Copyright Office Proposes Webcasting Regs

deadsquid writes: "Streaming to a desktop near you, the death knell of online radio stations. Continuing to pave the money trail the RIAA and others claim to be theirs and theirs alone, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel has released their ideas on what webcasters should pay to re-broadcast copyrighted material over the Internet. A good summary can be found at the Radio and Internet Newsletter, which provides an outline of what hoops net broadcasters must jump through, in addition to what they must pay. To say the rates are ridiculous is an understatement, and the amount of information required from the broadcaster to the copyright holder is ludicrous. The cost of bandwidth and delivery is already high enough, and this ruling, if upheld, kinda removes any hope of surmounting operating costs and continuing on. " Webcasters will have to report a great deal of information about their listeners according to the reporting requirements that the Copyright Office has proposed.

I thought I'd just summarize briefly for people who don't follow these issues:

Copyright law gives the record companies the right to prevent others from making copies of "their" music, except in certain cases where there is a "compulsory license" written into the law. In these cases, the record companies can't prevent anyone from using "their" music, but there is a mandatory fee that they must get paid. This "compulsory license" scheme was meant to keep the music industry from taking over the radio industry by simply refusing to license their music to certain radio stations (ones that didn't play ball, naturally). The U.S. Copyright Office sets the fees and revises them occasionally.

So the same idea was applied to webcasting music. In theory, this keeps the record companies from eliminating all-but-one or all-but-a-couple of the webcasters - anyone can webcast, you just have to pay the fee. However, if the record industry has too much influence over the process, they might try things like getting "compulsory license" fees set very high, or making sure that the record-keeping requirements are so onerous that it's impossible to comply with them.

In effect, this eliminates the "compulsory license" - because it's economically infeasible to comply with it. Webcasters can still seek individual licenses from the record companies, but this gets back to the original problem - the record companies have no obligation to make life easy for the nascent webcaster.

Comments

Great :^)

[Jeremi]

This is just the impetus Gnutella, Morpheus, Kazaa, and friends need to add anonymous peer-to-peer streaming support :^)

Re:Great :^)

[I Want GNU!]

I'm sorry to say this, as I like the idea of file sharing programs as much as the next guy, but they are usually used without any license at all and are illegal. The RIAA rips off both musicians and their fans, but pirating their music off these programs still rips off the musicians and is just plain wrong.

What we need is a system that rips off neither the musicians nor the fans, not one that promotes illegal activity (yes, there are rightful uses for file sharing programs, but usually they are for illegal music and software and movies, as can be seen by watching incoming searches).

Re:Great :^)

[TheAwfulTruth]

Stealing music is NOT a solution. It makes you just as immoral as they are. There ARE solutions. Try www.ampcast.com The more they tighten the screws the more they should be ignored. If enough people ignored them they'll dry up and float away. If not, screw their product! As an individual you CAN go elsewhere...

Re:Great :^)

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard? Stuff wants to be free, man!

Re:Great :^)

[maxpublic]

This isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement. If you don't know the difference then look it up. The two aren't even close.

Max

Re:Great :^)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but both are against the law.

Re:Great :^)

[Jeremi]

What we need is a system that rips off neither the musicians nor the fans, not one that promotes illegal activity...

Well, maybe... or perhaps we need to redefine what "ripping off" means wrt "intellectual property".

I assert that the advent of cheap PCs on the the Internet changes what "natural rights" people ought to have. I believe that rights can and sometimes should change in response to changes in technology -- the Internet's great gift to humanity is that it makes data sharing as easy as speaking; that advantage outweighs the content producer's disadvantage of having to find a new business model to adapt.

Specifically, people ought to be able to copy any data they want at any time, as long as they are not benefitting commercially from that copying. As for the artists, I think systems like OpenCulture or FairTunes may be the best answer to their problems.

Re:Great :^)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful, and I'm sure the joy of seeing their work spread around the world is an excellent incentive for content producers to, well, produce content. Except for those that needed to be paid to produce or distribute their content. Or those relying on the economies of scale to reduce their production and distribution costs to an affordable level. While I don't know of any content producers that would be left, I'm sure your idea would make the world a better place. Because really, if someone else could produce the content, how hard would it be for you to just make it yourself anytime you needed it?

Re:Great :^)

[Eric E. Coe]

What content are you talking about, the kind that the big-label record companies produce? If that goes the way of the dodo, maybe the overall loss will be small. The superstar system of "pop" music creation is a very recent thing, an artifact of the invention of radio and recording technology. The traditional market of performers is paid live performances. So, the technology changes, and therefore the business model changes.

Re:Great :^)

[zangdesign]

By the way, just what in the hell is a "natural right"? I've seen that term popping up on /. more and more often, but no one has pointed out exactly what a "natural right" is.

I suspect that this is a term invented to cover those things that we think should be rights, but aren't listed in any document anywhere.

Last time I heard, the only rights we had (in the US) were those listed in the Bill of Rights (plus interpretations as according to various courts of law).

Can someone please inform the more ignorant of us what a "natural right" is and give some concrete examples so we know that you're not just blowing smoke up our asses?

[Specifically, people ought to be able to copy any data they want at any time, as long as they are not benefitting commercially from that copying]. Why? If I produce data, why shouldn't I get paid for the effort of assembling, collating, folding, spindling and mutilating it? These are the questions that plague me and no one seems to have a good answer.

Re:Great :^)

[Anonymous Coward]

Content: software, movies, books, music, etc. Anything that requires some kind of effort to produce and can be replicated effortlessly through digital copying. Music is the most likely of those four to survive because as you mentioned, there's demand for live performances. It would be hard to argue that the quantity of music available to you would even be a fraction of what it is now. And even if you don't like the crap the RIAA funds, evidently somebody does because they're buying it. Live performances of movies and books are considerably less polished, not nearly as convenient, and more expensive. I don't know of any live software equivalent except for "pencil and paper". There really is no alternative business model that gives us, consumers, as good a product as cheaply.

Re:Great :^)

[the_2nd_coming]

well, the content providers of yor had a business because there was a need for some one to distribute the content.......well, as you said, the internet makes data sharing as easy as talking, woops....no more business modle.

Re:Great :^)

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States sometime.

Re:Great :^)

[Seanasy]

By the way, just what in the hell is a "natural right"?

Get an education. If you grew in the U.S.A. you need to go back to grade school and enroll in a Social Studies class.

Can someone please inform the more ignorant of us what a "natural right" is and give some concrete examples so we know that you're not just blowing smoke up our asses?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sorry for the flame but you really are ignorant. The entire Bill of Rights (BoR) is based on the idea of natural rights. The BoR takes the idea of natural rights and codifies for practical use in a society.

See also:

• The Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams
• natural rights,The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.2001.

Re:Great :^)

[Lonath]

I assert that the advent of cheap PCs on the the Internet changes what "natural rights" people ought to have.

The "content" industry agrees with you. That's why they're trying to make computers illegal. =D

Re:Great :^)

[WaktONE]

So, which of those, BoR rights does stealing others work fall under? The "pursuit of happiness"? I don't see the argument here. It boils down to a matter of, supply and demand. If you feel the RIAA, record companies, artists, content creators are charging to much for their intellectual property....DON'T BUY IT! But, don't steal it either. If enough people don't pay the demanded cash, the price will have to go down or the creators don't have a business. Seems simple to me.

Re:Great :^)

[clone304]

The concept of "natural rights" is based on the theory that humans do not need a "government" to tell them what their rights are. The Bill of Rights is actually built on top of this principle. In fact at the time that the Bill of Rights was created there was much debate over whether the codifying of those rights was necessary or even proper. One of the arguments against codifying them into a "Bill of Rights" is that it would give people the impression that it was the "Bill of Rights" itself which conferred those rights onto the people of this country, when in fact the people that were righting the Bill of Rights believed that those rights were natural and self-evident and could not be conferred by a silly little piece of paper or act of government. However, eventually consensus was reached that it was safer to codify these rights into law in order to safeguard them than to assume that people would not allow them to be violated otherwise. So, you see the Bill of Rights has, at least partially, served its purpose in safeguarding respect for those "natural rights" in this society. However, it has also given people the impression, as was feared, and as you demonstrated, that the Bill of Rights created those rights instead of the way they felt it really was, which is that the "natural rights" created the Bill. Just a slight difference in perspective I guess, but an important one.

Whether "natural rights" exist or not is still a subject of debate. The Chinese government seems to think that they don't, and it's hard to prove that they're wrong. But, when you look at how they treat their citizens, it does seem wrong, from our perspective. It seems like a violation of what is "right". Which is the basis for the acknowledgement that there are things that are naturally right and wrong. Which is the basis for the concept of a natural right.

You can buy it or not. But that's the gist of it.

Re:Great :^)

[clone304]

Calm down, nobody's "stealing" anything. Instead, why don't you suggest that all of the copyright violaters out there send a tip to their favorite artists. Hrm, well maybe that is what you were trying to suggest. I agree. Let's be preemptive and negate the necessity for all this fighting and just cut the industry out of the loop.

Re:Great :^)

[zangdesign]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Rights (as I understand) are granted by a more powerful entity to a less-powerful entity. In other words, the government allows that people have certain rights to vote, assemble, speak, etc., but those rights can be retracted at any given time. Here in the US that would be problematic, at best. Other countries have more or less rights due to history and philosophy and it is easier to grant or deny those rights at will.

I view rights as a human construct, something we created to share power between government and the governed. Without a more powerful entity to grant rights to the lesser entity, those rights do not exist and we live in a state of anarchy. So I still don't buy the argument of natural rights.

Now, that power can be defined many ways. For instance, say I own land and you don't. I have a power that you don't, so I can grant you the right to use that land. This is not a natural right - it is a granted right that I allow you to exercise. And it only exists because I have something that you don't.

So, I have a little better understanding of "natural rights" now, you asshole, but I still don't buy it.

Re:Great :^)

[Seanasy]

First off I apologize for the flame, nothing personal. I just get frutrated when people really don't understand some of the basics tenets that this country was founded on. I really want you to understand...

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Rights (as I understand) are granted by a more powerful entity to a less-powerful entity.

You understand incorrectly if you're referring to the political system of the U.S.A. If it's your opinion that that's what rights should be then fine.

In other words, the government allows that people have certain rights to vote, assemble, speak, etc., but those rights can be retracted at any given time.

Go back to the quote "We hold these truths to be self-evident etc." The rights exist in the first place. The government is given permission by the people to restrict rights under certain circumstances. The government get its rights from the people not the other way around. This is the foundation of our form of government. Read the Bill of Rights. It doesn't grant rights to the people it sets limits on the government ensuring the rights of the people -- the rights that exist naturally. Those rights cannot be retracted at any time. The government has to have a damn good reason to deny anyone their rights.

I view rights as a human construct, something we created to share power between government and the governed. Without a more powerful entity to grant rights to the lesser entity, those rights do not exist and we live in a state of anarchy. So I still don't buy the argument of natural rights.

You are entitled to your own view of rights. But, this country, its Constitution and laws are based on the concept of natural rights. That's not my opinion, it's historical fact.

Your original post questioned whether people were "blowing smoke up your ass" with the term natural rights. They weren't. It is a well established political philosophy that is the backbone of this nation and many others.

So, I have a little better understanding of "natural rights" now, you asshole, but I still don't buy it.

I encourage you to read up on John Locke to get a better understanding of natural rights.

Re:Great :^)

[cipherPoet]

A "natural right" or "right" is, in its most basic form, a condition of existence. The concept of property rights (and thus, intellectual property rights) springs from a line of logic that goes something like this:

Man has the right to exist (since a right is a condition of existene), thus man has the right to live (since a man must live to exist).

Man is a conscious being and has a mind. It is by his mind that a man lives. (In order to get food or shelter or anything, he *must* choose to think and choose to act; he is not like an animal in this respect -- for instance, he doesn't have the instinct to kill or find his own food; he must learn to do it.) Therefore man has the right to use his mind. As a corollary, since thinking is a volitional act, man has the right not to think or act under coersion (force), as a man cannot properly think or act when he has no choice of what to think or do.

Since man must use his mind to live, he must be able to keep the product of his mind and effort. (If he is the one who thinks and decides to find his food, he has the right to keep that food.) A man is, therefore, not the servant of others; his mind can serve him (fundamentally) alone, the benefits of his knowledge to others notwithstanding. Therefore, a man has the right to his own (earned) wealth, thus to his own (earned) property. (You'll notice that if a man does not have a right to his property, he does not have the right to live.) As a corollary to this, another man does *not* have the right to the man's mind or his property. Saying otherwise would make the first man the second man's slave and ignore the freedom required for the first man to think and act and produce.

Intellectual property (IP) rights are merely an application of property rights. Man has the right to keep the product of his mind. This applies to his physical property as well as his IP.

So you see how man's "natural rights" are not changed by technology. Why? Technology does not change the nature of reality, reality itself, or man's nature. Technology is, in fact, a blatant demonstration of man's nature.

I think I should note also the consumer of a product has the rights of a consumer, not of a producer. With physical products, the consumer buys a product and owns that individual product -- but (unless he actually does buy the idea) he does not purchase the idea for the product. Likewise, he does not purchase the actual software or music or novel when he buys a copy of it. The owner (be it the author, the producer, the performer, etc.) of the IP still owns the song. The consumer usually buys an implicit or explicit license (and possibly the actual medium, like the CD or videotape) to use the IP for his own (or his company's, or whomever's) use.

Now if the owner *owns* the IP, and the licensee has the right not to be forced to purchase a license to the IP, the owner can ask whatever-the-hell he wants of the licensee as payment. If the licensee is not willing to pay it, he doesn't have to buy the license.

I can't help but comment that if you follow Richard Stallman's arguments, you will see that his "philosophy" ends in socialism, not in liberty.

I do not have the right to IP that someone else owns. Saying that I do is a contradiction. It assumes that the author of the IP is my slave but still did not create the IP under coersion. It ignores the source of all property and wealth: man, and delegates it to the status of "natural resource", or Stallman's favorite euphemism, "information." Stallman completely ignores the source of IP and thus relegates all producers, authors, composers, etc. to the position of slaves.

If you want to understand individual rights more, I would direct you to objectivism.org.

Re:Great :^)

[cipherPoet]

Unfortunately, even the Founders and authors of the Constitution did not fully understand what rights were. They said that people were "endowed by their Creator" with rights, but I don't even think they meant this, precisely.

Being theists (of some variation) they believed that man was created by God and that by nature of that creation -- by nature of being a man -- they had rights. If they were to generalize further, they would have realized that man has rights b/c rights are what he requires to exist, thus to live, thus to think, thus to own property, thus to be free from coersion.

People still don't realize this today. They think people have rights to the minds of others. They think that groups of people have rights (only individuals have rights). They think people have economic rights (your "right" to a job or to health care can only negate the individual rights of those who provide you a job or a health care). And if politicians think that we have a right to health care b/c we pay taxes, then that isn't a right, it's a purchased service.

