Slashdot Mirror

Ummm...no...not even close.

Radio stations pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.

Online webcasters, in addition to paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, pay royalties to SoundExchange.

The notable difference between what you've said and the actual situation is that the RIAA has a limitted membership consisting of only the larger labels. However, membership in the groups that collect royalties is basically unlimitted. Royalties are distributed to labels/artists based on statistical sampling done at random to determine what percentage of the pie each label/artist is entitled to. It might end up favoring the big labels, but doing it differently would make the whole process incredibly complex.

More or less I agree.

The problem is that analog stations pay 6-12 cents per song (more for classical or long works) - regardless of the number of users. Here's a link to BMI's rates. But the RIAA wants internet radio people to pay .07 cents / song / user. For 1000 listeners - 0.70 cents per song. For 10000 listeners (about the size of a popular FM station )- $7.00 per song.

I used to copy songs off analog radio all the time - I think a lot of people did. The argument that you're giving people a copy of the song on digital radio but not analog is silly. The price should be the same. The reason it isn't is because the RIAA (or whoever is backing them) doesn't want independent internet radio. They probably want a monopoly on that. Maybe Clear Channel is backing them. Maybe BMI wants to make their own internet radio. Just speculation.

Regardless. Internet radio shouldn't have to pay anymore than regular radio.

When people don't buy something from you it is economics not theft.

I agree with you there. But when they don't buy it because they already got it for free from a source not authorized to distribute it what is that?

When you have reports like The Eminem Show being number 2 on Gracenote before the CD was even released, that goes a long way to support the RIAA's claims. An awefully lot of people had the CD before it was being sold. Therefore they didn't need to buy it on the Tuesday it was released.

Sorry, it isn't the same as radio. The radio doesn't put the full album out there in full CD quality. And radio isn't free. It costs money to play those songs.

• BMI
• SESAC

DeanT

Being that the 'recipient' has no access to the actual media file itself, only playback thereof

Under United States copyright law, the owner of copyright in a musical work (most often the songwriter's publisher) has a monopoly to authorize public performances of the work, which is generally delegated to a performance rights organization such as Broadcast Music Inc. The definition of "public performance" includes broadcasting. In addition, the owner of copyright in a sound recording (most often the artist's label) has a monopoly to authorize public performances of the sound recording through a digital transmission, except through the convoluted rules of 17 USC 114. Hiring attorneys and accountants to make sense of section 114 may prove more expensive than just licensing the recordings from the labels.

Recording radio shows isn't illegal(I hope), this is no different.

True, but (commercial) radio stations pay royalties to ensure artists get their share (http://www.bmi.com/songwriter/resources/pubs/roya ltyradio.asp).

Besides, until the advent of satellite radio, it was imposible to receive a pure, digital feed of a signal being broadcast from a radio station. And you'd better believe that satellite radio companies pay tons in royalites (http://news.com.com/2110-1027-993368.html Thus, your comparison to radio stations is inadequate.

He might indeed, though I don't see how compulsory licensing is a complete solution.

Unless ISP's will open every private packet (including encrypted packets), the ISP cannot know what the usage level is. People will have motivation to simply hide their usage unless the usage fee is unconditionally paid up front (as a part of joining the ISP). Once the fee is paid, there is no motivation to hide usage since no more money expenditure is caused by usage, and in fact there is motivation to expose usage since that will direct the already-paid money to people you like.

I don't claim to be an authority on this, but my understanding is that BMI/ASCAP licenses work this way, and I assume this is what is being used as a model. An organization pays based on its size (e.g., a square dance caller pays less than a radio station), but not necessarily based on its usage. Fees might be collected up front just for being who you are and all detailed tracking is only for apportionment of where the up-front fee goes.

So, according to your twisted logic, the company is also liable if they play music on a PA, and one individual records that music then distributes it online? That's complete and utter BS. The same kind of fuzzy logic which the RIAA bribed judges into accepting, to make Napster liable for the actions of its users.

Nope. It's still a public performance.

How does the law affect DJs?

DJs license public performance rights from companies such as BMI.

