Slashdot Log In
U.S. Court Denies Webcasters' Stay Petition
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:18 PM
from the end-of-the-road dept.
from the end-of-the-road dept.
Michael Manoochehri writes "Reuters reports that a "federal appeals court has denied a petition by U.S. Internet radio stations seeking to delay a royalty rate hike due July 15 they say could kill the fledgling industry." This royalty rate hike, put forth by the US Copyright Royalty Board, will increase royalty rates for webcast music tremendously, in some cases to more per year than many webcasters bring in from revenue. Save Net Radio, a coalition of webcasters, is telling listeners that "We are appealing to the millions of Internet radio listeners out there, the webcasters they support and the artists and labels we treasure to rise up and make your voices heard again before this vibrant medium is silenced.""
Related Stories
[+]
News: 60-Day Reprieve For Internet Royalty Rate Hike 91 comments
Chickan writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has officially posted its ruling on Internet royalty rates in the Federal Register. However, the organization has pushed back the due date for royalty payments to kick in from May 15 to July 15. The publication of this information also begins the official 30-day period for appeals. NPR is slated to file an appeal in this timeframe."
[+]
News: Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It 123 comments
Pontifex minimus writes "Music royalty collection group SoundExchange has offered an olive branch to small webcasters. They are willing to delay the exorbitant new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board until 2010 for small webcasters in hopes that they can keep Congress from passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Larger outfits, like Live365 and Pandora would not be affected and would have to pay the new rates. '"Although the rates revised by the CRB are fair and based on the value of music in the marketplace, there's a sense in the music community and in Congress that small webcasters need more time to develop their businesses," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange.' SaveNetRadio rejected SoundExchange's offer, saying that it 'throws large webcasters under the bus.'"
[+]
News: Net Radio Wins Partial Reprieve 96 comments
Joren writes "Just a few hours after our last discussion on this topic, Wired News is reporting that Internet radio broadcasters have won a temporary reprieve from the new rates. Apparently the details are still being worked out. 'A coalition of webcasters have worked out a deal with the recording industry that could temporarily stave off a portion of crippling net radio royalties set to take effect Sunday, according to people familiar with the negotiations ... For now, the parties involved in what's described as ongoing negotiations have agreed to waive at least temporarily the minimum charge of $6,000 per channel required under a scheme created by the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB. The deal, brokered late Thursday, is not final and could change. One person involved in the talks described the situation as a reprieve, and said that internet radio won't be saved until a workable royalty rate is set.'"
[+]
News: Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy 109 comments
RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"
[+]
News: A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates 94 comments
quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.
[+]
News: SoundExchange Backs Off DRM for Webcasters 63 comments
Radio Free Europe writes "The big news is not that SoundExchange has repackaged the same royalty proposal that small webcasters rejected in May, but that SoundExchange has dropped its previous insistence that DRM be a part of any agreement. 'On the bright side, it doesn't appear as if DRM is part of the terms this time around. Previously, SoundExchange stated that webcasters who agree to the deal must actively "work to stop users from engaging in 'streamripping'." This began a war of words between the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and SoundExchange, with DiMA accusing SoundExchange of using rate negotiations to push mandatory DRM. SoundExchange's letter leaves the much-maligned streamripping issue out of the discussion, clearing at least that hurdle.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What, you're shocked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:5, Interesting)
--------
Not true. (Let's call your argument the "neo con" argument.)
The people who actually win are the people who can't be controlled.
(We'll call that the "Iraqi" argument.)
Internet Radio will morph into P2P streaming and offshore stations. It's not going anywhere.
The only thing that's going away is the last hopes the record labels had to profit from it.
Foot, meet bullet. Information wants to be free.
Parent
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The RIAA dosen't care about the money. (Score:4, Insightful)
The major record label's business models are all based on controlling the bottleneck -- when record-making equipment was expensive, they used that; now, they control the promotion.
