Small Webcasters get Powerful New Ally 362
An anonymous reader writes "On, Sunday, October 20, 2002, the RIAA's subsidiary, SoundExchange, was set to introduce draconian new fees on small internet webcasters - fees that were designed to drive those webcasters out of business and preserve the RIAA's monopoly on the distribution of music in North America. One of those small webcasters is the Triangle's classical music station, WCPE - quite possibly the finest classical music station in the world. Now it turns out that WCPE has an 800 lb gorilla in their corner, and he's set his sights on the RIAA."
First Canadian Post! (Score:-1, Insightful)
Canada -- 0
USA -- 1
Huh. Looks like USA wins this one.
Good for you!
WCPE may be great, but that's not why he did it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, nice to see that even the Religious Right is "getting the idea" in terms of dealing with the RIAA...
It's true what they say (Score:2, Insightful)
Duh, I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not seeing how Helms, the 800 pound gorilla?, is benefitting the small broadcasters.
It's a Shakedown (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a low opinion of Helmes not because of his purported politics, but because of the crassness of his behavior as a politician/campaigner.
Re:Duh, I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
classical music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks, if you dislike the RIAA's tactics and would like to listen to some alternative music, please give classical music a try...there's nothing like listening to some good ol' music.
RTFA. (Score:5, Insightful)
They were to be charged
The small webcasters themselves had not been consulted when the original law was drafted and therefore felt that they would be put out of business by these "small" fees.
Re:Okay, I give up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WCPE may be great, but that's not why he did it (Score:5, Insightful)
When talking to any individual with such orientation [capalert.com], we have to stress that the current copyright fundamentalism is made to favor Hollywood - you know, that big, unholy, pornography-peddling anti-God collective in California. Mentioning Scientology [xenu.net] might help too. YMMV.
Now THAT is an 800-lb. gorilla.
What the hell is up with Jesse Helms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now this is happening. But this article is so poorly written-- it starts out saying that jesse helms blocked a bill providing netcaster relief, but then later seems to be saying he only did this becuase he was holding out for a bill that gave even more netcaster relief.
So, is the idea that he actually believes the copyright laws should be in the public benefit? If so, okay, it's always good when "conservatives" actually attempt to uphold the principles the country was founded on as opposed to trying to disassemble them, but if that's the case why hasn't he actually done anything against the DMCA except for some public whining about it? And what does he think about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is one of the biggest sources of food for corporate abuse of copyright? Has he just not read it?
Methinks thou couldst wring a ocean from a ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, Jesse did something right? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
A bird in hand....
we must be careful... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just hanging chads that disenfranchise voters.
Re:Read the article. Darrr... (Score:4, Insightful)
No... that would give them too much control over what tunes get played through web casting. Just make it even, with nobody paying anything, and there's a greater chance that people will get to hear the music they like rather than what the RIAA is pushing on them. It's not a perfect chance, though, because we'll always be subject to the whim of the person or group doing the webcasting, or perhaps wherever their financing comes from.
Re:Goodbye trance stations... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're referring to the DMCA and not HR5469 (the one that Helms killed in the Senate). The latter would have kept DI on the air permanently and probably would have brought TTT back on the air (I'm sure he could have raised enough in donations to pay the proposed fees).
Everyone here seems to be under the misguided impression that killing this bill was a good thing because it didn't do enough to ensure that small webcasters could continue broadcasting. But people fail to realize that the alternative to this bill isn't likely to be a new bill. It'll most likely mean that CARP rates will go into effect (should SoundExchange choose to enforce them) and the stations that would have been able to be financially viable under the proposed bill, will no longer be.
Its Their Music... (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this any different than somebody deciding to sell Ford cars and then complaining that Ford won't give them the cars to sell for $1 each?
If somebody owns something, then they can charge whatever they want to allow other people to use it. If you think that the charge is too much for the product, then DON'T BUY IT!
(It's possible that I'm completely missing some pertinent facts about this issue. If so please reply.)
Do people really think $500/yr is onerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislation that Helms blocked would have charged small webcasters a fee that, frankly, seems pretty trivial. If your margins are so thin that $500 per year makes the difference between making money or losing it, well, what you're running is not a business, it's a hobby. And, for that matter, I can easily see even hobbyists being willing to pay that much money. Heck, it's going to cost them more than that just for the data connection capable of supporting a half-dozen streams.
Now, I think small webcasters who broadcast their own material have a legitimate beef if the bill requires them to pay the RIAA, but for webcasters who are broadcasting a significant amount of RIAA music, then, frankly, it seems like a pretty decent deal.
I also think the artists have a legitimate beef, because practically none of this money will make it back to them. Since there's no accounting for individual songs required, there's no way to decided how much of the money should go to which artist. To record labels, that means the artists get none of it.
In summary, there seem to be problems with the way this is being done, but they're the same problems that exist with the Audio CD-R taxes -- the money goes to the Established Labels, regardless of what music is actually webcasted/copied, and the artists don't get any of it. But the amount of money is so trivial that I can't see it causing any real problems, even for semi-serious hobbyists.
Re:fuck internet radio. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to understand how I would include music that I still don't know in my playlists. Please ellaborate on that.
Yours truly,
Carlos.
Re:WCPE may be great, but that's not why he did it (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd be the point. See, the same people that are preventing you from watching DVDs on linux because you might steal them are preventing THEM from buying copies of "The Green Mile" with all the 'damns' changed to 'darns'.
Re:What a genuinely interesting dilemma. (Score:5, Insightful)
So. . . confused. . . cannot pick. . . side. . .
Welcome to the Real World, where nothing is black or white, no one is evil or good and nothing is _ever_ as simple as it seems.
Glad to have you.
Re:What a genuinely interesting dilemma. QWZX (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the difference is that Quarex has never tried to forbid the "churchies" from listening to their music, but the churchies have a history of wanting to censor things that they find objectionable.
Ironically, the last parts of your post did describe the attitude of organized religion, though.
Wouldn't it be simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a genuinely interesting dilemma. QWZX (Score:1, Insightful)
What? Explain how this is the attitude of Unitarianism, Orthodox Presbyterianism, or Tibetan Bhuddism.
Or just think before you rant, child.
Re:What a genuinely interesting dilemma. QWZX (Score:2, Insightful)
the churchies have a history of wanting to censor things that they find objectionable.
Wait a sec... I'm a churchie and my church doesn't censor anything. Please don't put all Christians into a stereotypical and narrowminded little box with a label.
Re:Since when has Helms done anything FOR the poop (Score:3, Insightful)
To be logically consistent you would then be against state-sponsored straight marriage, too. By giving special priviledges or burdens to a straight couple who want to get married in their faith - isn't that also legislating morality?
Why not be consistent? Either allow gay couples the same rights that het couples get, or don't give couples special rights over people who freely choose to remain unmarried.