Net Radio Appeal On Royalties Rejected 298
Station writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has rejected a request to reconsider its March decision to impose an onerous royalty schedule on Internet radio broadcasters. '"None of the moving parties have [sic] made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision.' The recording industry and its royalty collection organization SoundExchange are jubilant over the ruling. '"Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet radio industry — large and small, commercial and noncommercial — so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres," said SoundExchange head Simson in a statement. Noble words, but after today's ruling — which will take effect on May 15 unless the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to hear an appeal — there probably won't be much of an Internet radio industry left for SoundExchange to work with.'"
Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dammit! (Score:4, Informative)
Given the enormous expense of producing classical music verses popular music, that's not so bad. The vast majority of the expenses associated with popular music are tied up in promotion. Full orchestral pieces need a huge soundstage, require you to pay a large number of highly trained people, need extensive rehearsal beforehand, etc. A record by Ms Spears just requires her to squawk into a mic in a quiet room for a bit and the geek with the autotuner to put in an all-nighter. I have no arguments with paying the relatively modest premiums for a superior product.
I find this ruling a shame though. The comments by the industry body that they are excited to be enabling the internet radio industry are such bullshit. They are secretly peeing their pants with glee that they managed to kill off a source of virtually free, high quality digital music, because without it, listeners will obviously be more inclined to spend some money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*(meaning everyone, in the US, who lives in a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no sane artist would ever try to limit public appearance of his works, if he wants to promote them. getting tracks on the radio, any radio, is the best they can get - that improves their share of the "market" (meaning music that is listened to), which in turn increases other turnaround (concerts, merchandise, albums - in that order
so, if a part of the radio space dumps those artists, othe
Look on the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With internet radio gone, VOIP gone, just think of all that bandwidth that will now be available for WoW!
If they're smart, Blizzard will add virtual "Broadcast Towers" and "Telephone Booths" to WoW. Then you can just use the game for all your radio and telephone needs. With all that bandwidth your experience ought to be pretty good. On the other hand, it may be difficult to concentrate on your call when some elf chick [jucaushii.ro] wants you to play with her...um...feline...
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point is to kill internet radio. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I find myself wishing the RIAA got everything they ever wanted, if only to see how their market collapses. Then I realize it's already happening.
-Isaac
Don McLean (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine many independents would jump at the chance to stand out now.
Tom
Re:The whole point is to kill internet radio. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's possible to have music on internet radio IF you as a webcaster have negotiated directly with the copyright owner for every piece of music you play. Otherwise, you're paying a license to SoundExchange, period. They administer the statutory license.
Creative commons is about all that's left, since negotiating with individual artists (and songwriters) for every track is likely to be cost prohibitive. A nice guy might try to undercut SoundExchange by striking deals with indie labels and artists and then brokering these licenses to indie webcasters, but that would require a pretty enormous up-front investment for uncertain return - especially since you could rely on the RIAA and SoundExchange pulling out all the stops to shut you down.
-Isaac
Re:The whole point is to kill internet radio. (Score:5, Insightful)
You hear me Mr. Jobs? Keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except of course for the fact that the rest of the world is connected to the internet too. All this means is that internet radio stations move out of the US. It doesn't mean you won't be able to listen to internet radio.
An Alternative Scheme (Score:5, Interesting)
It occurs to me that an outfit like CDBaby, already set up to pay artists for CDs sold, might serve quite well as a royalties broker for independent artists and songwriters (remember there are two parts to that side of the equation).
Once the base rate has been set (and it could be instantly defined as "just like it was before the new rules") it would be a matter of getting the word out, letting artists trickle in on their own, and creating a central database of music covered by the new "indie royalties agreement". The new royalties agency would take a cut (doubtless much smaller than what the current regime takes -- is it 80%?? anyone know for sure?), and distribute the artists' portions in the same way as they currently distribute artists' portions of CDs sold.
In fact, this could extend to any outfit that's set up for it -- the only hard requirement is that everyone must use the same central database, so all the internet radio stations can know positively, in one step and without having to chase anyone around, what music is covered by the indie-royalties-agreement and therefore free of the usorious new cartel rates.
I did find it interesting that even Clear Channel is on our side -- they're probably the ONLY radio voice loud enough to be heard in Congress. Goes to show that even as entrenched in realspace radio as they are, even Clear Channel recognises that the internet is the future of radio broadcasting -- particularly as station equipment ages out and they find it vastly cheaper to replace transmitters and towers with MP3s and bandwidth.