If you want to use the majority of the music published through traditional channels... you need to talk to ASCAP and/or BMI. AFAIK, talking to them does not help secure rights to use a song in something like a movie, but for most part, you're on the right track if you talk to these guys.

Radio stations pay ASCAP/BMI fees in order to play music on their radio stations. They're responsible for dividing up money to member artists.

The funny thing is that I've *never* seen or read an article where either organization has taken a stand for or against DRM... it's always the RIAA.

Mix tapes ... for a party (though this is debatable) is permitted under copyright law.

As you said, debatable. For a party outside a close circle of friends and family, public performance fees come into play; read BMI's web site for more information.

We all know that disagreeing opinions means paid shilling.

I had a suspicion. I didn't come out and assume that you were; instead, I asked a question: "Are you employed by the record industry?"

Let me get you started in the right direction:

You don't need to "buy the rights to rebroadcast the songs from the record companies, song writers, and publishers". You merely need to pay royalties for the public performances of copyrighted compositions to ASCAP, BMI and possibly SESAC. The total of all these will be around 5-6% of your stations gross revenue.

Copyright law specifically exempts FCC-licensed radio stations from any fees for public performance of the "Sound Recording" (that is, the copyrights owned by the record companies).

As for the power you will need to cover a decent sized metro area - you sure don't need 50-100,000 watts. The FCC breaks the license classes down into 3 main groups, Class A, B and C. Class A are typically around 5kw, Class B, 50kw, and Class C, 100kw. But an important distinction here is that these amounts are not transmitter power, but ERP (effective radiated power). Also, depending upon your transmitter's HAAT (Height above average terrain), you may be authorized for a lower power than the class of license's maximum.

You would be surprised how well 1000 watts ERP on a hill into a good circular-polarized antenna system will cover a metro area. In fact, in Los Angeles, one station transmits a mere 600 watts from Mt. Wilson and covers all of the greater Los Angeles metro area. In their case, it's the height that gives them the coverage, not so much the power.

You can learn more about station coverage contours, power and classes from the FCC.

But before you get into all that, you should read the FCC's Broadcast Station Application Process. Did I forget to mention that you need to either buy an existing license or apply for a new one? And before you can even apply for a new license, you'll need to prove that you have the financial resources to complete the station and do a technical feasibility study - usually a spacing study for commercial FM (to make sure you can fit your station into the band without causing interference to existing stations) or a Interference study for noncommercial/educational stations (in the 88.1-91.9 part of the band. You can't do these yourself, you'll need to hire a company who specializes in this and has access to the FCCs databases. Dataworld is a company that has been doing this for over 25 years.

Before you get started on this, you should do a lot of background reading. An FCC licensed station is not a toy o hobby and there is a tremendous amount of responsibility that comes with it. Fortunately, the FCC has a How to Apply for a Broadcast Station section of their site. Unfortunately, it starts off like this:

Potential applicants for radio and television services should be aware that frequencies for these services are always in heavy demand. For example, the Commission received approximately 30,000 inquiries from persons seeking to start radio broadcast stations last year. Where broadcast frequencies remain available, competing applications are routinely received. Thus, you are cautioned at the outset that the filing of an application does not guarantee that you will receive a broadcast station construction permit. You should also be aware that in many areas of the country, no frequencies may be available on which a new station could commence operating without causing interference to existing stations, which would violate FCC rules.

There are so many other things you're going to have to think about before you apply for a license as well.

• Is the transmitter going to be at the same location as the studio? If not, how are you going to get the signal to the transmitter? (A STL, microwave band studio transmitter link, is a popular way - but you'll need a license for this too...
• If your studio is going to be co-located with your transmitter, you have to pay a lot of concern to keeping RF interference from your transmiter out of your audio signals. This means 600 ohm balanced audio feeds, not the typical RCA or miniplug consumer unbalanced audio lines.
• The minimum hardware you'll need is a transmitter/exciter, audio processor/stereo generator, antenna system, tower, Emergency alert system hardware, etc.
• You may be required to provide the FCC with a "Proof of Performance" - going out with a GPS and signal strenght meter, and proving that your transmitter and antenna system are operating as planned.
• You'll also need some monitoring instruments to make sure that your station isn't putting out too much power, or transmitting with too high of deviation (overmodulation).
• Last you'll need a way to feed audio. A Linux box playing MP3s probably won't cut it. At a minimum, you need to schedule the "legal IDs" at the top of the hour. There are commercial broadcast automation packages out there that cost under $2000, alas they all run under Windoze. There is no reason you couldn't write one for Linux.
• And I think you need at least a small mixer and a microphone so that when you need to, you can address the audience. (And aternatively play music when you're doing upgrades to the automation system.)

