[cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials
Canalside's The Thread
office at thethread.org.uk
Sat Mar 14 10:34:02 GMT 2015
James et al
I know my view on all this Royalties malarkey is well off-piste and possibly
equates to a lone voice crying in the wilderness BUT
we believe what we
believe at the end of the day ..
1) Someone / and artist puts their product / song up for sale
2) I buy it
I pay them, I give them money for their product because they
have put it up for sale and I like it. If I don’t like it, I don’t buy it
3) I then stick it on our Radio Broadcasts (which actually is exactly what
happens) by doing so ‘’’others’’’ hear the song and they likewise go out
and purchase the song.
4) A group like PPL, then charge me for doing so ????? an amazing
system and possibly one of the best in the World. Ought there not be a group
where we charge them and they fill bureaucratic forms in for us and we’ll
take 85% of their Net (whatever that may be ?)
I do not may I add advocate piracy and steeling the product and broadcasting
it !
the whole thing is a
nonsense and I have never been able to get my head around it.
The song writer if different to the performer gets paid by the record
Company and/or artist and they pay them on results and sales. That’s how
life works
but for some unknown reason, not in this particular field. And
folk have been going along with it since the 1920’s ! barmy !
Each time I drive my car, should I pay Skoda 20p ?
These are my thoughts
.best get back to the wilderness
Regards
Nick
_____
From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 13 March 2015 18:38
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials
I think Pulse in Somerset is another example of a CR on DAB as well. I think
you could argue in all cases that there is significantly more exploitation
of content on a DAB simulcast for a CR, since the coverage area is a lot
larger. I don't think you can argue that for the small scale trial.
It is really interesting that a CR which is also online and on DAB is
charged more than a commercial radio station. Commercial radio get DAB
simulcasts included in their fee, and as far as I am aware they also have no
limit to the total simultaneous listeners on their streams. (When I was at
Virgin, our limit would have roughly been about 60,000 by the way.)
I would certainly think that CR has a good argument to go for "whatever is
cheaper", and if a commercial radio licence works out cheaper, you should
get and pay for that.
On the monopolies thing: there isn't a monopoly here, I'm told. You can deal
direct with record companies - many online companies have done. But that
means that instead of a catch-all licence covering (almost) and track you'll
ever want to play, it massively changes the complexity of what you do, since
you end up only being able to play Warner tracks and not Sony ones, for
example. You can also buy music licencing from any EU country's music
licencing agency, but - oh, ho - you'll find they all charge the same based
on a reciprocal agreement. Sounds less like a monopoly and more like a
cartel, you might think, but apparently it isn't that either.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:42 Phil Edmonds <lists at philedmonds.info> wrote:
With regards to PRS/PPL. I've not got a big issue with the model where a
percentage of your "commercial" revenue is what you pay in music
royalties. Just as if you paid a sales person a percentage commission, a
percentage of your revenue goes towards music royalties. You've a profit
margin on any sale - just the same as any business be that small or
multi-national.
The idea of a "minimum fee" on music royalties also makes sense, but at
what level that minimum fee is set at is a question for another day.
With regards to a current Community Radio operator providing their
service on one of these small scale DAB trials.
From what I've gleaned so far:
PRS will not charge an additional fee for DAB simulcast for a FM/AM
Community Radio station.
PRS have a similar arrangement for Commercial stations.
PPL want an additional fee for DAB simulcast of a FM/AM Community Radio
station.
I'm not sure what PPL charge commercial radio stations for a DAB simulcast.
If they don't charge extra I'd suggest there is every argument that
Community Radio should be treated the same. If they do charge extra it's
an argument we are not going to win in the short term.
What is the situation for existing "Community Radio" operators who also
have a DAB outlet?
There is two cases I can think of:
1) Wirral Radio (formerly 7 Waves) - who simulcast their FM Community
Radio licensed service on their local DAB Multiplex. Broadly servicing
the same target area.
2) Gaydio - who operate a number of DAB outlets around the country away
from their FM Community Radio licensed service in Manchester. They do
run some spilt advertising breaks and some specific local programming on
their Manchester outlet.
Therefore as far as music royalties are concerned their must already be
a president set for a Community Radio service providing a service on DAB
to the same geographic area and to a different geographic area.
Potentially any current community radio station may wish to provide
programming on one of these DAB trials either to "substantially the same
area" or "a different" area to what they currently serve on FM or AM.
If the current terms with Wirral Radio / Gaydio are good - then anything
new should be the same. If they are bad, then they will hopefully be in
agreement to negotiation of better terms!
Also to be remembered that while Community Radio stations with an Ofcom
"Community Radio" licence have specific requirements to be non-profit
and provide social gain, services provided on any current DAB service,
the trial small scale DAB services, or as it currently stands any future
small scale DAB services will have no "mandate" to such non profit,
social gain ethos.
That's not to say that many, or all, of the characteristics of Community
Radio as we know it can't be delivered via a licensing regime not
restricted to 'community radio'. After all there are several Community
Radio stations in Scotland who "subscribe" to the CMA charter who hold
"ILR/Commercial" radio licences.
I think the Community Radio sector needs to make it known that
small-scale DAB may be appropriate for some of us - and make sure that
the small handful of "big players" don't monopolise any future small
scale DAB licensing and price the small players out of the game. Would I
go as far a suggesting a "must carry" rule? I'm not sure. I think there
is some rules regarding carriage of BBC local stations on commercial
multiplexes? (Calling Mr Cridland as potentialy man in the know here.)