The internet; in this case, internet radio, represents a promotional channel outside their control. Especially the smaller stations, how can they get them under a "paid promotion" contract? All of them? Hence the minumum fees of 500$
Parent
Re:The RIAA dosen't care about the money. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the case. Back in the early days record-making equipment was quite cheap. There were myriad small, local labels across the country, tied to local music scenes. This continued through the mid-50s, when the business started to consolidate due to better national promotion and distribution of former local stars like Elvis Presley, including payola to the formerly-locally-oriented radio stations to induce them to favor the nationally-marketed stars. Radio in the early era had been based largely on live broadcasts, since the fidelity was better (and live music has other virtues), out of the major cities and big regional stations (shows like the King Biscuit Flour Hour down in the Delta).
As recording studio technology developed from the late 50s onward, studio time became expensive, leading to the current system where artists get signed to labels which then lend them money for their time in the studio to record. It usually turns out that the seemingly generous offers get totally absorbed by studio costs, and the musicians get nothing. That's not too different from back in the early days, when musicians got a small fee per song recorded, and nothing at all no matter how many records sold. Musicians made most all their money from live performance - just like today.
What the record industry is trying to control here is the ability of small, independent musicians to gain any audience at all - the kind of musicians the commercial radio stations and even satellite radio will never play. They're trying to assure that real art doesn't distract from their marketing of sex and violence dressed up as music. Any politician concerned with the state of our mass culture should recognize that the degeneracy is largely a corporate product. So anything that decreases the power of these corporations by allowing more real art to flourish in spaces they can't control is key to restoring health to popular (and less-popular) culture.
Politicians - bewailing the media while furthering its monopoly. In terms of the longer-term success of our nation, this is worse than Iraq - indeed without this, Iraq could never have been sold.
Parent
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they take away low-cost net radio, I *will* get my music elsewhere. And those other places are far less likely to give any money whatsoever back to the record labels.
1,000 webcasters paying small royalties >> 0 webcasters paying huge royalties
10,000 listeners generating small royalties and sales from legit stations >> 10,000 listeners generating no royalties and stealing music
Parent
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You're not furthering profit! We demand you make more profit! You keep chasing so-called pirates, wasting money, annoying paying customers, and you don't add anything of value that might increase profit! WE DEMAND HEADS! ON PLATTERS!"
This would get their attention and quite probably darken the pants of all of their board members. Because if you think about it, we might each have a tiny stake in the company, but that many voices would certainly sway the major stakeholders against the board of directors and cause change.
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em then beat 'em.
Parent
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand it, the internet broadcasters just want the same deal that, say, satellite radio is getting.
Oh well. I'm sure (or at least I hope) that SOCAN will welcome them welcome them with open arms to Canada, where they can pay a percentage of revenue and not a per-song, per-listener rate.
...not to mention that this is a retroactive rate hike! Who ever even heard of such a thing?
Parent
Re:What, you're shocked? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say the RIAA has decided that we've all been paying too little for our music on CD. (Oh, excuse me, THEIR music that they've decided to let us listen to.) They pay off enough lawmakers to get some sort of subsidy on the CDs that suddenly makes them $100 a pop, retroactively. Then they start suing people who own legitimately purchased CDs, as they haven't paid enough for them.
Another: The MPAA decides that the movie theater chains haven't been paying enough for the right to show the films they control. They hike the rates to the point where the chains would have to charge $50 a ticket to stay afloat. Nobody's going to stand for that, so the chains go out of business. (This example is considerably more suicidal than what's happening to net radio, but otherwise, it fits.)
The RIAA hates what it can't control. It hates P2P (despite all the free promotion), barely tolerates iTunes (even though they've made hundreds of millions of dollars from ITMS sales), and has even sought to stop public libraries from lending out music (communists!) This move isn't about revenue, it's about killing net radio. The RIAA knows that it's impractical (if not outright impossible) to strongarm every net radio station out there like they do with terrestrial or satellite radio, so they destroy what they can't control.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The corporate music industry does win because it has deeper pockets. In this way they kill off most all of the legal independent broadcasters. Yes the ones that don't care about laws and legality will keep right on going, but I know a couple of collage radio stations that I listen to which stream over the internet whose streams will die when this goes through.