Owners of music have the right to sell their music to whomever they want, under any license they want. If people don't buy their music for any reason, owners are free to change the price or license restrictions. A music consumer has no rights to that music except to listen to it, to use or destroy the medium he may have bought with it (e.g., a CD), and to do anything else his license permits him.

An owner of some music has every right to say whom he will allow to rebroadcast his music and under what terms. If he allows no one to broadcast it, then he will receive no royalties. Simple as that. It is only a matter of value-for-value trade.

Re:Great :^)

[Seanasy]

Unfortunately, even the Founders and authors of the Constitution did not fully understand what rights were. They said that people were "endowed by their Creator" with rights, but I don't even think they meant this, precisely.

Being theists (of some variation) they believed that man was created by God and that by nature of that creation -- by nature of being a man -- they had rights.

They had a very clear understanding of what rights are, they believed in natural rights. And, no, they were not all theists. I believe they used the term Creator because it doesn't necessarily imply a god let alone a specific god.

If they were to generalize further, they would have realized that man has rights b/c rights are what he requires to exist, thus to live, thus to think, thus to own property, thus to be free from coersion.

They did. This is the idea behind natural rights.

People still don't realize this today. They think people have rights to the minds of others. They think that groups of people have rights (only individuals have rights). They think people have economic rights (your "right" to a job or to health care can only negate the individual rights of those who provide you a job or a health care). And if politicians think that we have a right to health care b/c we pay taxes, then that isn't a right, it's a purchased service.

I mostly agree with you here.

Owners of music have the right to sell their music to whomever they want, under any license they want. If people don't buy their music for any reason, owners are free to change the price or license restrictions. A music consumer has no rights to that music except to listen to it, to use or destroy the medium he may have bought with it (e.g., a CD), and to do anything else his license permits him. An owner of some music has every right to say whom he will allow to rebroadcast his music and under what terms. If he allows no one to broadcast it, then he will receive no royalties. Simple as that. It is only a matter of value-for-value trade.

See, here's the problem. Copyright isn't about what consumers can do with someone else's right. Creators of a copyrightable work do not naturally have any special rights to that work. Let me stress that:


Creators of a copyrightable work do not naturally have any special rights to that work.

Special rights (copyright) are granted to them through a social contract (i.e. a law). In other words, we (you, me and everybody else in this country) agree that it is of benefit to society to grant copyrights to creators of certain works in order to foster that type of work. Copyrights can be taken away, sold or thrown out. The (natural) right to life, for example, can't be taken away (murder), sold (slavery) or thrown out (suicide).

All of the rights that you list for an owner of a piece of music are rights that have been granted him by his fellow man. We, as a society, can decide he shouldn't get any special rights to that music.

Companies, not creators of copyrightable works, are abusing the copyright system for monetary gain and noone is doing anything to stop them. It's time to rework the copyright laws of this country.

Re:Great :^)

[rweir]

Interestingly enough, one of the rights not listed in American Bill of Rights is the right to life; one that nearly every country in the world respects, aside from the US and China.

Re:Great :^)

[cipherPoet]

They had a very clear understanding of what rights are, they believed in natural rights. And, no, they were not all theists. I believe they used the term Creator because it doesn't necessarily imply a god [sic] let alone a specific god.

Urm, my point was that they did not have a fundamental understanding of what rights are. The philosophical connection between rights and existence (the former being conditions of the latter) was not made until the twentieth century. The fact that they referred to a Creator and thus latched on to the common fallacy that a mystical being gives one rights is proof of this.

And yes, "Creator" implies a God. What other being is (hypothetically) capable of creating the universe and every man? And yes, they weren't all Christians, but they were mostly theists.

Creators of a copyrightable work do not naturally have any special rights to that work.

Why? Why? Why? You say this as if it's a fact when it directly follows from the fact that if a man has a right to own the effort of his mind (and thus his physcial property, for instance), then he has a right to his "intellectual" property or ideas. He has every right to keep them to himself, to sell a license to them, or to sell them outright. No, you say? How else would you get his ideas except by force? And what is force but the violation of a man's most fundamental right to be free from force and coersion?

Do you see the contradictions you run into here? I suppose you may not care. "Social contract" theories always end in relativism and thus an acceptance of contradictions as being valid.

By your logic, if a man's right to his IP is merely "granted him by his fellow man," then who grants him his right to his wealth? Who grants him his right to his property? Who grants him his right to his own life? His "fellow man"? Who is his fellow man? There is no such thing . Mankind does not operate in consensuses. Someone always disagrees. What else? Mob rule? Mob rule is such as a government or society goes when it lives by majority rule without thought for the minority (and thus the smallest and most important minority: the individual). Does the majority rule with no checks?

No, you see, the social contract theory is a bunch of hogwash. There is no "fellow man" or "public" except the summation of the individuals who make up that public. Neither God, nor the government, nor my "fellow man" give the individual man his rights. He has those rights by his nature -- as conditions of his existence.

If you take away his IP rights, you take away his right to life. It's a delicate stack of cards -- grounded in logic -- and logic never allows contradictions to exist.

Companies, not creators of copyrightable works, are abusing the copyright system for monetary gain and noone [sic] is doing anything to stop them.

Who owns the copyright to anything by nature? The author: the person who created the idea or the work. Sometimes this is multiple people, sure. But the fact exists that many authors/creators nowadays would rather sell their copyright outright to a company (usually in exchange for employment). That is their right. You have no right to make any claim on any IP that is not yours. It is not yours, and if you do not want it or cannot afford it, then do not buy/license it. It is not your right to have anyone else's property. When a company who owns a copyright says they want to sell the thing for $80 x 10^24, that's their business. I'm not forced to buy it, no matter how good it is. In fact, the only societies where I am forced to buy them are fascist, socialist, or communist.

As if this is anything new

[Sir Homer]

The content holders will try to get every last cent they "rightfuly own". I doubt most of the minor broadcasters will even pay attension to this.

Lets not forget

[cr@ckwhore]

Lets not forget that radio was the ultimate source of creation of the RIAA. I'm sick of hearing about this crap. Streaming audio, and other forms of audio delivery over the internet, is the future of broadcasting. The quality isn't too bad now, and is going to get better over time as the technology improves, just as radio did in its distant past. I'm finally convinced that the RIAA is nothing but a roadblock on the highway of progress.

Will somebody please move these retards out of the way, so we can finally move along?

Re:Lets not forget

[I Want GNU!]

Unfortunately, it is difficult for the end user to do so, since it isn't their work being ripped off. The artists must stand strong and united and say, "Hey! We made that music, and we don't like how you are restricting it! Why don't we just go and start our own association, one that doesn't put silly restrictions on things and prevent us from getting the fair end of the deal! It's time for the RIAA to stop taking advantage of us, the musicians, and our fans!"

Re:Lets not forget

[Bilestoad]

The RIAA likes things just the way they are - they are making large piles of money. Time and time again we see people saying "but MP3s make me buy more!" - the RIAA doesn't care if they do. They're working on the principle of if it ain't broke don't fix it. It might be the future of broadcasting but the (very effective and strongly lobbied) opposition will only stop when they have worked out how to control internet distribution. It is a roadblock, but it will be removed as soon as they or someone else invents an effective means of controlling access. Don't look forward to that day too much, it will come with plenty of SPAM I bet.

Re:Lets not forget

[Dyolf Knip]

The very concept of an R&D department for a company is odd; "Let's spend money so as to make our current products and procedures obsolete, and then have to spend more money changing the equipment and retraining the employees."

But it never ceases to amaze me the gaping difference between companies like Intel and even Microsoft, whose existence practically centers around the obsolecence of their old products, and the member companies of the RIAA, who not only aren't interested in R&D but rather employ a large and expensive workforce, their lawyers, to try and maintain the technological status quo. An Anti-R&D, you might call it.

Re:Lets not forget

[stubear]

Actually, record labels do have a sort of R&D. It's calles A&R. They go out and look for new talent by scouting local night clubs and favorit watering holes of the college students.

Re:Lets not forget

[Fissure_FS2]

On the other hand, R&D can also be seen as "Let's spend money so as to make our current products obsolete, and then get the end users to pay us when they are basically forced to upgrade."

Re:Lets not forget

[Drinahn]

The quality isn't too bad now

Um, the quality is damn fine. I stream only 128 Kbps mp3 from digitallyimported and have absolutely no probs with quality.
Get decent bandwidth, quality is the least of your worries.

BMI and stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.

As for:

cost of bandwidth and delivery is already high enough, and this ruling, if upheld, kinda removes any hope of surmounting operating costs and continuing on.

Who cares about the high cost of bandwidth and delivery? It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.

Re:BMI and stuff

[xonker]

Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.

Yes, they should have to pay the same fees that radio stations do -- but to make them jump through hoops that radio broadcasters do not have to jump through -- including logging each user, every song/program and such is ridiculous.

It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.

Yes, this is very true. Still, there's no excuse for the restrictions that they're trying to impose on Internet broadcasters.

Radio stations only have to provide playlist information a few days a year (used to mete out royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI to artists) -- they do not have to provide information about every single song they play and they are certainly not responsible for reporting who might be listening to the stations.

These guys are going to be some of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes...

Re:BMI and stuff

[Brian Knotts]

ASCAP and BMI collect royalties for music writers, not record companies.

Radio stations pay these royalties. However, radio stations do not pay these RIAA fees that they are trying to collect from webcasters.

Re:BMI and stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's because webcasting is digital that it is easier to provide full logs of connections and playlists that makes them easy targets.

Radio stations can simply point to a map and say that they are broadcasting to a general area with ratings stating how many listeners there are at any one time. Very vague and based on statistics (not that that's a bad thing). They simply can't be as accurate as the record companies want them to be.

Webcasters, OTOH, can be. They can simply forward the day's logs to the appropriate people with the flick of a button. They can provide accurate and detailed information about what is being played, who is listening, where they are listening from, and how many are listening at any given moment. It isn't difficult in the least to provide this information, and it isn't outrageous to ask for it, IMO.

The web is a worldwide medium, so comparing a webcaster's reach to a radio station's reach doesn't do it justice. I think this is the discrepancy the FCC is trying to remediate with these regulations.

Re:BMI and stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone here is confusing various copyright issues:

A "SONG" that you hear on the radio consists of two separate components (1) a "composition" or the written music/lyrics/etc., and (2) a "sound recording" which is the band's recorded performance.

Ok, the rights in each, for traditional purposes (ie, broadcast radio) work like this:

(1) for the composition, there are "public performance" rights - you have to get a license in order to perform the composition to the public (ie, play it on the radio). Most copyright holders have agreed to let ASCAP/BMI handle these licenses and collect license fees.

(2) for the sound recording, there are no public performance rights, so the sound recording rights holder doesn't get money for airplay (and bar's, clubs, etc.).

Ok, the new law - it doesn't change the above for "traditional" performances, but does change it for digital performances via the internet, etc. (ie "webcasting"). The new law creates a public performance right for the sound recording. Ok, so you have to get a new license if you are a webcaster - from the sound recording rights holder. In other words you have to get the ASCAP/BMI license for the performance of the composition (nothing new, you always did), AND a license for the performance of the sound recording (new).

The new sound recording public performance right/license is subject to a "compulsory" license - ie, the record company (or whoever holds the sound recording rights) can't say no, but they are entitled to the statutory license (the rates in the article). If these rates are too high, of course, the effect is the same - they can say no by making it too expensive for anyone to ever actually do it.

All clear?

Just for some more legal fun, the other older "compulsory" license is different - it applies to the creation of copies of records (cd's, etc.) - in such a case, you would need the permission of both rights holders. This "compulsory" license fee is only for the composition, not the sound recroding. Of course the sound recording rights holder is usually the one making the copies, so it doesn't matter.

Re:BMI and stuff

[xonker]

I think this is the discrepancy the FCC is trying to remediate with these regulations.

The FCC isn't doing this. The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel is doing it at the behest of the RIAA so they can put the screws to Internet broadcasters.

Go read the articles -- they're asking for more information than is easily available. Far more.

Re:BMI and stuff

[Bryan Andersen]

This logging and reporting can be attacked. The same reasonings behind the law that protects one from having one's book and video lending records from being exposed can be used to attack these logging requirements.

Re:BMI and stuff

[xonker]

Indeed they can, and should. However, this is another example of big money riding roughshod over smaller businesses. The RIAA has basically employed a government agency to do its dirty work, and it will require a lot of money in lawyer's fees and quite a bit of time for any case to make its way through the courts. By the time the case is won, appealed, won again, appealed again and so forth the businesses who want to do online broadcasting are going to be dead or near dead while the RIAA has gotten their way.

You could also listen to independent stations

[no reason to be here]

there are stations that play only music from non-major label sources. you just have to look around for them. i like BeOSRadio myself, but that's 'cause i'm Be biased. :)

Re:You could also listen to independent stations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great link (though the 24k one didn't work). Thx. I guess you're Be-ased. :)

There's also http://www.linuxradio.info , the same thing for Linux -- but note that they just started, so they still need more content.

For me it is ok, I dig their selection, specially a russian "no1hing".

I have no relation to them.

Re:You could also listen to independent stations

[ackthpt]

As there are pirate radio stations, expect pirate web stations, since the RIAA seems determined to make it very hard for me or you as a consumer to listen to music made by their slave^H^H^H^H^H artists. Perhaps the RIAA isn't all to blame for this as I expect broadcasters associations might have something to do with this. But it smells like they are in this together and are trying to hold onto a past that's gonna die fitfully, screaming and begging all the way and making sure the consumer has to listen to this ugly swan song.

Re:You could also listen to independent stations

[Anonymous Coward]

try www.digitallyimported.com

Re:You could also listen to independent stations

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at WREK Atlanta, Georgia Tech's radio station. We are an indie stations that takes pride in playing stuff that wouldn't be heard anywhere else on the radio. Even so, since we are a non-profit station, we pay no fee (as far as I know) to the record companies or copyright office, regardless of what we play. Our only records are a simple playlist for every show. Why can't this be the same for the web?

CRAP

[mwalsh21]

How about Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel?

Screw' em I'll

[Anonymous Coward]

just listen to talk radio.

MSFT vs. Slashdot irony

[benjaminbishop]

I saw this a couple of days ago. Can you spot the irony?

Are the fees cumulative?

[mlsemon2]

Hi! I'm just wondering, are webcasting fees cumulative? That is, if the industry as a whole proposes 9% of the proceeds, and the MP3 guys want 2% (3% for MP3Pro), is that a total of 11-12% to stream MP3/MP3Pro? Or are the MP3 patent guys getting a cut of this deal and waiving their separate fee? Wow, talk about being nickel-and-dimed to death...

Next thing you know, Benjamin Franklin's estate will want an extra 5% of the fees for transferring the electrons across the Internet.

Re:Are the fees cumulative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know, Benjamin Franklin's estate will want an extra 5% of the fees for transferring the electrons across the Internet.

I know you are tying to be funny and sarcastic but Ben Franklin did not "invent" electricity. At best he discovered it but even that could be argued.

Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

I'm enjoying this opportunity to get a near-first post to voice my opinion about a topic i hold very near and dear to my heart. It's right there next to my American pride, and my severe freedom-loving disorder.