Re:An Alternative Scheme (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me, however, that the entire premise behind flat-rate royalties is slowly disintegrating. The original idea was that it's too difficult for each station to contract with each rights-holder. So, a flat rate was set which, while not perfect, at least allowed those transactions to go through. The songs that are played are sampled, and then the royalties are divided among the rights holders according to the sample.
But, on the Internet, why can't you just have a big database tracking every song? The head-end software looks at how many listeners there are, looks up the song in the database and reports to the station "If you want to play this song right now, it will cost you $$$$"? Then, when it gets played, it tracks exactly who is supposed to get what royalties.
This model has a number of benefits: first, it's more accurate: each rights holder gets paid when their music is played. Even the guy whose song is only played to twelve people will get compensated, whereas he never would have made that 'sample' before. And, second, it allows each individual artist to set the rates for their own music -- if you want to give your music out for free, do it. And, third, it would allow low-cost Internet radio to thrive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait...*I* am in an indie blues band, and we have no agreements with Soundexchange, the RIAA, any label, or anyone else. We give our CDs away all the time, and we're happy to let anyone broadcast us at no charge. Are you telling me these asshats want to tr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A new opportunity for the smaller artist (Score:2)
Quite right, and an excellent opportunity for those who care about independent music and musicians to show their support by playing the stuff you won't hear on corporate radio. This is why I remain optimistic about Internet radio [digitalcitizen.info]; it will change for those who can't afford/won't pay the rates for RIAA tracks. These ridiculously high rates could end up serving the interests of unsigned musicians in a way that the RIAA only talks about. This also means good things for those who want to play more non-music p
There is GREAT news for some (Score:2)
>
The hard part will be for ppl like me who listen at work to older music. I prefer work from the 80's and 90's. So, I will be screwed when those stations will either die, offer just paid music, or switch to different format. But in time, I will adjust.
Lawyers Killed the Radio Star? (Score:2, Insightful)
Royalty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Royalty (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
iBiquity receives royalties for the hardware used to send out the HD Radio signal. This royalty has nothing to do with the copyrighted works being transmitted over HD Radio equipment.
Re:Royalty (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"This will drive everyone out of webcasting...except for ClearChannel and maybe AOL"
Re:Royalty (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymous broadcasting - clients do not tell each other if they are the source or just listening
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know what? (Score:4, Funny)
If you don't want to have your radio invaded by ads - subscribe today.
Pandora (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pandora (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't trying to sell YOU their product. They are trying to sell their product to people with no true music taste. They want to sell them *whatever* they put out regardless of its quality. The only way to do this is to 100% control the delivery method so that they can control every aspect of the market from the beginning (ala American Idol).
People that are looking to self-determine the path that their music tastes follow aren't likely to participate in a culture created entirely for them and that doesn't help the RIAA's mission at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that defined, exactly?
(not that I'm an apologist for the RIAA or their tactics in any way)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The jist of it was this: the researchers divided people into two groups and gave each group the same set of songs. Each group was asked to rate the songs on some subjective scale. While the control group only got the list of songs, the experimental group got the list of songs plus an average rating of some kind (I don't remember if the rating was real or just made up numbers) indicating popularity.
The findings? In the experime
Re:Pandora (Score:4, Informative)
Matthew J. Salganik, Peter S. Dodds, and Duncan J. Watts.
Science, 311:854-856, 2006.
Abstract: Hit songs, books, and movies are many times more successful
than average, suggesting that "the best" alternatives are qualitatively
different from "the rest"; yet experts routinely fail to predict which
products will succeed. We investigated this paradox experimentally, by
creating an artificial "music market" in which 14,341 participants
downloaded previously unknown songs either with or without knowledge of
previous participants' choices. Increasing the strength of social
influence increased both inequality and unpredictability of success.
Success was also only partly determined by quality: The best songs
rarely did poorly, and the worst rarely did well, but any other result
was possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pandora (Score:5, Insightful)
1.There is this belief among the RIAA that internet radio is a vehicle for piracy (i.e. people saving the songs and getting free copies)
2.Internet radio often plays non RIAA music too
and 3.The music that people listen to on internet radio and go and buy (even when its RIAA owned music) is not the music the RIAA wants you to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
#2 confuses me - won't this drive Pandora to play more independent music?
#3... Boy, that's seems to ring true. Most of what I elect to save from Pandora seems to be non-RIAA, and I can say that it has led me to explore and purchase albums from bands that I never would have found otherwise. I have no idea if my experience is typical or not.