This kills off the mid to low level broadcaster from streaming over the internet. And while yes there are ways around it that are undetect
ISPs traffic shaping will kill streaming media (Score:5, Insightful)
Although, I reckon if anything kills internet TV and radio, it will be ISP's (poorly implemented) traffic shaping systems. Ever since my ISP increased the bandwidth to 3mbit/s, but introduced traffic shaping, the performance of even low bitrate streaming media has turned to crap. It's because every packet gets inspected (apparently) which causes all kinds of lag. Speed tests show I'm getting the full download speed at most times.
Parent
Re:What, you're overseas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Such a cache would obviously be illegal. But convenient for the users, and it would mean that most listeners on any channel/playlist/tag would have a large selection of the typical songs. There is some synergy, so I would not discard the possibility of someone coming up with a clever protocol for doing something like this.
Hm... Such a program would actually download and share music without you telling it which songs to download. Nasty.
Parent
Re:What, you're overseas? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think this is any different than my set top box recording the last two hours of whatever is on TV. It's called time-shifting, and it is fair use and protected AFAIK. Two hours, four hours, 80 hours, it's just a function of how much storage you want to throw at it. This article is really about who gave you that material in the first place, not your right to cache it or time shift it.
Stupid thing is I specifically listen to net radio because all the licensed stuff on the radio rather sucks. By eliminating the hyped big label garbage, they are improving my listening experience.
Parent
"Taps" anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is expired on that one (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, it's way too effing long, that something created around the time my great-great-grandparents were born should only come into the public domain during my lifetime.
Parent
Re:Copyright is expired on that one (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one small detail which the pro-softpat lobby often forgets. They want their cake (monopoly protection) and eat it too (still keep it secret)!
That can't be in the interest of the common good.
Parent
Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck 'em. I expect everyone has had enough of their shit.
It's just too bad that all the honest people in this new business are going to have to suffer for it.
Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, the goose is already cooked. Let's face it, the MAFIAA have all but completely destroyed the recording industry. I remember saying
in a post on this site maybe 7 or 8 years ago that they would ultimately destroy the industry rather than give up control.
Putting all the internet radio stations out of business is a scorched earth move, merely a spiteful parting gesture from a walking corpse.
Let them do it.
Let them use their sweaty, mean spirited little pencil pushing lawyers to take their ball and go home.
Nothing short of this will precipitate the revolution that is needed in the media, and it starts with the smallest independent
broadcasters.
You think these businesses will roll over and disappear without a fight? No way, they will merely adapt to circumstance.
The MAFIAA work by creating a false scarcity of content. In reality there is a glut of high quality Free content out there, millions
of musicians and podcasters who have had a decade to become highly skilled content producers are just waiting for the death of Big Media so that their work can become valuable. The myth of "artists need to be paid" has been so completely destroyed only fools cling to it. Everybody knows (to quote Mr Cohen) how crooked the game is, that artists never get paid properly anyway, and that all the ones who have any merit produce because they
want to and would do so even without an audience. Once the MAFIAA skulk off home to mommy taking their hyped manufactured rubbish with them there's gonna be an explosion of new talent, new voices, fresh political commentators and documentary, new celebrity.... It's ripe to happen, simple supply and demand. There is a vast reservoir of supply, and now the demand is about to kick in. I hope to God they pass this law, because it will be the death of the bastards. Once mainstream radio and TV get a sniff of how internet stations are surviving by bypassing corporate controlled material they will want a piece too. And thus the whole filthy mess begins to unwind....
Parent
Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the rock style life for the people who build bridges and clean up bathrooms? Where's the rock star life for teachers who contribute something directly measurable to our civilization? Where's the free booze and blowjobs for activists, community organizers, and people manning the soup kitchens tonight?
And for that matter, where's the rock star life for the countless musicians in less lucrative genres like jazz or folk music? Some of the most mindblowing music I've ever heard was hardcore jazz played furiously with wild abandon on snowy nights in hole-in-the-wall bars in towns and cities you haven't heard of by amateurs who had no chance in hell of ever making a living at it even in an ideal intellectual property/copyright environment.
What this all may portend is the end of the corporate-generated rock star and frankly, I couldn't welcome it more.
