Slashdot Mirror
Web Radio and the RIAA
Andrew Leonard writes: "Steve Marks, VP of legal affairs of the RIAA, is duking it out with critics in a point-counterpoint debate focusing on the nitty-gritty details of how artists will be compensated by the new rules on Webcasting royalties."
Should be the same as before, right? Artist puts down $1 million for WebPlay rights, gets played on the Web, and recoups it at .01c per album. That's the industry formula for protecting artists, if I recall correctly.
Artists won't be compensated at all if there aren't any web radio stations left.
sulli
RTFJ.
Since when has the RIAA compensated actual artists for their music? This money will just go into the RIAA coffers, some of it being distributed to the top 20 or 50 or whatever sellers of any particular music medium.
The artists I like make all their money selling t-shirts and products on tour...
The money went to artists? I thought it went to lobbying efforts.
Visit saveinternetradio.org, a site by the folks behind the Radio And Internet Newsletter, or RAIN. We in the radio broadcast industry are doing everything we can to make it clear that the CARP recommendations, based almost line-by-line on what the RIAA asked for, would effectively eliminate radio broadcasters from the internet streaming arena. Oddly enough, RIAA member companies are in the process of rolling out their own for-pay services... coincidence, right?
I'm only wearing black until they come out with something darker.
Finally, with regard to your observation that the confusion about the artists' share of royalties is the fault of SoundExchange because its Web site is not up to date, you'll be happy to know that's because SoundExchange doesn't have a webmaster -- thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the artists
Does it really seem like that should be considered a good thing? I mean, isn't that a little bit like telling people the airline doesn't have a pilot, thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the airline stockholders?
But don't worry...
Since the FCC allowed Clear Channel to own up to 49% of as many local radio stations as they wanted, I've heard a lot more crap on the radio, both from shitty Creed ripoffs and more screaming car salesman. Stuff like live365.com keeps me going during work hours. If this passes, I'll probably just turn the radio up till I go deaf. It would be better than commercial radio is now.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
It is very likely that I'm crazy but, aren't they getting increased exposure, FOR FREE, by being netcast?
crazy dynamite monkey
The process was completely undemocratic -- none of these stations was allowed to testify at CARP. WCPE was specifically excluded
see also WXYC's save our streams page and Save Our Streams
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
These problems with the RIAA and internet radio are nothing new. Slashdot had a story on October 5 about how the recording industry is trying to collect royalties from webcasters who are streaming audio.
At what point do web radio audiences get big enought that the record companies pay-o-la them to play thier music, instead of the other way round...
Check out VISA's cure for Shoplifting!
tcd004
The statute requires that 50 percent of the royalties be allocated to artists, and the CARP determined that this 50 percent should be paid directly to the artists...Yes, it is true that the costs of collecting and distributing royalties will be deducted from the royalties, but how else would the money get to the record companies and artists?
Only 50% will go to the artists. But when I put aup a bad account for collection at my job, we pay, in most cases, only 25%, and maybe less than that. Why are the collection "fees" imposed by the RIAA so high?
Sounds like a ripoff to me.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
...I'm reminded of a little ritual I do once every two or three days. As I'm just starting to wake up, still squinting at the light, and go to the sink to wash up and shave, I look myself in the mirror and say, "John. Be glad you're not an artist."
-Paul.
Does this web radio legislation hold any weight for independents? If not, just boycott major label artists and play things on independent labels. There are thousands of amazing bands out there just waiting for an audience larger than 5000 (such as Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Squarepusher, Cannibal Ox, and Tortoise). Give them a listen and, at the same time, give the RIAA the finger.
For the past 4+ years people have been ripping, burning, broadcasting, playing, trading, leeching music on their computers.
.. another pops up. The RIAA wins one lawsuit .. looses another. .. four more take its place.
Artists have never been compensated for any of this.
The RIAA shuts down one site
The RIAA bans one piece of software
Money that is supposed to go to 'the artist' will always be caught in this never ending cycle.
Personally, I don't understand why record companies want to charge for webcasts or why they think they are entitled to. AM and FM have always been free after price of equipment (a radio). A webcast is simply the progression of this using new technology. From the point of view of the artist, I would want my songs to get as much air (and web) play as possible in an attempt to sell more records, tapes, cds, minidiscs, dvds, etc. All casts, that is streaming music whose content is not decided by the listener directly, should be free. That, is the entire point of advertising. Don't make people pay for the ads, which music on a cast is for the artist's cds anyway.
While the informed elite on /. already know this information, further widespread discussion of the lack of compensation to artists by the RIAA and the like can only be a good thing. The soundbites on national and local news only ever discuss "stealing from artists" and "artists not getting paid."
