Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AFTRA Halts Many Radio Stations' Webcasts

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the silence-not-always-golden dept.

The Almighty Buck 233

livitup writes: "Surprised when you couldn't listen to that live stream of your favorite radio station at work today? AFTRA (The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), the union for Radio and Television actors has dealt a blow to the internet. AFTRA is now requiring radio stations to make supplemental payments to AFTRA members on stations rebroadcast on the internet. So they have in effect shut down internet radio rebroadcasts, because no radio station in their right mind would pay their DJs 300% more just to stream over the internet. This NYPost article quotes Clear Channel, which owns 1170 radio stations has ordered them all to stop streaming their on air feeds."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Get your head out of your ass. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#294414)

You speak as if unions were the only ones acting out of greed. A lot of the bennefits you enjoy at work, assuming you do work, you have because unions fought for them. To numerous to mention--but consider the recent rash of incidents involving the RIAA, DMCA, HarryPotter domain name disputes, a recent story about how listening to baseball games over the net are no longer. Point is, look almost anywhere on the net and you'll find stories, on a daily basis, on how corporations are stiffling the internet thus reducing it from a medium of popular and democratic participation to just another mass comsumption and propoganda tool. No Virginia, Reagan was not right about the union thing (he himself was in a union). And you should learn to apply a little more complex thinking.

s/stations/air\ talents/ (1)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 13 years ago | (#294416)


Not all air talents belong to AFTRA (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 13 years ago | (#294417)

The union only represents major- to medium-market stations, AFAIK. I worked in small-market radio for several years, and was never an AFTRA member.

Kinda revealing to me about the true nature of the union. Instead of representing the people who (arguably) need representation the most, it concentrates on people who are likely to be able to provide the most dues (salaries in major markets are *much* higher). *commercials* are also behind this (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 13 years ago | (#294418)

One of the small-market stations I sometimes listen to has the following notice up:

Do to recent issues regarding additional talent fees for playing radio commercials over the internet, we have been forced to temporarily disable audio streaming of WNAX AM and FM. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to find a solution as quickly as possible so we can resume our webcast.

(They misspelled "due", not me. :-))

So, in their case, it has nothing to do with their air talents, who are not likely to be AFTRA members, but with the talents on commercials that they air.

OK...that's just stupid, and indicates an extortion scheme. Does anyone disagree? I hope not.

How dare those radio hosts (2)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 13 years ago | (#294423)

Try to tell the stations that if they want to move into a new medium (the net) that they should share some of the procedes with the folks who make the content.

In reality if the DJ's etc have a contract with the stations then they should expect the stations to stick to it. If the stations want to move into a new market, they need to share what they are doing with the DJ's.

Union issues (4)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 13 years ago | (#294425)

Part of the thing is that I think unions work a lot better in places where people are more or less interchangeable. For example airline pilots. Now I know some airline pilots they are very highly skilled and well trained. But lets face it if you take 2 guys who are both rated in the same plane (say a 737) then there is not much difference between them. One is not going to get the plane there any faster then the other.

On the other hand a good ball player or school teacher is not replacable by another. But even in that case for every great person you have a hundred people who are good and get the job done without being amazing, they still deserve some protection.

It's a matter of scale (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 13 years ago | (#294429)

Most of the radio stations I've listened to max out at about 30 streams. What's it like in the big-city markets? I can't imagine a big NY station can serve an internet audience even 1% the size of its broadcast audience. So give the blabbermouths a 1% raise and be done with it.

Besides, all of this contract language is talking about radio broadcasting, and everyone knows that internet radio is unicast, not broadcast. Even multicast is different than broadcast. Most routers on a leased line won't even pass broadcast traffic, so I doubt anyone is broadcasting anything over the Internet.

And what the heck is with charging a station money to play an advertisement? I thought it worked the other way around....

The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (4)

jht (5006) | more than 13 years ago | (#294431)

Internet-based radio streams are useful as a way for a radio station to widen their audience somewhat, and a way for people to listen to their hometown radio when they're away. I strongly doubt, though, that Internet broadcasting (except maybe in a very few cases) of a radio station gathers anywhere near even 5% of that station's over-the-air audience.

The interesting thing, though, is that it's easier to measure the audience on the Internet - just count server connections and you've got a pretty accurate audience measurement. As opposed to the satistical sampling of radio diaries by Nielsen. So if stations could sell those additional numbers and pay unions/labels appropriately, then it'd be worth it to stream.

The problem there is that I suspect Internet listeners are going to be (because of the dispersion) listeners that advertisers don't want. A large proportion of radio ads are local, and only have appeal to the local audience. If I'm listening to a Boston radio station in San Francisco over the Internet, does Bernie & Phyl's Furniture really care that I'm listening? They don't go any farther west than Westboro - heck, Springfield is out of their market, let alone San Francisco!

Basically, that's the problem - if an Internet simulcast gets a lot of listeners, it's often going to be because those listeners aren't in the market and therefore won't buy the stuff in the ads. The unions and record companies want stations to pay based on audience, the statons would rather pay for that part of the audience that they can actually sell to.

They need to meet somewhere in the middle - but if our experience to date with the record lables is any indicator, that won't happen.

- -Josh Turiel

SF/bayarea hit on this (1)

PsYcOBoRg (6613) | more than 13 years ago | (#294442)

many Radio stations are now noting they are being Forced to stop broad casting, and have been doing so for the last 2 weeks. problem is, who or where to go to figh t this? or are internet users just that users with no rights?

This hostility to unions is pretty funny. (3)

hatless (8275) | more than 13 years ago | (#294444)

Given the rate at which people in the tech sector are being laid off and pay rates are leveling off and even starting to decline, I would have thought the brand of thuggish, anti-union conservatism so popular among geeks the past few years would be on the wane. (How exactly is it "libertarian" to argue that government should assist companies in blocking people from engaging in collective bargaining?)

When you guys get laid off without severance pay in a couple of months because your department's project is being moved to a subcontractor in Russia or India, let's see how anti-union you are. Right now, the only hot jobs are for J2EE programmers and senior sysadmins. Even those are likely to dry up at the rate things are going.

Anyway, back to the AFTRA/media-company standoff:

The broadcasters have had a good five years to negotiate terms for Internet rebroadcast with AFTRA. That's how long decent streaming has been around, so it's not as though this whole "internet" thing just blindsided everyone. When the broadcast companies decided to start collecting additional advertising fees for their Internet rebroadcasts, their lawyers were well aware of the terms of the AFTRA contracts that were in place.