I have no solution to the problem of stolen demos and studio tapes; that's just wrong. But if that problem can somehow be addressed - possibly by home studios - artists should record albums and then set a bounty and collect money for it online, bypassing record labels completely. When the predetermined threshold is reached, the album gets released on the internet, with the expectation that from then on it becomes a promotional tool for the next album or tour, because there is simply no way you can stop music piracy. The question of "what to do about piracy" is moot. You set a bounty - say, a million dollars. When enough contributions come in to total a million dollars, the album is published on the web, free for anyone to download. In theory, all of the money would go to the artists, minus IT/financial fees.
This plan is interesting to me because what it means is, Bob Dylan fans (for example) pay money to the bounty fund for Bob's next album. When that album is released, it is then, for all practical purposes, free. This allows fans and advocates to contribute money to what they like, and it acts as a sort of gift to the rest of the world to spread the music they like. Beyond this, the suits are cut out of the equation, as they should be, because with the internet, all of the supposed value they add (promotion and distribution) has diminished significantly. If music were free, it would be promoted by blogs and file sharing services.
But then music would have to rely on its own merit, rather than street teams and tastemakers telling the dumbest of us what we like.
By setting a bounty, we ensure the artist gets paid. 50 years from now, there is no question whether a music file being passed around on the internet from today was "stolen." Its very existence would indicate that a bounty was met.
For visual entertainment that is not exhibited in theaters (which is an experience that piracy cannot easily duplicate), a similar model could be used.
I'm sure this scheme has problems but the old way of doing things, where you go to the store and you buy something but don't own it - itself a weird concept, really - is simply irrelevant now. The question is not what to do about piracy; the question is how to incorporate the reality of the free flow of data in a global, electronically connected world, with the need to make a living.
The old saw about how the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it applies and can be extended here:
The internet interprets copyrights and patents as damage, and routes around it.
The world has changed. Whether this ticks people off or not is increasingly irrelevant, and no - I don't have to be a professional musician myself to make this statement. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Parent
Re:Killing the opinion that lays the golden turd (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio#2007_
According to a report released in March 2007, under the newly proposed rates, annual fees for all station owners are projected to reach $2.3 billion by 2008. This figure is more than four times that for terrestrial radio broadcasters who, due to terms set forth in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are exempt from the additional royalties imposed on digital broadcasting outlets, which compensate the performers of recorded works. .
Watts are far cheaper than Megabytes, radio stations currently run over 20 minutes of ads per hour to stay profitable. The RIAA is peeing in their own pool. sooner or later, everone's gonna get out, it's not going to be pretty.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=
What really needs to happen is for everone to recognise who is an RIAA member and chastise them for it. The RIAA does everthing without recourse under a percieved cloak of anonymity. If people realized that Garth Brooks Record label is suing 12 yr olds and 80 year olds without computers with no remorse, they might have a different perspective on it.
Parent
Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. (Score:5, Interesting)
eg.: Windows Media Center will not stream from a server to a client laptop. You can buy an xbox and a "media extender" but that removes any mobile functionality (unless you want to lug a DC->AC inverter and battery pack with you, or appropriate DC mobile power supply.)
So what am I doing now? Setting up a test box with MythTV.
I think the inappropriate feelings stem from watching non-standard and poorly implemented DRM wreaking havoc on MS/RIAA/MPAA customer loyalty.
A previous post mentioned, "shooting oneself in the foot." Fine by me. I sell OSS every chance I get. It's only us hard-core gamers that need MS [for the time being.]
-OJ
Parent
That is the funny part (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way that I can see this happening is if the muscian's OWN the stream site that plays them. Imagine a site that is devoted to the 90's, might get 10 groups (from the 90's) to BUY into them. 1 share each. They pay the musicians the old rate. As time progresses, they would get more groups to buy into them. I think that it is possible that the company could even allow other groups to own them or perhaps buy into them. Just 1 share. I think that is all it would take. Any lawyers out there? Tear this apart.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of signed musicians don't own their own music, so it wouldn't work...
