Slashdot Mirror

While the replies are correct here, there's something *major* that's been overlooked in the article they linked. The DiMA agreement actually makes a *huge* breakthrough for non-interactive streams and *excludes them* from having to pay license fees for the recordings. This allows stations that broadcast without interaction directly (ie - a shoutcast style station) to operate exactly like AM/FM stations and only pay royalties to the songwriters and not the the RIAA (Soundexchange). It's *great* news that I had trouble believing, but I went to the source: http://www.digmedia.org/content/release.cfm?id=7243&content=pr

I read about this yesterday on Betanews actually and headed to the source (DiMA to take a closer look). There's actually *even better* news in the agreement for non-interactive services: "Outside the scope of the draft regulations, the parties confirmed that non-interactive, audio-only streaming services do not require reproduction or distribution licenses from copyright owners." Hard to believe, I know, but take a look: http://www.digmedia.org/content/release.cfm?id=7243&content=pr

Basically, the problem is, when you're speaking DIGITALLY, there is no difference between "copying a recording" (ie download for the purposes of saving a file) and "performing a recording" (download eg streaming, for the purposes of audio playback in the physical world).

For This Reason, New Media Players (Apple, Yahoo, Napster, etc) argue that the "mechanical royalty for copyright" should be lowered significantly on digital downloads (specifically, to 4%).

Streaming represents the digital equivalent of radio broadcasting, whereby musical works are transmitted in form that is simultaneously rendered (or intended to be rendered) perceptible to the recipient. In constrast, a digital phonorecord delivery ("DPD") is the digital equivalent of a phonograph record, compact disk or other "material objects in which souunds ... are fixed." See 17 USC 101. ...
For the reasons briefly set forth above, DiMA believes that "interactive streaming" of a sound recording does not constitute a Digital Phonograph Delivery under Section 115 of the Copyright Act. In their written direct cases, by contrast, both NMPA and RIAA have proposed rates and terms to apply to interactive streaming, arguing that Section 115 is triggered by such activities."

For the reasons briefly set forth above, DiMA believes that "interactive streaming" of a sound recording does not constitute a Digital Photograph Delivery under Section 115 of the Copyright Act. In their written direct cases, by contrast, both NMPA and RIAA have proposed rates and terms to apply to internet streaming, arguing that Section 115 is triggered by such activities.

Scroll down to near the bottom. You'll spot the following paragraph:

• Ease of use, safety from computer viruses and much higher sound quality;
• A safer environment for children, who can be exposed to illicit adult content that is available on many illegal file sharing sites;
• The knowledge that music artists and creators are rightly being compensated.

Groovy!

Scroll down to near the bottom. You'll spot the following paragraph:

• Ease of use, safety from computer viruses and much higher sound quality;
• A safer environment for children, who can be exposed to illicit adult content that is available on many illegal file sharing sites;
• The knowledge that music artists and creators are rightly being compensated.

Groovy!

Digmedia has some info about this. Follow the link!

The RIAA will step on anyone at the will of the major labels money. Please help stop the RIAA and the band of Corp. thieves.

HELP SAVE NET RADIO IN THE US..

http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-te rms2005-1.pdf

SaveNetRadio.org

Help Keep Internet Radio Online

Whats Happening

On Friday March 2nd 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board announced new royalty rates for Internet Radio stations. The rates are retroactive to January of 2006.

The new rates are far higher than any industry experts expected. In fact, if they remain unchanged, bankruptcy looms for many online radio stations.

The new rates essentially levy a tax of $0.0011 per performance. Now, that doesn't sound bad does it. But consider this. Each hour, the average radio station plays 16 songs. So that's about 1.76c per hour, per listener. A station with 500 listener average would be hit with fees of $211 per day, $6,336 a month or $76,000 a year.

This amount of money is beyond the resources of all but the very wealthiest of corporations. Many of the internet radio stations are run by enthusiasts and hobbyists. These small stations are the ones bringing new music, and old favorites to you every day. Music you can't hear on corporate-owned terrestrial stations.

Could this be the day the music died?

What can you do?

If you enjoy internet radio, HEARING YOUR BAND ON INTERNET RADIO, you need to make your feelings known right now to your representatives in the Congress and Senate. Write to them and ask them to help repeal the decision of March 2nd by the Copyright Royalty Board. It only takes a couple of minutes.

SaveNetRadio.org

Congress: House.gov/writerep

Senate: Senate.gov

More background on this decision

SaveNetRadio.org

DigiMedia.org

DigiMedia.org FAQ

KurtHanson.com

Broadcastlawblog

Thank you & please help.

http://myspace.com/scottandpam

The RIAA will step on anyone at the will of the major labels money. Please help stop the RIAA and the band of Corp. thieves.

HELP SAVE NET RADIO IN THE US..

http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-te rms2005-1.pdf

SaveNetRadio.org

Help Keep Internet Radio Online

Whats Happening

On Friday March 2nd 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board announced new royalty rates for Internet Radio stations. The rates are retroactive to January of 2006.

The new rates are far higher than any industry experts expected. In fact, if they remain unchanged, bankruptcy looms for many online radio stations.