I think we should not be *discouraged* by this rediculous legislation. The RIAA will continue to trampel our rights to speech and expression as long as they are able to go after every single offender of these new laws. Once we achieve a critical mass greater than their lawyers can handle, they will no longer have the ability to force this legislation onto us.

This strategy of disregard for the American Way will stand as long as there are enough sheep out there buying every product the RIAA supplies them with.

The RIAA is amazingly better than Microsoft at manipulating the public. Not only is the RIAA trampeling our rights with this legislation, but they are raising our children to appreciate tasteless music. Once the youth of America grows up with no taste or preference for music, movies, or art, they will have no cause to stand up for their rights. There will be no reason to fight for the right to broadcast the music they like simply because they will have been trained to not like any particular music. There will be no impetus for creative expression once there is no example of creative expression.

The RIAA must be boycotted on a large scale. Do not buy your children the newest pop-craze. Do not pay royaltees for what is explicitly allowed in the copyright law. Do not succumb to the legislation that seeks to revoke and repeal the rights granted to us by the framers of the constitution.

Since everyone is on the terrorist bandwagon, i'd like to point something out: legislation of this sort (including the DMCA et al) is perhaps more anti-American than any terrorist organization could ever hope to be. While the terrorists are trying to fuck up our system from the outside, corporate interest is SUCCESSFULLY fucking it up from the inside.

THE RIAA IS CAUSING MORE HARM TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE THAN ANY TERRORIST ORGANIZATION COULD EVER DREAM TO.

This all begs the question: if Osama bin Laden is so rich, why doesn't he just hire a few lobbyists. It seems to work pretty well for the RIAA, MPAA, and others.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

Sorry this sounds like such a rant. I really wanted to get it done before everyone and their brother had a chance to troll this story.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this funny?

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

And some pig fucker marked my post as a troll!!!! What's the world come to? First the RIAA attacks my rights, then a /. moderator attacks my opinions.

hahaha, just kidding.

happy hump day.

Btw, i didn't forget to click Post Anonymously this time. :D

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[gotscheme]

Could we be more careful in making such strong assertions? Firstly, WHO's right to speech and expression is being trampled? Generally, artists make little or no profit. If you are saying that since radio stations will be more squeezed by this proposal, causing artists to go out of business, they already have. Since when is the American Way disregarded when the sheep (read: non-Slashdotters?) buy commercialized music, and since when does commercial media make the listeners' preferences tasteless? Look back on the history of music. Many of the songs we may cherish dearly today were commercial successes because of commercial backing. It's fine to boycott RIAA affiliated works, but you will probably punish the artists more than record companies. To say the RIAA is causing more harm to the "American Way of Life" than any terrorist organization is plain stupid. Music is a rather important element of life in the United States, but to many people does not make the core of their existence. Remember that most people only have time for the Top 40. They would rather be engaging in activities other than downloading music or listening to webcasts. I agree the corporate structure in the United States/abroad is getting too strong, and may result in a curtailing of freedoms, but let's remember that devices such as copyright laws, education, telecommunications infrastructure, highways, and the like come with restrictions so that they remain in place to maintain stability.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put the Asian spammers to work streaming music. ;)

ac

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine this guy is from the US. If you can, listen to him and control your corporations.

I feel puzzled by their behaviour. Look at French articles like perfums, wines, champagne... ok, they are great, but how many can buy them? California and Chile started great wineries charging less for good products.

Make music and cinema expensive and well, go the way of the French, selling to less people.

I should just care about my life -- but I just can't see the blind walking to the hole.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

i too would like to know why it's funny.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

I dont think the RIAA is doing all it can for the artists. Actually, i dont think it gives a shit about them. Last time I checked, it was screwing a lot of them too.

I did not equate commercial success with crappy music. You did. I simply said that the music the RIAA is making today is crap.

Finally, music doesn't have to be the core of your life for you to spend time downloading it. And besides, what does it mean to "just have time for the top 40s"? That does not make sense. That implies that people have no taste in music. If that's true, then thank you for proving my point: today's Top 40 is designed to quell a taste for music.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

This all begs the question: if Osama bin Laden is so rich, why doesn't he just hire a few lobbyists.

No, it doesn't beg the question. Damnit, where the hell is the Grammar Nazi when we need him/her?

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Fn0rd]

Yes. How difficult could it become to collect royalties if the service was overseas/off-shore?

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[DavittJPotter]

Alright, I agree with your viewpoints and think you have a great idea.

Now: How do we implement this on a large scale?

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[wfrp01]

Once we achieve a critical mass greater than their lawyers can handle, they will no longer have the ability to force this legislation onto us.

I wish I could agree, but I don't. You could apply that argument to anything that (rightly or wrongly) defines a crime. The threat of possible consequences might prevent this critical mass from appearing. I think that's why these cretins are pushing this agenda - they want to get in front of what will otherwise be an unstoppable juggernaut.

And come on now, the law is the law! That's why nobody ever commits fellatio in Missouri.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

This all begs the question: if Osama bin Laden is so rich, why doesn't he just hire a few lobbyists. It seems to work pretty well for the RIAA, MPAA, and others.

Congress does not write laws just because someone has money and lobbyists. The reason the RIAA, MPAA, et al are so successful, is because they have enlisted the media's support. The media has more influence over the outcome of an election than any lobbyist, filthy rich activist, or corporation (aside from the media itself) could ever dream. The last thing congress would do, is vote contrary to the interests of the media. Lobbying just makes congress aware of your stance, and the effect that stance will have on their self-preservation.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[RazzleFrog]

Isn't Vivendi, the company that owns evil Universal and quickly buying everything else, a French company?

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[RazzleFrog]

enlisted the media support? Do you realize that most mainstream media is already owned by the same companies that are members of the RIAA and/or MPAA? CNN, arguably the most popular news provider, is owned by AOLTW. ABC is owned by Disney. Fox TV is owned obviously by the same company as 20th Century Fox (Newscorp).

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about Vivendi.

French people and France are very cool. In my note above, I didn't mean to make them look bad.

Sorry if it looked like so -- I have great respect for France.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[clone304]

That sounds good until you realize that the RIAA is using the already present civil disobedience as proof that consumers are copyright infringing music junkies that don't care if the artists get paid. The only way the RIAA is ever going to understand that the recording industry in its current form is dying, is when artists take their creations elsewhere and quit bending over for the recording industry ass fuck.

.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[poot_rootbeer]

they are raising our children to appreciate
tasteless music.

Like hell they are. They're simply trying to make as much money as possible. And what they're doing today is no different than what they have ever done -- if it's not Britney Spears, then it's Nirvana, or Michael Jackson, or KISS, or the Beatles, or Elvis Presley, or Frankie Valli.

they will have been trained to not like any
particular music. There will be no impetus for
creative expression once there is no example of
creative expression.

I wasn't aware it was the RIAA's duty to provide any of that. You want to expose your kids to creative expression? TAKE THEM TO A DAMN ART GALLERY. Or a concert hall, or an independent film festival, or whatever. Don't rely on media profiteers to teach your kids culture.

THE RIAA IS CAUSING MORE HARM TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE THAN ANY TERRORIST ORGANIZATION COULD
EVER DREAM TO.

Absurd. Even putting aside the fact that terrorists have caused and will continue you to cause more people to DIE than the RIAA ever will, your statement is utterly absurd.

If your idea of "the American way of life" involves nothing more than being able to make fair-use copies of the music you buy, you might have a point. But look at all the IMPORTANT civil liberties that our own goverment is trying to reduce, in DIRECT reaction to terrorist activity.

Bah.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

Hey buddy, this is slashdot. Not here there is grammar.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

Memes do exist. Tell your friends.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

Well...
You can agree. Here's how... This juggernaut (good word, btw) will exist if the sheep are not enlightened. RIAA is attempting to oppress in just the same way as many third-world dictators are. The sheep see the sacraficial lamb, and get scared. This kinda goes on a tangent from the issue, but is relevant nonetheless. You're absolutely right: the threats of legal action will intimidate many sheep into complacancy. This is inevitable. I did not expect my call to action to awaken every single person who read it; only a few.

Also, while i do like your fellatio-in-Missouri example, it hardly compares to a radio broadcast. Fellatio is (usually) performed in private, however, a radio broadcast is -- by its very nature -- a public performance. It's easy to stay under the radar getting BJs in your own home, car, or alley, but such a low-key radio broadcast kinda defeats its own purpose. And yeah, there's lots of public fellatio jokes to be made here.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

AMEN!

(And that means a lot coming from this atheist.)

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

My argument is that a critical mass exists where the amount of civil disobedience will show that it is not a few criminals breaking the law, but the American public voicing its opinion through its actions.

Civil Disobedience is just that: civil. Criminal disobedience is something else entirely.

As I remember it (from just a couple years ago), this kinda thing was covered in high school social studies classes. And i went to a pretty bad high school. Sometimes I get the impression that /.ers just aren't thinking anymore.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone?

[xee]

You make a couple good points, but it's hard to find them in all the crap. :P just kidding.

I concede that the RIAA isn't killing anyone. This has been pointed out in another reply. Again, I stand corrected.

As for your creative interpretation of my argument: that I am somehow saying that it is the RIAA's responsibility to give my kids some culture... As with many other counter-arguments that people have made to this thread, you are drawing invalid conclusions -- you create a point and then argue with it as if it was my point. And again, i never said that a Commercial Success == crappy music. You did. I said that the RIAA is trying to push rather bland music into the Top 40s in the apparant hope of quelling a childs taste for music. Things are not as black and white (yeah, there's different levels of black-and-whiteness) as your argument requires. Your argument would have it that the RIAA either DOES or DOES NOT raise the children. This is so false. In fact, it's beyond false. It's rediculous. The RIAA does not raise the children. BUT then again, neither do the parents. It has been demonstrated time and again that children learn from all stimuli they are exposed to. The RIAA, in their push toward a bland Top 40, is doing all they can to keep a childs exposure to music as bland and uniform as possible. I know this is a difficult concept to explain, and probably even more difficult to understand.

Absurd requirements

[mochan_s]

Requirements

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
D) Date of Transmission
E) Time of Transmission
F) Time zone of origination of Transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound Recording Title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording Label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

Jeez. That's going to need new databases for radio stations.
At least I don't have to call in to ask what song they were just playing. I'll even get the UPC code and the album name and copyright owner information right there.


And a listener's log listing:
1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique User identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

I'm sure they put on the unique user identifier in there just in case someone actually implemented all the others to comply.

Re:Absurd requirements

[thumbtack]

This is still under consideration and the commnet period is still open on the conditions and infor gatered. The problem is you will find musicians back this as they want an accurate accounting which up to now has been done from sampling, which favors the "Big Name" musicians, but does nothing for the little guy..in fact he might get left out all together...

Re:Absurd requirements

[Krellan]

My take on each of these required fields, in order....

A) The name of the service, B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id), C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live): These are constants. Easy.

D) Date of Transmission, E) Time of Transmission: Simple timestamping, which most stations already do in their internal logs.

F) Time zone of origination of Transmission: Another constant, for small organizations with a single server. For large broadcasters that use geographically distributed server-side caching networks such as Akamai, this translates to "F) The local streaming server the listener is connected to".

G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program: This seems to be worded to apply if the song is part of a predetermined set of songs (e.g. a prerecorded program being rebroadcast). For live stations, whose program is continuous, this will simply equal the timestamp.

H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second), I) Sound Recording Title: FreeDB, anyone? Regardless, these should already be represented in the music files that are broadcast, as song length and filename.

J) The ISRC code of the recording: Tricky. There are some CD drives out there that can read barcode and ISRC numbers, but this is rare. A paid subscription to a large commercial database might be necessary (another fee!), as has been pointed out. No doubt this is the intention of the RIAA, as they already know this information and simply want to make it a burden to collect.

K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track, L) Featured recording artist, M) Retail album title, N) The recording Label, : More information that should already be in a fully populated FreeDB entry. If it isn't, the gaps will have to be filled in, either by database subscription or manual retyping from the CD liner notes.

O) The UPC code of the retail album: Another standard tracking number. See ISRC above. How much would you like to bet that the few record companies that put barcode and ISRC numbers on their CD's will stop doing this, just to make it harder for independent online radio stations to learn these numbers?

P) The catalog number, Q) The copyright owner information, : More database information. I assume by "catalog number" that they mean the catalog of a record company (the number they assign for each release).

At least almost all of these statistics are constants for a given recording. Enter the data once, and that's it. There is no extra recurring cost to use the information after it has been obtained, which is good. Besides, most radio stations don't have a very large playlist! A few nights of data entry should be all it takes to comply with these requirements.

R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format): The list is closed off by another easy constant.

For online stations, though, they start tightening the screws:

1) The name of the service or entity, 2) The channel or program, : Some simple constants, to lull you into thinking that compliance will be easy.

3) the date and time that the user logged in, 4) the date and time that the user logged out: With existing unicast stations, this is easy: connection start and stop times are already logged by almost all online radio stations. With multicast, it would be hard, though. The server might not even be notified if a distant client joins the stream, if a downstream router performs the multiplexing! In this case, it would be impossible to gather this information.

The RIAA might have a hidden agenda here, to kill multicasting before it can get off the ground. This ensures that only the well-funded huge corporate stations, friends of the RIAA, can broadcast online.

5) The time zone where the signal was received (user): This is the biggie. Subscriptions to a geolocation service, such as Quova, are now mandatory! Another large fee. (This time zone requirement also applies to the user timestamping requirements above.)

6) Unique User identifier: This is very vague. At the least, it could simply be a cookie that is sent to the user's browser. Privacy-disregarding corporate media players such as RA and WMP already upload user tracking information, as we have seen. Still, there is no way to track users that is 100% certain. And this is another category that will be impossible to determine if multicasting is used!

7) The country in which the user received the transmissions: Confirmation that a geolocation subscription is now required.

Well, these are lame, but they seem to have their intended effect: scaring off all competitors to RIAA-approved prolefeed. Online radio stations, rather than pay for two database services (geolocation and CD identification), would find it easier just to give up.

Re:Absurd requirements

[steve_l]

How do any of these user logging requirements work if I started using multicast IP instead of TCP to pump out radio?

I could multicast it out and argue that the number of users was a big round zero, because there was no way to tell otherwise.

Re:Absurd requirements

[drdink]

How would one (reliably) determine the listener's timezone? If you require registration and ask them what timezone they're in, they could easily lie. You can't determine timezone from hostnames (usually). Some countries have multiple timezones... Can't depend on JavaScript/ActiveX because the remote system's clock might be hosed. How?

Re:Absurd requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

A cookie would probably do it. As long as you can say 'User #21457 listened from 12:23 to 1:45, and in that time heard this, that, and the other' then that's probably enough. It seems reasonable that the record company should get accurate audience figures. If they want real names, of course, they'll get a database full of nocheese2949771@hotmail.com...

Re:Absurd requirements

[stapedium]

give me a break. java/activeX are perfectly reasonable ways to get the timezone. if the remote system's clock is setup wrong, then you get bad data. no body said your data had to be perfect. theyjust have to make a good faith effort to provide good data. its not like the RIAA has a way to verify if its tru or not.