Re: (Score:2)
unless i completely misunderstood this whole thing, that is a problem. unless they negotiate directly with the artists and/or their representatives, they have to pay a mandatory fee, regardless of if they pay any RIAA music or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pandora (Score:5, Informative)
Hi, it's Tim from Pandora,
I'm writing today to ask for your help. The survival of Pandora and all of Internet radio is in jeopardy because of a recent decision by the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, DC to almost triple the licensing fees for Internet radio sites like Pandora. The new royalty rates are irrationally high, more than four times what satellite radio pays and broadcast radio doesn't pay these at all. Left unchanged, these new royalties will kill every Internet radio site, including Pandora.
In response to these new and unfair fees, we have formed the SaveNetRadio Coalition, a group that includes listeners, artists, labels and webcasters. I hope that you will consider joining us.
Please sign our petition urging your Congressional representative to act to save Internet radio: http://capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/
Please feel free to forward this link/email to your friends - the more petitioners we can get, the better.
Understand that we are fully supportive of paying royalties to the artists whose music we play, and have done so since our inception. As a former touring musician myself, I'm no stranger to the challenges facing working musicians. The issue we have with the recent ruling is that it puts the cost of streaming far out of the range of ANY webcaster's business potential.
I hope you'll take just a few minutes to sign our petition - it WILL make a difference. As a young industry, we do not have the lobbying power of the RIAA. You, our listeners, are by far our biggest and most influential allies.
As always, and now more than ever, thank you for your support.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me suspicious, but hey. I AM suspicious of anything that looks like an email chain letter, even one espousing a good cause.
C'mon Tim, if you're out there: prove me wrong :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I got the mail too, but all I had to find it on the website was click the "Blog" link at the bottom on the page.
boundaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:boundaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet radio will just move off-shore, and continue unaffected. I see it said again and again on Slashdot, but it doesn't seem to sink in. The internet does exist outside the US. And there's links between the different countries!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:boundaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Platitudes... (Score:2)
To be fair though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe one reason for the panic is that the fees are retroactive to January 2006. Can anyone correct me, or confirm it?
In other words, tiny little Net radio outfits that did not sign on for tens of thousands of dollars in fees are now on the hook for very large sums of money. Radio stations that might have said, "we won't do radio if it costs $10,000" have effectively been tricked into debt. I think a lot of these stations are freaked out not because the fees are high, but because the
Even if you're right (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, if nothing else, it'll mean others may simply follow, as they've done before. America still does have some muscle in the international world.
Re: (Score:2)
ITunes 400,000 selections
The RIAA looks forward to... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're asking WTF (Score:2, Informative)
A one-person example (Score:2, Insightful)
I just realized this.
I am a big fan of RadioParadise.com [radioparadise.com]. I have purchased a total of 15 CDs over the past year or so. All 15 (I kid you not) were by artists introduced to me by RP.
In my case: No RP, no CDs. Especially now, you greedy pricks.
Re: (Score:3)
I also have artists send me promo tracks, full albums, and other stuff -- mostly indie artists looking for some exposure. If they're good (and they usually are) I put them in rotation, so dozens of people get to hear someone t
Re: (Score:2)
And why does it matter again? (Score:2)
Our radio-radio would have to be _physically_ located in US of A to be heard.
Our series-of-tubes-radio don't have to. So fuck it we move to Antigua.
Retarded law-makers will yet have to grasp the idea....
Now back to our top 20 playlist.
Fuck... (Score:5, Informative)
But I've gotten so dependent on internet audio streams like Soma-FM's [somafm.com] Indie Pop Rocks. Sometimes, it was the only thing keeping me going when I was working my dead end IT job. I'd have the shortcut to the 128kb stream on my desktop and it was the first thing I'd hit, even before checking my e-mail.
When I heard a song I really liked, I'd write down the name on a notepad, check the artist's site to see if an mp3 was available and if not I'd get it from iTMS. Just like radio, internet streams drive sales.
I had thought that ASCAP and BMI (the performing rights organizations that collect and disburse performance royalties) based royalty rates based on a radio or television station's potential audience, but it seems more complex than that, seeing as the Library of Congress is setting basic rates.
Tomorrow, I intend to research this issue and write my congressman (Rep. Delahunt) and senators (Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy) and ask them to look into this issue. I urge everyone who is a constituent of a senator on the telecommunications subcommittee to do the same:
Conrad Burns, MT, Chairman
Ted Stevens, AK (don't mention those "tubes", okay?)