This thought takes me full circle to Nick at Canalside's "red tape"
issues with the music royalty bodies. My take is it just highlights how
strapped for resources Community Radio is - there isn't an accountant
sat in the corner who could rattle off the required figures in five
minutes. The level that many, probably the majority, of Community Radio
stations are working at is the sub-micro level. It also goes to show
that there's a long way to go in supporting each other, for every Nick
who goes bleary eyed at the latest request from PPL, there will be
another who could look at the books and fill in the forms almost with
their eyes shut.
Phil.
On 13/03/2015 15:18, Bill Best wrote:
> Many thanks Tony.
>
> There is a CMA Council meeting tomorrow and I'll raise this matter about
> contacting the Competition and Markets Authority about copyright issues.
>
> Best regards
>
> Bill
> --
> Operations Manager
> Community Media Association
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/
> https://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
>
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video
> http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> https://twitter.com/canstream
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 15:01, Tony Bailey <ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk
> <mailto:ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> Revenue collection agencies would be falling down on the job if they
> agreed to collect less cash. You can't argue with them, unless you
> have a cheaper legal team than they have! I don't know if the
> Tribunal route is viable for similar reasons. One other
> possibility, which might be worth a look is the ex-competition
> regulator, now re-born as - the CMA! Only this time it means the
> Competition and Markets Authority. As new boys on the block they
> might be worth asking since the collection agencies are effectively
> monopolies and have to act in the public interest under the 1973
> Fair Trading Act (as amended by the 1998 Competition Act). The CMA
> will hear complaints from business as well as consumers.
>
> Tony Bailey
>
> On 12/03/15 21:06, tlr at gairloch.co.uk <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk>
wrote:
>> Re the question of profits, I gave my take on that in my reply to
>> Nick. PPL's position would be that it isn't concerned with your
>> profits, it is concerned to get a fair return on the value you get
>> from their members in being able to run the radio station at all,
>> whether that is for social gain or financial gain.The argument I
>> have with PPL is in their approach and attitude, and the actual
>> amounts they try to levy. Especially I see no true justification
>> for the large minimum charges under the licences (that just
>> encourages them to have inefficient admin with the costs covered
>> by small stations). Nor do I believe there should be additional
>> fees for simulcasts. The strange thing is you could treble your
>> population coverage geographically (Ofocm permitting) and there
>> would be no change whatever in the licence other than reflected in
>> increased revenue, but if you add a different access method, even
>> covering teh same area, they want a huge increase in charges.
>> The trouble is that with annual revenues approaching £200m, PPL
>> can rely on the principle of 'might is right' to have it all its
>> own way with small operators. The present system denies justice to
>> those who can't afford the barristers' fees and risk the potential
>> legal costs of arguing their case before the Copyright Tribunal,
>> which is the arbitration route offered by the law.
>> The only routes left for thise without thousands to spend on
>> legalities are either individual negotiation, which PPL says it
>> won't do, a collective approach, which is where CMA could really
>> come into its own, lobbying the legislators, civil disobedience,
>> or a combination of all the above.
>> Sadly, CMA's track record of negotiating with PPL isn't very
>> inspiring - they have achieved tiny concessions around the edges
>> of the licence, but no overall rationalization or serious
>> reduction in charges. The whole sector should long ago have held
>> out for a simple low percentage of revenue royalty - I would
>> propose 1% of NBR for micro/non-profit stations (eg turnover less
>> than say £100k or a similar threshold figure related to the
>> current 2% and 3% bands). Full stop. No minimum charges, no extra
>> licences for simulcasts.
>> Alex
>>> On 12 March 2015 at 18:21 David Duffy
>>> <david at theradiopeople.co.uk> <mailto:david at theradiopeople.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Nick/Phil
>>> Just before I reply. can I ask. This email thread it’s missing
>>> other people's contributions on the subject of 'The Cost Of The
>>> DAB Trials’ that were made previously (including one from me). I
>>> don’t begin to understand how mailman works but my earlier
>>> response is still on the thread online but not in this email.
>>> What’s that all about?
>>> Anyhow, I wholeheartedly agree. I think there is a strong case
>>> for the CMA to talk to both copyright bodies on the grounds that
>>> as the use of their members material is on a not-for-profit
>>> basis, community radio stations should be exempt from fees.
>>> Unlike a commercial radio station where ultimately the
>>> shareholders gain financially from the use of copyrighted
>>> material; or in a shop where the proprietor benefits commercially
>>> from playing copyrighted material; the use of the very same
>>> copyrighted material on a not-for-profit community radio station
>>> just contributes to the service perpetuating. There is no net
>>> financial gain. If anything, the playing of their members
>>> material contributes to sales, downloads, merchandise, concert
>>> tickets, etc. So their must surely be a zero sum argument to be
>>> negotiated here on behalf of the Community Radio sector?
>>> David
>>> www.theradiopeople.co.uk <http://www.theradiopeople.co.uk>
>>>
>>>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 16:38, Canalside's The Thread <
>>>> office at thethread.org.uk <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Reply -cma-l at commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at commedia.org.uk>
>>
>> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the
Community Media Association -http://www.commedia.org.uk
>> Twitter:http://twitter.com/community_media
>> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
>> Canstream Internet Radio & Video:http://www.canstream.co.uk/
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Mailing list
guidelines:http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guide
lines/
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
visit:
>> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
>
> --
> Local Reports athttp://www.ravensound.pilgrimsound.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at commedia.org.uk>
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the
> Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
>
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
> visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
_______________________________________________
Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media
Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list guidelines:
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150314/7e56e7f7/attachment.html>
More information about the cma-l
mailing list