Re:Absurd requirements

[Smack]

Or you could just make the people create accounts and ask them the geographic stuff instead of using geolocation. That would give you the UUID as well. Not anonymous, but no worse than slashdot.

Re:Absurd requirements

[Bryan Andersen]

This unique user ID can be attacked. The same reasonings behind not allowing disclosure of video and book loands can also be used to squelch this unique listener ID number.

On a side note:

Sombody needs to write an app that randomizes the content of these cookies that are being sent to M$. At boot and periodically there after it goes, finds and randomizes all the cookie values. Every 15 minutes would be a good time cycle. If it could hook it's self into app launch it wouldn't need to change what is on the disk. The paterns to look for in memory can be located on disk from the configuration files of the apps.

Look for all the methods one might possibly use to make the collected data worthless, or attack the collection of the data. It is your duty to yell and complain when companies cross your comfort threshold.

Re:Absurd requirements

[Technician]

Remember, a requirement is to prevent recording of the material by the end user. You will be required to encrypt your transmission to match the user key. There will be no multicast, recording etc. Check out the latest on the Microsoft Music Service. The player is free. It needs registered and is tied to the hardware it is installed onto. It can be installed into up to 4 devices that can play the same recording (desktop, laptop, pocket PC etc.) The recording will not work on any other device. Look it up. Read it and weep. It will not be webcast any other way. I did not download the free player. The registration requires a passport account. (Duh!) With it they will know where you are, who you are, and any borrowed music not directly D/L'ed from them (shared D/L) will not work.

Re:Absurd requirements

[pertelote]

>H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second), I) Sound Recording Title: FreeDB [freedb.org], anyone? Regardless, these should already be represented in the music files that are broadcast, as song length and filename.

It is my understanding that webcasting uses UDP (connectionless User Datagram Protocol) to send the files. With no acknowlegement mechanism the server has no way of registering which packets arrived, which did not, or when. If I decide to disconnect before the song ends, the packets die under TTL, and the server is not notified. The current system does not allow the webcaster to accurately record the exact duration of transmission to the second.

Just a thought.

Re:Absurd requirements

[Krellan]

True, most webcasting uses UDP. (Broadcast to listeners behind firewalls is the main exception.)

For UDP, you could simply consider start and end time to be the time the first and last UDP packets were sent. Note that they require duration of transmission, not reception! An acknowledgement mechanism is not necessary. (In practice, most streaming protocols do require a periodic ACK generated by the client, to avoid uselessly sending packets once the listener closes the client.)

How About

[Anonymous Coward]

A Beowulf Cluster of these?

$500?

[Joe Jordan]

So in effect this means that to remain completely legal, every Shoutcast server streaming any copyrighted music will have to fork over a minimum of $500 a year to keep rockin their tunes? What about those with a mix of original creations and other copyrighted material? Do I get a discount if I stream Prodigy along with my friends original techno mixes?

Seems fair ...

[rlp]

And I'm sure that the labels will forward at least 0.000000000000001% of any Webcast fees to the artist. Hell, they earned it!

Insane?

[Sir Homer]

Actually if I read right it is 9% of profits plus like 15 cents per song per user. Please prove me wrong...

What were the old fees?

[Wesley Felter]

I remember that statutory licensing was set up a while ago; why is it being changed? What were the old fees? Or are those fees for something different?

Re:What were the old fees?

[thumbtack]

These are the old fees.. the recording industry and webcasters couldn't agree, so it went to abitration. The fees are retro active until 1998 when the law was passed and must be paid within 20 days of the approval of the rates. You're going to see a lot of Webcasters disappear faster than you can type /.

ma ana

[nickynicky9doors]

Much of this shit has to do with the relative newness of the net and net culture. The net will produce it's own music libraries and as net music comes online and the culture supports it then, as a result of direct competition, the current recorded catalogue will be made more inexpensively available.

the record companies

[I Want GNU!]

These record companies just keep getting worse and worse. The sad thing is, barely any artists actually get paid for their work anyway. The artist gets screwed over, as does the consumer, by associations like the RIAA, the middlemen who take all the money. It is preposterous that they keep doing this with unnatural laws and restrictions on the music that they didn't even create themselves, and I say that the artists should stand up to them once and for all and throw down the shackles of current music copyright law! They should take matters into their own hand, set up co-op type of organizations, and distribute music themselves! This way, artists that don't make much money at all now could make a lot more, and artists that do make a lot could make even more. Plus, prices could be lower since the RIAA isn't artificially keeping them high, and this helps the end-user as well! More musicians could actually make money off their work, whereas many at the moment are struggling to make a living.

Re:the record companies

[TheAwfulTruth]

Uh, you mean like Ampcast? JavaMusic? and even (the now deteriorating) MP3.com? Or the thousands of indie labels and distributors like "Metropolis Records"? Yeah, I thought you did.

Re:the record companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Most of the music I listen to now is from mp3.com. If people would look past all of the major label trendiness and actually listen to what some of the artists on mp3.com have, they'd be surprised at how much better that stuff is than the crap that's played on the radio and MTV.

Re:the record companies

[kiwipeso]

I'm working on Samizdat, a GPL filesharing program which has internet streaming included.
If you want to listen to music or see movies from your friends computer, then I see no reason why not.
It could be save disabled if there is a copyright on the resource or just plain open to all.

This is so crazy

[FakePlasticDubya]

This is outrageous. I am the manager of a non-commercial station at a High School, and we just recently began netcasting. We already pay over $3000 a year in license fees to play music on the normal airwaves. Now we have to pay even more to play the same music over the internet? I don't understand, either we have a license to play it or not...

And anyway, how is it that we have to pay large fees to promote their music? We are non-commercial, we get nothing out of it! What is going on? A long time ago, there was the whole "Payola" scandal where the record companies paid stations to play certain records. Now it's the other way around? This is insane. We will have to stop netcasting because of this, and that makes me so angry.

Re:This is so crazy

[ender81b]

Welcome to the Brave New World my friend.

On a happy note, you could just continue broadcasting and hope the new rates won't be passed into law anytime soon.

Re:This is so crazy

[jmu1]

Well, asside from the absurd reality of the whole situation that is being thrust upon us by those with large sums of money more than we could ever have... why the hell are you wasting taxpayer's money on a HighSchool radio station? $3000? That could be used to get some better textbooks, hell anything! Tutorial materials for students who are not doing that great in different subjects, something other than this blatant misappropriation of the taxpayer's money.

Re:This is so crazy

[FakePlasticDubya]

But I'm sure you have no problem with the tens of thousands of dollars thrown at the various sports every year? This gives people valuable experience and the ability to see what its like to work in the field of journalism? What about school newspapers, are those wastes of money too? Our school district has plenty of money for other things, so I don't see the problem.

Re:This is so crazy

[Aexia]

I'm sure $3000 is a pittance compared to the sports budget.

Re:This is so crazy

[Technician]

You can netcast. You just can't use someone elses IP without paying royalties. Do talk shows. Create your own content. Do call in shows. Get the students involved in the community. Use local talent. Record the student choir doing irish folk songs that are now public domain. Build a library. It can be done and is good for the students who are working on broadcasting. Subscribe to UPI and AP and do your own news.

Re:This is so crazy

[FakePlasticDubya]

We already do all of that, but in between the shows and original content, we still play music. We have local bands play on the air, we are a member of AP, I attend all sorts of news events with the press and get interviews, hell I'm going to Comdex ;), but we still do have some time we need to fill with music. We air 4 live talk shows each week, ranging from Sports to Politics, to Entertainment, each week we have a local band come on and perform, we DO record the choir :)

Re:This is so crazy

[jmu1]

No, I do not think that all of the money poured into sports has a place. And I don't think that the school system should pay for the band either(I was a band student in a system that over one third of the money for the school went directly to us). I recieved a very substandard education and susbsequently was quite far behind when I went to university, I never graduated, now I work for the university... I do what I can to reduce costs, however there is an interesting cycle there: If you economise in any form or fashion, you don't get the money when you need it most. So, we spend spend spend at the behest of our bosses. If you leave the job, there will be one more greedy bastard to take your place. The long and the short of it is this: taxes should not be spent in education at all. You should educate your child, not the state. The state should only worry about the outside forces that we cannot protect against(which it so very recently proved it was not capable of). I don't have kids and shouldn't pay for someone else's kid(who by the way smokes smack and doesn't give two shits if he does anything with his life). Screw them, let them pay.

Just an example

[baka_boy]

My old school had a campus radio station, and about 1200 students. Last I heard, they were considering an on-campus-only webcast of the radio broadcast (since the signal was to weak to reach many parts of campus, especially the many "basement" work and rec rooms). So, assuming even 10% listenership, and the cheapest licensing schedule (for non-CPB-funded "public" stations) their fees would look something like this:

120 "listeners" * 18hr./day programming * 12 "performances"/hr. * $0.02/"performance" ==> $518.40/day.

That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web.

Ain't (lobbyist-directed) beurocracy grand?

Re:Just an example

[The Fanfan]

You have your math wrong by 2 orders of magnitude. The proposed rate is 0.02c per performance, not $0.02 (that is 2c). So :

120 listeners * 18 hrs/day * 12 perfs/hr = 25920 perfs/day. = $5.184 /day.>br>

Not so outrageous. It still adds up to nearly $2.000 a year though...

What's really outrageous is the very idea of paying anything to the RIAA mob knowing where's the money actually goes. Beats me...

Do humanity a favor. Eat a RIAA lobbyist for breakfast.

Re:Just an example

[ZuG]

Actually, according to my math, the original poster is right.

120 listeners * 18 hrs/day * 12 songs/hour * .02 dollars = $518.40.

Re:Just an example

[The Fanfan]

Please fullt read my post and the CARP proposal. The fee is 0.02 cent, not $0.02. So, ok, granted, the math is indeed correct. It's the initial hypothesis which is not.

Re:Just an example

[AnotherBlackHat]

$0.02??? According to the fee schedule I saw it was 0.02 cents. That's $5.18/day, not $518.40

What am I missing?

Re:Just an example

[donutello]

That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web

Or they could *gasp* play something original instead of the same unadulterated crap that is licensed by the RIAA. I think it's a sad day when people proclaim that a radio station can't exist that can play something original and different.

Also, as another poster pointed out, the fee is 0.02 cents per performance - bringing the grand total to about $5.18/day.

Re:Just an example

[Anonymous Coward]

someone mod down this innumerate dickhead. its 5 dollars, not 500. no wonder our high school math scores are worst in the world. with idiots like this we don't stand a chance.

Re:Just an example

[ZuG]

Ahh, my mistake. Sorry 'bout that =)

Re:Just an example

[fishebulb]

the RIAA makes it a known fact they control %90 of the recording industry. The so called indie labels, owned by a larger company that is an RIAA member. There still is a lot of quality music out there, but it gets hard to find outside of RIAA (Mafia) world

Re:Just an example

[linzeal]

Huh? So a radio station like kfjc with 5-10,000 or so listeners would still have to pay hundreds of dollars a day? I donate 250 dollars a year to them because I love their programming I don't think they or I could afford these new rules.

Re:Just an example

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're going to use $2.000 then you've got to say $0,02 like a real eurpeaner. Just my $0,02 worth.

Re:Just an example

[Jebediah21]

Sounds like my campus, but we got screwed two ways. Our campus is small, and it had a weak signal, so weak that it couldn't even reach all of campus. So what does the FCC do? They shut it done. Might cause interference you know. Now Live365, who KSUN was streaming through is having problems. Now this. So long KSUN. I always thought our greedy school administration would take you out long after I graduated.

Re:Just an example

[SnoopDobb]

Uhh... your math is a bit off. The payment is $0.0002, or .02 cents per "performance", not .02 dollars. This works out to $5.18 per day.

Not that I agree with the rates, just pointing out a blatant math error.

Amen

[Sir Homer]

I thought Democrasy ment the people control the goverment, not money sucking corperations. I guess America isn't a realy democrasy, it's more of a Corpcrasy (look ma, I made up a new word).

Re:Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess America isn't a realy democrasy, it's more of a Corpcrasy (look ma, I made up a new word).

Three, in fact. And a couple new grammatical structures. Congrats!

Re:Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget to copyright it and register it as a trademark, royalties are big business

Re:Amen

[xee]

Last time i checked, the name for a country where government and corporations were united was: socialism.

Re:Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

++funny

Re:Amen

[downundarob]

I guess America isn't a realy democrasy, it's more of a Corpcrasy I think you mean Oligarchy.

Re:Amen

[zericm]

Acutaly, the word you are looking for is plutocracy.

Hey, I've got an idea...

[TheAwfulTruth]

How about not r(e)broadcasting anything that you don't own or is from someone that's doesn't want you to rebroadcast it? You don't own it, it wasn't given to you, don't touch it. How hard is that? Terms of contract unacceptable? Go somewhere else, or nowhere else. It's your descision, make it a responsible one.

Re:Hey, I've got an idea...

[FakePlasticDubya]

How about trying:

1) We purchase a CD at retail price
2) We then pay $3000 in licensing fees to play on non-commercial radio
3) We then will have to pay again to netcast it.

If I don't "own" it, what do I even have?

Re:Hey, I've got an idea...

[TheAwfulTruth]

How about not buying the CD and not broadcasting it? Someone forcing you to buy that cd? Someone forcing you to broadcast it? How is it that you don't even see the other choices? Just ignore them and their product! Find other sources (They ARE out there if you look) If we want them to change a huge grass root movement of listeners is the ONLY possible solution.

Think about it, why are you even rebroadcasting their product anyway. Because it attracts listeners? So what? If your non profit, then that's hardly necessary. There is all kinds of alternative material out there. Buying a cd and playing it over and over really is the lazy, feed the monster's way out. Because they KNOW you'll buy it is how they've gotten their power. Take the power away. Don't buy, don't broadcast. (Your only advertising for the evil that much more).

Re:Hey, I've got an idea...

[Waffle Iron]

How about not r(e)broadcasting anything that you don't own or is from someone that's doesn't want you to rebroadcast it? You don't own it, it wasn't given to you, don't touch it. How hard is that? Terms of contract unacceptable? Go somewhere else, or nowhere else. It's your descision, make it a responsible one.

RTFHeader. It's a compulsory license. You have a right to rebroadcast the music regardless of the owners' wishes.

The issue isn't dealing with the owners. It's dealing with the government who sets the compulsory rebroadcast licensing fees.

Re:Hey, I've got an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that. How about pirating the music through one of your various P2P softwaren applications and rebroadcasting it without paying them shit? If the broadcast radius isn't too big, the chances of the RIAA finding out is very slim.

Re:Hey, I've got an idea...

[ediron2]

Ages ago, I remember there being mechanisms that let one build a profile of likes/dislikes that the server would use to recommend music or movies. That's what I want. I want unencumbered music to stream by and when I like it I click "buy" and all the money goes to the artist. Or most.

Call me foolish.

