Slashdot Mirror

Someone can distribute copyrighted work without a right to do so. That's called copyright infringement, not theft. There is a tremendous difference between infringement and theft so it's important to call it by it's correct terminology.

A "right" is a creation of humans and we agree(or are forced to) to abide by the rights granted to others by whatever entity we chose to recognize. I don't know if your from the US, but here we have different laws regarding intellectual rights. It is an ongoing struggle to reach that definition as intellectual property is about ideas, not physical goods. This quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Laws are different regarding intellectual property due to philosophy along the lines of that quote. I hope you can see how important that is. I'm not advocating an absence of copyright or IP protections. That would be silly for me because that's a big chunk of my income. I oppose current copyright reforms by groups like RIAA not because I don't care about an authors right to profit. In fact it is just the opposite because if RIAA got their proposed reforms passed, it would simply be a benefit to corporate entities. They could process legal cases in much greater volume and a higher success rate. This will lead to more power in the hands of the business elite who IMO don't need any more. That's the reason sites like this exist:

http://www.savenetradio.org/

If you want to help the author buy their works, don't contribute to a system designed make the suits more money. The current system already provides recourse for violations and it's more than adequate if used properly.

Another angle is the gross over-valuing of of IP (even if something is way over-valued that doesn't make infringement okay). For example, if you take the price of distributing movies today versus 30 years ago, modern distribution channels are far more efficient. It costs just a fraction of what it did in the past to get the goods to the consumer, yet if a person from the current generation wants to get the same amount of content as the previous they would need to spend a larger percentage of their income to maintain the level. This is because of the parasitical suits who need to get their cut of every transaction. Its sort of like how an HMO works, doctors get screwed in pay http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/business/22doctors.html?_r=1 and patients get poor service and nasty surprises like "You're not covered for that".

Is a new blueray seriously worth $30-40? How many of these infringers would pay $10 if they could download it immediately? The business model is flawed, and they want this legislation so they can force the old ways on the consumer instead of adapting to where the market is today. The price is artificially high to support the lawyers and other types who add no value to the product. Don't make them happy by calling it theft.

It's not simple, but it's straightforward.
1. SUPPORT LOCAL MUSIC. Go to concerts/pubs/etc., buy self-produced CDs.
2. Buy from non-label-affiliated, artist-friendly Web sites, not fronted by megacorps. Google is your friend here, even if you're not buying from them.
3. When permitted by the artist or by "fair use" in your jurisdiction, share samples with friends or play a few tracks you're partial to for them. Word of mouth has been the greatest aid to supporting musicians since music was invented.
4. Write to your local radio station (in the US, undoubtedly ClearChannel, alas), as well as to their advertisers. Tell them that you support independent music, and won't be buying overpriced Big Label CDs any more. ClearChannel might not notice, but chances are much better that your local grocery chain or even some non-music-industry large advertisers *will* make adjustments if they've got a couple of thousand unique letters and emails coming in every week.
5. Listen to and support independent Internet radio stations. Their costs are going up way beyond orbital, thanks to the megacorps and the Bush-league "Copyright Royalty Board". While you're at it,

Yes, it means we, the fans (customers), have to put in some effort. We're going to have to break old buying habits, and actually pay attention. That's the price of living in a world where you're a customer, not just a consumer. Remember the famous quote by Jerry Michalski: a consumer is "a gullet whose only purpose in life is to gulp products and crap cash." We can do better than that. If we're going to move beyond being told what to listen to, what to think, by the megacorps, we HAVE to do better than that. visit http://www.savenetradio.org/ and stay informed. Fellow Americans, write (not email) your Senators and Congressperson to remind them that you care about this - and when they vote for bills like the Internet Radio Equality Act, write them thank-you notes. Congressional staff *notice* when a few hundred (or thousand) non-fill-in-the-blank letters come in on an issue... that's votes talking.

Remember, the megacorps are counting on the likelihood that you won't do anything, that you'll just continue to "crap cash" on schedule - THEIR schedule. They're counting on the "I'm too busy" or "I'm only one person" naysayers to tamp down enthusiasm, and let them carry the day.

You are personally, individually, solely responsible for the world around you. If you don't like the way things are being done, get involved. This is one relatively easy, open, effective way to start.

I bet the terrestrial stations are starting to wish they stood strong with their net radio associates when there was still time. Whoops! Too late!

Now that the RIAA has net radio by the balls, they can use the net radio fee structure to force terrestrial radio into equally horrific payment terms.

I was digging around and just noticed that SaveNetRadio.org is claiming an agreement has been reached.

Here is the press release (pdf)

And more on their homepage

Note: it looks like this is just one detail that has been agreed upon but negotiations are ongoing.

