Slashdot Mirror
Webcasting and the DMCA
nknouf writes: "A recent article on Salon talks about how college radio stations that webcast could face fee increases from $623/year to $10,000 to $20,000 per year. What's more interesting is information that Congress is considering a bill called the Music On-Line Competition Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. The bill aims to "break the hammerlock the recording industry has over music distribution." My favorite quote, from Rep. Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.""
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.
How many people could these webcasters REALLY reach? If everyone in LA listens to a station at once that's fine, and you have millions of listeners - but since the practical reality of many webcasts is one of limited bandwith, perhaps pricing (if any) should be reflected based on how many simultaneous users could really listen at once.
The other thing to consider is how many of the artists a station is playing are really going to get a piece of that ASCAP pie. If all you're playing is experiminetal stuff, why should ASCAP get anything from you? How about a pool composed of exactly the artists played, that seems a lot more fair.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
No Laughing Allowed!
Hell with that.
We need a "Music Competition Act." On-line, off-line, on-air, whatever: the problem is that the music mafia -- let's start calling them by their true name -- have their greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels? It's because they want ownership of the music they create, control over the production process, and aren't willing to whore themselves out to the mob any longer.
The only ones who stick with the bigname labels seem to be the ones that are just manufactured puppet bands: the boy/girl bands that pump out mindless pap for the gullible teenage market. Without a mobster's hand up their ass, making them perform their puppet moves, these glam-bands wouldn't be able to make a living wage, so they're forced to stick with their masters.
But there are legitimate artists who have been strung up by the puppeteers. Binding contracts that guarantee their whoredom for many years, loss of ownership of image and name, mounting debt because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
We need a Music Competition Act that cuts the hands off the music mafia. It's currently not plausible, if not completely impossible, to break into the music market without sponsorship of the mafiasio. Let's change that. Let's make it so that artists don't have to whore themselves to make a buck.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I recently ran into this snag about 2 months ago. My band was playing live on a community radio station in St. Louis (www.kdhx.org) and of course I wanted our fans and friends of mine to listen in, so I sent them I link to the radio station. I remembered the radio station had a live web stream and figured listing online was the easiest thing to do.
As I came to find out, the radio station recently (Like 2 weeks before hand) was forced to shut down their web-stream (a shoutcast server) because the RIAA had threatened to sue them unless the station paid the RIAA some obscene amount of cash (around 500K) to comply with this new charge thanks to the DMCA.
So let's think about this for a second -- My band (unsigned) cannot be heard by our fans because the RIAA thinks they should be getting money from music streams over the internet, in turn, my band playing (not signed to an RIAA partnered label).
What pisses me off the most is comments about the artist deserving the cash, yadda yadda yadda, so the RIAA somehow deserves this cash. That's a bunch of horseshit. I'm obviously not receiving any of this cash for my records being played on the radio, nor my live performances on a station.
In case you didn't know, the RIAA's been screwing the independent musician for DECADES. Take recording for an example: most independent musicians use small 4-track cassette based recorders to put record their music to sell at shows, give to stations, etc. But did you know, ALL blank cassette tapes have a RIAA tax attached to them? So when I buy a blank tape, not to copy a RIAA CD, but to record myself, I give the RIAA around 10%-30% of what I paid for the tape! To record *MY* music. Now they want to start taxing CD-R's, and hardrives. Go to hell guys.
Listen, I'm pleading with all of you -- if this stuff makes you angry, don't just boycott RIAA bands, support non-signed/non-RIAA bands! You don't even have to buy stuff, just go to shows, download free mp3's, anything -- just give the underdogs a chance. It's the last thing the RIAA wants. It's not about controlling their copyrighted materials, it's about controlling music -- who hears it, and what they hear.
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
Jamie Zawinski wrote a most informative rant on the labyrinthine regulations and pitfalls that potentially face anyone wishing to Webcast. As he owns and operates the DNA Lounge nightclub in San Francisco, which does its own share of Webcasting, the man has definitely done his homework. Definitely worth a read.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I live in VA. Rick Bouchers home state and have spoken with him about MOCA. While the RIAA and the recording labels spend millions to buy the congress, one thing has been emerging.
Your Congressperson and Senators need your vote MORE than they need the RIAA cash. Washington is about maintaining power, without the votes there is no cash, no lunches, no trips, no chance to make a difference. Make it clear to your congressperson that you support MOCA and as a consitutant of his you expect him to vote accordingly, not that of special interest groups such as the RIAA.
The text of the Music Online Competition Act can be Found Here . The MOCA is a even handed piece of legislation the strives to fix some of the roadblocks brought about by the DMCA, but faces a uphill battle. Congress is reading their e-mail these days, write, specify the topic in the subject line Music Online Competition Act, and as much as it pains you be nice. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
you should read your diffs before posting them.
EXEMPTION.--Section 110(7) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking "(7)" and inserting "(7)(A)"
(2) by striking "by a vending establishment" and inserting "or of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or in a physical vending establishment"...
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
If your bill is unreadable, the reviewer is less likely to catch bugs, accidental loopholes, or unintentional stray changes from another bill you were working on in the same tree. Of course, if the bill contains "accidental" loopholes and "unintentional" stray changes (note scare quotes), I suppose it makes sense to try obfuscate your bill, but don't whine when the reviewer says "please attach a unified diff".
The shareholder is always right.