The New York Post is a right-wing tabloid; be aware of their bias and as with any publication, read it with the appropriate decoder ring. Clear Channel has a business unit that runs separate Internet-only "radio" stations. It's entirely possible that this cutoff has less to do with AFTRA than it does with their desire to "replace" Internet rebroadcasts of radio stations, and eventually those stations themselves, with their cheap-to-run Internet stations with their anonymous, interchangeable, and non-union deejays.

Re:Still have a commercial station on the web here (1)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 13 years ago | (#294445)

So is KPIG [] , my favorite streaming station....

Re:The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (1)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 13 years ago | (#294446)

Exactly! One of the stations I listen to, KPIG [] , is in California. I really dont intend on driving out there for a dentist appointment, no matter how good their ad is.

Re:For those who actually READ the article... (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#294449)

For the record, the reason that you don't hear anything decent on the radio anymore is, for a large part, due to the fact that approximately 90% of radio stations are owned by three companies.

I think radio right now is the best it's ever been.

I'm no expert, but I have been a #1-rated DJ (in a small market) and a Music Director / Assistant Program Director, so I'm not without expertise.

I recall a time when I could drive down I-10 or I-12 and hear nothing but Country stations, but now it's very rare for me to find a stretch of road where I can't pull in Classic Rock, Hip-Hop, even National Public Radio.

News/talk is seeing a resurgence it hasn't had since FM was invented, and a lot of it is in the FM band.

Those "three companies" are bringing economies of scale into the administration and advertising sales that results in a lot more money being available to pay the talent, upgrade the equipment, and license good programming.

Radio sucks the least it's ever sucked. I suspect that you think this because one radio station you liked changed formats and nobody replaced it. That has always happened, even at tiny little mom-and-pop radio stations in the rural midwest.


Pay triple for ads, not DJs (3)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 13 years ago | (#294452)

The issue is that the 4A wants them to pay triple for the ads. Remember the commercial actor strike? They were complaining that they weren't getting paid when their ads show up on the internet.

No one is demanding that DJs be paid more...

Better Description of the Problem (4)

Detritus (11846) | more than 13 years ago | (#294453)

See this CNET article [] for a better description of the problem.

Actors in radio commercials get paid more if the commercials are also broadcast on the Internet. The advertisers do not want to pay the additional fees if they never asked to have their commercials simulcast on the Internet. The radio stations could pay the difference in fees to the actors or delete the commercials from the Internet feed.

This happened 4 days ago (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 13 years ago | (#294454)

It started on tuesday, the Local radio stations were whining about it. As a Network Admin, I am happy that noone in my office can waste the bandwidth listening to a station they could listen to on a 2 dollar radio. but in the other hand, I shake my head at the amount of greed in this world.

Re:Once again (1)

dirty (13560) | more than 13 years ago | (#294458)

I disagree. How much extra work do the DJs have to do for the net broadcast? Nothing. Why should they be paid extra for not doing extra work?

I hate these people. (2)

Pope Slackman (13727) | more than 13 years ago | (#294460)

It seems that whenever there's a cool technology that benefits consumers, some greedy dickhead(s) has to come in and tear it down.
Net radio is pretty nifty, I mean how else could I listen to another station hundreds of miles away, that might have a different format or wider variety of music than any of the stations in my area.[1]
Not to mention, net radio is nice for cubicle-dwellers stuck inside, where bandwidth is available, but radio signals are weak.

The radio stations are already paying a license fee so they can broadcast, why should they have to pay another one just because a transmission media has been added?

Greed sucks.

[1] IMO, Denver radio bites. KBPI has a couple good DJs, but the playlists are too repetitive.
KTCL used to be pretty good, 'till they sold out, and KXPK has that annoying ex-MTV chick. Ugh.
The only station I remember as being really good was 92X (KNRX, I think) but they only lasted a couple years.

Dinosaurs will die.

The Golden Age (1)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 13 years ago | (#294462)

We all knew that the golden age of the late 90's couldn't last. It sure was exciting though. High paying jobs. The chance to be able to retire at 30. Almost anything you would want to know available for free. There's no way it could last, but it was fun while it was there.

Does it really matter? (1)

s!mon (15429) | more than 13 years ago | (#294463)

Of course, this doesn't affect college radio at all. And if you listen to commercial radio (especially at work).... well you've heard the songs 10K times already, so no big deal.

But the way this will work is most stations use software to automate their entire broadcast. So what they will do is setup an identical rotation on a seperate machine, and not put a DJ on it. Then they can put their streams back online.

Ohh grand (1)

Felinoid (16872) | more than 13 years ago | (#294464)

For a while now some of the lisseners to clear channel radio stations have been asking for net feed.
One talk show host has his own web chat system set up and people post and interact with the host that way.
They keep asking for the same thing.. streaming audio.

Now we FINALLY get it...
I sereously doupt the on air tallent asked for this.
Just some burrocrat got a bug up his butt...

Hay... pay those burrocrats 300% when you have a website... can not do it can you....
Why not? Same deal right?
Your paying someone for exactly the same job becouse you have a better system...

This is bogus... I'm really really not happy...

For those who don't know why this is helpful...
Basicly a lot of people work in areas with bad radio reception. It's very commen. Largish office buildings with thick walls block radio signals. Offices loaded with PCs have similer problems.
Office workers are basicly stuck. One of the early streaming audio experements (using Linux.. it's on the old Sunsite Linux archives) feed radio signal into a lan to rebrodcast into an office where radio signal couldn't be picked up.

Now people can pick up radio stations the like. IF they netcast. No radio distortion or anything. It's really neat...
So here comes a burrocrat and kills all that...

Gee... thanks a frigen lot...

Re:The screwing goes both ways (1)

yog (19073) | more than 13 years ago | (#294465)

If it weren't for unions, and more succinctly, people looking out for their own best interests, workers would be working 16 hour shifts and would be getting paid $5.35 an hour

This is a commonly held myth. There's almost no evidence to support it. I work in a non-union profession (software engineering) and the pay is quite good. I'm self-taught and worked my way up from the very bottom. No damn union helped me float along. As for long hours, there is that but it's usually by choice, not fiat. When there was a severe labor shortage in the food service industry here in Boston the employers responded by offering higher pay, e.g. 8.50/hr and up to start at MacDonald's. Pretty good for unskilled work.

The problem is that unions artificially suppress the laws of supply and demand and of course they don't like meritocracy. It's the guild system of the Middle Ages all over again. My grandfather had to quit the shoe business in New York because he couldn't hire a driver of his choice; had to be picked by a union. He worked hard all his life (died at 91) what the hell did he do to deserve that?

