I now see he is joining Greatest Hits Radio so the retirement is fake
news, probably perpetrated by the BBC.
I also see that Clyde 2 is to be rebranded as 'Greatest Hits Radio
Glasgow and the West' (along with the other Bauer Scotland stations.
Hits Radio
I now see he is joining Greatest Hits Radio so the retirement is fake
news, probably perpetrated by the BBC.
I also see that Clyde 2 is to be rebranded as 'Greatest Hits Radio
Glasgow and the West' (along with the other Bauer Scotland stations.
Hits Radio
Its really a shame we cannot find a way to run stations cheaply on air. Many exist on the internet of course, and I know many of those would love to have a transmitter if it were not prohibitively expensive.
On 17/01/2023 16:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its really a shame we cannot find a way to run stations cheaply on air.
Many exist on the internet of course, and I know many of those would love
to
have a transmitter if it were not prohibitively expensive.
I can't see why the big commercial radio stations don't just run one programme with digitised speech that has the accent of the area it is serving.
Oh no please. I have some of those voices. They really are still pants.
There are some audio described tv shows on now using artificial speech for this. They are not very good, I can tell you.
Try installing Espeak, and setting it tto west midlands if you want a laugh.
Brian
Yes well are you surprised?Yes, because the name 'Clyde' is distinctive and stands out from the
The fact is that nobody wants to advertise onThere is no change to the catchment areas. The Bauer so-called 'City
radio anymore and are not sure what the demographic is either. You cannot go >it alone unless you have a big catchments area
and even then those who ownIt is networked already with local jingles and (some) local
stations want, at some point to profit from their venture and sell it to one >of the two main companies who then aggressively go in and make as much as >they can networked to save money
What about Radio Jackie in SW London, has that got long to run.I agree with that. I remember Radio Trent was very good, and I
I remember the brave new world at the start of commercial radio. Lots of
fairly modest operations with interesting programming and interesting >presenters. Gradually all succumbed to network stations with the odd opt >out.
Its really a shame we cannot find a way to run stations cheaply on air.
Many exist on the internet of course, and I know many of those would love to >have a transmitter if it were not prohibitively expensive.
Its really a shame we cannot find a way to run stations cheaply on air.
Many exist on the internet of course, and I know many of those would love to have a transmitter if it were not prohibitively expensive.
On 17/01/2023 16:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its really a shame we cannot find a way to run stations cheaply on air.The expensive bit is the transmitter, and given the power they need and
Many exist on the internet of course, and I know many of those would love
to
have a transmitter if it were not prohibitively expensive.
the rent you have to pay that's not going to get any cheaper. DAB could be cheaper, as the major cost is the power, which is shared between all the users, but I suspect Arqiva would have words if anyone tried to undercut them.
Another major cost is the music licencing. Last time I checked, for a low power restricted licence station, it was going to cost about two grand a month for PRS and the same for MCPS. That's a lot of advertising you need
to sell.
A lot of the early commercial stations used DJs from local clubs who used their show to advertise their gigs, or were supporters of a particular
genre, and were happy to work for nothing.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual >performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in >the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national >rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any >logging or anything.
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any logging or anything.
Brian
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
On 20/01/2023 16:37, Scott wrote:
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,In theory, yes, but to get the money directly to the copyright owners,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
you may need to find every single performer and everyone else involved,
such as the engineer and writers, or whoever now owns that bit of the >copyright, and negotiate a fee. If anyone says "No", you've wasted your
time. If they are not British, it's a worldwide search.
Last time I was looking at setting up a Restricted Service Licence
station, I needed three licences. PRS to play music or other recorded >material, MCPS to stream or record it, and the OfCOM one to turn the >transmitter on.
PRS and MCPS act to collect copyright fees on behalf of their members,
but unfortunately, the way they work it out, the popular people get
lot, while if you don't hit the targets for airplay or sales, you get >nothing. If you don't join you get nothing.
I remember a small station that started up in West London many years
ago, who played a very strange selection of music, so I started digging,
and found out that what they were playing was by performers who were not
PRS members, so they didn't need to pay a licence fee, as long as they
had permission from the copyright owners. Sending a sample disc or tape
was taken as consent.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:01:28 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:That's whay I said. By accpeting the fee, they give consent is they say
On 20/01/2023 16:37, Scott wrote:
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,In theory, yes, but to get the money directly to the copyright owners,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
you may need to find every single performer and everyone else involved,
such as the engineer and writers, or whoever now owns that bit of the
copyright, and negotiate a fee. If anyone says "No", you've wasted your
time. If they are not British, it's a worldwide search.
Is it not the other way round, unless the station has consent they
cannot play the track?
Do you mean they get a lot because their work is played more often,
which seems perfectly reasonable, or do you mean they attract a higher copyright fee per play? How would that work because at the start of
their careers, clearly they would not be popular?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:13:16 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual >performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in >the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national >rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any >logging or anything.
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
I remember a small station that started up in West London many years
ago, who played a very strange selection of music, so I started digging,
and found out that what they were playing was by performers who were not
PRS members, so they didn't need to pay a licence fee, as long as they
had permission from the copyright owners. Sending a sample disc or tape
was taken as consent.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:13:16 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual >performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in >the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national >rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any >logging or anything.
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
On 20/01/2023 18:10, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:01:28 +0000, John WilliamsonThat's whay I said. By accpeting the fee, they give consent is they say
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2023 16:37, Scott wrote:
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,In theory, yes, but to get the money directly to the copyright owners,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can >>>> say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
you may need to find every single performer and everyone else involved,
such as the engineer and writers, or whoever now owns that bit of the
copyright, and negotiate a fee. If anyone says "No", you've wasted your
time. If they are not British, it's a worldwide search.
Is it not the other way round, unless the station has consent they
cannot play the track?
"No", then there is no consent so you can;t play it.
If you are using PRS governed material, then permission is deemed to be >granted by you paying the PRS licence fee. In that case, you are allowed
to play it unless the copyright owner expresses an objection, as one
star did during a recent election.
Do you mean they get a lot because their work is played more often,
which seems perfectly reasonable, or do you mean they attract a higher
copyright fee per play? How would that work because at the start of
their careers, clearly they would not be popular?
That is a major whinge from those starting up in the business, yes.
The way it's worked out, as far as I cam tell, is that PRS get a summary
of airplay from the stations (IIRC, weighted by average audience
numbers), sellers and streamers of what's been played, they allocate the >licence fee in proportion to the total plays, sales and streams, the
deduct a fixed admin fee. They don't charge you if your share is too
small to pay the fee, but you don't get much if anything if it's
marginal. Rod Stewart and Noddy Holder don't notice the fee, but that
band you just heard for the first time on the "Introducing" local radio >section might get a gig fee if they're lucky.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:13:16 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual
performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in >> >the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national >> >rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any >> >logging or anything.
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
Composer
Lyricist
Arranger
Performer(s)
Recording company employees in different capacities, whose rights are
usually signed over to their employer. Sometimes the composer's rights
are signed over to a publishing house if the song was bought outright
(rare nowadays)
In the case of a transfer from one medium to another, there may also be >rights of the transfer engineer if he or she added value to the
production.
The rights last 50 years after the death of the owner in some cases and
70 years in others.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
I remember a small station that started up in West London many years
ago, who played a very strange selection of music, so I started digging,
and found out that what they were playing was by performers who were not
PRS members, so they didn't need to pay a licence fee, as long as they
had permission from the copyright owners. Sending a sample disc or tape
was taken as consent.
I do the music for a fête each year; to avoid paying any PRS fees, I use >entirely non-copyright music from pre-1930s 78s and even wax cylinders.
I carry a list of every title and its copyright status, just in case I
am ever challenged.
So far the music has received nothing but compliments from the public,
who think it sounds appropriate for a village fête, but one of the
organisers has complained and wants me to play country & western music
next year. She says she is prepared to pay the PRS fee.
All I meant was that in practical terms unless the station knows that
consent is in place, they will simply not play the record. There is
no way that an ordinary radio station will chase around to find
performers, engineers, writers or anyone else and then negotiate a
fee. Perhaps in a Hollywood movie.
On 20/01/2023 19:06, Scott wrote:
All I meant was that in practical terms unless the station knows that
consent is in place, they will simply not play the record. There is
no way that an ordinary radio station will chase around to find
performers, engineers, writers or anyone else and then negotiate a
fee. Perhaps in a Hollywood movie.
That's what PRS and the MCPS are paid to do, They have authority from
the copyright holders to collect fees and grant permissions. If I want
to record a copy of, say, a Beatles song, I speak to the MCPS, they tell
me the fee per copy, and they apportion it according to their agreement. >(Normal fee for the writer is, I think, 8% of the retail price, and the >arranger gets a guaranteed slice as well.)In effect, as long as you have
a licence for your use of the material (Anything from background radio
in a taxi to music for a high profile TV advert), you assume permission
is there. The fee is based on the use, and for the adverts, each use is >separately negotiated.
If I want to play music on the radio, TV or anywhere else outside the
home, I speak to PRS, who sell me a licence and grant permission to play >whatever I wish for a block fee. I just have to tell them what I've
played if it is broadcast.
The only other legal way is to negotiate with everyone involved, which,
as you say, radio and TV stations don't have time to do.
Exactly my point. It confused me when you said 'you may need to find
every single performer and everyone else involved, such as the
engineer and writers, or whoever now owns that bit of the copyright,
and negotiate a fee'. I thought you were suggesting the station did
this.
On 20/01/2023 21:07, Scott wrote:
Exactly my point. It confused me when you said 'you may need to find
every single performer and everyone else involved, such as the
engineer and writers, or whoever now owns that bit of the copyright,
and negotiate a fee'. I thought you were suggesting the station did
this.
I was merely suggesting a possible way to make sure the creators of the
work got their money without paying a cut to PRS and MCPS.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:45:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:13:16 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual
performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in
the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national >> >rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any >> >logging or anything.
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
Composer
Lyricist
Arranger
Performer(s)
Recording company employees in different capacities, whose rights are >usually signed over to their employer. Sometimes the composer's rights
are signed over to a publishing house if the song was bought outright
(rare nowadays)
In the case of a transfer from one medium to another, there may also be >rights of the transfer engineer if he or she added value to the
production.
The rights last 50 years after the death of the owner in some cases and
70 years in others.
Does the PRS take all this into consideration in their charging or do
they average it as a flat fee per record played? As an example, does
Gold pay different amounts for each track or do they just pay an
amount per track and let PRS sort it out?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:45:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:13:16 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
That cost is really stupid. They are not giving the dosh to the actual >> >> >performers in any case, its just a money making scheme for the old lags in
the big recording organisation.
Surely the rates should be based on the catchment area, not some national
rate. In some countries they just pay one lump sum for the year, not any
logging or anything.
Is it not the case that there are three copyrights: composer,
performer and mechanical rights that are not necessarily owned by the
same person? Rights can be sold, or not. I don't think think you can
say that all the money is going to 'old lags'.
Composer
Lyricist
Arranger
Performer(s)
Recording company employees in different capacities, whose rights are
usually signed over to their employer. Sometimes the composer's rights
are signed over to a publishing house if the song was bought outright
(rare nowadays)
In the case of a transfer from one medium to another, there may also be
rights of the transfer engineer if he or she added value to the
production.
The rights last 50 years after the death of the owner in some cases and
70 years in others.
Does the PRS take all this into consideration in their charging or do
they average it as a flat fee per record played? As an example, does
Gold pay different amounts for each track or do they just pay an
amount per track and let PRS sort it out?
I think PRS just does it the easy way, on a total time basis. Then they
tip it into a pot and portion it out among the top 20 earners. I've
never had anything from them and yet I know my work has been broadcast.
There used to be an ISRC code embedded in CDs. that was supposed to >automatically trigger the studio equipment into logging the copyright
owner and the time played. Although my CD burner has provision for
embedding it, I've never been able to find anything that can read it.
On 21/01/2023 16:51, Scott wrote:
In stations like Gold (you should try it sometime folks) I assume itSomeone listens with a stopwatch in their hand, then adds the
is all done by computer.
I'm still puzzled how they time the jingles to end before the lyrics
start.
information to the metadata in the file on the computer. The playout
program then times the jingle to start at the right time.
In stations like Gold (you should try it sometime folks) I assume it
is all done by computer.
I'm still puzzled how they time the jingles to end before the lyrics
start.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:24:06 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:51, Scott wrote:
In stations like Gold (you should try it sometime folks) I assume itSomeone listens with a stopwatch in their hand, then adds the
is all done by computer.
I'm still puzzled how they time the jingles to end before the lyrics
start.
information to the metadata in the file on the computer. The playout
program then times the jingle to start at the right time.
A one-time set-up then. That makes sense. Does it also fade the
intro for the duration of the jingle?
On 21/01/2023 17:50, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:24:06 +0000, John WilliamsonThe playout programs are quite versatile and easy to program.
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:51, Scott wrote:
In stations like Gold (you should try it sometime folks) I assume itSomeone listens with a stopwatch in their hand, then adds the
is all done by computer.
I'm still puzzled how they time the jingles to end before the lyrics
start.
information to the metadata in the file on the computer. The playout
program then times the jingle to start at the right time.
A one-time set-up then. That makes sense. Does it also fade the
intro for the duration of the jingle?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:48:31 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,293 |