I suggest you subscribe or read online Radio Shopper, a radio tech centric newsletter that also covers things that small operators need to do to fufill their oblications to the FCC and the community. And of corse, it's a great place to find used transmitters and antenna systems.

Some places to get a feel for the prices of this equipment are Broadcast Supply Worldwide and Harris Broadcast. If you are on a budget and need used equipment, Mooretronix is a great place to start.

Here's a great pictorial of the installation of a new FM antenna system and 60kw transmitter for KPFK in Los Angeles. Just to give you an idea of what is required. KPFK is a non-profit.

I also suggest reading Bob Gonsett's CGC Communicator, a really great technical newsletter for broadcasters in the Southern California area. There are hundreds of his past newsletters online, and you can read about the saga of new stations in SoCal, as well as issues with construction permits (station upgrades). Lots of good info here.

I hope this has helped give you some good background on what all is involved in starting a radio station. I've worked at a couple small commercial broadcast stations in the past. I assisted in some upgrades to the transmitters and antenna systems, so I got to see all that was involved with just the construction permit with the FCC. I even got to assist in a proof of performance once, back in the days before GPS. We had to do it all using topo and street maps.

So don't give up hope - you CAN start your own radio station. But it's really hard to do with just one person. And it will take a bunch of money. Get a critical mass of people together in your town, form a non-profit, there is a really good chance that it you're not in one of the top 100 radio markets that you can get a license and start a station.

I encourage you to try!

--rusty

The original lyrics are also copyrighted and can't be reproduced for wide distribution (even as a vocal transformation) without consent.

Not exactly. A cover song can be publically performed with a simple ASCAP (or BMI or whatever) compulsary license. To be on the safe side, they should definately have an ASCAP license, that's not all that expensive. They still could run into problems because of the fact that they are allowing the songs to be downloaded. Technically, they should probably be paying Harry Fox (or someone similar) "7.1 cents per CD sold if the song is 5 minutes or under. Songs over 5 minutes cost slightly more, based on a rate of 1.35 cents per minute."

Wouldnt be suprised if IBM starts selling BMI drives :)

Except Broadcast Music Inc. is a group of songwriters and music publishers. Watch these new "BMI" drives enforce copy protection to protect the rights of BMI members.

At issue are fees that online radio services would have to pay to artists and record companies for each song played. The fee is $1.40 per thousand listeners for Internet-only stations, and 70 cents per thousand listeners for over-the-air stations that simultaneously broadcast online.

If the station is among the top 25% of stations which paid the highest license fees to BMI in the previous year, each performance of a popular song on that station will be paid no less than 12 cents total for all participants.

If you think of it this way, RIAA is hurting the economy.. So is ASCAP and BMI Webcasters let music be heard that may not have a venue elsewhere,be heard. In turn the listeners are interesed in the band, they go out and buy the CD(which pays BMI and ASCAP), In turn the bands have to play more shows... In turn they buy new musical equipment, to play more shows where more people are coming,In turn the clubs make more money and continue to have live bands. If webcasters are charged outrageous fees, then we can't play the music, thereby shutting us down, the bands don't sell any CD's the clubs don't make any money, the music stores don't sell equipment. Pretty vicious circle... my site www.nw-radio.com doesn't sell records, we let people hear music that they may not have any idea is out there ... So Why should I have to pay RIAA or BMI or ASCAP for helping THEM ?

The problem lies in the fine line between distribution and broadcast. When you distribute an MP3 online, you run the risk of violating the distributor's copyright to the actual CD medium. So, if that MP3 happens to be of a song by Metallica, and you don't have permission from the recording company, or its agent, you've violated copyright law for duplicating the CD (or a portion of it).