As for workers getting shafted that's a typical justification for stealing from one's employer, lying on one's timesheet, etc. The fact is that if you hurt your company you're hurting yourself, long term. Soiling your own nest and all that.

I say to hell with unions, they've driven all the manufacturing out of the U.S., they've ruined the schools, air travel, on and on and on.



Curious (2)

lythander (21981) | more than 13 years ago | (#294466)

Aside from gathering otehrwise useless liteners (those who can't buy the stuff advertised)...

Why should people be paid more for doing the same job, but more efficiently (the DJs are doing the same shows, just getting pushed to more ears)? If I get a better PC and it crunches my data faster, but I do no more work, I still get paid the same.

FWIW, NPR is still on the net.

Re:How dare those radio hosts (1)

livitup (27795) | more than 13 years ago | (#294470)

Exactly the point I was going to make. Radio stations set advertising rates based on the market they are in, and the share of listeners in that market that they get. I highly doubt that any radio station gets paid more per commercial second because they are streaming the station. In fact it is just the opposite. Radio stations spend lots of money for hosting services for their websites/streaming sites and fat pipes for uploading the feed to the site distributing the stream. The only real potential benefit is increased name/brand recognition. If you listen to a local station's stream at work you're more likley to listen to it on the way home.

What AFTRA has done here is ask the stations to pay the on air talent more when the stations aren't getting any additional revenue from the whole deal. AFTRA knows that the radio stations aren't going to go for it. AFTRA had to know that the stations were going to shut down the feeds instead. So the real question is "What does AFTRA have against streaming audio over The 'Net?"

Re:Saw this coming (1)

booyah (28487) | more than 13 years ago | (#294471)

[quote]And before you start saying "Well this is the internet, it's different". People that use Napster sometimes say say that you can trade music in real life, why should it be different over the internet... You can't have it both ways.

so now you are suggesting (at least this is what i read into it) that we can't have it either way

This is why... (2)

dkh2 (29130) | more than 13 years ago | (#294472)

This is why Napster and other similar programs are going to prove to be unstoppable regardless of DMCA and other litigious attempts.

This is why I now listen to foreign radio at work.

Feel free to chime in with yours...

Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.

Re:The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (2)

adb (31105) | more than 13 years ago | (#294475)

For shame, young man. Quality, Comfort, and Price know no boundaries.

Here is a list of SAG phone numbers (2)

joshamania (32599) | more than 13 years ago | (#294477)

If you want to call up SAG and voice your concern about their greediness, have a look here [] .

Re:Maybe now they'll shut the hell up (1)

knarf (34928) | more than 13 years ago | (#294481)

So maybe this will make a few radio stations get rid of the DJ's alltogether. I'd rather listen to commercials than some of their blathering. If I'm tuned into a 'music' station, I expect to at least occasionally hear MUSIC during the hours between 6am and 10am.

In the Netherlands, we already have a bunch of these stations. They're nothing more than an electronic jukebox connected to a transmitter, serving music and advertisements. The formula seems to work, seeing they've been around for several years now.

good for noncommercial or indy competition (3)

akb (39826) | more than 13 years ago | (#294483)

As one involved with a noncommercial streaming project motivated by the desire to disseminate points of view that don't make it in the commercial media I have to say this is good news. That capitalism's "warring brothers" shackle themselves in this new medium with licensing agreements and industry consortia that get a percentage demonstrates the value to society of information that is licensed for use by civil society (ie GPL, Open Content) or in the public domain.

So if the RIAA wants to get all its slaves ... umm artist's songs off of Napster, I say let them cut their own throat, the independent music industry will flourish. If Clearchannel [] (which controls 25% of the nation's radio advertising revenue thus can control the airwaves [] ) can't webcast their thousands of carbon copy RIAA bitch radio stations, I say great, this is an opening for independents and noncommercials to take advantage of.

This is of course only a temporary window of opportunity. No one believes that Clearchannel will not be able to get on the web. Ultimately this will probably speed consolidation in the radio industry, as the big players like Clearchannel will be able to leverage deals that small independently owned stations can't.

Dateline: November 22nd. 2002 (1)

Mish (50810) | more than 13 years ago | (#294485)

AFTRA today offically closed it's doors as it's membership dropped into single figures. The organisation was dumbfounded by the situation, one (now ex) staff member was quoted as saying:

"How were we supposed to know that all media broadcasts were moving towards an online option, how were we supposed to know that we were limiting stations whose DJs fell under our jurisdiction and making them so anti-competitive as to make student and overseas radio stations who did have a global Internet prescene a more pratical alternative to advertisers".

In this reporters opinion AFTRA were the one driving force behind the closure of may American based radio stations, unable to afford the "levys" imposed by AFTRA they were passed over as viable by Advertisers forcing their closure.

If there is one thing we can learn from this it's that no one ogranisation should have the power to dictate the wages paid for specific aspects of a job, let the market decide.

Hmmm...Ive been streaming radio for years (1)

mister7 (56875) | more than 13 years ago | (#294488)

But only to people in my company who work in places where radio reception is a joke.

Would(can) this affect Joe's like me who are encoding live radio and streaming it for personal use?

Streaming live radio is easy...and fun...and can be done without the expressed written permission of the commissioner of Baseball,Basketball,NFL,Howard Stern, or anyone. (Don't worry, I'm not charging anything or runnning my own commercials ;-P)

Just get a cheap radio, line it in to you line-in audio port, fire up some streaming software (M$ Media encoder is strangely priced right(free)) and viola'...your buddies in the shielded LAN bunker can listen to mediocre quality radio. The source is already inside the firewall so we're not killing our internet connection. Hell...with 100 Mb ethernet, who cares?)

Re:Are stations getting more for ads? (1)

jguthrie (57467) | more than 13 years ago | (#294489)

If radio stations are getting more money from advertisers, then generally it's a good idea to pass that along to the talent. That's what keeps the talent from going to a station where they will pay what the talent thinks he's worth. However, it's not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that streaming their content is all that beneficial to the stations' bottom lines.

Several people have commented on how greedy the stations are who won't pay an air personality triple his salary to stream his program. Don't you think that if there were large profits to be had for those stations that streamed their content that they would pay up? Loudly complain about the cost, certainly, but pay up anyway just to get the extra revenues. Greed can work both sides of this particular street.

