4 ms·

Isn't it the case that a radio station doesn't need the permission of a composer to play their work on the radio, but instead pays a non-negotiable fee? Intern

Isn't it the case that a radio station doesn't need the permission of a composer to play their work on the radio, but instead pays a non-negotiable fee? Internet radio stations work similarly, but also distribute money to the performer(s) and label. The core idea of forced licensing to any streaming service willing to pay a set fee could do a lot to prevent consumers from needing to pay for so many streaming services.

adventured 5y ago
As a radio station you typically go through one of a few licensing companies, which you pay royalty checks to. For example: https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/whocollect https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/who... https://www.bmi.com/licensing https://www.bmi.com/licensing You can't just play any music you want on the radio without permission (with an automatic fee attached). I've owned commercial radio stations and while you could play a vast amount of music with no hassle, it's due to the licensing/royalty agreements with companies like ASCAP & BMI that streamline the process. Pretty much everybody that plays music in the US has an agreement with ASCAP, including XM Sirius, all the streaming services, and just about every radio station.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Can artists opt in/out of this? Any thought on how this could be applied to youtube/podcasting/etc. I miss music shows.
ghaff 5y ago
Music has compulsory licensing which pretty much no other copyrighted material has. >The core idea of forced licensing to any streaming service willing to pay a set fee could do a lot to prevent consumers from needing to pay for so many streaming services. I'm skeptical. While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact that consumers probably aren't mostly willing to pay $100/month.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  > While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact that consumers probably aren't mostly willing to pay $100/month. I'm thinking more of the example of Disney changing the licensing terms on Netflix's former slate of Marvel based live action shows, before creating their own streaming service. Streaming services want exclusives, even if it means buying the production company. Netflix has been warning shareholders for several years of what it sees coming. >“Our early investment in doing original content more than six years ago was betting that… there would come a day when the studios and networks may opt not to license us content in favor of maybe creating their own services.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/loss-of-licensed-content-is-an-underrated-crisis-for-netflix/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/lo...
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Certainly we're moving towards a more fragmented landscape although it's also the case that Netflix (for example) will only pay so much for the rights to stream content at any given time. I daresay many of the same people who complained about the cable bundle are now complaining about having to manage a bunch of different streaming services, a la carte streaming, and yes torrents. Although, to be honest, it's cheaper overall if you can do without live TV (or can get over the air).
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      I agree that streaming is still cheaper, but some sort of mandatory licensing scheme for video content would be able to put a stop to the current balkanization of television content.
      - dageshi 5y ago
        In any other industry, having companies compete against each other to create the best product in order to attract customers is the ideal situation... except television? People might not like balkanization of content, but it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall. More to the point, it's frankly no different to how TV channels used to work in the past.

adventured 5y ago

As a radio station you typically go through one of a few licensing companies, which you pay royalty checks to. For example: https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/whocollect https://www.ascap.com/help/royalties-and-payment/payment/who... https://www.bmi.com/licensing https://www.bmi.com/licensing You can't just play any music you want on the radio without permission (with an automatic fee attached). I've owned commercial radio stations and while you could play a vast amount of music with no hassle, it's due to the licensing/royalty agreements with companies like ASCAP & BMI that streamline the process. Pretty much everybody that plays music in the US has an agreement with ASCAP, including XM Sirius, all the streaming services, and just about every radio station.

dalbasal 5y ago
Can artists opt in/out of this? Any thought on how this could be applied to youtube/podcasting/etc. I miss music shows.

ghaff 5y ago

Music has compulsory licensing which pretty much no other copyrighted material has. >The core idea of forced licensing to any streaming service willing to pay a set fee could do a lot to prevent consumers from needing to pay for so many streaming services. I'm skeptical. While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact that consumers probably aren't mostly willing to pay $100/month.

GeekyBear 5y ago
> While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact that consumers probably aren't mostly willing to pay $100/month. I'm thinking more of the example of Disney changing the licensing terms on Netflix's former slate of Marvel based live action shows, before creating their own streaming service. Streaming services want exclusives, even if it means buying the production company. Netflix has been warning shareholders for several years of what it sees coming. >“Our early investment in doing original content more than six years ago was betting that… there would come a day when the studios and networks may opt not to license us content in favor of maybe creating their own services.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/loss-of-licensed-content-is-an-underrated-crisis-for-netflix/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/lo...
- ghaff 5y ago
  Certainly we're moving towards a more fragmented landscape although it's also the case that Netflix (for example) will only pay so much for the rights to stream content at any given time. I daresay many of the same people who complained about the cable bundle are now complaining about having to manage a bunch of different streaming services, a la carte streaming, and yes torrents. Although, to be honest, it's cheaper overall if you can do without live TV (or can get over the air).
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    I agree that streaming is still cheaper, but some sort of mandatory licensing scheme for video content would be able to put a stop to the current balkanization of television content.
    - dageshi 5y ago
      In any other industry, having companies compete against each other to create the best product in order to attract customers is the ideal situation... except television? People might not like balkanization of content, but it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall. More to the point, it's frankly no different to how TV channels used to work in the past.