Pussies (Score:3, Interesting)
What needs to be done is putting that whining commitment (and the money they are frittering away) into something that supports the cause as they see it. Namely an alternative for licensing that promotes reasonable use (as seen by both the artist/label and radio/streamer/etc). If they aren't willing to do that then let them hurt until they see it more clearly. The RIAA and the US Copyright Royalty Board are both well funded and motivated by *their own interests*. Not the label. Not the artist. And you want to crawl in bed with them? !!!
Sorry if I'm ranting but this is just so fucking stupid.
FTR, I AM a internet broadcaster. I try to work closely with the artist because A) I support small artists which tend to be interested that you're interested B) I can't afford the royalty schemes, I can't afford the management of the license. I have a day job that lets me afford the whole project in the first place. Fact: 99% of artists want 1) to protect their property (fair enough) 2) to be heard (guess what they love? that right what they do).
Personally I think this is the best thing to happen in a long time. Let the poor morons sink. Lose millions of dollars or whatever else they fear will happen. Maybe a few with some cash (like they money they've wasted fight this..) will wise the fuck up and setup means for artists/labels to provide limited rights to broadcasters. This should have been done ages ago. Take back control.
But what can I do? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of issue seems too "localized" and small scale for any Congressman to give a shit about, not that know what the hell is going on in the first place. I could call or mail, only to have some intern glance over or listen to what I said, and in return give me the closest canned script that works for this situation. Then of course are those Congressman who are being paid off, and would turn a cold shoulder to it, anyway.
If I believed in market forces more, I would say that this is something that the market would take care of; sadly, the greed and conspiring of large companies coupled with the stupidity of most consumers guarantees that this would stay in effect for quite a long time without a high-level intervention. So what, exactly, could I do without a complete hopeless feeling? I'm sure common answers would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds.
More aside from the point, even more sad is that it seems that I would have about the same effect on any issue with a congressman, from internet radio fees to the use of taxpayer money in regards to education. Perhaps it's a current bout of depression talking, but I can feel nothing but a sense of hopelessness for this country in the future, looking at the way things are turning now.
Vote them out (Score:5, Informative)
While no single issue would cause me to actively campaign against an incumbent I like, I still want them to know that I'm watching what they do and will actively work against them if they don't consistently stand up for my interests. It's too bad we can't force a re-election on newly elected reps that don't deliver.
Corporations can't vote. Remind your reps of this.
Sound exchange says they won't enforce it (Score:5, Informative)
Just saw this posted on Fark. Sound Exchange, who I'm assuming are the people set to collect all the royalties, vowed in front of Congress not to enforce this against internet radio until new rates are worked out.
Re:Sound exchange says they won't enforce it (Score:4, Interesting)
NPR and the CPB, though considered non-commercial broadcasters, were still required to pay the same fees as commercial webcasters. They decided co-operatively to only pay part of the fees due, until the whole matter was straightened out. In regards to this, a poster to the College Broadcaster's [askcbi.com] mailing list stated "...so cpb is paying for all of its stations base fees? a government funded corporation is paying the fee set by another government board and enforced by a government recognized distributor of said fees? I think the framers of the US had a different idea of the future in mind."... I couldn't have said it any better myself. I think everyone (even out-of-tech-loop representatives and senators) is figuring out the royalty scheme makes no sense, and needs to be fixed.
Parent
Re:Sound exchange says they won't enforce it (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the music that public radio stations use on air and over the Internet typically requires licenses from the different copyright owners and payments of copyright fees.
Record labels are represented by the RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America). RIAA in turn uses the non-profit SoundExchange to negotiate streaming rights with webcasters (including public radio stations). If parties are unable to reach an agreement through negotiation, an independent administrative tribunal called the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") has the power to mandate a rate that covers Internet streaming. As we advised you last year, the agreement that we had to cover public radio's web streaming expired at the end of 2004.
Since then, CPB and NPR have been in negotiations with SoundExchange for a license to stream. When we were unable to reach an agreement, the issue of our license fee was referred to the CRB. The CRB issued a decision that set a rate structure that we believe was very unfavorable to public radio and failed to account for the noncommercial, public service nature of our music streaming. We have appealed the CRB decision to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appellate review will take a considerable amount of time, probably a year and half, perhaps more.