Re:Finally! (1)

radja (58949) | more than 13 years ago | (#294490)

Sony tried it in the netherlands. They didn't like their music being streamed by the VPRO, a dutch public radiostation. So Sony music is not streamed by VPRO. But since the VPRO are (what americans would call) communists, they also stopped playing ANY sony music on the radio. filtering out sony music from the streamed radio broadcasts is too much hassle. Not using ANY sony music anywhere is a lot easier.


Finally! (1)

Lysander Luddite (64349) | more than 13 years ago | (#294494)

"Clear Channel, which owns 1170 radio stations has ordered them all to stop streaming their on air feeds."

Maybe this will help show the mainstream how much control corporations have on the media.

Wait. This is America. How would they find out?

Re:This hostility to unions is pretty funny. (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 13 years ago | (#294495)

Getting laid off without due notice / pay is illegal. Unions don't change that.

Forcing large tech firms to keep on staff we all know they couldn't afford to hire in the first place will be the final nail in the coffin of good E-business.

Alternative to Internet Radio... (1)

jonathansen (68749) | more than 13 years ago | (#294497)

Spinner [] . It has lots of different channels based on genre, and it's still working today... Of course, it's a Windows-only product, but...

Re:WSB in Atlanta has found their "Alternative" (2)

lizrd (69275) | more than 13 years ago | (#294498)

I never realized how much unions were like the mob's protection schemes.

Have you lived under a rock most of your life? In many cases Unions are mob protection schemes. In recent years the unions have improved their image a little bit, but it wasn't all that long ago that the teamsters union was run by the Mafia.

Maybe now they'll shut the hell up (2)

Tony Hammitt (73675) | more than 13 years ago | (#294501)

Is it just me or are the DJ's getting entirely too annoying recently? They don't seem to add anything at all to the content of a typical Rock music station. The morning programs are the worst of all, getting downright disgusting.

So maybe this will make a few radio stations get rid of the DJ's alltogether. I'd rather listen to commercials than some of their blathering. If I'm tuned into a 'music' station, I expect to at least occasionally hear MUSIC during the hours between 6am and 10am.

So, anyway, I'd like to see the union get taken down a notch for this. After all, it's the number of people listening to the commercials that pays their salaries. Getting more people listening over the internet should be a money-making proposition.

After all, it's a lot harder to switch stream channels than changing radio stations, more people listen to the ads on a stream than listen to them on a broadcast station. The whole ergonomic design of a car has gone to making it absurdly easy to play with the radio, but no one has yet come out with a peripheral that changes the stream channel for you.

Re:The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (1)

jamesoutlaw (87295) | more than 13 years ago | (#294507)

You're right man. Of course, if a radio station was getting a significant number of people tuning into their streaming content, they could make an effort to sell advertising for more "national" products and services... Ads for Coke, FedEx, etc.

I wonder though, how many people who listen to streaming broadcasts are actually outside of the market area. I've listened to a few stations here in Memphis via streaming audio because I can't pick them up on the radio here in my office (too much interference from stuff nearby, heck.. there are zones in this building where you can't use cell phones). Several of the stations advertise their streaming simulcasts and encourage their listeners to "tune in" that way.

Re:For those who actually READ the article... (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 13 years ago | (#294511)

Yup. Radio corps suck. Virtually every station in Des Moines is owned by the same company. Last year the Register [] did a story on local radio and completely ignored the only indie station [] (which happens to webcast, BTW) around. Typical.

I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Re:This happened 4 days ago (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 13 years ago | (#294512)

I agree, if folks are listening to local radio online it's a waste of bandwidth. I don't understand why people do that. However, I recently moved to southern MN from Des Moines and my favorite station [] has nothing comparable here. I was hoping to listen online, but it seems they are having unrelated problems of their own. And RealPlayer 8 won't install, either! Grr.

I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Re:For those who actually READ the article... (1)

rapett0 (92674) | more than 13 years ago | (#294513)

I disagree with the arugment here. Your points are valid, but you missed his argument I think. Radio does suck now. There is no loyalty to DJ's or stations. I feel every hour now is half ad's and half music, a ratio that is to disparate to maintain interest. I am not saying their are not good DJ's or good radio stations out there, but this single format, play the same 10 songs and add 1 from 10 years ago every three hours shit has to go. And that witty DJ banter is so lame it hurts!

Oh well (2)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 13 years ago | (#294514)

Oh well! There goes the ethernet enabled IM (I think Clear Channel coined IM to mean internet modulation which means streams). Anyone remember Kerbango and a few others of those radios with built in modems for streaming audio?? Looks like they are useless rocks now, unless they can pick up Internet Only streams like Wolf FM.

Re:Saw this coming (1)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#294521)

No, what I'm saying is that everything gets treated the same or different. So if you can trade stuff in real life, and you want to online then radio stations must pay based on the size of their audience.

But if you want to say internet radio should be treated differently then broadcast radio then online trading should be treated differently.

Saw this coming (3)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#294522)

The problem is this. Radio stations pay for rights to play music based on their market size. They also charge for advertising based on that. When they're just in one city the market is limited but now that they're on the internet they can almost get to the entire world. So they can charge more for advertising (I know most don't at this point, but they could if they wanted to).

The other nice thing about internet radio is that you could keep track of exactly how many people are listening and if you have a small form to fill out you could get some nice demographic information and then sell nice targeting advertising at very nice prices.

Now, with all this (potential) extra income, and the fact that the radio station pays the artist/record company based on the size of their listening audience. Doesn't this just make logical sense that they should pay more? (based on the exsisting way they pay)

And before you start saying "Well this is the internet, it's different". People that use Napster sometimes say say that you can trade music in real life, why should it be different over the internet... You can't have it both ways.


this radio thing (2)

spoot (104183) | more than 13 years ago | (#294523)

As someone who has been in the radio game for over 20 years I see this as a good thing. Not because it protects the fat cat idiots that controll the medium, but because it keeps them out of the streaming game. With the advent of streaming, the last thing we would want is this old media controlling a new one. Good. Get them out of streaming. That way the true innovators of the medium can create truly compelling content. We don't need the large broadcast companies turning streaming into another mindless, banal medium like radio has become.

Re:Pay triple for ads, not DJs (2)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 13 years ago | (#294524)

The question is who is the "them" in your statement. Radio stations sure as hell do not pay for the advertisements they broadcast, the ad agencies do not pay for them, and the actors do not pay for them. The business that wants to advertise itself pays for the ads. 4A wants more and the actors want more (strangely the radio stations do not seem to be charging more for ad space on internet broadcasts); they should be talking to their clients not the radio station.

