Small Webcasters Sue RIAA

killthiskid writes "The Webcaster Alliance, a small group of 198 webcasters has sued the RIAA. CNET has the news, along with a growing number of other sites (google news). As many /.'ers know, in 2002 the Library of Congress decided on .07 cents per song (retroactive to '98). After that another bill was passed to protect smaller webcasters. Aparently, many webcasters are still not happy." Their complaint is online.

Too much money..

[BrookHarty]

While 7% of revenue or 10% of expenses (whichever is greater) for the last 4 years on a shoestring budget would put alot of small mom/pop/kid radio stations out of business.

Funny how Record industries will pay to get thier music played on FM Radio, but on the net, they will just start their own partially owned net Radio stations and crunch the little guys.

So, wheres the good free (non-riaa) Indie radio stations? With all the talk of "F*CK" the RIAA, wheres the alternative Garage/Indie/etc radio? I listen to Techno, and the best streams are UK Based. Wheres the alternatives?

Rights????

[joelwest]

I would like to propose that the idea of having the 'RIGHT' to own something or to do something is also mitigated by the responsibility one is willing to take, not only to protect that right, but also in general. I do know that the idea of the U.S. Constitution is based on the idea that human beings have inalienable rights and that these rights need protection.

Let's continue: The right to own a creative work is then mitigated by the ability by the right of someone else to enjoy that creativity; if I am creative in isolation it is called masturbation. So if I want an audience I need to allow them to enjoy my work. What are the responsibilities of the audience versus the composer versus the pimp errrrr agent...

Thats the question. Not rights...responsibilities.

Fee Waivers/Statutory Licensing...

[msimm]

I'm surprised how little about Fee Waivers I've seen. I'm aware of one lable (Artemis Records [onstagemag.com]) who had agreed to waive their fees (statutory licensing [cornell.edu]).

Why not reward companies (or individuals) who are willing to be more flexable? I'll be sending out a flurry of requests of the next month (preparing to launch my own micro internet radio) and I will only be featuring artists who are willing to be played for the free promotion alone. Why support the RIAA?

Big companies might not be able to do this, but they probably have the budget (and income) to pay for the right to use the music. They probably should pay.

ALL ABOUT CONTROL

[asscroft]

As many others have pointed out already, this is all about control. They can control the radio so that you hear the same 7-10 songs every hour. The only time you hear something outside of that block is when someone has a new album coming out and you hear all their old stuff that week. They never play anything else. They never play anything different.

There are far too many internet radio stations possible for them to be able to buy them all the way they've bought radio (Payola..don't argue this fact. Radio is paid for. ASK anyone in radio before you argue this fact). As a result I can go online and listen to nothing but bob marley, or protest songs from the 60s or polka or russion techno or even just plain old 80's cheese. NOt during lunch. NOt once a year on some special holiday weekend. anytime I want. They can't use internet radio to push this week's hot new albums or the billboard top 40 adn it pisses them off to no end. So instead they're gonna price the fees in such a way as to kill off all the internet radio stations except for a handful who will undoubtedly sign special contracts agreeing to pay less in exchange for "format control". the result: You get less. You get less music. You get less variety. You get to expand you mind and musical boundaries less. YOu get to hear your old favorites less. YOu get less.

RIAA gets more control.

That ain't right. Internet radio should NOT have per-listener fees.

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[aricusmaximus]

Being responsible is not always compatible with fun. But stealing someone's hard-thought intellectual property is not fair either. Why do you think it's reasonable to hoard 100's of gigs of other people's hard work?

Your all or nothing "it's free or else we can't afford it" argument is bogus - there's some point of payment that's fair - perhaps $0.01 or $0.02 cents per picture? $0.02 to $0.05 per play of a song, up to 10 plays and then it's free? It may not be easy to figure out, but an equitable level of payment *does* exist - one that doesn't unduly burden the user, but does fairly honor and reward the creator.

No one does something for nothing. If you're doing open-source software, you're getting something from it, even if it's not direct $$$. Maybe it's for prestige from your peers, maybe it's so that you can get recognized and get an actual paying programming job. The point is that (consciously or unconsciously), you expect reward for your efforts.

The same goes for artistic endeavors. If I put in 1000's of hours into making something worthwhile, I deserve reward from it, including $$$. Exactly how much is up for debate - but my work is not free.

It may be impossible to track smells and tastes, saying tunes and pictures cannot be tracked is pure manure. The technology exists and is being refined for tracking and digital rights management. Be honest -- you know who made your favorite song -- so when's the last time you wrote a check and thank-you note to your favorite band?

Its clear how they can do that.

[Mike Hawk]

If I may, not because I am a naysayer, but because I care about the Consitution and want to protect what it really says. When someone misquotes or misunderstands it that hurts everyone.

Ex post facto in the Constitution refers strictly to criminal law. Congress can't make something illegal now and go back and prosecute people for it. They can't add new punishment for people who already did something. Etc.

This is not really criminal law so they can constitutionally do this. Just like they could retroactively raise tuition fees or taxes, etc.

Ween

[poptones]

If you want to "ween" society off the music of the RIAA, you would logically start with showing them how good alternatives are. Alternatives, in this case, NOT on RIAA label members.

There are plenty of good ones out there. I have absolutely no sympathy for "webcasters" who don't believe their own hype. If we are to overcome the RIAA and these "independant webcasters" are to lead that charge, they don't need the fucking RIAA to do it.

The time is long past to put up or shut up, and thus far no webcaster seems to have the self confidence to do the former. As a lover of many non-US signed bands and an aging punk formed in the age of DIY music, frankly, I find that attitude incredibly insulting.

Nope, they get no lovin' from me at all. I hope the RIAA wins this one, too - anything that makes it harder for online broadcasters to play the industry's overhyped corporate shit is better than the "freedom" these hypocritical fuckers portend to be fighting for in the name of "the little guy."