On the other hand, when you stream an MP3 online, you're broadcasting it. Broadcast isn't distribution, it's public performance. Public performance rights belong to the songwriters. If you broadcast that Metallica MP3 without permission from artist, or from one of the appropriate songwriter's associations, you've violated copyright law.

Thankfully, getting permission from the songwriter's associations--that's ASCAP, BMI and SESAC--is a piece of cake. The licensing rate depends on a number of factors -- available here, here and here -- but for the most part, for small internet broadcasters the fees are minimal. ASCAP charges about $250 a year to start... BMI is more expensive, SESAC is considerably less (something like $50 or $75 annually.)

The United States has additional rules for online broadcasters that don't apply to airwave broadcasters. For instance, you can't provide music on-demand... you can't announce your playlist in advance... and you can't play too many songs from the same artist/album in a row. Nor can your playlist repeat predictably or too frequently.

Other countries have less restrictive rules.

Where things get messy is where you start to provide audio on-demand, or whenever audio is made available for download. In those cases, distribution rights apply as well as (or instead of) public performance rights...

BRx.

Many artists are famous for their clashes with their labels (Prince, NIN, even The Beatles), and long before napster et al...

Before the CD, music was distributed on platters of (supposedly) vinyl consisting of a spiral groove of two orthogonal analog waveforms. This was the medium for most of the 1900s. The effect of the music monopoly on this medium was that only one manufacturing company, usually owned by record company itself, made the medium. Due to this monopoly, there was no incentive to produce good quality records as that did cost a few cents more per unit. The end results was bad quality, with some major record companies like RCA producing total shit (I bought several, and every one of them was horrible quality).

I believe one reason the CD rose in popularity so fast was that the quality was so much better, not just because of the vinyl hiss, but also because of all the clicks and pops from the garbage embedded in the vinyl. The CD wasn't totally immune from this damage, but it could correct a lot of it, and quietly skip a lot more, and you never noticed it.

Also, in the early days of the CD, record companies hadn't yet learned how to cut corners and reduce costs without completely destroying the product. Now days they are learning. The quality of CDs is going down and down as the record companies are trying to push the edge of what consumers will accept.

If there was competition in the media production phase of music production, with a compulsory licensing that allowed anyone to produce the medium and change whatever they wanted to consumers, and simply pay the publishing company that owns the rights to the recording (or the artists directly if they own it) the statutory or arbitrated fees, then the consumer would have a free market choice on who makes the CDs they buy.

In the day of vinyl (and even still today to some degree) a few companies were making reproductions of music on quality media. Usually the costs were very high, almost double. I soon found out that the original record company demanded a fee that was at least equal to, and in some cases more than, the retail cost of their own garbage. This would be a fee they would collect for not even producing the media at all. Compulsory and/or statutory licensing would have prevented this rip off.

There is precendent in statute now. This is already how the law works for certain kinds of reproductions (see The Harry Fox Agency and this licensing information page) and performances (see ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC), although it still does not work perfectly as reported in links found via Google.

Still, I think this would be a good step forward to have this kind of law in place not only for media reproduction, but also for digital online delivery.

One possible solution to this is the creation of a rights clearinghouse much like BMI or ASCAP for music publishing rights, combined with a compulsory licensing scheme with set royalty rates.

This is basically the solution that music publishers and music licensees came up with years ago (or that the government came up with for them) to solve a similar problem with music licenses. Similar schemes are being proposed for AIDS drugs and other medicines and for online music.

Of course this doesn't solve the myriad other problems associated with GM foods and restrictive patents, but it's a start.

This article is filled with misinformation.

It's best to go right to the sources at the Copyright Office, ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc. The restaurant info, the who-owns-the-copyright info, etc., are wrong in implication if not in detail.

And if the legalese is too much, then go here or (when it's back up) here.