Or am I missing something here?

So listen to non US stations.. (1)

popeydotcom (114724) | more than 13 years ago | (#294525)

Like Virgin [] or the BBC Radio 1 [] 2 [] 3 [] or 4 []

The only US station worth listening to IMO is WBAI for OTH a 2600 [] broadcast.

WPLJ in NYC (1)

jpostel (114922) | more than 13 years ago | (#294526)

One of the most popular morning shows in NYC is "The Big Show with Scott and Todd". They have listeners all over the world through the Internet. I wish the station had been a little more forthcoming in its statement on the website.

"WPLJ has temporarily suspended our live internet broadcast while our streaming infrastructure is being retooled.

We apologize for any inconvenience."

Are stations getting more for ads? (1)

regen (124808) | more than 13 years ago | (#294533)

If radio stations are getting more money from advertisers when they stream on-line, then the on air talent should be paid more. If they radio station doesn't get more money for the ads, then the talent shouldn't either.

Re:I'm listening to a station (1)

fumble (128295) | more than 13 years ago | (#294534)

Another great student run station, KWVA [] in Eugene, Oregon. Quote from their website: "Tired of being torn from blissful slumber every morning by "Who Let the Dogs Out"?"

I DJ'ed there from 2am - 4am with a friend ... good times.

Re:Once again (2)

Strog (129969) | more than 13 years ago | (#294536)

Nothing's preventing the "little guy" from having a web-streaming radio station

If they don't pay the ascap fees then they are doing it it illegally in the first place and then they can be procescuted and stopped. I guess the little guy will have to be a talk station or sing their own copyrighted music. There is no way to follow all the rules they have put in place if you use music with any kind of copyright on it.

Re:For those who actually READ the article... (1)

Boulder Geek (137307) | more than 13 years ago | (#294538)

That's why I listen to kgnu [] . No commercials, the weirdest music programming you could want, and science programming (not often enough) where intelligent questions are asked of working scientists instead of publicity seeking popularizers (which I'm listening to right now over a streaming feed).

Re:I'm listening to a station (1)

ekrout (139379) | more than 13 years ago | (#294539)

Y100 [] is Philadelphia's most popular station for modern rock. They routinely persuade the biggest names in music to come to Y100-sponsored concert events in the area. That being said, their audio feed is still working. So, I'm wondering just what kinds of stations this ruling is affecting.

Once again (1)

HerrGlock (141750) | more than 13 years ago | (#294541)

"Big Media" is dictating what we can or cannot hear.

This is just a logical extension of radio. Even better, the stations do not have to purchase/lease a frequency, they just need 'net connection. Maybe that's the problem, the producers cannot control it and therefore want it shut down until they can get a stranglehold over how/when things are broadcast.

So much for the little guy being able to have a web-streaming radio station.

Cav Pilot's Reference Page []

Mostly true. (2) (142825) | more than 13 years ago | (#294542)

There are times that unions are greedy. It's not greed for money, but for control. I have seen the Boston Teachers Union do some things that were not in the interest in employees, but in power. They were trying to sanction a teacher for claiming that all teachers in a school were not being treated equally (in a discrimination complaint) and were trying to hold a star chamber proceedure against this teacher. I told the building rep, that the contract sucked, her first response was, "you don't know what you are talking about." She didn't realize that I had read the contract. But, the Boston teachers had one of the best pay and benefit packages in the country.

This same issue with web publishing of newspapers and magazines is going to the Supreme Court. I think that 300% is a bit high, but if you are rebroadcasting a show, is there not due some additional compensation. Most of the SAG and AFTRA members are not paid large sums of money.

Re:Better Description of the Problem (1)

HuskyDog (143220) | more than 13 years ago | (#294544)

Ah well, now I've read the CNET article it doesn't look so bad after all.

As I understand it, the advertisers don't want their adds streamed since they will then have to pay more to the actors in the ads. So, the broadcasters are going to remove the problem ads from the online broadcasts. Therefore, those who listen online could end up with fewer ads :-)

Mind you, I'm in the UK and listen to BBC [] radio which doesn't have any ads in the first place.

Re:Ad Agencies too ? puzzled (1)

sallen (143567) | more than 13 years ago | (#294545)

I think that it's the advertisements, not the DJ's that cost a lot more when they are aired over the Internet. The AFTRA contracts are for those doing the commercials, voice overs, etc. When they make the advertisement, the person gets not just a 'payment' for doing the ad, but they make money based on the number of times the ad is aired, etc. Evidently, if it goes over the Internet, they get triple the normal payment for times aired. It does seem a little excessive, to be honest. All of a sudden, somebody's ad budget goes to hell. IIRC after hearing this, at least a couple of stations would like to get back to streaming if they can figure a way to keep the commercials from being streamed. Then again, I could be wrong.

Re:For those who actually READ the article... (4)

Bitter Cup O Joe (146008) | more than 13 years ago | (#294549)

No, actually, the reason I think that radio sucks is because radio currently does, in fact, suck.

And, to be fair, for the most part, it's always been hard to hear anything decent on the radio. The difference is that, 10 or 15 years ago, in larger markets, the DJs would occasionally play a local band JUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO. Not because their corporation wanted to be the first to break a new band on radio, not because the "band was situated to enter the market," but because the DJ like the way the band sounded, and thought the listeners might, too. A good example of this was a local band from Austin called the Asylum Street Spankers. Fun band, does modern riffs off of old-style music, lots of swing, old-style country stuff with titles like "I Was Flannel When Flannel Wasn't Cool" slamming Johnny-come-latelys in various scenes and "Beer" explaining the singers preference of beer over any other drug. Generally fun stuff, well liked by the college crowd in the market. On one of the local stations, an alternative/college rock station, a DJ decided to play one of their songs and was promptly put on the vampire shift, for "playing music not in line with the station format and our corporate strategy." Now, don't misunderstand me, I know that that type of crap happened before the corporations got involved, but it was less frequent. You know why? Because, in order for that DJ to get that song played, he would have had to talk to one person, who could have simply given him a "Yes" or "No" answer, rather than putting in a request to four different departments, clearing it with legal, etc. Ultimately, the reason that radio stations suck these days is that their programming decisions are made less and less by people who love music, and more and more by beancounters and lawyers.

However, opinions vary, and you are welcome to yours. Thank you for some intersting comments on the current state of the music industry. Unfortunately, I simply cannot agree that replacing mom-and-pop radio stations with corporate affiliates is any better than replacing mom-and-pop stores with Wal-Marts. Ultimately, you reach a point where no matter what store you go to, they're all Wal-Marts or Targets or K-Marts, and you have to buy the same crap.