Well, I went looking for other sources...

http://www.openculture.org/ will let me toss a nickel to a known artist. Doesn't help me find alternatives that aren't part of MPAA/ASCAP/etc.

http://www.fairtunes.com/index.jsp (musiclink) will let me toss a... oh, same thing, pretty much. Thinking back, one of these two lets you throw change toward a musician agreeing to sell off all future rights to a song, making it free for everyone. Interesting capitalist/communist methodology, I guess.

So, I haven't been to MP3.com lately. Ick. Vivendi.

So, let's use google's 'like' search. give it MP3.com, up comes the link to the base page and a link to 'more like this'. Click.

Interesting ones first: http://www.CDBaby.com stands out. It is a warehouse of cd's by artists from artists. Artists make several bucks per disk. Warehouse gets the rest. Looks closer to 50/50, which isn't bad considering. Not much for linking or recommending found.

All the rest seemed to be akin to napster phase 2: big company wants you to pay to hear music and not care that the musician starves on their royalties. I won't even dignify the bastards with mentioning 'em here. Do the search yourself if you want that goop.

Yeah, I know it's a few days late. Never gonna get a mod up to readable. But I was curious. And still am. The answer's out there, somewhere. I know what I like and detest the current mechanism, so I'll just go looking for alternatives. Feel free to chip in with suggestions, anyone.

A semi-well known Christian Slater Movie

[ebbomega]

I think in 1990, Christian Slater starred in a movie called Pump Up The Volume, in which he portrayed "Happy Hardon Harry", an introverted geek-boy by day, but a sexually charged authority-fighting anarchistic pirate Radio personality by night.

*SPOILER WARNING*

The FCC was called in after Harry got a letter from a kid who claimed he wanted to commit suicide. Harry calls up the kid, and talks with him, but doesn't do anything to push the kid away from killing himself. So, immediately after the phone call, the kid puts a gun against his head and pulls the trigger.

So parents of this small suburban community get in an uproar about this Hardon Harry character as he begins to expose the plots of a principal who is attempting to make her school the number one school by expelling all students with too low grades. The more he discovers, the more intent that the principal and faculty, as well as the parents and FCC, are on shutting down this pirate radio show and putting Harry in jail.

Once he is caught though, he announces to the kids (who have decided that the suburban repression of will they've been filtered through isn't necessary and have revolted against it) to keep the air alive, and make it theirs. The final shot is with the sound of dozens upon dozens of kids with their own pirate radio stations, reclaiming the "air" as theirs, just as he is thrown into the paddy-wagon and taken away by the FCC-charged police.

See the similarities? A friend of mine sets up a webcast so that we can listen to him spin some records from time to time, occasionally, when he has friends over, they have "geek-out music" sessions, where we get a whole bunch of music and just play around with it, and let our friends listen to it. Why? Why not!

So where do we draw the line? This isn't at all publicly advertised, so how in god's name do they intend on regulating this? It's going to simply blow up into a couple billion people setting up their own webcasts... it's like me setting up an ftp server off my cable connection so that my friends can get ahold of my MP3s.

Next thing you know, the companies will be forcing people to sign release forms every time they buy a CD making them promise they will never play these CDs for their friends, or loan out your tapes, DJs will have to pay royalties every time they play a club or whatever. I'll have to be charged a $5 cover every time I want to go over to a friend's house and play with his records. Soon, police will be handing out Copywrite-infringement violation tickets at house parties because the people throwing the party didn't secure the rights to the CDs.

The companies are burying themselves. It's going to get to the point that you're going to buy a CD and you won't be able to listen to it anyways because you don't own the rights to the CD. Soon it's going to get to a point where nobody is going to buy CDs ever again because they can't do anything with it. So the music companies are looking at their own elimination. Good job. Keep up the good work.

Re:A semi-well known Christian Slater Movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you really got a lot from that movie. All I can remember are Samantha Mathis' breasts.

Re:A semi-well known Christian Slater Movie

[Sloppy]

So parents of this small suburban community get in an uproar about this Hardon Harry character as he begins to expose the plots of a principal who is attempting to make her school the number one school by expelling all students with too low grades. The more he discovers, the more intent that the principal and faculty, as well as the parents and FCC, are on shutting down this pirate radio show and putting Harry in jail.

[snip]

See the similarities? A friend of mine sets up a webcast so that we can listen to him spin some records from time to time, occasionally, when he has friends over, they have "geek-out music" sessions, where we get a whole bunch of music and just play around with it, and let our friends listen to it.

No, I don't see the similarities. In your movie example (I haven't seen the movie), it sounds like the heroic character is acting as a reporter and broadcasting information of his own, his own voice and his own experssion. It is his. In your webcast, it sounds like you're spinning someone else's record. If your webcast is your voice broadcasting news that you have researched, your opinions, etc. then there's not a damned thing the RIAA can do about it, and you don't have to fill out any forms or pay anyone.

Re:A semi-well known Christian Slater Movie

[gowen]

it sounds like the heroic character is acting as a reporter and broadcasting information of his own

Well, he also plays records (The Pixies, Leonard Cohen, Henry Rollins, Was Not Was). Actually, the movie's OK, but the soundtrack kicks ass.

Good Riddance, radio free rant.

[Erris]

Fine. Let the RIAA price their crap right off of the web. The last thing I want competing with pictures of my three month old daughter is a no save copy of a Lars drum lick. This will, hopefully, leave the big five music publishers further in the past and encourage more people to sign with independent studios and publishers like MP3.com sought to be. Let them rule their litle airwave monopolies, let their listnership decline to zero and let them all perish, but keep that shit off the web.

Re:Good Riddance, radio free rant.

[Lysander Luddite]

So what about the indies who can't afford the fees? Just screw them too, huh? Very constructive.

Re:Good Riddance, radio free rant.

[clone304]

You don't understand. They're pricing all of the independent people off the web, so that they can make a DIFFERENT license with a company or companies under their control (whether the connection will be obvious or not, remains to be seen). They intend to maintain total control of the music industry and will be successful if they are allowed to make the rules.

.

Osking ludicrous

[belg4mit]

A cancer-ray station (:-P) can't provide this kind of
information, why is it reasonable to expect a streaming station to.

Boycotting RIAA is good, but not the final solutio

[I Want GNU!]

Unfortunately, boycotting the RIAA does not work. Every little bit helps out, but they still make huge amounts of money through the mindless drones that go out and buy their "popular" music. Instead, we need to write every politician, news agency, and music label and protest the obscene actions of the RIAA. Through millions of voices, we will be heard.

Also, I must be forced to disagree with your comparison of the RIAA with terrorists. Terrorists kill people. The RIAA tramples over their rights but does not kill them. If it killed them, they could no longer to afford to buy the RIAA's music, depriving them of profits. ;-)

More than that...

[Danse]

500? That's the absolute minimum according to the rates they've proposed. If a station is simultaneously rebroadcasting via Internet an AM or FM broadcast, they pay $.07 per performance. I'm assuming this would be per song only, not per song, per user. That means if they play 10 songs an hour (seems about right, possibly a bit low) 365 days a year, they owe $6,132, plus 9% of that for the "Ephemeral License Fee", bringing the total to $6683.88. If they're not simultaneously rebroadcasting, then the cost doubles.

ShoutCast.

[BenTheDewpendent]

Lets all just start shout casting our MP3 collections. really piss someone off... we can all be internet broadcasters weather is be 2bit stream of 160kbs stream we can do it and prolly makes some waves when RIAA and company realize they cant do anything or much about it. put them against the world not lilguys vs the big bad RIAA.

Golden Egg

[Alien54]

I don't know

I have this half formed thought, something about the idiot need to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because they are such a glutton for goose.

Some companies can be such idiots.

Re:Golden Egg

[Anonymous Coward]

No...That would be the client companies of MPEG-LA for the proposed MPEG-4 licensing scheme.

The buggy-whip makers are in charge of the auto in

[dpilot]

It's happened: The buggy-whip makers have been put in charge of the auto industry. Piece by piece, at the bequest of the old-guard publishing industries, our courts and legislators are killing the Internet and the promise it held.

Since 9/11, so many people have been quoting George Orwell's 1984. So for this circumstance, I'll have to choose a different quote from the same work, and adapt it:

"If there is hope, it must come from South America and India". (Substitute for Orwell's proles)

Say goodbye to college webcasts..

[thumbtack]

This hits the college stations and non-profits the hardest. Where dwindling budgets and volunteer help is the norm, many will just say that's it and pull the plug....One college station I'm familiar with has an annual budget of $30,000 dollars, total. They struggle everyday just to get by, and saw the internet as a way they could save money over maintaining expensive transmitters.

Re:Say goodbye to college webcasts..

[Sloppy]

If that college statement just broadcasts the same RIAA products as the megacorps themselves, then seriously, why should anyone give a damn whether they can afford this? Like the world really needs another radio station pushing Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit!

If the people at that college station really have something to say, then none of this stuff affects them anyway, since they'll either be the copyright owners, or they'll have the neighborhood bands' permissions.

Time to move the stations outside U.S.

[jmorris42]

The Internet was supposed to be about breaking down national borders. Just broadcast from places that the RIAA doesn't yet control. Probably best to pick the spots they will get to last.

Nobody dropped graven tablets down from Heaven saying the US of A would always be the best place to engage in commerce. Our economy is now a mix of mercentilism & socialism which means you are either a megacorp or a ward of the State. Time we faced facts and started thinking globally. If you insist on continuing to live here you can probably work out a way to launder the profits back in from your foreign shell corporation. ;)

Why not just plain old radio?

[Ryu2]

With all this crap to deal with, why not just listen to the good old analog radio?

Or will the RIAA get the US govt to ban that as well (like the banning of analog TV broadcast after 2010 (??)) ?

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...Because they only play crap?

-Frank

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[GuNgA-DiN]

Because the RIAA and the record companies use "payola" to get music played on commercial radio. They get to pick what you listen to. Why not just go back to live performances?? (like the days before recorded music)

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Better yet, how about using the satelite radio broadcast ... XM radio?

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[CheezyD]

This is another mess in the making. The FCC is looking at ways to allow "microbroadcasting", which is basically any shmoe can legally set up a little 10 - 50 watt station in their attic and play CDs to the neighborhood. I haven't heard the RIAA's opinion of this yet, but all the major broadcasters were screaming bloody murder.

Broadcasters: They will interfere with our signals if they're too close to people receiving our stations!
Translation: They will interfere with our market share if they play something worth listening to.

I see this ripping the radio markets to shreds, especially in large urban areas like NYC. Imagine a little neighborhood of one ethnic majority with 2 or 3 little stations playing requests for stuff people actually want? The technical issues would be pretty hard to work out since there are probably hundreds of such areas in NYC and there isn't enough frequencies on the radio dial, but this could potentially destroy all the large radio broadcasters in a matter of 5 to 10 years, and probably take down the RIAA with it.

Other ideas? How about microwebcasting. Limit the connections to a few people, preferrably people you know. With the coming of neighborhood intranets, this could be REAL easy.

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[Technician]

Shameless plug. North Country Radio has a very nice FM stereo synthesized transmitter kit that does this very nicely. Add a HAM 2 meter amplifier for the extra power if you want to break out of the milliwatt range. It may need retuned to the FM band. (check FCC first!) The link to the provider of the transmitter is here.
http://www.northcountryradio.com/

Re:Why not just plain old radio?

[CheezyD]

78 bucks for a kit? Yikes! Well, at least the specs look a lot better than the ones in the back of Popular Electronics. :D

I'd probably have no FCC issues around here (NYC) due to the fact that everyone and their great grandmother has a linear hooked up to their Ghetto Internet. At least 5 times a week I'll get splash on my TV.

Move along without them

[Anonymous Coward]

I have setup a MS streaming audio server at my house, so I can listen to a radio station in Michigan where ever I am. You just plug in a radio to the audio in port, then use Real audio or MS streaming server to stream it out to your work computer or laptop whereever you are in the world.

ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Having their songs broadcasted is an advertisement. If the RIAA is foolish enough to force the broadcasters to play something else instead, they can go ahead.

Re:Boycotting RIAA is good, but not the final solu

[xee]

Hmm, you make a good point about the RIAA not killing anyone. BUT... their music is getting to the point... at times, i'd rather be dead than listening to the shit they produce. ;)

As an aside, and i hate to get all sarcastic here, but, when was the last time the people won over the corporate interest? Remember, we pay the taxes, but the corporations pay the congressmen.

MOre Zeros??

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would have more zeros than that.

I don't get it

[ackthpt]

Why is broadcasting over the internet different from airwaves, and how do XM and and Sirius satellite radio sidestep these hurdles? It seems like conveneint interpretation or drafting of law to screw selective businesses. The RIAA is, IMHO, as much an evil monopoly (oligarchy, actually, but acting monopolistic, and worse) as Microsft, if not more so. This stinks worse than most of the government corruption I've ever read about.

Well, damn

[Burritos]

I thought I found something better than Napster, something that wasn't illegal, and it still gave me an opportunity to listen to unsigned bands. But I guess all the RIAA cares about is making money, huh?

Re:Yes. please someone whack that Jewess Rosen

[xee]

you are dumb.
your mind is numb.
go to hell
you antisemetic bum.

so, what's in it for the artist?

[matman]

Maybe artists will realize that the record companies are preventing them from being heard. I personally tend to listen to net radio an hour a day at least... I listen to the on-air radio, well, when my alarm goes off. :) People who are into music, that make music, also tend to listen to music. If you alienate them, maybe they won't want to sign your contracts.

Mjy letter: http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm

[belg4mit]

To prosecute Napster, and other forms of peer-to-peer(p2p) is one thing. While greedy it is true that they are violating the law.

To pursue outrageous requirements for streaming radio-stations is vicious and uncalled for. Obviously no radio-broadcast station is required nor can give you much of the information you are seeking form a streaming station. Just because it is technically feasible to implement some of things (although certainly not economically, which may well be your goal) does not mean they should be. And to require disparate licensing fees when you would be partially compensated with the privileged information you seek is further evidence of a lack of good faith. How does a streaming station warrant different treatment, and in particular excessive fees, over a broadcast station?

I listen to 3WK, which is licensed and payes fees to ASCAP and BMI. They are legitimate, honest and provide a service incomparable to any broadcast service. They expose me and other listeners to artists on a variety of labels that would otherwise be unheard. Why do you seek to force the closure of an entity that provides your members and the community such a service?

Re:Mjy letter: http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm

[belg4mit]

Okay so upon further investigation 3WK
might be okay with tier seperate license,
but the point is still the same.

Letter I sent my station on campus

[bugg_superstar]

disclaimer: i edited the letter a bit for length. yes, i am a dj at the station. no, i'm not pimping us in any way ;-)

So the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel released their recommendations for how radio stations should pay if they stream over the internet. the actual release is here (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/2002/67fr5761 .pdf). Of course, it's a tough read, so I'll sum it up for you guys, and provide relevant links at the bottom. These rules are *proposed*, and haven't gone into effect yet.

+per performance means "per song / per listener". That means every time one person hears one song, that's a performance. If 12 people listen to a webcast of 12 songs, that's 144 performances.

