Death of Internet Radio in US??

[Woochifer]

I thought this whole issue got resolved a few years ago, and now it rears its ugly head again. I understand the need for some kind of blanket royalty arrangement for internet broadcasters, but to charge for each play based on the audience size is ridiculous.

The RIAA is once again shooting themselves in the foot with their greed. These internet broadcasters cover a whole range of music that commercial radio doesn't touch. I would think that in an era of declining music sales, the music industry would want exposure and promotion for their new artists. But, it seems that they're more content with fighting over table scraps than trying to actually grow their market.

During the last go-round in this dispute, several of my favorite net radio stations got shut down. The net result was that I bought fewer CDs and shifted my entertainment spending towards DVDs and video games.

I don't think this signifies the "death" of internet radio, but it is probably the death of ubiquitous "free" internet radio. Those streams likeliest to survive intact will probably be tied to OTA broadcasts of some kind.

It will probably accelerate the demise of several internet-based stations and lead to a situation where the surviving stations will depend more and more on subscription revenue. I can also see some two-tiered arrangements where subscribers get the higher bandwidth broadcasts with no ads, while freeloaders get saddled with lower bandwidth and/or advertising. You could also have stations banding together into some kind of subscription arrangement, where a monthly fee grants access to a multitude of stations. I know that Live 365 has been going with a subscription arrangement for access to premium features, and I can see this expanding.

No big loss to audiophiles.

As far as I am concerned, satellite radio can disappear with it.

All that promise and they revert to the "quantity over quality" business model.

Since when were audiophiles in favor of fewer avenues to discover new music? Unless we're talking about that subcategory of audiophile that equates sound quality with artistic quality.

The internet and satellite are now my primary venues for finding new and interesting music. If I hear something I like, I'll further explore it. For the most part, commercial radio covers an appalingly narrow range of music choices, and even though I have a fairly large music collection at home and at work, I'm always open to discovering new artists and music genres. And in my experience, internet and satellite radio provide a far better pathway for that kind of discovery than most terrestrial radio stations.

I guess I am a music snob along with the other 30% of those polled on Sound and Vision who never or hardly ever listen to internet radio! I was actually surprised that there was that large of a percentage of audiophiles who prefer silence over internet offerings.

I think your interpretation of that poll is a bit over the edge. Just because someone doesn't listen to internet radio is hardly an indicator that they "prefer silence" over internet offerings.

Saying that someone don't listen to internet radio doesn't make them any more of a "music snob" since that poll doesn't indicate the reasons why people don't listen to internet radio. (Is it because they don't spend a lot of time on the computer? Is it because they're content with FM radio? Is it because they're uninterested in new music?) If anything, I would say that eschewing commercial radio in favor of internet radio is more of an indicator of MUSIC snobbery (as opposed to sound quality snobbery), since those listeners are more likely to demand newer, edgier, and/or less mainstream playlists.

[Smokey]

It will probably accelerate the demise of several internet-based stations and lead to a situation where the surviving stations will depend more and more on subscription revenue. I can also see some two-tiered arrangements where subscribers get the higher bandwidth broadcasts with no ads, while freeloaders get saddled with lower bandwidth and/or advertising.

Or it might cause some of stations to move overseas since they won't be subject to new Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) ruling and fees (I think). But it probably will not have as much variety as it have now.

[emorphien]

The RIAA is once again shooting themselves in the foot with their greed. These internet broadcasters cover a whole range of music that commercial radio doesn't touch. I would think that in an era of declining music sales, the music industry would want exposure and promotion for their new artists. But, it seems that they're more content with fighting over table scraps than trying to actually grow their market.

Absolutely, 100% agree. The RIAA has once again failed to see the reality of the situation and is reacting foolishly. Internet radio exposes people to much more music than the over-commercialized broadcast radio can, because much of it just isn't as profitable. The flipside of that is people who aren't as in to the mainstream music such as myself can use the internet radio to find new music so they can buy it. If the RIAA takes away that source for music exploration, they risk shrinking sales of the less mainstream music which is the last thing that kind of music wants.

If the RIAA wants to overbill anyone, let them do it to the top-40's/current popular music, not for everything else. If I want to hear porcupine tree, days of the new, and other similar groups I've never heard of, or find some new classical or jazz to listen to, I don't think there's a better way to do it now and killing off the stations that play those just doesn't make good business sense. The RIAA stands a much better chance of clobbering the pop internet stations with fees and actually getting some money out of it than they do the stations catering to a smaller (and likely choosier) market.