For those who actually READ the article... (5)

Bitter Cup O Joe (146008) | more than 13 years ago | (#294550)

You'll note that AFTRA did not start requiring this until AFTER the American Association of Advertising Agencies started requiring its members to pay additional for their ads being simulcast on the internet. Ultimately, the radio stations are to blame for what's happened to them, due to their own greed. However, as Clear Channel and its ilk are wont to do, they'll pass the screwing on to you! "Damn AFTRA for saying that if you get paid twice for an artist's work that the artist should get paid twice as well. It's all the artists that are making us shut off your internet broadcast, not the radio stations trying to get something for nothing, rather than pay the artists their cut."

Fucking radio corporations. For the record, the reason that you don't hear anything decent on the radio anymore is, for a large part, due to the fact that approximately 90% of radio stations are owned by three companies. For an excellent article on the subjct of why radio currently sucks, check out Pay for Play [] on Salon [] .

Re:The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 13 years ago | (#294560)

If I remember correctly, radio stations do not even use Nielsen for their ratings. They use Arbatron and even those numbers are circumspect. The method used is similar to a poll rather than an actual sampling of data.

Either way, it seems that yet another industry has decided that rather than adapt to the new media, shut it.

Re:The screwing goes both ways (3)

Golias (176380) | more than 13 years ago | (#294564)

A lack of unions would mean long shifts and minimum wage for auto workers? What are you basing that claim on? Because that's how auto workers were treated in 1930? Have you stopped to consider that our current ecomony does not really resemble that time in history very much? That maybe you would have a hard time getting good people to work in an auto plant for minimum wage, when the local Starbucks is paying $10.50 an hour for much easier work?

The scenario you are reciting is a total myth. Every time somebody points out that unions are redundant, corrupt, and bad for everybody who is not a union boss (and they are), somebody drags out the old saw of "well, you would be working like a slave for change found in the couch if it wasn't for the union", which is total BS.

I'm not in a union, and I make great money. Everybody I know who is in a union is only in it because joining was a requirement of the job. Unions are nothing but a mob racket these days, and anybody who doesn't see that must be blinded by their hate of industry and capitalism, because it should be obvious to anybody who looks at it objectively.

Re:SF/bayarea hit on this (1)

DivideX0 (177286) | more than 13 years ago | (#294566)

Unfortunately, as a user/listener of a radio station (air or net) we really don't have any rights. We never directly paid a radio station to listen to have access to their shows, so they don't have to guarantee broadcast.

That said, I really wish the union cheifs would pull their heads out of their asses, the talent (DJ's) that they represent will wind up losing popularity with their fans, since most people will assume that it is the DJ's that are being greedy instead of the collection of union execs.

The screwing goes both ways (1)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 13 years ago | (#294567)

If it weren't for unions, and more succinctly, people looking out for their own best interests, workers would be working 16 hour shifts and would be getting paid $5.35 an hour. Yes the workers like giving the company the shaft, but guess what, they're getting it too. It can be very difficult to see the good things that unions do, when only the bad get publicized and talked about.

Clear Channel stream site link (1)

xjosh (181149) | more than 13 years ago | (#294571)

See for yourself at [] .

Re:GREAT? It's Good Friday. (1)

Happy Monkey (183927) | more than 13 years ago | (#294573)

Gosh, it would be nice to get all the religions' holidays off...

WAAF in Boston Pussyed out (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 13 years ago | (#294575)

UGH, station has been going down hill for years. Well thats alright I never listened to their net stream much since they switched to Real audion and it sounded like I was stuck underwater. I told them they really should use shout/ice cast intead, but they avoided the issue. In any case my .02 the DJ's get paid to do their show, how the station broadcasts the show shouldn't matter.

Re:Once again (1)

TheOutlawTorn (192318) | more than 13 years ago | (#294576)

Nope. Big media radio stations are cutting off their live feeds over a particular medium (IP internetwork), nothing more. There are still literally thousands of independent internet stations you can listen too. You can still listen to all the "corporate" stations too, just not over a live net feed. Did you even read the article? This is about big media not wanting to pay their employees extra for broadcasting feeds over the Net. The only restrictions they are placing are on themselves, and therefore hurting their own exposure in the marketplace. Shooting themselves in the foot to save the wallet, so to speak.

Next time read before you post.

Re:America != the world (1)

TheOutlawTorn (192318) | more than 13 years ago | (#294577)

Yep, and further more, there are plenty of internet stations based in the USA that are not affected by this. Only communications companies who have on-air employees that are members of AFTRA are affected. That means most of the big boys, of course, but hey, if they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, so be it. Listeners will migrate to the independent internet stations, broaden their horizons a little, life is good.

Re:Another datum point on how unions make industri (4)

TheOutlawTorn (192318) | more than 13 years ago | (#294578)

Seems to me that it's the stations that are killing the feeds because they don't want to pay up according to agreements they accepted. That's what happens when you sign a contract, you have to abide by it.

Not another RIAA/MPAA vs. the public interest (3)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 13 years ago | (#294585)

1. Radio stations derive revenue based on the number of listeners that they can bring to advertisors.

2. Internet simulcasting and rebroadcasting allows a radio station to reach many more people, many of whom might live outside of their normal broadcasting radius, and who would not be reachable over the airwaves.

3. Therefore it's not totally unreasonable to ask for more money if you're a DJ. The radio station management is certainly going to ask for more money from the advertisors; why shouldn't DJs see some of that money?

It's an inconvenience for now for those of you in the listening audience, but it's a real issue and one that I think the on-air personalities have a strong case for.

This isn't a situation analogous to the RIAA/MPAA vs. the people; the public *isn't* being gouged for the cost of listening to radio.

It's more like the usual RIAA rips off artists so that the publisher and distributor can get fat off of the artist's vision and hard work.

Re:Once again (2)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 13 years ago | (#294586)

No. "Big Media" as you call it is not dictating what we can or cannot hear. They are simply refusing to speak to us over the internet because they have a contractual obligation to some union members which they don't feel is financially worthwhile. That is, the added expense is not equal to the marginal revenue from internet broadcasting. I have serious doubts that webcasts produce ANY revenues for regular broadcast stations. First they have to pay for some pretty good servers and bandwidth and software, then they have to find enough ears so that they can pitch this as a value to advertisers. Either they can make a revenues selling webcast-only ads targeted to the demographic of internet listeners (which I think would be a stretch, low quantity-- a problem exacerbated by the likely geographic displacement) or they can simply increase their usual ad rates saying that they are adding value by including webcast as part of the package (I'd say this is a hard sell and most advertisers would ask for some good analysis before they let this slide).

