Slashdot Mirror
Webcasters Have To Pay
penguinradio writes "News.com is reporting that the Copyright office is going to require webcasters to pay fees for the songs they choose to play over the net. This has been a grey area of law for some time, but now it seems that this decision will move the case into the courts (where both sides were hesitant to enter for fear of losing the case)." Basically, this means that radio stations have to be pay an additional fee to broadcast over the Internet, as well as their current payment for "on-air" broadcasting.
The question you should be asking yourself is: how much freedom can they take from you before you will stop obeying them?
I'm not sure the DMCA so much changes the rules, as it applies the old rules to the new, digital, age.
On-air radio stations are not technically "exempt" from paying the record companies for anything more than buying the album. On-air radio stations don't have to pay the the copyright holders (almost always the record companies) anything because they do not copy the copyrighted work. The fees on-air radio stations pay to ASCAP and BMI are for performance of the copyrighted works.
Unfortunately, the only way internet radio stations can perform a copyrighted work is to transmit a copy to every computer "listening" to the work. A perfect, digital copy that you can retain and play as many times as you want, at your leisure. It is the copying done by internet radio stations, which is not done by on-air radio stations, that make internet radio stations liable to record companies.
Further, from the viewpoint of the record companies, play of a record by an on-air radio station serves only to stimulate album sales. Very, very few people record songs off of the radio instead of buying the album.
The relationship between internet radio and album sales is much more complex. Some people will listen to an internet radio broadcast and then purchase the album. However, others will simply retain the mp3 (or other digital format) file to play at their leisure. This relationship will be come much more problematic as portable, auto, and home MP3 players become more common.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
The rub is that this problem -- that Internet users might save their digital stream and thereby copy the music -- is exactly the same problem that is faced by broadcasters! As a teenager, I certainly took great delight in compiling off-the-air cassettes of all my favorite songs. What's different? As near as I can tell, nada.
I have a question. If we keep allowing the big media companies to make laws (OK, so this is a rule that isn't yet a law, but lets face it, with enough money you can push through any law you want) at what point do independent bands have to start paying a "you should use us" fee for publishing their music without using the traditional methods.
Example: I and my band record our music in my home studio. We then buy CDRs and a good quality CD printer (they aren't that expensive) for the labels on the CD and print out CD covers for the jewel case. We make our music available for download off the net, or available on CDR for a small fee (less than standard priced CDs). Now it would be unimaginable for the RIAA to come to us and say, "You have to pay us a fee because you aren't using us as a distribution method." But the way I see things going right now, I fear that it won't be long before this happens. Are people really going to let that happen? Or is my paranoia getting the best of me?
I really don't fully understand how the currently entrenched companies think that every new distribution method that comes up has to be under their control, but it seems that "the law" backs them up in this. Why? Why do the controllers of the current method of distribution have to have control of all future developments for distribution? As an independant musician, this sort of thing just scares the hell out of me.
Come on people, the RIAA didn't invent music, and they sure as hell didn't invent the ability to enjoy music. So why should they always be in control of all distrobution methods?
Sorry, but this angers and frightens me like you would not believe.
------------
It doesn't seem clear why these broadcasters should pay a premium over the normal on-air fees. The only reason I can think of is that, theoretically at least, they could have a much larger audience than your average crappy radio station.
Any thoughts? (Apart from the standard capitalist running dogs milking the pennies from the poorest, etc etc)
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
I used to work for a streaming provider that streamed both radio stations and their own in house stations, and I always wondered why real radio stations had to pay every time they played a song and the streaming providers didn't. That looked like an advantage to the streaming companies. Now they are trying to level the playing field. Even with the advantages of not paying the royalties the streaming companies couldn't stay alive though.
The limitations until recently were twofold. Up until the popularisation of the Internet, there was no legal way of broadcasting without Government permission - permission that generally took the form of buying a small slice of a limited resource in a particular area. That restriction has been swept away by the Internet (kindof, still hard to broadcast to somebody's car stereo at the moment, but with Satellite IP, maybe that will change in time.)
The other is the lack of a legal way of making use of third party content. Until this case, you would have to negotiate directly with every third party content supplier (ie artist/agent/publisher, etc), or else generate the whole of the content of your station yourself.
Now this is changing. The copyright office is implying, though through a method that might at first seem to be negative to the status quo, that it's going to drop the latter restriction. Henceforth there will be a mechanism by which you can pay for third party content to play on your "radio" station.
