Randy wrote: > Actually, these requirements are far in excess of those required for > a regular radio station. A regular radio station is not even required to > keep a set list. They pay blanket fees to ASCAP/BMI and the money > is distributed to the members. There is electronic technology that can > 'pull the songs out of the air' and identify them. (From Billboard:) > "Broadcast Data Systems (BDS) Radio Track service...
I am not an expert in this - just have some general working knowledge over the years. In the case of regular radio broadcasts, I understand that ASCAP/BMI figures out royalties on a kind of averaging system of how many times a song was played, in how many markets, size of market, etc. I've also heard that they pick various markets across the country at random to monitor to get an overall average. Even though it is not precise I think they derive the average based on statistics and information reported by the broadcaster. Like you said, there is electronic monitoring of regular radio stations and there is also information which is required to be reported regarding the average of how many listeners tune into a particular radio station/market share, etc. It seems like these regulations which have proposed to apply to the internet/digital broadcasters seek a way to obtain the same kinds of data as is reported/monitored by the radio broadcasters. How else can ASCAP/BMI determine the average amount of play for a particular song, number of listeners/market share of the internet, etc. broadcasters in order to properly track the royalties due? You indicate that there is a way to track most of the data required through use of the "bot" software. (I have no knowledge about "bot" but it sounds like a monitoring tool). I think the "listener log" aspect sounds very invasive, but again it seems they are trying to determine a way to measure the amount of listeners tuning in. Perhaps the requirements they are proposing to derive the required data are far more draconian than that required of the radio broadcasters. The proposal does invite comments regarding the burdensomeness of the new requirements. Maybe the internet broadcasters (if they haven't already) need to band together and establish their own advocacy group/lobby (and get some good lawyers to help them!). The intention of the proposed regulations is to protect the copyright holders, but it sounds like the copyright office definitely needs more input from those most affected, rather than the RIAA. By the way, wasn't it the original purpose of the RIAA to protect artists? Kakki
