Look for higher music license fees, Radio

From Inside Radio:

Months of jockeying became less theoretical and more literal
yesterday, as bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to
abolish what backers refer to as a "corporate radio loophole" in the
royalty statute. If the bills are passed, it could cost radio several
billion dollars a year in royalties....The NAB vows to "aggressively
oppose" what it calls a "brazen attempt to force America's hometown
radio stations to subsidize companies that have profited enormously
through the free promotion provided by radio airplay."
Spokesman Dennis Wharton says "After decades of Ebenezer Scrooge-like
exploitation of countless artists, RIAA and the foreign-owned record
labels are singing a new holiday jingle to offset their failing
business model." The NAB has been busily building support for what has
quickly become its top radio priority. To date it has enlisted the
support of 119 House members on a non-binding resolution which says
Congress shouldn't impose any new performance fee on local radio.


I'm certainly with the NAB on this one.

At the same time, the music industry doesn't have a "failing business
model," it has an evolving one. And it's evolving in the direction of
licensing and direct advertiser support. And like it or not, one of
the targets in those licensing cross-hairs is radio. This is exactly
right from their perspective.

Hey, I warned you guys this would be coming months before it did.

Here's what I see as the eventual outcome of all this:

1. Radio stations will have to pay more to license their music. Not as
much as RIAA wants, but not as little as we're paying now. The fight
will eventually end in a compromise. You watch and see.

2. This - and competition from the rising alternatives to radio - will
push more and more stations into non-music formats, creating a
renaissance (if you will) of non-music content. Not just "talk," but
more than "talk." And different from "music." This will create a
defensible island for radio, because we would be investing in content
which is proprietary.

3. But there's a problem: What is this content? Who creates it? Who
delivers it? Who supports both the creators and deliverers - and who
pays for them? Who cares about investment when business is bad? Who
are the champions of radio's future, given that so many of our leaders
are more interested in championing our past? Where are the content
kings of tomorrow?

4. If that renaissance occurs and we invest in our future, that future
can be bright. If it does not and we don't...

Well, I hope your company has packed a corporate radio Golden
Parachute for you.

But don't count on it.

An aside...I think the NAB could gain more sympathy and better results
by arguing effectively and fairly rather than referring to their
nemesis as "Ebenezer Scrooge." When you're as powerful as the NAB and
the industry it represents, legislators are unlikely to be impressed
by what appears to be a name-calling dispute between Scrooge and Jacob
Marley.

http://www.hear2.com/2007/12/look-fo....html#comments

Ha! Ha! Eduardo! The music FMs are screwed - AM news/talk/sports is
radio's last bastion! HD Radio is ****ed!

On Dec 19, 5:57�pm, msg wrote:
IBOCcrock wrote:
Look for higher music license fees, Radio

From Inside Radio:

snip

Would you please employ Usenet quoting conventions when
quoting material and also provide proper attributions; I
have been unable to determine what material is original
to yourself and what is lifted from other sources in many
of your posts; often the only clue is the change to
profanity in lines authored by yourself. Most newsreader
clients include a "paste as quotation" menu item that would
serve nicely.

A few weeks back you posted some material that made it appear
that you were the radio engineer giving and interview that
was actually lifted from an article that I later located through
web searches; your post did not include any attribution nor
did it use conventional quoting methods to make the distinction.

Your message would be better received with basic concern for
'netiquette'.

Michael

If you can't figure out from the link, the originator of this
material, then get a life...

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
...

If you can't figure out from the link, the originator of this
material, then get a life...

While he is at it, maybe he can pick one up for you that is capable of doing
something beyond posting convoluted drivel out of context to "prove" your
invalid assumptions.

On Dec 19, 9:26�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

...

If you can't figure out from the link, the originator of this
material, then get a life...

While he is at it, maybe he can pick one up for you that is capable of doing
something beyond posting convoluted drivel out of context to "prove" your
invalid assumptions.

I'll have to email your response around - looks like you are finally
getting angry.