The new rates essentially levy a tax of $0.0011 per performance. Now, that doesn't sound bad does it. But consider this. Each hour, the average radio station plays 16 songs. So that's about 1.76c per hour, per listener. A station with 500 listener average would be hit with fees of $211 per day, $6,336 a month or $76,000 a year.

This amount of money is beyond the resources of all but the very wealthiest of corporations. Many of the internet radio stations are run by enthusiasts and hobbyists. These small stations are the ones bringing new music, and old favorites to you every day. Music you can't hear on corporate-owned terrestrial stations.

Could this be the day the music died?

What can you do?

If you enjoy internet radio, HEARING YOUR BAND ON INTERNET RADIO, you need to make your feelings known right now to your representatives in the Congress and Senate. Write to them and ask them to help repeal the decision of March 2nd by the Copyright Royalty Board. It only takes a couple of minutes.

SaveNetRadio.org

Congress: House.gov/writerep

Senate: Senate.gov

More background on this decision

SaveNetRadio.org

DigiMedia.org

DigiMedia.org FAQ

KurtHanson.com

Broadcastlawblog

Thank you & please help.

http://myspace.com/scottandpam

As far as the retroactive royalty fees go, I hate to disagree with you, but while I think it will cause some chaos, I also think that it will be fought tooth and nail, and I don't think the RIAA is going to come out on top of this one.

I'm sure a lot of Internet broadcasters are hoping that is the case. Watch for appeals to come from the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Digial Media Association on behalf of the big media companies. They are the only ones with the resources to fight this. Whether their appeals are successful, and whether they will benefit smaller, independent stations, remains to be seen.

I hate to point you back to the link in the summery, but the rates are right at the top, including those for 2006. The Copyright Royalty Board fully intends to collect these royalties, and are well within their mandate to do so. If your station played copyrighted works in 2006, you will pay royalty fees for the use of that material (although the fees may ultimately be reduced, as they were in 2002. Scroll down to the bottom of Kurt's page for coverage of that go-around).

'm rather wondering why you think this would require us to turn our back on the last hundred years of culture.

This was in response to the notion that this will somehow be of benefit to independent artists.

First of all, this royalty is collected on all performances, even those of works by non-RIAA artists. The RIAA lobbied hard for these rates, and are licking their chops at the prospect of collecting them, but don't make the mistake of thinking fees will not be collected for all songs played, even those of "independent artist." The "sound recording copyright owner" is entitled to compensation, and anyone can apply to Sound Exchange for their cut, just like Sony or EMI or whomever. The only problem is the allocation of these royalty payments is based on aggregate totals from the industry as a whole, meaning all those Clear Channel stations that stream their FM broadcasts skew the numbers in favour of established artists. The independent artist is unlikely to see any money, even if they are getting airplay on stations not so beholden to the RIAA marketing machine.

So why don't Internet broadcasters play only "free music," licensed through Creative Commons or something?

Many do, and some even get a few listeners I'm sure. But there are other costs associated with running a radio stations, including the cost of maintaining your music catalog (even if you don't "pay" for the music, you need to acquire it, sift through it to separate the good from the bad, store it etc.), bandwidth costs, on-air talent, the cost of maintaining a website that offers features that will attract listeners, BMI/ASCAP royalties (still gotta pay those, don't forget) and sundry costs incurred by any small business. Attracting a listener base sufficient to offset these costs while exclusively playing independently produced, Creative Commons licensed, music by artists nobody has heard of is a heavy lift. Not saying it can't happen in the long run, but I don't see independently run Internet radio stations with no other source of revenue surviving long enough to make this a reality.

But the 'big media' companies who stream their FM broadcast will be subject to these fees too, so what's the problem?

Frankly, they will probably lose money as well. That doesn't mean they won't use Internet streams as a "loss leader," to get people who listen to them on their commute to tune in while the're at work, all the while bombarding them with on-air commercials, ads on their website and compiling marketing data that can be sold to offset some of these costs.

The small, independent station can

http://www.digmedia.org/content.cfm?id=7223

Since 1997, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been considering a treaty that would modernize broadcaster protection provisions of the Rome Convention to account for digital broadcasting and the challenges of online networks. The focus has been to protect broadcasters against signal piracy, particularly related to the unauthorized commercial retransmission of signals captured over-the-air or intercepted from satellite transmissions. One example of this was in 1999, when a company called iCraveTV captured U.S. television stations' signals and retransmitted them over the Internet without permission or license. Though a Canadian company, iCraveTV had registered its domain name in the U.S. so a U.S. court was able to exercise jurisdiction and end this piracy.

The iCraveTV episode demonstrated the vulnerability of broadcasting to unauthorized retransmission over the Internet that reduces revenue to broadcasters and the copyright owners whose works are being transmitted. Given the risks of signal theft and the potential harm to the broadcast industry, the United States has supported enhancing legal protections for broadcasters by updating the rights addressed in the Rome Convention.

Since the link to the bill is dead, here are some links to pdf copies of it:

Digimedia.org pdf

house.gov pdf

A summary of the bill here at house.gov

And the google cached version here

There if you can Slashdot all of those, we deserve a collective cookie.