Socan to stop Campus-Community Radio from broadcasting over the internet

[djmelbatoast]

Catch 22 Tarriff

This just is not in the operating budgets of 85% of campus-community radio stations in Canada. These are the stations that actually play good Canadian music. Not Theory of a Nickleback, the Guess Who and Rush.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Guest

[kc]

I listen to both ciut and cfmu on line. It would suck balls if either were forced to quit their feeds over this.

[ersh]

SOCAN isn't 'screwing' anyone over. If you're playing recorded music publically, SOCAN collects. It's a very good thing for the folks who create the music. That's who gets the money - the artists.

Regular radio stations, bars, colthing stores and more have to pay SOCAN fees. Why should college radio be any different? Yes, they perhaps play good music - but the artists that they do play are most likely the ones who actually rely on their quarterly SOCAN cheques. Myself included.

It is a catch 22. The tariff should indeed be on a sliding scale and reasonable, but as SOCAN general counsel Paul Spurgeon counters: "If you are adopting a new business operation that uses copyright, then you have to pay for it."

[djmelbatoast]

I changed the title but it works out the same.

I know that socan helps Canadian musicians, but if all of the Campus-Community stations have to pull thier on-line feeds, then Canadian musicians who could use the support will not have their music heard by that many more people.

The only stations in Canada that will still be on air will be the Q107's and the Fox's and the CBC.

Do you think that they are going to be playing a whole lot of Burt Neilson Band?

[zero]

'ersh and melba both have sound points

[bradm]

I changed the title but it works out the same.

How about changing it to "Socan to charge Campus-Community Radio for broadcasting over the internet"?

Aloha,

Brad

[djmelbatoast]

How about changing it to "Socan to charge Campus-Community Radio for broadcasting over the internet"?

Aloha,

Brad

The fees being discussed are more than is currently paid for the terrestrial sites. For alomost all c-c staions this is the same as being banned from the internet.

[The Chameleon]

SOCAN isn't 'screwing' anyone over. If you're playing recorded music publically, SOCAN collects. It's a very good thing for the folks who create the music. That's who gets the money - the artists.

Regular radio stations, bars, colthing stores and more have to pay SOCAN fees. Why should college radio be any different? Yes, they perhaps play good music - but the artists that they do play are most likely the ones who actually rely on their quarterly SOCAN cheques. Myself included.

It is a catch 22. The tariff should indeed be on a sliding scale and reasonable, but as SOCAN general counsel Paul Spurgeon counters: "If you are adopting a new business operation that uses copyright, then you have to pay for it."

I totally concur. As long as these internet college stations pay the same as everyone else. Or pay on a sliding scale. They should certainly not have to pay more.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Guest

[ersh]

That's why it's a catch 22. But I think it's worth paying for the right to play the music though.

As the internet grows, things change. When Napster was in it's glory, and you could get anything for free... who would've imagined anyone would actually pay $.99 for a single song? Or like cocaine and free sex in the 70's. Just as we'll probably look back at youtube in a few years and wonder how they got away with it. Online broadcasting is still relatively new in the grand scheme of things, and sooner or later it gets noticed, and thus regulated.

That actually kind of stinks when I think about it. It's a shame some things don't stay the way they start. I just happen to be on both sides of this.

I guess what I'm meaning to say is, that if this goes down as it might, college radio will get over it. We're still able to download songs (for free), do coke, have sex and watch videos on youtube. I sincerely doubt they'll just throw in the towel and give up on online radio.

[TheGoodRev]

This is a real shame.

I both volunteer as a host and am employed part-time at CFMU at McMaster. I don't know much about the SOCAN process, but I do know that we don't pay a royalty for most of what we play. About every two months or so, SOCAN monitors about three days worth of broadcast, and we pay the royalties on that chunk of time. I guess that's the break they give us as a non-commercial radio station; it's my understanding that the process is the same for other campus stations.

"If you are adopting a new business operation that uses copyright, then you have to pay for it. College radio traditionally does not want to pay or wants to pay as little as possible for these rights."