Dennis

Sorry if there's an empty post with the same title. Slapped the wrong key a second ago. To find out more about the whole royalties things check out B MI. Whether the holder of the copyright is the artist themselves or their label, its BMI that enforces the copyright. Artists and publishers join BMI for a fee, and BMI then tracks down who owes its members royalties. These guys can be like the secret police of the music world. If you're a live musician who plays standards, you have to be careful about what venues you play in larger cities because there might just be a BMI rep in there checking things out. If you publish a song book compiling other people's work, the BMI is there to make sure the original composers get their proper royaties. Same for performances on TV, radio, and now the web. And, as long as BMI has been around, people have been trying to dodge them. On one hand, its great to have an 800 pound gorilla looking out for your intellectual property rights, but on the other its a real drag when you're gigging at jazz clubs and the gorilla sits on you. One trick often employed is making enough of a variation in the song and changing the title that BMI can't say its this original work anymore. This results in some real fun performances. Then there's the near legendary book of standards "The Real Book" which is an underground anthology of standards published so as to avoid BMI royalties. Anyway, right or wrong, it behooves anyone who's distributing or replaying music in anyway to check out BMI and know who they are and what they do.

ASCAP & BMI, which are Performance Rights Organizations, both have started to establish internet distribution licensing. The major difference (and the reason they're not getting involved in this melee) is that PRO's manage the rights of music performances, for example: radio, tunes played in bars, or streaming audio. They handle licensing and pay the songwriters and publishers.

They don't handle the rights to the actual product that is a sound recording (such as a cd, or an .mp3) of a specific piece of music -- that's done by folks like the Harry Fox Agency (spawned from the NMPA, National Music Publishers Association) and the RIAA. They pay the artists (or more often, companies) who record the music, sometimes the same thing as the songwriters, but not universally. Both of whom are indeed involved in this and other litigation.

In other words, as I understand it, companies that stream their audio can pay licensing fees to ASCAP & BMI to cover the songwriters' royalties, but companies that distribute products (you possess the .mp3 file) are expected to pony up to HFA & the RIAA, and aren't -- thus the lawsuits. A relatively smooth system like the PRO's, transparent to the user, would be welcome.


---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."

Of course, this could end the whole thing, since who wants to pay to offer a service?

BMI and ASACP are already all over this.
http://www.bmi.com/iama/webcast er/au tomated/index.asp

Part of the agreement is to turn in your log files to BMI/ASACP so they can pay the songwriters/publishers. The philosphy is to treat the downloads as public performances - much like radio.

- daniel

Here is how BMI is collecting money for published songs:

You have to be the song writer (not just a member of the band) to collect publishing money. The money is paid out half to the writers and half to the publishing company. Anyone can be their own publishing company.
- daniel

Dude, the DJ isn't the business manager.
Commercial radio stations pay royalties.
Check with ASCAP or BMI
These are the people who (among other things) do the collection of royalties.

You are quite right to point out that corporations donate lots of money to nonprofit organizations, and find lots of other ways to have a voice, since our political process creates unnatural and ineffectual barriers to money in the political process. Do what you might, but money will find a way to get into politics - and the more arcane the "campaign finance reform" becomes, the more contortions corporations will perform. This is not "circumventing rules and regulations," but rather being whipped into laughable secrecy by campaign finance laws that create the silly fiction of a money-free political system.

It would be far better, in my opinion, to raise (or eliminate) all the restrictions on political moneygiving, so corporations and old rich people could all be less surreptitious about trying to achieve particular political ends.

But I strongly disagree with your claim that lobbyists can "buy" politicians, or that corporations can overwhelm the political process. That's wonderful jingoism, but empirically false. Even though it has spent millions of dollars on influencing the political process, Microsoft is still being bruised by the Justice Department. Lockheed and Boeing face new fines every other week. The telecom firms face stringent oversight from Congress. And the number of decisions every week handed down by legislators and regulators in this town that run counter to the interests of corporations is astounding.

In other words, while it's comfortable to relax in the platitudes of powerful corporate cronyism, in fact, corporate omnipotence is grimly overstated.

You write that "individuals do not have a coherent political agenda." This is true. Neither, however, do businesses. As direct as your superb laser/light bulb analogy is, it is not apt; businesses fight with one another, with consumer groups, with politicians and many other interests in this town. There is no "agenda" that would universally benefit corporations. Take the recent debate over cable open access, which has all but disappeared since the announcement of the AOL/TW merger. In that debate, Microsoft and AT&T fought hard against AOL and the ISPs. The lobbying on both sides was great sound and fury, but it amounted to nothing. There is no uniform corporate agenda at work.