+epheremal recording means a backup copy of the same song to be used for streaming.

So according to these rules for webcasting, KBVR is a non-commercial broadcaster. We must pay $0.02 for every "performance". 9% of those performance fees will be added on as cost for an epheremal license fee.

So yeah....doesn't sound too bad, does it? Just wait...

Let's do a little math here. I'm assuming that 2.5% of the roughly 20,000 OSU students would listen to KBVR streaming over the internet. I don't even know the real number, so I'm just going to (hopefully) guess low. If any of you could give me better numbers, feel free.

500 listeners x 24 hours/day x 10 "performances" an hour x $0.02 per "performance" ===> $2400 A DAY. That comes out to roughly $875,000 A YEAR if we could webcast under the new rules.

For *each song* webcasted, KBVR would have to report the following information to the primary copyright holders (usually the record label, or to the individual band if you're cool like metallica and dr. dre):

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID)
C) The type of program (archived/looped/live)
D) Date of transmission
E) Time of transmission
F) Time zone of origination of transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound recording title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

That's for EACH SONG WEBCASTED.

On top of that, we will have to provide the following information for *EVERY PERSON* who would listen to us over the internet:

1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) The date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) The date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique user identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

These new proposed rules are pretty damn stupid. That's all I'm going to say.

Thanks for your time...

~steve

Re:Letter I sent my station on campus

[FakePlasticDubya]

Yeah, except you also made the same mistake I did. When I first read it, I thought it was two cents per performance also. However, upon closer inspection, it's actually only two tenths of a cent. That is more doable for us non-commercial stations, but it still is lame how me have to 1) buy the CD, then 2) pay a license to broadcast it, now 3) pay another license fee to netcast.

Re:Letter I sent my station on campus

[bugg_superstar]

Thanks! I totally didn't notice that ;-) I sent a followup telling everyone I'm stupid :)

Re:Letter I sent my station on campus

[SnoopDobb]

For Christ's sake! It's *NOT* $.02 per song for non-commercial broadcast. It is $.0002, or 2/100 of a cent. Stop posting these ABSURD royalty calculations. Post real ones. They are still unfair.

Off-Planet Data Haven?

[GuNgA-DiN]

Screw the RIAA and everyone else!

So, how much would it cost to build and launch a satellite to function as an "off planet data haven"? You know -- a few hundred thousand terabytes of storage orbiting Earth! We could store MP3s, pr0n, DivX, and offer thousands of steams!!! Figure 500,000 users who chip in $100 each? That's $50,000,000 right there.

The Russians could help us launch it!

Re:Off-Planet Data Haven?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. A few teras of nice semi-legal material continually streamed down to earth for anyone with a dish to leech. Wonderful. Until the next solar flare...

Re:Off-Planet Data Haven?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you can't put normal hard disk in orbit. Everything computer-like in orbit has to be shielded against radiation (which is ionizing, remember), and then designed with deliberate crudity anyway.
It has to be custom designed. (Okay, I didn't take you *that* seriously).

Re:Off-Planet Data Haven?

[the_consumer]

Please mod this up... this is the best idea I've heard in a long, long time :)

Co-op sattelite networks *dr00l*

What about online/onair radio stations

[Anonymous Coward]

What would people from OnAir radio stations, with the same (exactaly the same) content online have to say about this?

I think this is a load of BS. (hold the onions)

dyslexic

[swinginSwingler]

When I read the name of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel I immediately put together it's acromyn, but slightly revised to my own fruedian interpetation... (Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel or CRAP)

At least someone was awake...

[kubrick]

when they were choosing the acronym.

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

Guess it's better to be viewed as CARP than CRAP -- especially as Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel makes a lot more syntactic sense (unless of course this panel is fully staffed by royalty :)

(ObTrivia: Speaking of acronyms, there are persistent rumours that the MLC (Methodist Ladies' College) in Melbourne, Australia (I'm in Adelaide) was going to change its name to Fitchett Uniting College, Kew. Apparently this suggested name spent several years being batted around committees before someone noticed the obvious :)

Re:At least someone was awake...

[pmc]

Likewise, City University of Newcastle upon Tyne was seriously proposed as a name of a new university in Newcastle.

Another was the company "Experts Exchange", who registered expertsexchange.com as their domain, much to the disappointment of any prospective transexuals who visited.

Can't do that

[FakePlasticDubya]

Our funding will get pulled by the School Board if we don't show some degree of popularity. Yeah, it sucks, but if the people at our school aren't interested it in because we only play unsigned artists who decide to give us their CDs, then we won't have a staff, or a station. Yeah, it sucks being at the mercy of a population of teenagers, but that's how it goes -- even if we have a 1500 watt transmitter.

Look at the bright side...

[SoupaFly]

I have to wonder if the RIAA, by essentially pulling all their stuff off the Net, isn't leaving a void that might be better filled by low power broadcasters and independants? Really, they're doing us a favor.. how many net radio stations do you need, if they're all playing the same corporate generated drivel?

And doesn't an online-only broadcaster have certain advantages? They're not regulated and it's relatively cheap to start. Seems like it could be a sweet fusion of pirate radio and public access TV if done well.

-----
Imagine a world without advertising...

Everyone should offer their 2 cents!

[xFoz]

I just addressed and sent $0.02 to the address below. Also enclosed was a nicely worded note basically saying "No!"

Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel (CRAP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0977.

Doesn't this violate European privacy laws?

[shoppa]

And a listener's log listing: 1) The name of the service or entity 2) The channel or program 3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone) 4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone) 5) The time zone where the signal was received (user) 6) Unique User identifier 7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

Don't most European countries already have internet privacy laws which protect users from many kinds of content logging?

What's worse...

[Danse]

I listen to Live365 and Shoutcast stations fairly often. Let's see what will happen to them:

This applies to a station with a medium-sized listener base.

(1000 listeners * 12 songs/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/yr * $.0014 Fee/performance) * 1.09 Ephemeral License Fee = $160,413.12/yr

OUCH!

There goes webcasting. Shoutcast and Live365 each have hundreds of stations. Maybe only 50 or so have a high volume of traffic, but any way you cut it, these rates will kill webcasting. But that's their intent of course, so it makes perfect sense.

Re:What's worse...

[joekool]

I know streams on shoutcast (and I believe live365) are individually run, that happen to be listed on those sites. They are more like a directory of radio stations than anything else. So this would not effect them. I could be wrong with live365 (do they rebroadcast the stream?--memory fails...) Regardless the argument still applies for anyone else

Re:What's worse...

[Danse]

I didn't see any distinction made between individually run stations or any other webcaster. It looked like the rates for any webcast were the same. The only distinction was between those that simultaneously rebroadcast and those that don't. The fact that they aren't simultaneously rebroadcasting an AM/FM station doubles their rate.

Re:What's worse...

[joekool]

I mean that things listed on shoutcast, etc. are just an individually run site, and usually have relativly few listeners, compared to the number of people using the directory listing. So they have that many fewer listeners--I know that even the most popular shoutcast sites only have a few hundred listeners at a time, so they will only be paying a few dollars or so. I am trying to say that they are not rebroadcasters(with caveats about live365), they are instead a yellow pages of sites doing a broadcast.

hopefully some of that made sense? it's getting late

Re:What's worse...

[Danse]

Live365 shows how many listening hours each station gets (actually it shows them as a range, kinda like 1-5 stars, with each star representing some number of users). Many stations have well over a thousand listeners at any given time. Many stations have over 10,000 listening hours a month. That's a lot of money they could end up paying if these rates go through.

Re:What's worse...

[Danse]

Scratch the part about the thousand listeners at any given time. That was a mis-paste on my part.

I don't see what the hoo-hah is all about

[eldurbarn]

Copyright is a government backed monopoly meant to stimulate creativity, right?

So the RIAA is a big player, and now it's painting itself into a corner, creating a playing field where it's own chokehold on entertainment can drive the price of that entertainment high enough that, sooner or later, some other entity can enter and thrive by charging less (or nothing at all) for creative work that the RIAA has no rights to.

It looks to me that the logical conclusion of this particular idiocy is certainly in line with the original purpose behind granting copyright in the first place. The market will shake down and the RIAA will have realized that it's shot itself in the foot and will either have to backpedal furiously to regain lost market share or it will find itself out of a job.

hello ! there is a world outside USA

[sh0rtie]

how is this the death of online radio ?, the internet incase anyone hadn't noticed is worldwide , the copyright office of usa is a laughable organisation in china/russia etc and will quite simply be ignored.

So whereas i feel sorry for people living in the usa , most streams will simply move to another country where usa copyright is non-applicable (long list) and i dont really see diplomatic extradition for streaming radio

when will the USA realise they do not own the internet , the whole world does !

Re:hello ! there is a world outside USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up! It's like that e-mail tax that they were going to do. What are they going to do, tax the whole world? And what if you're sending to another country, or if they're sending to you, or if you're sending to outer space, or if you're sending via SMS or packet radio or something else??

Where does this leave the micro broadcaster?

[DJTodd242]

Since 1998, I have run a weekly radio program: http://www.synthetic.org/ featuring new Electronic music acts. I've never taken a dime from anyone (except for a short period in '99 when banner ads made me a grand total of $75.) and have operated wth the tacit support of artists and labels.

Where does this leave me? Am I going to have to pay $.14 a song (x8 songs per show, x2000 listens per week) to do something that I started as an altruistic gesture to support the scene I love?

Thats $2,240 a week to help promote the music I enjoy. I've already thought of packing it in a few times, but if the RIAA is going to knock down my door for this, I have no choice but to drop out.

It's sad really. All I wanted to do was give back to the people who have created the music, and the people who listen to the music. I've always kept it on the up and up, no 128k mp3's. Any suggestions?

Copyright Terrorism Protection Act

[dotslash]

Congress just voted to overwhelmingly pass the Copyright Terrorism Protection Act. After the latest string of copyright thefts, the government has now aproved the following measures:

A copyright task force headed by the RIAA and the MPAA will be manned by paramilitary forces in order to stop the tide of terroristic copyright theft. The task force is authorised to use deadly force upon "vague suspicion" of potential copyright theft. The law includes special provisions for an exception to the 1st, 4th and 14th ammendments for reasons of national security.

Already, 16 people have been killed with flamethrowers for humming tunes without a license. 6 bystanders were killed during the skirmish. An RIAA spokesperson said that the collateral damage was "Regrettable" but that "Copyright terrorism threatens our freedom and must be stopped".

This is bad, but it could actually be worse.

[Talsan]

At first glance, this sounds really bad, but it might not be enough to put all college stations off the air.

I run a small college station in Chicago with a school supplied budget of $4000/year. We scrape together a few other dollars, and the school does provide electricity and legal services for free, but it's still tight...

What I'm guessing the licensing companies will try to do is going to look like this:

$0.0002/per performance + $500 or 9% of the per performance cost, whichever is greater.

I would use these numbers to estimate the per year performances for us:

15 songs/hour * 30 people/song * 24 hours * 365 days * $0.0002 = $788.40

If this were all, we might be able to scrape together the extra funds, however we would have to add $1500 to that cost ($500 minimum fee to each of the 3 licensing companies). That's what's going to hurt us. That doesn't even take into account trying to report all that information... We don't have to deal with nearly that much information even when we're in a reporting weekend!

I contrast, we currently pay under $1000 per year for the licenses to play the music over the air.

But, I suppose there's still hope.

Patrick

an error in the release?

[dbrower]

The rate in the publication is $0.07 per performance, seemingly defined as "per stream". Inasmuch as the RIAA was only asking for $0.004 per stream, the rate announced is out of whack. It is somewhat consistant with the radio rates where a "performance" is for everyone, not per unique listener. Could this be a typo or definitional erratum?

-dB

Not quite....

[Anonymous Coward]

Record companies who own sound recordings are not subject to compulsory licenses relating to radio airplay, because there are traditionally no public performance rights in a sound recording. Radio stations have to pay ASCAP/BMI public performance fees for music compositions. Interestingly, there is no compulsory license for public performance rights in a composition... A songwriter could hypothetically refuse to let a radio station play a recording of his song. The pre-existing compulsory license actually applies to the composition, in favor of the sound recording rights holder (ie, the record companies): the sound recording rights holder can make copies of their recording (and thus the song), and distribute such, and the songwriter can't say no - they are entitled to their compulsory mechanical royalty of course.

Hey, you changed your sig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're so brave posting as 'maxpublic,' leaving yourself open to identity theft and the like. Ooooh, someone get this guy a Silver Star quick.

Misinterpretation

[dantonioJr]

The amount in the tables is 0.07 cents ($0.0007) and 0.14 ($0.0014) cents, not $0.07 and $0.14 as most posters read it. This doesn't necessarily invalidate all the comments about the expense, but it puts things in a bit different perspective.

Internet streaming in Samizdat�

[kiwipeso]

The Samaizdat program I've developing (yes, GPL for all you slashdot geeks) has internet radio and TV streaming built in.
If you want to be a radio station or a movie channel, you can do that with Samizdat.(c)
[you can do that with Samizdat is a copyleft trademark]

Samizdat is a part of the Kaos operating system but it will be freely available to any OS.
This is not about ripping off the world's largest media companies,it's about a free press.
If you want your own TV, Radio or Website and you don't even have a static IP to run from, Samizdat can carry your info anywhere.

Solutions?

[Kargan]

Yeah, I agree, like probably almost everyone else, that this is bad.

What can we do about it? I wouldn't even know where to start.

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP)

[FarHat]

It would have been better if they named themselves Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel(CRAP). Or maybe this is more fitting as they CARP a lot about CRAP

More Money Opportunities

[Lysander Luddite]

Charge for access for that information for 3rd party developers. Sure, you broadcasters could get it free from various sources, but its not practical. Enter a licensed database held by BMI, ASCAP, and the RIAA members. Suddenly, you can automate your streaming software to grab all the required info from the database. Something like Gracenote or FreeDB, but for streaming servers.

Now imagine what you'll need to pay for that info access. They get you coming and going.

Really, i believe most of these requirements can be easily overcome, but the Big Boys don't want to play fair.

Won't Happen

[Ashcrow]

It just won't happen. No matter how much the RIAA or others try to inforce this people have a right to free speech which includes using their own bandwith (and those of listeners who want to tune in).

SSM won't get a chance

[Krellan]

Well, that's it, folks. It's been nice having online radio while we could.

With these new regs, it will be the death knell of webcasting. Expect Live365 to fold within a month once these new regs take effect. Nullsoft Shoutcast and Spinner will hold on a little longer, as they are subsidized by AOL, but it too will disappear. The smaller independent stations? *poof*, as another poster put it! Considering the new fees are retroactive to 1998, if I were an online broadcaster, I'd be scrambling to dismantle my setup before they find me and send me the bill!

A shame this has to happen just when SSM, Source-Specific Multicast, was getting off the ground. Finally, an almost complete rearchitecturing of the failed Internet Multicast protocol. It addresses the two primary shortcomings of existing multicast -- address shortage and DoS attacks -- and looks like it actually could have worked.