The CRB decision included a requirement that back fees be paid by July 15, 2007. We made a motion for a stay in the royalties fees but yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals denied that motion. While we were disappointed in that decision, we were not surprised. There was a slim chance the stay would be approved but it was worth venturing.
Meanwhile, NPR and CPB continue to negotiate with SoundExchange in the hope of achieving a system-wide settlement that recognizes the special noncommercial, public service nature of public broadcasting. Thus far we have been unable to reach an agreement. Our next discussion is scheduled for this Friday.
Because of conflicting provisions in various statutes and regulations, there is some confusion about what payment is actually due on July 15th. CPB and NPR believe that only base fees for 2007 are required to be paid on July 15th. We believe that fees for 2005 and 2006 are not payable while our appeal is pending. To comply with this requirement, CPB will offer the Sound Exchange a payment tomorrow that we believe covers the base fees of public radio that are due for 2007. You should seek your own outside counsel if you have concerns about what fees are due on July 15th.
We believe that our payment to satisfy the July 15th obligation will signal to the SoundExchange our good faith and encourage them to consider compromises on the issues that separate us. However, it is possible that Sound Exchange disagrees with our view of what is owed on July 15th and seek payment for fees from 2006 and 2007. In addition, SoundExchange may also pursue additional fees from the few stations that we believe exceed the usage cap included in the base fee. As we have indicated previously, these fees are station obligations that CPB covered through the end of our previous agreement. CPB cannot yet guarantee payment of additional fees given that the size of these fees is yet unknown. If you have concerns about any of this, you should consult outside counsel or, if you are an NPR member, NPR for assistance. Please note that CPB cannot provide legal advice to other parties, including stations.
Thank you for your patience as we work through this complex and difficult situation. We will keep you informed to the extent that confidential negotiations permit. In the meantime, realizing that each station must reach its own conclusions, we believe that it is critical that the public radio system stand together at this time. NPR recommends that stations not enter into individual agreements with SoundExchange
Parent
Other countries? (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, when it comes down to it the stations are more or less competing against each other.
It is kinda fun watching the RIAA trying to piece together their egg of influence after it was cracked by the sledgehammer of globalisation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are the musicians? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second point, won't this just mean that a lot of stations will switch to outside the US hosting?
Third point-good luck generation x and y. Now is the time to show if you have any actual political muscle or not. I'm a boomer, thinking back, last time I had anything to do with music and the radio and politics was an incident where a local college decided to censor their online little micro fm radio djs (girlfriend I had then was one of them) back during the viet nam war period. With one days notice we shut that school down, I mean a complete halt. No one went to class, buildings occupied, we just sat and said no censorship, free the station, etc. It worked, the authorities caved. I guess times change, so much is done online now that "in your face" brand last ditch activism type protesting has become passe or something.
Now I don't listen to online music streams, no huge interest, grew out of my nonstop music addiction years ago, I prefer talk radio now so this doesn't affect that, but for those who do, may I suggest you get on the stick and actually do some work beyond sending an email if this really is an important issue for you.
Congresspeople and assorted business folk just dump negative email like you would delete spam, they just don't care all that much. Real phone calls, snail mail, faxes, and personal visits get more attention, especially if you are cogent and to the point and show that you have a good grasp of the situation. Remember to keep it simple and to the point, overly emotional or complexities will get you ignored and dismissed out of hand as just a kook or something.
Back to the musicians, and their assorted parasitical business partners.. this is directed to you. Are you guys just crazy, or what? I follow this entire copyright and electronics thing a little bit, and it just seems you are bound and determined to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs without fail every single time you have a chance to prove otherwise.. You never miss, every single time, shoot yourself in the foot. Classical definition of insanity, keep doing the same thing expecting a different result..
To *you* folks I suggest getting with the technological program. this is the 21st century, not the medieval period with hand scribing by monks, get it? Digital bits are very, very, VERY fucking cheap-don't be so greedy. Think super high volume, not high net profit per digital bits copy, and you'll do a lot better overall long term.
Now, all of you punks, get off my damn lawn!