You claim that "almost all profits go directly into the coffers of the corporations who distribute the music." You say sometimes just 1-3% of the profits from music goes to those involved in its creation. That's quite a misleading number, and I'm not sure where you got it. You make it sound as though BMI and ASCAP just gobble up 99 percent of the money. In fact, BMI is quite proud that over 80 percent of its income from licensing goes to those involved in making music.

You then go on to make a bit of a straw man argument, the heart of which is this: "The members of RIAA want to maintain their extremely lucrative stranglehold on the distribution mechanisms... The current plan for distribution is to create a system in which the consumer downloads music for free, and is only able to play the music on a device that bills the listener every time a song is played."

First, there is no "current plan for distribution"; everyone is scrambling to figure out what to do, and companies are going to experiment with new media and modes of distribution and alliances which we cannot now foresee. Of course RIAA (and other industry groups) are going to react in surprising (and even detrimental) ways to these changes - but I am confident that the technology will overwhelm the artificial limits put on it.

Finally, as for "mainstream media" being in the pocket of corporations, as much as Noam Chomsky would delight in hearing you say that, it is only partly accurate. Consider this: where do you actually hear all the bad things you have heard about corporations? From - surprise! - mainstream news media. The corporations report about and criticize one another. Power is not simply "wrested" (as you say) from individuals by big, evil corporations; it is give-and-take, and consumers (despite your lamentations) are willing participants - not helpless, powerless, victims as you would caricature them. That's why TV shows fail, movies flop and new musical genres develop - because we are in a system that encourages interaction and market exchange, instead of stifling it.

A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.

1.

... unlike ordinary radio and TV broadcasters, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies. Webcasts are limited to three songs from one album in any three-hour period.

This is false. Radio stations - like TV stations, cable networks, etc. - need to get licenses from performing rights groups like ASCAP or BMI. Even businesses and restaurants larger than a certain size (2000 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft., respectively) need to get licenses. Those licenses are not free - they are bought for millions of dollars sometimes, and the money from their purchase goes to the songwriters and performers.

2.

[The DMCA] also dramatically restricts the right of individual artists to have their works seen, heard and sold. That makes it a First Amendment as well as a corporate issue.

Well, duh. All copyright laws are First Amendment issues in part. All of them. Why? Because copyright laws are inherently about what you can and cannot do and say. The DMCA is no more especially a First Amendment matter than any other copyright law.

And recognizing that there are free-speech issues involved, the DMCA (like other copyright acts) leaves intact the "Fair Use" doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

3.

[The DMCA is] a back-door effort by lobbyists and politicians to circumvent debate or discussion entirely.

First of all, calling it a "back-door effort" ignores the facts that there were lobbyists and politicians on both sides of every part of the issue, and that comments and input were solicited from the online community and libraries and computer makers. What's more, some of the Act's provisions had been discussed and debated internationally, as part of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty - and were first publicized years and years ago. Calling it secretive or "back-door" is plain inaccurate.

4.

... blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.

This is nonsensical. How is the DMCA "blind"? The point of the law, whether you like it or not, is that it does take into account the Net's unique nature, by recognizing that the Net can be used to disseminate information instantly everywhere. It isn't blind: it tries to stop some of that information from just disappearing into the ether, possibly leaving creators unpaid. What do you mean this generation "defines culture differently"? Every generation defines culture differently, and (if you'll allow me to follow your logic to its natural conclusion) every person defines culture differently. This is not a culture gap, and there is no acceptable reason for lawmakers, musicians and other copyright holders to be held hostage by people who don't want to pay for anything.

5.

Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism, or corporations. It's new, bigger, more global and vastly more powerful. It has acquired most mainstream media. It is the primary contributor to the political system.

Like the theory of phlogiston, your argument here sounds great. But, like the theory of phlogiston, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up. First of all, your statement about "mainstream media" is circular since you are defining mainstream media as "those media which are owned by corporations." Second, the primary contributor to the political system, in terms of money and in terms of vocal input, is the ordinary voting population; it contributes more money than any other contributing segment. In fact, even though nobody talks about this, corporations are not allowed to support candidates for federal office.

6.

... corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.

O, Katz, come on. Compare the words you use for corporations (discourages, pushes, conformity, control, rampaging, drooling) with the words you use for geeks (free, diverse, individualized, unprecedented, unique). What propaganda!

Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. First of all, you refuse to admit the positive effects of the corporate control you so disdain. Thanks to AOL, 20 million people are online. Thanks to Microsoft, lots of confused non-techies are able to use these machines we take for granted. Thanks to WalMart, people have access to more and cheaper products.

How you can claim this is not capitalism is beyond me. With the exception of monopolistic behavior (the integrated-browswer debate is not worth getting into here), each of these companies is behaving as capitalist firms should - by offering products and services that consumers are drawn to.

What's more, it's ridiculous to cast corporations as an Evil Empire trying to crush the plucky, charming geeks who can see how "culture" is changing around them. Even as the Net lets people express themselves more individually, it also spreads a common culture, full of common language and terms and beliefs which can themselves become tyrannical. Before writing "Geeks," you should have sat down and read some Alexis de Tocqueville.

7.

The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.

I disagree here again. Technology is extraordinarily powerful, and right now, it is shaping the law - not the other way around. (And if you believe Lawrence Lessig, in many ways, the technology is the law.) I expect that trend will continue for several decades.

8.

The primary political struggle of the 21st Century -- corporatism versus individualism -- has erupted right under our noses. And with little political consciousness or response, we seem to be losing the first big battle.

First of all, to claim that "corporatism versus individualism" is the "primary political struggle" of the next century demonstrates as much a sense of history as the people who called the O.J. Simpson trial the "trial of the century." Life always ends up amazingly unlike what we had supposed.

Second, again, you are unwilling to see political activism by geeks because you are defining "geeks" circularly - as those who are not politically active. There are many people, including many people here in Washington, D.C., who share the political and technological views of geeks, and are fighting every day to prevent new dumb laws from being passed. Most people are not politically conscious - not just geeks - and that's a wonderful thing. It's a sign of our freedom and safety. The places where political cognizance is a necessary good are places like Chechnya or Somalia or Cuba or China, where a lack of political sense can land you in jail.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Radio stations pay a fee to ASCAP and BMI for the songs that are played on the air.

Most of my music is on MP3. I don't listen to the radio... but I realize, now, that I am my own radio station, with an audience of one, available 24 hours a day without commercial interruption!! (It's a great station. The DJ is deeply rooted in my subconcious...) If I'm a radio station... how do I support the artists I'm playing?

For non-profit stations the yearly fee from ASCAP is some negotiable amount less than 450 dollars.

Now 450 dollars a year is a bit pricy. I'm trying to find out what a non-commercial radio station pays in fees as I write.

ASCAP fees are unfairly divided between the record company and the songwriter. (So far as I know, bandmembers get nothing if they don't have songwriting credit)

ASCAP also requires you to complete and submit a playlist so that the proper authors get reimbursed.

Anyway, the key here is that a mechanism already exists that reimburses artists and publishers for their works without having to have purchased their media (cds,records,tapes). It sorta works. Perhaps it can be improved on.

I, Rhysling

"Radio stations are licensed (probably by the RIAA or a similar group) to play CDs on the air. It's very difficult, if not impossible, for a single person to get such a license."

Here are the clearances you have to play music on the radio:

Music Copyright. This covers the composer's ownership of the songs played. In the US, the principal agents for administering these clearances are ASCAP and BMI, although some songs (example: Mannheim Steamroller's music) are handled by SESAC. These folks aren't connected with the record companies or the artists... they're only interested in the songs. Most radio stations buy a blanket license for unlimited use of music, although you can pay on a per-performance basis. (BTW, ASCAP operates under an antitrust settlement going back a number of years, so what they do is subject to monitoring by the court.) You need this license unless: (1) You're not broadcasting ANY music (DOH!) or (2a) ALL the music you broadcast is public domain (major genre: Classical) or (2b) you (or someone else) have made arrangements directly with the copyright holder (You don't need a license for jingles if you pay the jingle company directly, and commercial advertisers are supposed to take care of rights issues themselves. You also don't need any license if the music is 100% your own work.).