I was digging around and just noticed that SaveNetRadio.org is claiming an agreement has been reached.

Here is the press release (pdf)

And more on their homepage

Note: it looks like this is just one detail that has been agreed upon but negotiations are ongoing.

I'm not in any 3 of those categories, so why should I care?

The next argument is that the smallest medium - Internet radio - pays the most royalties; and under the new CRB royalty scheme the smallest webcasters will pay the highest relative royalties in amounts shockingly disproportionate to their revenue. While I can certainly see where their coming from (to be honest, it looks the whole point of the ruling is to kill internet radio), it reads as "WHY NOT ME" talk. Why shouldn't ALL mediums have to pay?

About half-way through the page, they make a good argument that somebody on either side of the debate can agree with:

Bankrupting the Internet radio industry will not benefit artists or record companies, as total industry royalties will diminish. Moreover, the demise of Internet radio will be particularly harmful to independent artists and record labels whose music is rarely played on broadcast radio. The American Association of Independent Music reports that less than 10% of terrestrial radio performances are independent music but more than 37% of non-terrestrial radio is independent music. This benefits artists, labels and music fans.

When Congress provided webcasters a guaranteed "statutory license" to perform sound recordings, Congress intended that Internet radio would flourish as a competitive medium offering diverse programming and paying a royalty. Tripling webcasters royalties undermines all these goals.

Furthermore, I have no idea where technology will take us. Its evolving so quickly now that everything could very well be wireless and connected in 10 years. I'm going to be angry that if in 10 years, the selection of internet radio stations is terrible and the cost to enter the market is insane because of a bad decision that was made in 2007.

Finally, we need to recognize that the Copyright Royalty Board is going to get away with murder. I didn't realize this until I did some further research on this, but do you know how many people the CRB is composed of? Three. Three judges are going to decide the future of internet radio that will affect millions of people. What an awful system! I saw we put pressure on the CRB (James Scott Sledge (Chief Copyright Royalty Judge), Stanley Wisniewski, and William J. Roberts.) and congress to make this a more fair system. Three people having that much power is not a fair game.

I think this move shows that the rafiaa is at least a bit hesitant to take this matter in front of Congress, where their "file-sharing is piracy" metaphor isn't quite as deeply entrenched (anyone remember Senator Stevens? The supreme court is involved in a very intricate game of precedence and interpretation, and right now one side is just playing a hell of a lot better.

But I think FiniteElementalist hits this one on the head: the Riaa does not want this to become a political hot topic entering a presidential election year in which the Democrats are the odds on favorites. Maintaining traditional corporate infastructure is a Republican mantra, and I don't think you want the future of your industry riding on the right this year! The rafiaa plays the legal game very well, they will not win a popular public debate. Keep calling your congressmen, let them know that this is an issue that could win your vote.

I got through to two of my three representatives listed on SaveNetRadio.org. The first in the list had a busy signal, so maybe he's getting flooded with calls *crosses his fingers*

The two offices I did get a hold of stated that the representatives had not taken a stance on the issue yet, but that they would be happy to pass my message along. To be honest, this is the first time I've called. Feels like a meager effort, but at least I did something. Just wish I could do more... like vote on the issue myself.

Didn't this all happen five years ago? Somafm went away for some royalty reason. Then a few years later everything was fine again. What's different this time around?

You can read about what happened in 2002 on their website. Basically, the record companies demanded $500 per day from SomaFM. SomaFM and its listeners responded by encouraging Congress to pass the Small Webcasters Amendment Act which reduced the royalty rates to a more manageable $2000 to $5000 per year.

What is different now is ... well, not much I suppose. It would seem that the recording industry is trying once again to kill internet radio by influencing the Copyright Royalty Board to hike the royalty rates by astronomical amounts.

This current plan to hike royalty rates would be apocalyptic for internet radio. Its retroactive effect alone (back to January 1, 2006) would bankrupt all but the huge players.

Here are some useful sites where you can find out what you can do. If nothing else, contact your congressional representatives and tell them to save internet radio by sponsoring the Internet Radio Equality Act.

http://www.savenetradio.org/
http://www.savenetradio.org/act_now/index.html
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/callalert /index.tt?alertid=9731806

This current plan to hike royalty rates would be apocalyptic for internet radio. Its retroactive effect alone (back to January 1, 2006) would bankrupt all but the huge players.