It's not as great, to a publisher, as getting it for free, but getting it for free was never legal to begin with. The major issue now is for webcasters to find financial models that allow them to pay those funds - something which may, at first, seem to be yet another hassle, but given the fact that a good broadband connection capable of hosting webcasting services, already puts a price on webcasting capabilities, anyone who wants to do this is going to have to work out a source of funding anyway.
Across the Internet, web banners and micropayment services such as the infamous adult check systems, are already being used to make credible economic models available to people who want to put out their own sites. Perhaps ultimately, the same types of resource will be made available to people who want to run their own, private, amateur broadcasting services. One can but hope.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I work for a college radio station that also broadcasts on the Internet, so I've been watching this area closely. Radio stations already pay royalties to the songwriters, mostly through the two organizations ASCAP and BMI. But they do not have to pay royalties to the performers of the music, whose copyright is usually held by a record label. Live broadcast is considered a performance itself, so the people who performed on the recording don't get paid for our live "performance" of their music.
Now, with Internet broadcast we are still required to pay fees to the songwriters through ASCAP and BMI. But what is at dispute here is whether we now have to pay fees to the record labels as well. Of course, the RIAA says we should pay. They are trying desparately to convince Congress that Internet broadcast is not the same as airwave broadcast, since it is essentially "copying" digital data from one computer to another. NAB, the national association of broadcasters, is the most outspoken group against this legislation, unsurprisingly. Their stance is that Internet radio should fall under the same laws as broadcast radio.
The issue is not as black and white as both sides claim. What if I set up a server on the Internet to stream my favorite mp3's to all my friends, where they can save them on their computers. If I claim I am just an "Internet radio" station, then I have used a loophole to get around my blatant copyright infringement. I don't have a good answer for what should be done in cases like that. Comments?
Lets say that I stream an mp3 playlist from the media server in my living room to a workstation in the garage so that I can listen to my music while I fix my car. Is that an internet broadcast?
What if I pick up the stream on my workstation at work? Is it only an "Internet Broadcast" if I share it with my friends? I can give my CD to a friend without violating the law. How is this different?
I wish the RIAA would concentrate their efforts on seeking restitution for commercial piracy that has actually occurred instead of trying to do an end-run on our civil liberties in advance of any violation of the law. They seem to hold the mistaken belief that, left to our own devices, we will all become criminals at the first opportunity.
I am innocent of bringing down the record industry until proven guilty!
This has no effect on your ability to operate a "radio" station on the internet. You are quite free to jabber endlessly into a mic and stream that out to the masses. You are free to line up several hosts and thereby have a 24-7 operation. You are free to offer a webcam into the studio. You are free to host live performance of original music. You are free to play music by artists who have retained control of their music and give you permission to play it without royalty. Freedom impaired? Not at all.
As for "legitimate" radio stations having to pay twice. Well, in effect they are operating two stations, one on the radio and one on the internet. If they use central recording, and feeds to play the same songs on multiple radio stations in different cities, do you think they end up paying only once for that (many stations and national shows like Top-40 work this way)? Is this going to affect big stations, most of whom are owned by the media conglomerates anyway? No. Is this going to hurt small community stations and college stations? Maybe. But again. They are effectively creating two broadcasts, so I don't see this as a problem.
I do not have a signature
The article is not clear on the motives of the copyright office. Are they really worried about internet-only radio stations that currently don't pay BMI and ASCAP. Could this really just be a play for dominance by existing radio stations who seek to protect their dominant position. Having a radio station is expensive and radio is risk adverse. It seems that maybe they and the record companies are just protecting the status quo here...
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
How much freedom can they take from us before it becomes too much?
--brian
If you do, someone's paying the radio station to play the ads.
Teh radio station is making money off the webcast, so obviously, the recording industry will want their share, too.
Of course, when you listen to a webcast from 2000 miles away, most ads aren't very useful. Gee, free hot dogs for the kiddies at a used car lot, I only have to drive 2000 miles to get them.
As a recording artist myself, whose work is probably more likely to get played on internet radio than on real-life radio, my question is this: do the artists see any of this extra 'air' charge?
If so, it's potentially justifiable, for the vast increase in availability of the artist's work.
If not, it's another unjustifiable move from "the man".
Anyone got any ideas?
arnald
tcd004
Tired of election coverage?
How about some UNCOVERAGE!