Christmas! Send all complaints about this musicless display to the RIAA at the following address.30 seconds later, it repeats again ,and again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iresq Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Mountainwxman wrote: RIAA= Real Idiots and A$$hole$!Let them come after displays. I'll have the dememted elf cut a voiceover saying, this musicless display is brought to you by the RIAA... taking the spirit out of Christmas! Send all complaints about this musicless display to the RIAA at the following address.30 seconds later, it repeats again ,and again!The RIAA is the WORST of the entire bunch. Seems they don't care how, what or where you play the music, if you use any of their "music", and they find out about it, they'll come hunting for you. At least according to Weird Al's song, "Don't Download This Song".The others don't seem to be as harsh or aggressive at putting a stop to what I'd consider helps promote their music and maybe even the sales of same. But I guess some fat cats sitting in their big offices in their big Lazy-Boy recliners just don't see a positive thing if it came right up and bit them in their posterior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafter Bar R Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 One reason as to why the music industry is loosing money and it's not from so-called illegal downloading, it's the poor quality music. Music quality has sunk over the years. Most songs have little or no meaning to them, are often packed full of vulgarity, and carry a leftwing political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 lonewolvie wrote: One reason as to why the music industry is loosing money and it's not from so-called illegal downloading, it's the poor quality music. Music quality has sunk over the years. Most songs have little or no meaning to them, are often packed full of vulgarity, and carry a leftwing political agenda. You listening to RAP? That's the only music I hear (from others BASS thumping annoying car stereo systems) that are packed full of vulgarity and political agenda garbage. I haven't heard that in any of the music I listen to on the radio or CD's I've purchased lately. No vulgarity, no political agendas and the quality sounds pretty good to me.I bought a CD at a flea market once and the quality was horrible, found out it was a "bootleg" CD, so that explained the bad sound quality. But from every CD I've purchased from a reputable retailer, I have had no issues with sound quality being bad and, once again, no political agendas or vulgarity involved in any of the music/songs.Like said, the only time I hear that is from someone in another vehicle with their CRAP RAP turned up so loud and the BASS booming so hard you can hear AND FEEL IT 4 cars away! And I'm always happy when I see a cop cite these bozoes too! Worst noise pollution I ever heard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafter Bar R Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 The point I was trying to make here was that too much much of the music today isn't "family friendly" like it used to be. When I meant "vulgarity" I not only mean the use of the seven "bleep" words that are not allowed for public broadcast, I also meant the soft suggestive things that often show up in music. Not even Christmas oriented songs are safe, take Lady Gaga's "Christmas Tree" for instance, I found that to be a little risque for a lightshow. Also it is not just "rap" music that contains foul language, (leftwing) political agendas, and dull and or mind rot lyrical content. This now infects almost every form of music today. I think for the most part, people are just getting sick of it and music sales are showing it.The only point I was trying to make in this thread was to be careful of what songs one uses for these kinds of venues afterall these lightshows should be family friendly. I am very careful of what I listen to and what I sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimswinder Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 lonewolvie wrote: afterall these lightshows should be family friendly.Wouldn't "Family Friendly" be relative?If your "family" is to the "liberal left", then wouldn't you be inclined to use those "political agenda" songs?Or if your "family" listened to rap, you probably wouldn't think twice about using a rap christmas song...I remember when my parents thought The Beatles and Elvis was of the "devil"...Now the "devil music" plays as elevator music...We are all different, hence there is a wide variety of music...and Iam sure a wide variety of music used in all of our light shows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts