Bill C-32 - Copyright

[PMC]

Broadcasters support the bill, got the link from http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

http://www.cab-acr.ca/english/copyright/default.shtm

His link is isupportmylocalradio.ca

[Mike Cleaver]

The same argument could be made as was done for the "local tv" campaign.
What local tv?
What local radio?
Corporately owned radio stations that play music likely are programmed from head office.
That was happening back in the '70s.
Most have few live shows that employ real people, usually covering only morning and afternoon drive with the rest voice tracked by someone doing several stations.
Music copyright doesn't affect news or talk or sports radio.
They buy packages of production music and pay the fees that way.
This is another red herring by broadcasters who don't want to pay for anything any more.

[slowhand]

Corporately owned radio stations that play music likely are programmed from head office.

Head Office, of course, has no clue even where the stations are. They can't even spell the location:
"General Sales Manager/Account Manager Camore AB" - current job ad from Rogers.

with the rest voice tracked by someone doing several stations.

Dunno where the stations you are listening to are from, but I hear a lot of dayparts with no announcer at all on music stations. And very little out of market voice tracking. After all, no voice is even cheaper than a voice from elsewhere.

[jon]

Newcap is running an embellished version of the CAB article:
http://www.ncc.ca/about.asp

Did I miss something? I thought the CAB was dead and buried.

Checking I see the following on their About page:

The CAB underwent major restructuring and as a result significantly redefined its mandate starting June 1st, 2010. Canada’s private broadcasters continue to work together on matters of central importance to the entire industry, the most important of which is copyright. As an industry, our business involves connecting consumers with music and entertainment, and developing and promoting new creative talent. Our ability to succeed in a global communications environment is significantly hampered by the fact that we are required to pay the same recipients (often large multinationals) multiple times because of a broken and unbalanced copyright regime. Bill C-32 presents the best opportunity to date to achieve balance in copyright, and we are working hard to support the passage of this Bill.

[Buckley]

I'm a little confused, so excuse the ignorance here... but are radio stations basically annoyed that they have to pay to download/purchase a song, then pay another fee to the companies for playing it? And this bill, if it were to pass, would it get rid of the "having to purchase the song first" part, or the "paying the fee to companies for playing it" part? I mean, I support not having to pay for any of it entirely but it doesn't seem fair for radio stations to have to buy all of their own music. I know some companies send music to some stations (my college station used to get a box of CDs a week, mostly junk though, and the company I work for now has a deal I'm not at liberty to discuss but is all very above board), and I know subscriptions to DMDS or other content aggregators are often purchased or some stations even will just buy songs directly from iTunes, but it's definitely my opinion that radio stations shouldn't have to purchase music. Sure, without the music, a radio station has nothing (unless of course it's a news/talk/sports station), and the music industry doesn't need radio as much as it did even 10 years ago, but radio is still often where many people hear a song first (the internet's fine but if you don't know something new is out, how are you going to go find it on YouTube or anywhere else it might be? A lot of people are still hearing it on the radio first, then going to the internet to find it and listen to it again).