Trent Lott, MS
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Olympia J. Snowe, ME
Sam Brownback, KS
Gordon Smith, OR
Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL
John Ensign, NV
George Allen, VA
John Sununu, NH
Ernest Hollings, SC, Ranking
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
John D. Rockefeller, WV
John F. Kerry, MA
John Breaux, LA
Byron Dorgan, ND
Ron Wyden, OR
Barbara Boxer, CA
Bill Nelson, FL
Maria Cantwell, WA
E-mail and faxes will probably be better received than snail mail, given the fact that mail to government offices gets delayed while it gets irradiated to ameliorate biological threats.
k.
Crap... (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty fucking Web 0.9 if you ask me.
k.
Re: (Score:2)
Decision only sets compulsory rates (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright owners and webcasters can still negotiate rates (See 17 U.S.C. Sec. 114(f)(3) [cornell.edu]). The decision [loc.gov] that the Copyright Review Board refused to rehear merely establishes the terms and conditions that enable webcasters to license copyrighted works without seeking permission from the copyright owners. If Congress had not enabled the establishment of these compulsory license rates, then webcasters would not be able to broadcast any works without seeking permission from copyright owners because Congress had introduced a digital performance right in the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
Copyright owners presumably are interested in maximizing their revenues, while webcasters probably would like to minimize their costs. Thus, both groups still have a incentives to negotiate. The compulsory licensing rates will not kill internet radio: they simply provide terms and conditions of last resort for copyright owners and webcasters who cannot otherwise reach an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would SoundExchange negotiate when they will become the only game in town?
If the RIAA members' promoted music is the only music played it'll be the main music bought. This legitamizes the roll of the RIAA member companies because you need to be promoted to get play right? Also, there are probably returns for RIAA members because they invest in a few artists' work and let the rest rot. Internet radio as it is likely promotes a very flat distribution
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compulsory licenses are meant to create efficiencies in the marketplace, such that the radio stations don't need to try and negotiate licenses from every single copyright holder, thus lowering costs for everyone.
Under your plan, though, the compulsory license would no longer engender efficiency; instead, it simp
From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that really surprised me after reading these comments first and then the article, is that stations can't just move to independent music. From TFA:
5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?
This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music.
I guess that means that this is about more than just the RIAA controlling the industry - its about putting them out of business. Of course, me being an Australian, I understand that they can't really do that because there are many other countries where it costs a bit more to buy yourself a politician.
And just for the record, one of my favorite stations [lounge-radio.com] is located in Switzerland anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?
*snip*
The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees
So if you want to play independant artist's music, wouldn't you be going to said artists and saying, "I'd love to stream your music to my audience", thus getting their permission in the first place, and "I'd rather pay you for the privledge than the RIAA", thus making a direct deal, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
petition (Score:2, Informative)
Sometimes its hard to believe that companies can get away with things like this, but when it comes to technology most of the country doesn't care enough to come to places like slashdot. Today I was talking to a friend about the evils of DRM, and I mentioned the Sony Rootkit incident and she had never heard of it (and s
That's fair (Score:5, Insightful)
They say real life is nothing like school. They are wrong on one point: The bully still wins. Standing up to the bully gets you little more than a bloody nose and some sympathy.
Not too bright (Score:2, Insightful)
Shut down internet radio = people download more songs in copyright infringing manner rather than listen to a net radio stream
PETITION (Score:2)
Enter Pirate Radio 2.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Shoutcast! (Score:2)
Yet another incentive (Score:2, Insightful)
UNRIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I run a radio program. Both (depending on how many artists you'd like to feature or how often you'd like to update that) are unrealistic.
Assuming independent artist *do* want to be heard (and I'd contend that they do) I think all that's missing to make this a powerful vehicle is any real organization behind it.
Want to bad mouth the RIAA? Create something fucking better. I'd bet with enough exposure a lot of small/mid-sized artists and record labels would love to provide cohesive, clear (protective) rights for some kind of limited/promotional broadcasting.
When I started my radio program I immediately began contacting artists, managers and labels directly. They didn't want to provide carte blanche permission. This is an industry and artists/(managers)/labels get taken advantage of. But they were more then eager to provide limited broadcast rights with proper guidelines that could easily be generalized pretty much across the board.
If we like being lead by the balls by an organization we don't feel is treating us with respect, perfect that's *exactly* what we've got. But if you're fucking tired of this? Show them or stop whining.
Couldn't Indie Labels Save Indie Radio? (Score:3)
with the copyright holders (which of course is a whole lot of micro-negotiating) -- a better
solution might be for independent record labels to just include in THEIR contracts with
royalties companies that Internet Radio is "OK by them", and state that they don't want
to collect the same royalties from stations under a certain size.