Move abroad (Score:3, Insightful)
Over four years (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok I see both sides of this one (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think I even care about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I always hear people say that the recording industry needs to change. I don't think it does. I think it needs to be replaced. In the early days of radio artists would make a recording and take them to radio stations to get airplay. This is exactly what the indie artists are doing today with net radio. According to Arbitron ratings, between 50 and 70 million people listen to net radio each month. These numbers are about the same as the size of the US population in urban areas in those early days (69 million in 1930). The RIAA didn't pop up until the early 1950's and at this point the US population was around 150 million, 95% of households had radios, and this was the time where people were going nuts and buying records. When I see the numbers net radio supposedly has today I really think there is probably an opportunity here. Indie artists, online music retailers who sell indie music, podcasters (netcasters for those living in Leoville), and net radio should be able to make something happen. I think the problem is people are looking for something to happen over night and that isn't going to happen. So, even though I am not part of that group of 70 million, I think those 70 million who are obviously listening to this stuff for a reason and not listening to their local Clear Channel or Cox affiliate should probably be a little excited about what this gives them. This is a chance for the RIAA to fail. They're cutting off a new and growing medium and this is your chance to claim it and write the rules and maybe someday dictate to the RIAA and the major labels what it will take for them to be able to play with you.
Re:I don't think I even care about this... (Score:4, Informative)
Simple answer, the Copyright Royalty Board gave SoundExchange a legal monopoly which prevents it, so I understand. The broadcasters, in order to avoid paying standard royalties to SoundExchange for some unsigned indie band or artist, must obtain an individual license from each band or artist. They must then register this license with SoundExchange. I can see an administration nightmare for a small webcaster to attempt to track all the individual licenses, and keep SoundExchanges' database on their stations' licenses current.
If the artist and broadcaster doesn't file (hmm..filing fees?) a license, the broadcaster must pay standard royalty to SoundExchange, and the artist or band may collect it, *if* they pay a fee and join SoundExchange.
Not sure if the band or artist can find out how much has been collected in their name before registering and paying the fee, though. Seeing the way things have been so far, I wouldn't doubt that the band or artist wouldn't be allowed to know what funds were collected before paying. I could imagine a scenario like this:
SoundExchange to band/artist: "Congratulations! We've received your payment of $XXX.XX, you are registered and now eligible to receive the royalties we've collected for you, totaling, minus administrative fees, taxes, handling, and surcharges, of $0.0X.!"
Strat
Parent
Re:I don't think I even care about this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm... you *do* realize that your second statement kinda contradicts your first, right? As you say yourself, nothing "prevents" a broadcaster from securing rights with a copyright holder. Yeah, it can be costly and time consuming, but it certainly can be done. And if SoundExchange comes after a broadcaster, just wave the license in their face... they have no legal authority to prosecute (that's up to the copyright holder, who's already agreed to a license), so I fail to see the risk, there.
As such, I'm not at all convinced that the independant artists couldn't form their own NPO to act as a licensing clearinghouse. The problem is it costs money, both in initial startup and long-term administration, and independant artists are, by definition, not what I would call rich.
If the artist and broadcaster doesn't file (hmm..filing fees?) a license, the broadcaster must pay standard royalty to SoundExchange, and the artist or band may collect it, *if* they pay a fee and join SoundExchange.
Umm, no... membership to SoundExchange is free and open to all **sound recording copyright owners (SRCOs) and featured recording artists." [soundexchange.com] Honestly, where the hell is this misinformation coming from? I keep seeing it parotted over and over, but the truth lies a mere Google search away. Are people just that fucking lazy?
Parent
internet radio... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not in any 3 of those categories, so why should I care?
The next argument is that the smallest medium - Internet radio - pays the most royalties; and under the new CRB royalty scheme the smallest webcasters will pay the highest relative royalties in amounts shockingly disproportionate to their revenue. While I can certainly see where their coming from (to be honest, it looks the whole point of the ruling is to kill internet radio), it reads as "WHY NOT ME" talk. Why shouldn't ALL mediums have to pay?