So for them to introduce a blanket fee for online broadcast, if the above is correct, seems a little extraneous. Campus stations, by and large, don't have massive sponsorships and other avenues of income that commercial stations have. I know that CFMU is run on a very modest budget provided by the McMaster Students Union, who owns the station, and we execute a fundraising drive every spring where we shoot for around $20,000. That extra money is intergral to our operation. We're not talking about taking money from stations that would be otherwise spending it on lavish things or whatever; we're talking about a network of low-budget operations.

The way I see it, why impose this exorbidant fee that most campus stations won't be able to afford, instead of simply adding to the fee paid every couple months on the small chunk of time? I.e. if a certain amount is already being paid in royalties every couple months, why not simply charge a slightly higher royalty for the fact that the music is also being broadcast on the internet? SOCAN isn't helping artists by imposing an unreasonable tariff, they're hurting them because they're effectively stifling an avenue for their represented artists to be heard and, hopefully, generate more work.

[MK]

I think all of the stations could afford the fee easily ("7.5 percent of their gross annual revenue, or $200 Canadian per month, whichever is greater.")

It may not be in their operating budget now, but those funds come down from the university's budget, which come down from the province's budget, from the feds and $200 measley bucks a month is in there somewhere...It's like $5000 for 8 months in in those residences...one head buys two years of internet broadcast!

[djmelbatoast]

It comes from the Student Union's of the respective colleges, not the universities themselves, and through donations and a tiny amount of ad revenue. That's it.

UofT will probably be fine. My station gets $1 per student per semester or about 7 thousand a year. COmbined with 2 fund raising drives a year which bring in 8-10 thousand. If this goes through that's it for the internet.

[MK]

So the school doesn't provide anything?

[djmelbatoast]

Nothing. Some stations, mine included, aren't even on campus so we have to factor in rent to our expenses.

[MK]

Well that sucks. Instead of one dollar a student they should just get one student's residence fees. I saw 13 different research projects at Western get $100,000 each from the province today. There's lots of money out there...it just takes a little advocacy and lobbying. One school could change it for all of them.

[djmelbatoast]

Some schools get like $25 a student but most are in the $4-7 range. I don't think there is any schools that receive funding from the university itself. Tech colleges that are teaching radio as an industry most likely do, but that is more of a training ground to be in commercial radio.

[Dr. J]

As a music fan, I love college radio, and I agree with those who point out that it serves a valuable role in bringing emerging artists to a wider audience.

The fact remains, however, that college radio is no longer what it once was... a tool set up to enhance communication (entertainment?) among the student body. To that end, it's budget was limited because its audience was limited and its range was limited.

The internet has changed that. When a college station goes online their potential audience (market?) is the same as every other radio station on there. It's an equal playing field. That's a huge change and the way college radio stations are funded is going to have to begin to reflect that change.

[SaggyBalls]

the problem should really be that the schools underfund the radio station.

Ideally, the school would fund the radio stations enough to make them be able to broadcast over a larger part of the city. Much of the content is usually superior to commercial radio and it's usually more socially positive.

many of the stations are campus/community to aid in the staffing of the radio station and to makie them more diverse.

CKCU is still my favourite station in the world.

it sure is expensive to run a radio station.

if schools took full advantage of their potential they would use radio to bring a city together and have more local clout.

[kookycanooky]

I'm sorry I can't contribute to this thread in any meaningful way, so just watch this Strongbad episode about Radio shows

http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail120.html

The fish was delish,

and it made quite a dish.

[djmelbatoast]

That was, uh, fucking hilarious. :laugh:

[Velvet]

This is a load of shit.

Why should campus stations have to pay twice for playing one song? They pay their regular royalties for the broadcast, and then they have to pay again because it's simultaneously broadcast on the internet? Doesn't sound fair to me. They are just widening their listener range.

[SaggyBalls]

i'm not suprised - and you shouldn't be.

the content and appeal of campus radio to real music fans far outweighs their commercial counterparts.

it's the best way to keep them down and to keep 'the industry' rolling.