It seems to me that Indie labels could (and should) give a big thumbs up to Internet radio
and craft their own royalties exceptions.
SomaFM's stations are actually vital to their respective scenes. Its up to the small labels
and artists to stand up and take action now. If Internet radio fails, it will be the artists
fault too.
Digitally Imported (Score:3, Interesting)
It's so nice getting to listen to the music you like without having to bother about downloading / converting music etc, and I've been a premium member at di.fm for quite some time.
My initial thought is though, can't they move the internet radio servers out of the US, to countries with a bit more sensible laws?
This isn't pirating (you may technically be able to save the streams but it's not trivial and most non-technical people wouldn't bother), this isn't stealing revenue, this isn't hurting anyone... if anything, it should be helping the sale of music. There must be more people than me who have listened to a tune on internet radio and then went and bought it because it was really good.
For all you people in the US, go to DI.FM [www.di.fm] and do what it says there... help internet radio!!
A real shame. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which sort of begs the question "Why do we need the recording industry around anyways?"
About the only thing they do that can be seen as a necessity these days is promotion, and traditional methods of getting bands on your label heard and seen are quickly becoming irrelevant. They pump millions getting their bands airtime on terrestrial radio, a medium that is increasingly pointless (due, in part, to the terrible stuff the record companies are trying to push) They spend huge amounts of money on producing music videos that will never be seen.
At yet none of these things are a necessity for a band to make it. The Internet is a fantastic replacement for these old fashioned practices.
As consumers, we can do our best to purchase independant, non RIAA member labels. For artists, it would be nice to see them stray more and more from signing with major labels and going with one that understands this new market and how to work it.
Rates (Score:5, Informative)
$.0008 per play for 2006
$.0011 per play for 2007
$.0014 per play for 2008
$.0018 per play for 2009
$.0019 per play for 2010
Per Play means the following:
Any time ONE listener hears ONE song (or any portion of a song), that's a "performance." If ONE listener hears ten songs, that's TEN performances. If 1000 listeners hear ten songs, that's 10,000 performances.
So what will the internet radio stations have to pay?
Here's a calculation:
$0.0008 X 10,000 listeners X 16 songs/hr. = $128. It'll cost our imaginary webcaster $128 to play one hour of music for 10,000 people.
At the end of the day, that's $3,072 ($128 X 24 hrs./day) -- for just a single day! After a week goes by, it's $21,504 ($3,072 X 7 days/wk.).
And for all of 2006, this webcaster with a steady average audience of 10,000 listeners would owe $1,121,280!! (the $3,072 X 365 days/yr.)
That takes care of 2006. For 2007, the rate increases 37.5%! So, with no audience growth, the cost of streaming music for the year would increase to $1,541,760.
And the royalty rate goes up another 28% in 2008, and another 28% in 2009, topping out at a $.0019 per performance rate in 2010 (resulting in a royalty obligation of $2,663,040 for that same audience averaging 10,000 listeners) for that year.
Information taken from www.savethestreams.org.
You WILL listen to Justin Timberlake DAMMIT! (Score:3, Interesting)
I really, really hope di.fm can move their servers and do the paperwork in some other country. Most of the music is European anyway, isn't it? It's what I've been been listening to for the last six years and there is no way I CAN GO BACK to four folks drumming and strumming anymore.
Is that what government wanted? That I'll have a credit card charge in EUROS, PESOS or whatever for my music? Good work, geniuses. You've managed to offshore even the intangible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With internet radio it's easy for a single "broadcaster" to operate an arbitrary number of streams at once--even custom-tailored streams per-user. Under the new rules I think they might have to pay royalties on a per-stream basis, basically eliminating one of the great advantages and innovations of internet radio.
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
Great point! You should really mention it to the Copyright Royalty Board, as they have now rejected that line of reasoning twice when it came from the Internet radio stations.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the story, here's the quick summary: Internet radio has to pay two sets of royalties, while traditional radio only pays one. Thanks to the recent ruling by the CRB, that extra royalty that Internet radio pays will skyrocket over the next few years, dealing Internet radio a mortal blow.
And yes, you're right, it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that on matters of copyright, neither party is very good. Do you know why? It's because no one votes based on the candidates' positions on copyright law.
Lets not bullshit ourselves here. When it comes down to D vs. R here in 2008, we aren't going to be voting on who has the best copyright platform. In fact, I'll be surprised if copyright even comes up once as an issue in any debate. I'll even be surprised (but less so) if any major candidate has an official p
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most of those people work for the members of the MPAA and RIAA.