About half-way through the page, they make a good argument that somebody on either side of the debate can agree with:
If this was the true intent, I think this is important because it guarantees there will be competition. People realized how crappy FM radio got when Clear Channel bought all the stations. It wasn't that long ago that stations started going independent again - so remind people of that! Competition means better selection!Furthermore, I have no idea where technology will take us. Its evolving so quickly now that everything could very well be wireless and connected in 10 years. I'm going to be angry that if in 10 years, the selection of internet radio stations is terrible and the cost to enter the market is insane because of a bad decision that was made in 2007.
Finally, we need to recognize that the Copyright Royalty Board is going to get away with murder. I didn't realize this until I did some further research on this, but do you know how many people the CRB is composed of? Three. Three judges are going to decide the future of internet radio that will affect millions of people. What an awful system! I saw we put pressure on the CRB (James Scott Sledge (Chief Copyright Royalty Judge), Stanley Wisniewski, and William J. Roberts.) and congress to make this a more fair system. Three people having that much power is not a fair game.
They're doing this to kill independent bands (Score:4, Interesting)
Soundexchange and the RIAA both know that this will kill off 99% of net radio, so why are they doing it? IMHO the reason is that they want to keep independent bands in check. if indies had a good place to be heard and become known without going through their slimy hands then that's scary thing for them. If you can limit the amount of stations that play music then you can limit everyone's choices to a few classically popular bands that are already signed to the big labels.
That's the same behavior you get from radio broadcasting now a days. Time is valuable and so you can only play the bands that are "popular". if you can't aim at a niche audience then you have to be broad and boring. I'm sure the through of democratizing our listening habits scares the crap out of the big labels. This is just a means of using ancient laws to prop up the current paradigm that much longer.
d
How to get Congre$$' attention (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see.
Senate's recent accomplishments:
* Voted not to Vote on the Immigration Reform Bill
* Voted not to Vote on firing Alberto "I don't recall" Gonzales
Congress' recent accomplishments:
* Passed another 'Get out of Iraq' Bill that the President has already said he'll veto.
No, they've got time to do this. Congress may have received half a million messages. I'd suggest the Webcasters get their audience to donate to a fund that will in turn donate to these politicians who accepted money from the RIAA. It would make the point beautifully. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, terrestrial radio may be next... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah... they really are that crazy.
Parent
Re:What about regular radio? (Score:4, Funny)
I take it then that you clicked on this story by mistake, and then in your haste to close it you bumped the keyboard and accidentally posted instead.
Parent
It's their music ... except when it's not. (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't just a dispute between the recording industry and some radio stations. If it were, it would be settled according to contract law and that would be the end of it.
SoundExchange has been granted a special distinction -- a monopoly, in fact -- by the government (in the form of the Copyright Office), allowing it to sell special 'blanket licenses' to broadcasters. These licenses allow a broadcaster to play whatever sort of music they want, without havin
Re:Why do I care? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't care, why did you post a comment? Anyway, I'll bite on the troll fishing line here...
It's important because those who enjoy music are getting less and less of a choice. Whether its DRM, radio industry consolidation, or music industry consolidation, it seems that if we just want to listen to music and other content using the technologies that have been invented and developed, there is something or someone getting in the way.
It's not just a flawed business model. A lot of people do it as a hobby. A lot of webstreams are "microcasts" of programming that we can't get over the airwaves because there isn't a market for it, or because the commercial broadcasters don't care about it (or isn't profitable enough). It's also about the uncompetitive edge that over-the-air broadcasters have in not having to pay SoundExchange royalties for their broadcasts, yet webcasters having to pay them because the RIAA believes listening to web streams encourages piracy (because everyone rips streams off their computer and doesn't buy a CD instead).
Most of all, its because this was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago. Personally, I was grandfathered in on Live365, and had a free, unlimited streaming account because I beta tested for them when they first started up their streaming services. All "hobby" accounts were free for several years. It wasn't until the RIAA thought that they should be paid royalties for these songs did it become a problem, for both the hobbiest and for the for-profit broadcaster.
So that's why you should care. If you don't, well, don't antagonize the rest of us with your elitist bullshit attitude. Just move on to the next article.
End rant...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it the will of the artists when NiN were stunned to discover that stores were charging a $10 premium on their new CD (Year Zero) simply because they're NiN? They don't get a single penny of that $10 premium.