Here are some useful sites where you can find out what you can do. If nothing else, contact your congressional representatives and tell them to save internet radio by sponsoring the Internet Radio Equality Act.

http://www.savenetradio.org/
http://www.savenetradio.org/act_now/index.html
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/callalert /index.tt?alertid=9731806

Since April 16th. http://www.savenetradio.org/latest_news/index.html

Important to clarify the situation re Net radio's request to Congress -- they are in fact asking that rates be rolled back to previously agreed up per-station rates, rather then using this new per-track-per-listener formulation. They're certainly not asking for a "zero royalty rate," though it would in fact be fairer. (And over-the-air stations, frankly, should have been fighting for the Net radio stations' zero-royalty rates all along, since only an idiot didn't see this RIAA move coming -- the performers, or the performers' reps, have ben sulking for DECADES about the writers getting paid and not the performers. But that would require senses of both responsibility and history from the likes of Clear Channel, and, well...)

The bipartisan Net-radio proposal is BTW known as the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007; you can read the House version and the Senate version. You can follow the whole saga and tell your Congresscritter what you think at savenetradio.org.

The RIAA's member labels already collect royalties for songs played on the radio. Radio is not exempt from those royalties - in fact, they usually make up the majority of the income a recording produces, now that songs get played over and over, forever, in our pop/classic corporate "rock" broadcast culture.

Those "performance" royalties are collected by whichever agency represents an artist who wrote the songs: BMI, ASCAP are the biggest, the remaining <10% of artists are represented by a couple of "big little" agencies, and then a bunch of really little ones. But those agencies are at least as corrupt as the record labels which collect sales income, then find every excuse to count "expenses" before returning the minimum (if any) share of "profit" to the artists who made the record. Very little of the performance royalty is paid to the artists, and the return to them is pretty random.

This formula is also worked against the rounding effect of the sampling for determining royalty payments: either one "representative" hour a day, or one "representative" day a week is usually used, which of course means only the most popular artists have a chance of registering in a sample and getting paid. Since the most popular artists get played so much more (the same goddamn song, year after year, too), only the biggest artists get cut in. To make it even worse, the distribution of top artists in the "random" sample is used to divide the royalty collected from radio stations which pay a subscription fee as if they're playing every artist. So in effect those biggest artists are collecting the share of the littler artists who do get played, but who get rounded down. Those "rarities" and "from the vault's back wall" bands they're playing to keep you listening to the classic rock station so it sounds "fresh", with occasional "new" (30 year old) songs, all get lost in the rounding down of the sampling process. So their most valuable songs return the least share of the royalties to their artists.

And of course the BMI/ASCAP/etc collection agencies just underreport plays and percentages to the artists. I have friends in bands which registered half their artists with BMI, the other half with ASCAP, to see which paid better. For some bands BMI paid their half more, for other bands ASCAP paid their half more, sometimes 5-10x different, when they should all have paid the same. Then, since artists are flaky and move around & disappear on benders (or OD), the agencies often collect money they "don't know how to pay", so they just keep it. This also happens whenever there's the slightest possibility that a contract disagreement or unknown might allow different interpretations of how much should go in the check.

All of those scams are also fed back into the radio station's decicisions of how much to play (and promote) which songs. Since there's money attached, money gets spent on those deciders to influence which songs are played when. And to influence which "random" hour/day is picked to report who gets how much.

So now the RIAA wants to get in on the act. And of course they'll charge (mostly independent) streaming radio station even more than they charge (nearly all corporate) broadcast radio stations. Right when the Copyright Office has just rocketed already insane streaming royalties through the roof, threatening the entire noncommercial and small webcaster industry segments.

Broadcast radio already sucks worse than ever. Streaming was the only hope for people to escape the corporate noose in realtime and archived media delivery. Right as streaming was starting to get a hold in video, presenting an on-demand P2P (or communities small to large) world of all media, both kinds of royalties got jacked up to destroy the free publishers. Right as cameraphones also have the bandwidth (and caches) to play streaming radio, and even upload "news from the street", the media mainstream corporate got yet another life extension from the government, killing

It seems that you and another poster discuss the issue as if only music is broadcast over the Internet (such as public affairs)

Perhaps that's just the American bias of /..

Big box retailers are interested in volume and marginal pricing. The range of music they pick, the bands that get prominent shelf space and the albums that appear in the advertising will all be driven by the bottom line.

No - if we want diverse musical forms to survive the big box stores, it will be despite them, not because of them.

Small dealers will help - but at best they can only provide small niche markets. Internet sites tied to such retailers may help a lot. For me though, the future of diverse music depends on the internet providing the resources to find out about less known bands and albums and hear stuff I can't hear on the radio. But right now, the Internet Radio station is on the brink of an extinction event. So support Save Net Radio before it really is too late.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

is here. Radio Paradise and SomaFM are pretty much all that gets played in our house and in my car, via iPod. This really sucks.

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

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

The DJ of my favorite internet radio stations, Radio Paradise, has a very informative blog concerning this issue.

Also, if you're interested in taking action, check out Save Net Radio.