Now, as to what I can and cannot hear... "Big Media" has almost never given me something I wanted to hear, especially not over the radio. If this means I can't stream Britney Spears and Creedence Clearwater to my work-station at work, big deal. This is such a non-event. I mean, Clear Channel? I think we should be thankful they aren't polluting the net with their "music" anymore.

Re:GREAT? It's Good Friday. (1)

donutz (195717) | more than 13 years ago | (#294591)

no one at work? i wish i were so lucky.

. . .

Re:Once again (1)

jmischel (202344) | more than 13 years ago | (#294593)

So much for the little guy being able to have a web-streaming radio station.

Huh? Nothing's preventing the "little guy" from having a web-streaming radio station. Nothing in the corporations' or the union's actions prevents somebody else from broadcasting.

Unless you meant listening to the station. Oh well. Radio's free anyway--paid for through advertising by the same evil corporations everybody claims is fleecing the public.

Re:The problem is that nobody "gets" broadcast yet (2)

glebite (206150) | more than 13 years ago | (#294594)

Although I don't visit Minneapolis a lot - only 6/7 times a year, I have visited some of the restaurants and bars advertised on the station.

I may be the exception, but whenever I'm going to travel somewhere, I like to hear what the road conditions are like (might rent a truck instead of a car if there's tonnes of construction), what the political climate is like (is there a municipal election?), or if they are having things like flooding problems.

I also gain an additional familiarity with the area if I listen to "Jim & Bob" talking each day about how some highway is always backed up at or around the time I might be arriving at my destination...

Yeah, I don't think that numbers of listeners over the internet is a good indication of compensation, but it is for the first time, an almost perfect count of number of listeners... A station could certainly use this to gauge what shows were popular or not.

Oh well, as they say, whenever things like this happen, just follow the money trail to get to the heart of the matter.

Re:This hostility to unions is pretty funny. (3)

VivianC (206472) | more than 13 years ago | (#294595)

How exactly is it "libertarian" to argue that government should assist companies in blocking people from engaging in collective bargaining?

I guess it isn't. The government should just get out of labor disputes. Of course, that means that striking workers can be replaced if they don't come back to work. ON STRIKE then becomes equal to I QUIT. Would you like information on COBRA before you go?

When you guys get laid off without severance pay in a couple of months because your department's project is being moved to a subcontractor in Russia or India, let's see how anti-union you are.

Oh yeah, the unions have done such a great job keeping jobs here in America. That's why so many American cars are partially built in Mexico and Canada.

Wanna kill any tech company? Unionize it! Do you know what union scale is pull a ten foot patch cable from one rack to another?


Licences (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 13 years ago | (#294600)

Many streaming servers have licences for how many connections they can have at once. Also when you buy power at your ISP to make them serve your stream, so you only have 2 outgoing streams, you often pay for the maximum number of connections also.
So providing your signal on the internet is very different from broadcasting it in the air. You also have logs on how many connects to your service.
Many of these dudes getting mad about the stations streaming the signal on the net seems to forget(or does not know/care) these things. It not like the whole internet can listen in at the same time, there is a limit one way or another(licences, bandwidth). So it should be very easy to work out at contract saying that they allow 3000 people listen to their broadcasts. So you can see them squirm when their dreams of a billion dollar pay check vanishes when they realize that the whole world has the potential of listening in but there can only be fx, 3000 of them in reality.
Ok so there is the whole deal of cache servers for RealAudio, Quicktime and that microsoft format. But let's forget that for a moment.

I'm listening to a station (2)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#294602)


But then, it's a student run alternative station. Nobody gets paid.

How odd, the alternative station is bypassing union wishes.

Who wants commercials on the net anyway? (1)

n7lyg (219105) | more than 13 years ago | (#294603)

Who in their right mind would listen to commercial radio on the Internet? You want to listen to streamed commercials?

Go out and point your browser to KEXP [] and listen to real radio. If you are lucky enough to be on Internet2, you can get an uncompressed 1.4mbps feed! The best radio station in the world!

More bandwidth for me (1)

KarmaBlackballed (222917) | more than 13 years ago | (#294604)

There is a niche interest in online broadcasts, but most large company's have firewalls that block them and the quality can be poor.

Until IP multicasting comes about, quality of streaming media will remain poor and will suck up a disproportionate amount of backbone bandwidth.

I see this netcasting halt as temporary and good. In the meanwhile we will all get a little more bandwidth to download our slashdot pages quicker.

~~ the real world is much simpler ~~

What is the internet finally coming too? (1)

linuxrunner (225041) | more than 13 years ago | (#294605)

It's not going to all end untill the internet is officially bland and tasteless...
We now have the technology to keep any kind of information on the web. I get upload a book, music, picture, anything! I can then place them on my web page where I can then turn around and retrieve it from anywhere in the world! This technology is amazing and it just keeps getting better.

Why are so many people just out for an easy buck?

I guess the internet was promised to be a gold mine.... People are out still looking for it.


WSB in Atlanta has found their "Alternative" (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 13 years ago | (#294606)

they are stripping the "air" commercials out of their streaming content and will sell the internet time separately.

I think that is actually the best route to follow. Screw this money grubbing union, which is pretty damn sure not to forward all those "stolen" dollars to their members, after all their are costs involved in collecting it, and heck there are so many they would probably charge their members for the "service"

I would expect many of the streamers to come back after installing the software needed to "swap" the commercials for approved ones

Still have a commercial station on the web here.. (2)

sacremon (244448) | more than 13 years ago | (#294607) Atlanta. WNNX (99X) is still 'casting on the Internet (listening to it right now). They're a commerical 'new rock' station.

In general, you have to imagine that AFTRA knew what the consequences of their action would be. I wonder if there hadn't been the precedent by the RIAA requiring royalties for web broadcasts, that AFTRA wouldn't have gotten the idea of supplemental payments.

Re:Mostly true. (2)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 13 years ago | (#294610)

I've never been able to understand why unions are okay and striving to monopolize an industry or supply of a particular resource isn't.

The way I see it is thus: every human has an asset: their labor, which is finite because their time is finite. There are many consumers who have a use for labor, many of these consumers being businesses. Labor is therefore a necessary resource.