Performance Copyright. Yeah, performances are copyright, too (that's the (P) mark you see on CD boxes). Performance copyright is relatively new in the US... IIRC, it started sometime in the 80s. Also note that you can copyright a performance even if the music performed is public domain. AFAIK, there's no performance clearance requirement in the US (although I've not studied the latest copyright revisions). If this is still the case, you don't have to pay anyone if commercial recordings are involved: Artists (and record companies) are supposed to make their money from the increased record sales that resulted from the stations playing their music. But there's one important exception: Live performances. If you want to broadcast a concert (or just a set from the local jazz club), be prepared to pay your friends at the Musician's Union for the privelege of doing so. [Warning to performers: Your local may still want its cut, even if you'd like to do a performance-in-exchange-for-exposure. Check with your business manager before making any deals!]

Grand Dramatic Rights. The only reason to worry about this is if you're going to broadcast a musical (also applies to operas and plays) in its entirety. Individual songs are covered by the music copyright rules above, but beware if you want to play the 3CD complete recording of Les Miz all at once. This is a real gray area, and the law has been unclear as to just where grand rights kick in... if you're thinking of doing this, consult a good IP lawyer first. Grand rights clearances are usually negotiated directly with the publisher/producer/holding company that controls the particular show.

Other comments: If you're a licensed radio station, you should have no trouble whatever getting an ASCAP or BMI license. (In fact, they should be glad to talk to you.) Unless the law has changed significantly, that's all you need to do the kind of broadcasting most people on this thread are talking about. Billboard publications has a good reference that explains all of this: This Business of Music. Most libraries have a copy.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and (at the moment) NOT in the radio business, so don't consider this as gospel! The penalties for copyright violation are severe, and the law is complex (with special provisions for not-for-profit or educational organizations, for example), so don't sign anything or do any broadcasting without the advice of a good intellectual property lawyer.

Alot of people don't realize the power that these companies wield (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). They have the legal right to enter any store, club, resteraunt, or place of business and demand to see proof of current licensing (with their company, of course). Let me qualify place of business: any retail or business site that plays music covered by ASCAP (& etc.) to generate revenue or productivity. In other words, if the store or office pumps the music over the phone or intercomm, then they are liable. This now includes web sites (you can check out their web licensing contract and fees at their respective sites-- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). As you can see, they are rather steep--and you have to be careful who you link to.

I find that this truly bites for a couple reasons. The first, I wanted to set up a web site akin to mp3.com that you paid legitimate fees for copyrighted music so I could pay the artists royalties (a cause I deeply believe in). The licensing not only forbids that (I would have to individually contact every record company individually to do it), there fees are prohibitive. Especially the up-front fees. Secondly, it bites because if someone you directly link to decides to distribute music (in any format) on his site, I am liable. I think there reasoning behind it is that I generate revenue (?!) because of that link. I am glad that they can't make you liable for some moron who decided to do the same thing links to you site (you have no real control over that).

I have attempted to contact these companies for alternative liscensing agreements that would permit the site I wanted, but received no response. So, unless you can be assured that you can use GPLd music, you are SOL (remember, a band who does a cover of protected music cannot release their version under GPL, FPL, or any other open distribution license).

Ellis, love your posts, but gotta correct you on this one. BMI and ASCAP represent songwriters and not the artists who perform the music. They Liscense venues to play music and they make sure the songwiter get his/her cut. For instance lets say you go to see Bigod 20 at a venue that does not have a BMI license, Bigod 20 could not cover Madonna's Like A Prayer.



Then RIAA however represents the record companies (RC) and artists themselves attempting to make sure the RC and the Artists get their cut. Last months DJ Times had a great interview with one of the head dudes. I feel the RIAA needs a top down change, they need people in there who understand digital distribution and advertisng, right now the RIAA is so old and moldy it serves only to police and not to advance as was the original goal. The current assualt on digital music is proof enough that change is needed, they claim the companies lose money from MP3 when CD sales have been on a steady rise since MP3 became so widely available.



But I will sopt b4 I get too far off topic.
__________________________________________ ______________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99