To anyone who's watched developments in online radio technology, SSM is like nirvana. The Class D multicast address shortage is solved, by effectively using 64-bit addresses: a station's existing unicast IP address is simply concatenated with a multicast address in SSM's address range (232.x.x.x, equivalent to a big fat Class A!). And there's no central authority to go through, the station just simply chooses one of these address! This effectively gives the station the capability for 16 million channels (different SSM trees of listeners).

That's right, it's finally a tree! The many-to-many multicast model has been replaced with one-to-many. Formerly, a rogue client could simply inject data into the stream, and that data would be replicated to all other listeners. Not good. Since SSM is a tree, with the originating station at the root, this problem is solved. It will become much more difficult to "jam" a SSM station (a router close to the source would have to be hacked). With these two main problems solved, Internet multicasting would finally be good to go...!

It would have been a wonderful thing, had these new rules not been enacted. This new SSM protocol might have taken off, helping to alleviate the enourmous waste of bandwidth caused by having to repeatedly unicast the same stream to each individual listener.

Possibly the only good thing that can come out of this is more exposure for unsigned garage bands. If SSM helps to reduce the bandwidth cost of streaming, and the garage band owns their own copyrights (not a member of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/RIAA), then it might be affordable for them to broadcast online....

back in the day and squeezing out the little guys

[pjones]

When we started the first continous simulcast on the net back in 1994 with WXYC we immediately ran into lawyers saying that we couldn't do it and that even if we could we wouldn't be at it for long. Now 8 years later, we're still on the air and are simulcasting two other stations and soon to add two more. All are public radio, student radio or non-profit cooperatives.

But the new rules would make it impossible for any of these stations to be on the net. WCPE is all classical and perhaps the only 24 hours non-commercial station in the world. The lose would be astounding. What are we left to hear? Tightly controlled formats with intrusive privacy invasive reporting.

Send in your comments NOW! I am at the highest level of alert!

Viva La Revolution!

[kiwipeso]

Friends, Slashdotters and Linux Geeks.
The First amendment of the US constitution grants you the right to free speech.
The DCMA is unconstitutional and should be ignored by every american citizen who wants the American Way to mean something.

You have the right to a free press, so why not stand up for your right to broadcast information you paid for?
The RIAA must be made a mockery, in the way they make a mockery of your constitution.
If you want to buy a CD, download it first or listen to it at the record store.
Don't listen to the radio stations, why should you have to suffer ads for crap you don't buy and DJs who talk while the song is playing?

A terrorist does things to get america to pass laws to make america as bad as the terrorist, do you follow the stupid laws or the american way?
And why should you not regard the RIAA as the same kind of threat to your rights?

Re:Viva La Revolution!

[xee]

why is this scored 0? it should be +5 Informative!!!

Re:Viva La Revolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because it is filled with bullshit. There is no right to broadcast information. Free press doesn't cover broadcasting somebody else's work. That's not to say that I don't despise the RIAA (because I do) and I definitely think that radio has gone to shit but stretching the Constitution to fit our ideals is no better than RIAA lobbying for laws that push their ideals.

Re:Viva La Revolution!

[xee]

You should do some research before posting such a bold statement. I'm not going to waste my time doing the research for you, but i can tell you this: you're wrong.

Hmm

[Have Blue]

If this actually goes anywhere, what will it do to Apple's plans to force the MPEG-4 consortium to loosen their licensing terms?

Re:Superstars???

[yintercept]

The big question is whether or not, in 50 years from now, we will still have a music industry dominated by super stars or, if we will return to the days when everyone made music for the sake of music.

Go back 200 years, you would find that people were out there signing, jamming together and making music. The rock superstar era was just a flash in evolution created by monopolies that formed around artificial monopolies and the limited publishing technology of the day.

If you leave today's technology to its own devices, you will end up with millions of people pumping out and combining together "music programs" to make their own custom music.

The superstars of tomorrow will be the companies that provide the MIDI devices (or whatever) that help people make their own music.

Laws driving the Market?

[Anonymous Coward]

What cracks me up, is those who act in concert to stiffle competition are doing much more than they had planned. They are driving competition to abandon the web as method of delivery for IP and forcing them to a better alternative. Yes, Freenet works through a web browser, no freenet does not require royalties.

Out by 100.

[nick_davison]

120 "listeners" * 18hr./day programming * 12 "performances"/hr. * $0.02/"performance" ==> $518.40/day.

That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web.

Actually, the price is 0.02c not $0.02 That makes a factor of 100 difference. So the college radio would really only be paying about five bucks a day for such a small audience. Sell about a thousand dollars of advertising to your local Pizza Hut and to Nike and you've got a full year's coverage.

(I may be wrong, I'm English but I just got my American wife to check and she tells me I'm reading US currency correctly.)

So let me make sure I understand this, RIAA/gov:

[Scoria]

I pay you and my ISP exorbitant amounts of money (for licensing and bandwidth, respectively) so that I'm given the privilege of publicizing your artists.

Not to mention, the "license to license" alone costs $500 yearly. The RIAA is manipulating our government so that they can prevent the general population from innovating, broadcasting, or even listening to stations not influenced by them. An example of these unfair regulations restricting the masses is a project of mine called laconica [sic] (it will soon have a web page further detailing it here; initialized.org's development is behind schedule). Conceptually, it allows the listeners to control the stream by vote, comment on the music, create their own playlists (if the playlist is voted high enough, it begins streaming the next hour), and even upload their own music.

Considering the fact that initialized is not for profit and we'd still pay for bandwidth by the gigabyte *after* the RIAA fees, our own laconica stream will most likely fail to become a reality. (We still plan to continue developing and release the software as open source, though.)

File a comment that will help a future lawsuit

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

I see lots of people pointing out why this isn't fair or just won't work. Well, there is a comment period here, so file comments. No, I'm not niave enough to think that this will get turned around because of a few comments, but what these comments will do is lay the supporting groundwork for the inevitable lawsuits that will follow the implementation of the rules. What these suits will allege is that these rules are impossible to follow and/or that they are crafted to force Webcasters off the air. So if you believe that, file a comment. Take the rules, one by one, and explain the problem with each of them. No opinions, just facts. If you believe that the rules are impossible to implement, lay out the reasons. If you think they are financially destructive, use hard numbers. If you want to argue that the rules go above and beyond what the underlying law requires, spell it out, point for point. Remember, there will be lawsuits over this, and these comments will be used in court.

It's not really that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that this stuff only applies to you if you want to broadcast someone else's content.

You can whine about the terms they offer, but your whining is just as lame as someone whining about GPL terms. ("But I don't WANT to give my customer the source code to your program! Waaahh!") If you don't like someone else's terms, then don't traffic in their stuff. What's the big deal?

Re:It's not really that bad

[pozar]

Oh really? Try to come up with this data as required by the proposal for the RIAA if you stream...

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
D) Date of Transmission
E) Time of Transmission
F) Time zone of origination of Transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound Recording Title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording Label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

And a listener's log listing:

1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique User identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

Perhaps this is easier if you have all your music on a hard drive, but if you are a station that is a bit more electic than your average top 40 station you won't be able to create this log. This is ignoring the privacy issue of the listener log.

Grassroots

[antirename]

How many of you listen to bands that nobody outside your region have heard from? How many of you know that because you heard something at a live show that you wouldn't hear on top 40 radio? How many of you think that your taste in music sucks now, since it didn't have a commercial station supporting your point of view with Chevy dealership and Sprite commercials? Now, how many of you listen to Brittany Spears? SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL ARTISTS! Just 'cause it's on the radio don't make it good, folks. Would you download it?

a glimmer of hope, if only for edu/pbs

[darkphyber]

In reading a section of the copyright law (17 U.S.C Section 114) there is a provision that would seem to exempt educational stations & public broadcasting stations from these fees.

"The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public."

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.htm l# 114

It still doesn't help other stations, but at least it's a start..

CARP vs CRAP

[Anonymous Coward]

letsee,

"Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel" parses to "an organization dedicated to collect the royalties for the arbitration process in copyright disputes." Put that way, it sounds like they want to tax the lawyers....

"Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel", on the other hand, sounds more like an organization dedicated to the arbitration of payment for copyright use. CRAP seems more on target, then, for what they actually do.

I say if they want to tax the lawyers, thats fine with me. But if they are just going to be a tool for the RIAA to screw over the little guy, well, that's CRAP.

Exce-fucking-llent! Ha ha ha ha ha!

[gnovos]

Q. So the end result of this regulation will be?

A. The next generation of "radio" (broadband wireless webcasting) playing nothing but independant bands and singers without recording contacts.

Q. And the result of THIS?

A. The RIAA will slowly and painfull starve to death and go out of business as it's bands become relgated into obscurity.

There was a great story I was told when I was akid about King Midas who loved gold. He loved it so much that he was granted his one and only wish, that everything he touched would turn to gold... He had a wonderful time turning things into gold, but when dinner time cam around, he suddenly discovered that he couldn't eat without turning the food to gold. He couldn't eat, he couldn't drink, and even his own beautiful daughter was turned to gold.

If the RIAA members were human beings, you know the kind with mothers and fathers, not the kind decanted in tubes, they would have been told this story as children. They would realize that the stronger thier grip on the music, the more they lose it. The crueler they are to thier arch-nemisis, thier customers, the poorer they will be.

Cheer on legislation like this! This is the beginning of the end for them.

hello ! there is a world outside USA-Long arm of..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that's true. BTW how's that russian programmer?

I don't see what the hoo-hah is all about-insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

All this is correct in a sane world. However for anyone who's been paying attention for the past five years. Sanity in government, business, and even individuals is in remarkably short supply. The BT situation wouldn't have happened in a sane world, nor the DMCA. McDonalds being sued over hot coffee. Comcast spying on it's customers. The examples overwelm. Maybe things will happen your way, but in a world were not only are the scales tilted, but falling over. The most extreme reaction will ever prove a sutable counterweight to the actions that have transpired.

----
And their will be much gnashing of teeth..

Scoring: Viva La Revolution!

[kiwipeso]

Regretably, I'm anti-linux so my stuff is ignored by moderators.
To moderate on slashdot, you have to have a high karma and a lot of pro-linux posts.
Currently my karma is -4, it was -11 6 weeks ago. Even counting just 5% of my serious posts will only get me 1 or 2 points back for all the stuff slashdot moderators disagree with.

[note to moderators: this is not offtopic as it deals with censorship which is what RIAA is all about]
I say that "freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4, when that is granted all else follows."
If we allow big brother to dictate the price of free speech, then we have no free speech, we have corporate speech.
If we consider a 24 hour per day, all year online only radio station with an average of 1000 listeners, then RIAA is asking for $133 677. 60 per year in Copyright Royalties Association Payments.
This is 0.14 per song per user, 10 songs per hour, 24 hours per day ($336 per day) times 365 days a year ($122 640 per year) times ephemeral costs of 9% = $133 677.60

How is an online radio station going to raise $133.68 per user per year? Advertising?
Most people listen to online radio to escape commercial radio, would subscription work?

I have a better idea, use a Filesharing program to have a radio grid of stations.
And yes, I'm doing just such a thing in a GPL projcxt called Samizdat.

Re:Scoring: Viva La Revolution!

[xee]

Ouch. That's a sticky situation. Although i'm not sure of the exact stipulations, i know there are some limits to fair-use when you limit your audience to a specific membership. For example, as I understand the law, private libraries are not allowed fair-use protection.

Re:Scoring: Viva La Revolution!

[kiwipeso]

I should have stated the obvious, I don't need to comply with american law as I am a New Zealand & Australian Citizen.
I was the first to transmit a concert live over the internet 9 years ago from Wellington Town Hall.
Online transmissions by private citizens are considered to not be radio transmissions in NZ & OZ.
I think the FCC regulations for Ham Radio would apply to private online transmissions.

BTW, My Karma is now -2, I have to find just more radical statements which aren't linuz zealotry yet get positive attention from moderators.

Is this license fee payable to independents?

[ikekrull]

If this law is passed, doesn't this mean that if I, Joe Average, mix up a couple of tracks and find some webcasters playing my tracks, that I can extract money from them?

How do I go about doing that, and if the state is deputizing the RIAA to be their tax-collectors (conveniently only collecting taxes for their clients), then this really stinks.

What this should mean is that artists would be able to release music independently from any specific label and get paid if their material is played.

Personally, I think that if this law to to be fairly and equitably applied to the majority of the copyright-holders in the country, then some type of government-funded independent registry should be maintained where artists interested in deriving income from webcasted tracks must register them with at no charge.

A percentage of the money could be taken by the governement to cover the costs of running the registry.

Radio stations would then check the single, unified list, and credit the appropriate account.

Yes, it could be a goddamn big list, but thats the price you pay for a fair and just law.

Payments would be held by the government for the period that copyright lasts (however long that might be), and the artist, upon providing appropriate identification, could collect the money.

This would not preclude the RIAA from extracting revenue from their artists web-play, but would help to ensure that all copyright-holders, not just those financed by the RIAA to benefit.

I mean, how is this supposed to work otherwise?

Am I, a guy with not much more than a guitar to his name, going to be able to afford a lawyer to sue the radio stations? Thats ridiculous.

This law promotes the efforts of a tiny percentage of copyright-holders and does nothing to promote the creation of new works (unless they are on RIAA labels).

Is this governement by the people, for the people?

Because it sounds like government by the RIAA for the RIAA.

Aren't there alternatives?

[gotan]

I mean, there's a lot of music that is not under control of the big labels, some of it even entirely free like some of the "Open Music" project, but maybe also local Bands you can work out a special contract for (many will be happy for the promotion). Yeah, it's not Britney Spears, and it takes some research to get what you want (you can't play the Hitlists). Also it obviously wouldn't work for any station to compose their entire program out of it, but it would help nevertheless, even if it makes up only part of the program. Also it would create a way for Artists to get known without becoming a slave of the RIAA.

I can see some advantages of this system for the price of a little work (finding music of that kind, but once that is done you could exchange information with others who did similar work), the main one being, to take some power out of the hands of the big lables by creating alternative ways for artists and their audience to find each other. And as a nice side effect the station can reduce some costs.

So what am i missing?
--

Seize the music? ;-)

[F8336]

Pouncing on webcastings has probably been in their plans for a long time, isn't their mission statement: CARP DEM?

--Joey

You seem to have missed the point...

[ebbomega]

Actually, another big portion of the movie is him playing a lot of controversial banned music... another reason the FCC is trying to track him down.

But moreso, the point here is that the reaction is the same... the more that they try to clamp down on something that is inevitable, the more it's going to sift right through their fingers.

They can't clamp down on webcasts on the sole basis that they're too many and they're too small to be able to get them all. In an informational and technical sense, it's like trying to impose regulation on web pages. The point is that the more they use conventional means to find these sights, the more unconventional means the webcasters will use, and the less they'll be able to control.

When they attack something that isn't centralised (like filesharing) all they serve is decentralisation of whatever it is they think they know. Look at Napster. Right after its uselessness was shown, there were a least half a dozen clones ready to take its place (Gnutella, Audiogalaxy, Limewire, Hotline, Kazaa, Morpheous, etc.)