The implicit goal of labor unions is to raise the price of labor (for the benefit of their members). Compare this with, say OPEC, which seeks to raise the price of oil (for the benefit of its members).

It is not by accident that I used OPEC; the similarity reveals one thing: labor unions are cartels.

It is logically inconsistent to apply Antitrust law to corporations and not to unions. My personal view is that it (antitrust law) should not exist at all.

List of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved (2)

ryancooley (248760) | more than 13 years ago | (#294612)

First, they're probably paying to use Mp3 or Real audio's format, second, they're paying for the bandwidth, and third, they have to pay AFTRA's fee demands. You know... I can't emagine why napster got popluar ;-)

For anyone with faster-than-a-modem-connection; visit and join the Gnutella network, which always has and always will be free (beer & speech).

GREAT? It's Good Friday. (1)

q043x (256014) | more than 13 years ago | (#294614)

"Surprised when you couldn't listen to that live stream of your favorite radio station at work today?" ...uh, actually... it's Good Friday. No one's at work... (are they?)

Re:How dare those radio hosts (2)

eXtro (258933) | more than 13 years ago | (#294615)

I dunno, but the DJ's I listen to seem pretty pissed off that they're being forced to stop net broadcasting. Good DJ's are not a dime a dozen, they're in control of their contracts and so they could refuse to do net broadcasts if that floated their boats. Bad DJ's can broadcast to the net all they want, they'll still be at the bottom of the market.

This is just another example of why in general unions are horrid things, even if I respect peoples rights to form unions.

Re:Union issues (2)

eXtro (258933) | more than 13 years ago | (#294616)

I agree that they deserve protection, but I have had horrible experiences with unions. Like many people I had to pay my own way through university, I lived in an auto industry town, so there were fairly well paying jobs available in the automotive industry. I worked in security, but rather than sitting all day and developing extra butt cheeks I got to work confined space safety. This was kind of fun if you liked working at heights or other hazardous things, which I did.

Anyway, we'd also work accidents and injuries. Automotive plants are pretty dangerous places, we'd often catch drunk or stoned workers and send them home. I don't give a damn if somebody harms themselves but I don't think people should be allowed to harm others through their stupidity. The unions most important job was to get these morons back on the job pronto. In one particular case a very high heavy machinery operator nailed somebody with a forklift. Somehow serious injuries were avoided. He was sent home and back on the job the next day thanks to the union. Meanwhile if any worker decided to say they smelled something funny they could shut down a line. We'd come, test the air and usually find nothing. Hey, if somebody honestly thought they smelled something I had no problem. Oddly enough Friday's were the usual time to smell something though.

So the union is more than willing to fight for worker safety as long as it screws the auto company in the process. If it interferes with a dues paying member than they're deaf, dumb and blind.

I won't even go into the details of the union-sponsored threats (and one actual attempt on my life, fortunately by an epsilon-minus) during contract negotations, even though we were theoretically in the union, afterall we were forced to pay dues.

Another datum point on how unions make industries (2)

typical geek (261980) | more than 13 years ago | (#294617)


Dang unions see dollar signs on the internet, and now they're killing streaming radio because of their greed.

Maybe Reagan was right about that union thing.

Re:I'm listening to a station (1)

BLAMM! (301082) | more than 13 years ago | (#294621)

So am I.
WMMR Philadelphia []
Nothing alternative about this! Just awesome rock!

One solution (1)

limboman (307079) | more than 13 years ago | (#294628)

According to Neal Boortz [] in his news [] section this morning, WSB [] in Atlanta is solving the problem by filtering out the commercials from the webcasts. Makes sense to me... could end up being another source of revenue for the stations also, as they could sell streamed commercials separately.

America != the world (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 13 years ago | (#294632)

There are plenty of radio stations broadcasting on the web that aren't affected by "AFTRA"

Re:WSB in Atlanta has found their "Alternative" (1)

Chakat (320875) | more than 13 years ago | (#294639)

Probably an astute observation. Since this is all about the union sheeple trying to get a couple extra bucks, it'll end when the corps can cut them out of the loop. Of course, I'm willing to wager dollars to doughnuts that we'll see this issue again when the unions and the broadcasters work out the next contract. Unions hate the notion that someone can make a living without the union getting "their" cut (I never realized how much unions were like the mob's protection schemes.)

How it happened (2)

Diplomat73 (323901) | more than 13 years ago | (#294640)

Cnet [] has a similar article about this here [] . Basically The Web radio standoff that silenced hundreds of Internet audio feeds this week could be good news for companies that help stitch ads into streaming media broadcasts. So the reason all these web radios halted was because of $$ issues. As the article say Major radio corporations Tuesday, including Clear Channel Communications and Emmis Communications, temporarily halted their Web streams because of unresolved online advertising issues. Although that decision was a temporary setback for nascent Web radio stations, analysts said it could help ignite demand for so-called ad insertion technology, which can be used to get around disputed Internet advertising rules. The way I see it Tuesday's dispute among actors, advertisers and broadcasters over royalty payments could make streaming ads more attractive. Since advertising agencies have agreed to pay radio voice actors a higher fee if their commercials are used online as well as on air, they will likely seek alternatives such as ad insertion to control their costs.

Re:Saw this coming (1)

+a++00 y0u (324067) | more than 13 years ago | (#294641)

just where do you think these internet listeners are, that the radion stations can target advertising at them?

*sigh* (1)

jjshoe (410772) | more than 13 years ago | (#294642)

"I can still remember the day the music died... and we were singing bye bye..."

More greed, ruining the internet (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 13 years ago | (#294643) That's an Entercom station.. maybe Clear Channel owns them, I'm not sure. Regardless, it boils down to greed. People want more and more money, and what a better way to get this money than to milk the cash cow called "The Internet" for every penny they can squeeze out of it. Meanwhile, those of us that actually enjoyed listening to online radio broadcasts from stations around the world get screwed. Because a union wants more money.

The end of mainstream radio? (2)

B.Assturd (416078) | more than 13 years ago | (#294644)

Does this signal the end of mainstream radio? That would be awful, because now my kids can just hop on the internet and listen to any one of the unregulated DJs spewing their filthy language and disgusting ideas. At least when they listened to Rush Limbaugh via internet streaming, I could still trust the FCC to fine him should he slip and let an occasional swear word through.

Re:GREAT? It's Good Friday. (1)

danturk (443027) | more than 13 years ago | (#294646)

Maybe I should turn my client in to AFTRA, eh? they're sitll live and on the air..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?