What happens when they clamp down on these ones?

The thing is if they try to do it the same with webcasts, they're going to be insane if they think they can control them. All they'll result in shutting down major free webcasts is in spawning a lot more minor free webcasts that will be harder to combat.

Re:back in the day and squeezing out the little gu

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, first of all there are others countries in the world except the US, and if you do some research you will find out that in sweden we have three nationwide radio stations that's on for 24h a day without commercials.

So the might be a loss for the US, but not the world.

.. .

Re:back in the day and squeezing out the little gu

[Anonymous Coward]

Me again,

I did mean four, not three.

What Happened?

[djweso]

At one point broadcasters were being controlled because the limited resource of "air waves." Now they're being controlled because of the all mighty buck.

One of the original radio broadcasts was to communicate a "Holiday Greeting" and play some music. Radio has always been about communication and entertainment.

I understand and agree with the idea that artist should receive financial compensation for there art and that they should keep control of it.

[one common form of entertainment being the enjoying of art] Why are these ideas mutually exclusive? They aren't unless you factor in money hungry people.

I'm not saying that record labels are intrinsically bad. They aren't. It's when they get out of control and change their main focus from distributing art to making money. Making money should be only about supporting the artist, the art, new artist, and yourself/your family.

Broadcasters should be interested in entertaining and supporting art and maybe educating.

{just my idealistic rant}

weso

Indy Media Broadcasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this draft is unfortunate and IMO, just plain stupid. I do have questions about Indy Media, I do a small show for friends that's somewhat in the format of many educational shows like you'd hear on public radio. So, how will this affect me? It's Indy Media released into the public domain, free for rebroadcast, free of charge. Yet as I read the proposal I see no exclusion for that media. Ideas?

They asked for it

[Jebediah21]

If this has the effect the RIAA wants then I say fine.* If the RIAA kills NetStations I won't have any easy way to hear music without buying it first (which is what they want), or jumping through the hoops of finding a song on IRC or OpenNap. When that happens I'm going Southeast Asia on the RIAA. Yes, I will run a pirating ring in my spare time. I'm fucking fed up with the bullshit they feed us. If they're going to take the law into their own hands so will I. And if by some odd chance KNAC.com or SnakeNet Metal Radio go down then it's full out war.

How much damage can I do to the RIAA before getting caught is the real question. One person may not make the RIAA notice, but imagine how much pirated music you could give away to a campus full of college aged kids. Let's see...
100 CD-R's == $30
1 CD-R MP3's ~~ 100 songs || 10 Albums
So with $30 and some time I can seed quite a number of people with quite a few MP3's. The only restriction? Share the music with others.

Now I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why there is so much radio around without any actual music, just lots and lots of adverts.

PressPlay and MusicNet

[IsoRashi]

How does this relate to these two services? I was kind of shocked to read that it would be $.14 for an internet-only broadcast, and the first thing that I thought of was how the artists were getting that fraction of a cent for royalties on PressPlay and MusicNet. More of the same thing here?

Re:Boycotting RIAA is good, but not the final solu

[RazzleFrog]

What needs to happen is we have to find an ally in a less evil, but still powerful company that stands to lose where others benefit (maybe Royal Philips?). Microsoft was not brought to task by the government or the people. It was AOL, Oracle and Sun that lead the charge.

The only problem is that after everything is settled you end up with an ally that is now more powerful and stands the chance of becoming corrupt. The US government has experienced this a few times. Often the regimes we fight today are the rebels we backed yesterday (i.e. Taliban).

That's what I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the webcasters being held to a tougher standard?

I don't have a problem with BMI & ASCAP being paid. I don't see where the RIAA has a legitimate right to a cut.

Most colleges don't do Top 40!

[ProfBooty]

Don't most college stations play independent music anyways?

where i went they played a lot of international programing, techno and heavy heavy metal. not exactly mass market stuff. I doubt too many college stations do the whole top 40 thing so i'm not to worried about them paying the licenses.

Re:Most colleges don't do Top 40!

[Let's Kiosk]

But the RIAA is a heck of a lot more than Top 40, and you're subject to the fees if you play music from any RIAA-affiliated label. Sonic Youth and Stereolab are both on major labels in the U.S., hence are part of the RIAA realm (maybe they shouldn't be, you could argue, but that's another matter), yet I have never heard them on a commercial station. Maybe a college deejay wants to play Lucinda Williams, or maybe he/she wanted to play a bunch of Ramones songs after Joey died the other month. What then? What about George Harrison early-70s solo songs apart from "My Sweet Lord"? I don't see any royalty breaks for unpopularity in the Copyright Office's proposal.

That would place certain artists in a bind -- the commercial Top 40 crap stations *don't* play them, and the college/non-commercial stations *couldn't afford* to play them. There's a huge middle ground of artists between Limp Bizkit and East River Pipe that the mass market ignores. They shouldn't be barred from the web to boot.

Asian Copyrights

[tetsuo13]

What would be the effect of all of this on streaming stations that broadcast stuff from Asian groups/bands???

Re:The buggy-whip makers are in charge of the auto

[Dante_H]

It's happened: The buggy-whip makers have been put in charge of the auto industry. Piece by piece, at the bequest of the old-guard publishing industries, our courts and legislators are killing the Internet and the promise it held.

No, it's the other way round. I've seen various prophecies of doom regarding copyright violation since I was 13 downloading "warez" from BBS's. Since then with broadband connections, P2P and the proliferation of IRC channels dedication to file exchange, copyright "violations" seem to have exploded in terms of scale.

The amount of piracy/sharing is difficult to get a proper grasp on. But in my office (a Call Centre with 100+ staff), _everyone_ is involved in "illegal" file sharing. Episodes of Buffy, albums, films, copies of Photoshop, etc. Not just the grunts, but the managers. The kind of dicks who have a stroke if you get round their idiotic restrictions on changing your background (Note to System Support : You can change your background in MSPaint...) Even these guys can be overheard asking for a crack for XYZ program, or a decent VCD of Monsters Inc for their kids. The legitimacy of intellectual property is in an awful state, and the RIAA know it.

Aside from a little homegrown (UK) TV, I don't really watch TV anymore. I could watch Buffy on TV with 20 mins of ads, or I could watch it a month earlier with no ads at my own convenience and timing.

I could spend £100+ on a copy of XP Pro, or I could just get it for free. I don't buy albums, and my DVD collection probably won't grow much in the immediate future. (Thank you DIVX). Yes, I'm a parasite. So?

You can't really blame the RIAA et al for their efforts. But they're not destroying anything. The last grunts of collapsing empires. And this is the situation in a core capitalist state. Look to India/China where even business piracy is probably over 80%, let alone amongst individuals. Try telling these guys that their copy of Office is illegal, or worse still, immoral. You'll get laughed at. And with rising educational (especially with regards to tech) standards in Asia, the RIAA have a battle on their hands. A battle they can't win. As a friend of mine says, they can get a thousand of the smartest guys in the world to develop security for them. The next hundred thousand smartest guys won't stop until it's cracked though.

I think your mistaken

[wizarddc]

It's the Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel.

One solution

[Anonymous Coward]

PIRATE the mother f****ers out of existance.
I am never ever buying music again and i allready stopped my DVD collection habbits after the DeCSS
scandal(and GOD am i dying to go buy Star Trek -The motion picture).

Pirate,pirate,pirate,and then pirate again. The less people buy their crap then less money these terrorists will have...

RTFDocument

[stroker]

Found this in the full Copyright Office notice:

In support of its request for the detailed information, RIAA argues that the information it seeks from the Services is ``easily provided, [] not burdensome, and in fact, is currently provided by a number of licensees who have obtained licenses through negotiations with the RIAA and/or Sound Exchange.'' RIAA Petition at 10-11. RIAA further justifies the need for the additional reporting requirements on the basis of differences in statutory requirements for the different licenses and on the basis of the different business models used within the different categories of Services. RIAA petition at 9. Other interested parties, however, may find the requirements too stringent and burdensome in spite of RIAA's assertions. Such parties should identify any problems they perceive with the proposed regulations and explain with specificity the reasons why the regulations are unworkable or unduly burdensome, or exceed the needs of the copyright owners.

So...all you interested parties, identify those problems and explain with specificity! This doesn't sound like a set-in-stone deal. Yet.

To whom should these comments be sent?

ADDRESSES: An original and ten copies of any comment shall be delivered to: Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office, James Madison Building, Room LM-403, First and Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC; or mailed to: Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0977.

By when should these comments be received?

DATES: Comments are due by March 11, 2002. Reply comments are due by April 8, 2002.

Have at 'em. Please, please, PLEASE don't just bitch about this here on Slashdot. Me, I don't run a streaming server. I don't know the technical ins and outs of what it takes. I do, however, watch and listen to the DNA Lounge's webcasts with regularity. A lot of the posts here sound like they're written by people with more than half a clue, and if their knowledge can keep the Bastards from shutting this and other broadcasts down, eleven printed copies of nearly exactly what was written here sent to the above address will be very powerful pieces of paper, indeed.

The RIAA and Internet music.

[13Echo]

The biggest problem is that most people are too fucking lazy to search for music, and sometimes they are just too ignorant to figure it out.

Radio station material is convenient for them. Many of them that have heard other things aren't able to embrace new types of music because they have been subjected to so much mainstream shit over the years.

So here is too a few more years of shit like Limp Bizkit and Brittany Spears. Eventually, streaming internet radio will be common in many devices: home steros, car stereos, portable players. Even XMRadio won't be able to compete with the unlimited number of internet stations that will be available over IP. These stations will not only be run by large companies, but by people like you and me.

The RIAA and companies like Clearchannel will ultimately be forced out of business by the consumers. The companies are merely trying to protect their interests.

There is no real way that the RIAA can control the growing capabilities of the consumer's computer without taking away your freedoms in the process. Piracy is not a good thing, but the RIAA's theft of the consumer's dollar is also wrong. There is no reasonable solution to this problem, aside from objecting tp the RIAA's terms. The courts won't be able to make a suitable decision that will apphease the RIAA and protect the consumer. The consumer will still get screwed in the end.

GPL music? Constitutional copyright limit is 14 y

[Anonymous Coward]

There are an awful lot of fine artists out there that make their own CDs, don't go through the RIAA racketeers.

What if they were encouraged to provide their music for the web. GPL it. Keep RIAA from getting rights to it.

If artists mostly make very little from their work, they wouldn't be loosing much. The local coffee house circuit has some fine performers, they do it for the love of music, not to make money (I don't that dollars in a hat makes them much for their time!)

-That- would be competition that the RIAA racket would have trouble competing with, IMO.

I would also point out that the Federal Constitution limits copyrights and patents to 14 years. Not 70 years as in the States, nor 150 years as in Europe. 14 years. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Let's Not Forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, in other words, CARP, sounds like a load of it to me. Forgive me for being so brief, but I need this precious bandwidth for my downloads from Kazaa. 8-]

No, it's the other way round.

[dpilot]

Two things:

1: It appears clear that the government is coming down on the side of big business in all this mess. Until now, they've been kind of on the sidelines, if not on the side of keeping the Internet free. That situation is apparently gone.

2: Your hundred thousand crackers are using an infrastructure that was put in place while the media giants were sleeping, and the government favored Internet freedom. Neither of those is true, any more. Don't count on that infrastructure moving forward, or even remaining recognizable. Ports? What are those? All we need are 25, 53, 110, 80, and 443, so why put in all this other mess and make life easy for crackers when a half dozen suffice for *approved* traffic?

What EXACTLY is a broadcast?

[opusbuddy]

FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making, RM-9395 proposed to amend Part 73 of the Commission's rules to permit the introduction of Digital Audio Broadcasting in the AM and FM Broadcast Services. MM DOCKET NO. 99-325 seeks comment on the National Radio Systems Committee, DAB Subcommittee's "Evaluation of the iBiquity Digital Corporation's IBOC" system to implement this proposed rule.

What all this says is that the FCC is seeking comment on a system that will allow simultaneous digital and analog broadcast on existing spectrum. Specifically, the IBOC system streams audio in MPEG2 format.

So the $64K question is, what is the difference in streaming in M$ or Real format vs. DAB in MPEG2 format? There is an obvious "flip" answer, but the more fundamental answer lies in the question "what is a broadcast?" According to communications network theory, it is a one-to-many transmission of information or signal. Does not the concept of "webcast" fit this definition? What if the "webcast" were "transmitted" over a wireless link?

You might say, "well, it's a difference of where in the spectrum your signal is located," or "there's no way to tell if it goes over wires or wireless." In the former case, since when does the Copyright Office have jurisdiction over spectrum? In the latter, well, the same can be said about "radio" broadcast, where the signal may be carried over wires, wireless, or transmitted from the same location as the studio.

In fact, with many stations now being "voice tracked" (that is, a DJ sits in a studio and records an 8-hour shift in 45 minutes) and the voice tracks AND the music sent to the local radio station via FTP, one could make a serious case that the transmission from your local radio station is a "webcast."

Re:Exce-fucking-llent! Ha ha ha ha ha!

[clone304]

You're failing to recognize that the RIAA controls the marketing and distribution mechanisms that lure teen record buyers, who are the largest marketing demographic. Member companies of the RIAA control what's played on MTV, hyped on the TV guide channel, used in soundtracks of teen flicks, etc. Unforunately, our youth (at least most of them) want what they are being sold. It's not until they gain the perspective that comes with age and a refinement of taste that they will recognize how the generations coming up behind them are also spoon fed the same crap. The record companies have been doing this type of marketing for years and have gotten increasingly good at it. So, no, I don't think the scenario you describe will take shape, at least not to the extent that you propose. More likely than not, teens will feel that these "free" independent webstreams are for crappy music that nobody can sell. They will view them as the stations for unpopular artists. The record companies will continue to define what's mainstream and popular, which is what get's pushed on commercial radio, will be pushed on commercial webcasts, and will be bought by twelve year old girls.

What they will have acheived though, is a monopoly on webcasting of mainstream music. They are crafting a HUGE cash cow, and doing so with clever effective strategy. Do not underestimate them.

.

Net Radio and Anonymizer

[PollyPara]

Just getting my arms around this problem. How does Big Brother know how many listeners to charge for? Some signal from my computer to their large collecting devices? I've only connected to internet radio a few times. (oh, I might as well confess. Christmas music, and Grateful Dead tunes, before my work shut down access.) But, I know I accessed through the old click a link. Why wouldn't it work through Anonymizer, or some similar tool?

Re:Absurd requirements & Microsoft

[Technician]

The webcaster requirements can be most easly be met by Microsoft. Add the fact that end user recording is disabled in Microsoft software, the XP registration for location, and secure media player for tracking your billing. It will be simple to tie into your passport account and bill your charge card. Do you have your passport account yet? Microsoft will be the only one permitted to stream music as they are the only one that can meet the secure media path to guarantee you can pay to listen, but not record. Nobody else will have the clout to get the record companies to license the material for streaming. There will be no price competition. It will cost you more to compete.