So far the RIAA has been feeding the information to the wide audience. The more the general populace understands that many of their favorite artists don't make a dime from record sales, the more likely the RIAA will be forced to join us back in the real world.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/03/web_r adio_redux/print.html
I like this last bit:
As for SoundExchange's inability to update its Web site due to not having an on-staff webmaster, please take a look at this 10-minute guide to HTML. I'm sure some of the talented folks at SoundExchange could pick up the skills needed to update the text of your Web site within a couple of days, and it would have saved many hours of many people's time (and prevented much confusion) if there hadn't been a number of folks pointing to the SoundExchange site as proof that (for instance) SoundExchange will not be paying the artists directly.
It is always good to encourage techical literacy.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Do the FM radio stations that I listen to pay the artists for playing their music?
If they do- I have to admit, I did not know that. If they don't, why are internet radio stations any different?
Personally this matters less and less to me as I become more and more disinterested in what "popular" music is floating around out there.
As is regularly posted in this discussion, there are a lot of bands that just want to be heard and have not sold out. They are usually much more interesting. And lets be honest - it does not take a whole lot of talent to produce most of what you can hear on the radio or buy on a $17.oo CD
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"Marks noted that contrary to Hodge's assertion, 50 percent of royalties generated by webcasting would go directly to recording artists."
I'd look up the word "royalties" right about now. I'd look at that definition long and hard.
It seems to me that webcasters should simply have to pay the licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI, and the other organization I can't think of just as FM broadcasters do. IIRC, these fees are based on listenership, so the fees probably wouldn't be that high for most webcasters.
I just don't see why the RIAA cannot treat them equally!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I don't know about eliminating Internet webcasters, but maybe moving them to other countries? But it would definately be the end of internet radio in the US. And with all these crazy restrictive laws on content the US seems to be proposing lately I wouldn't be suprised if the whole tech industry moved away.
Give it up SA. There's only ~575,000 user accounts on /. , and they're not all trolls.
There are an infinite number of AC's here, and each and every one of them has the troll nature.
It's just a simple game of numbers.
Media Industry really seems enamored by the pay-per-view ideology. Instead of hearing songs from radio for the cost of being assaulted by ads, we get pay-per-songs in web radio? Wonderful.
The real pay-per-view experience of renting a movie is fundamentally different experience from listening to a CD. How many times have you listened to your favorite CD? How many times have you seen your favorite movie?
If the former does not exceed the latter by an order of magnitude, you're probably one of those Rocky Horror Show freaks..
I have to wonder how much of the new revenue from digital media will end up fueling lobbying to outlaw DRM-free hard disk drives etc.
Maybe they consider the lobbyists to be the TRUE "artists". After all, they must be doing some pretty creative work on the legislators to get some of the crap introduced and passed that they have...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Me running my 24K, 10 stream hobby station that peaks at about 2 listeners. I would sure hate to have to pay the same as the big boys....Or even have to comply to ANY rules that they have to....Considering it would take 1 lawyer per ear in the audience to even do anything about this....
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
In order for AM and FM stations to broadcast, they have to pay license fees to the major performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). These not-for-profit organizations then distribute royalties to the songwriters (not necessarily the recording artist).
What's interesting here is that the RIAA is using copyright infringement as it's argument to squash these technologies that it can't control, while dressing it up as "fighting for the rights of artists." Laughable.
It's not copyright infringement for a radio station because they have physical media (bought or provided) and pay license fees to broadcast the works via radio - they aren't making a copy of the information. I'm surprised that we aren't hearing more about digital radio facing the same hurdles as web-streaming.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
From the article, both sides say that the artists get 50% and that 50% is sliced by an amount TBD by the company that is checking and distributing the music. So basically, the artist might get some money from these fees that we the consumer will have to pay for in some fashion. IMO, the artist will never see any money because it will be easy to claim that the cost of checking to see who played which song and who should get the proper reimbursment and who should get a bill and for how much will be larger then the cost that the artist would get in the first place.
The transaction fee is still too high. Micropayments are a pipe dream, and this too me seems like a form of micropayments. The cost of the protocol is greater then the benefit gained by using the service, and this will be true for awhile. This seems like a way for the RIAA to say that they are doing the 'right thing' when in fact they are just killing all the internet radio stations.
If lots of 'net radio stations get put out of commission because of this, then where will everyone get their music??
Why, through Pressplay and MusicNet, of course! Guess I'd better go sign up now... <g>
AFAIK, there is a law that requires copyright holders to license recordings for broadcast, in return for a set royalty per song. The royalty is not very large--but I don't know if it is set depending on the power of the station/the size of the station's listenership. If the internet stations have to pay per listener and the radio stations don't, that strikes me as quite unfair. It means that the very large radio stations are, in effect, getting quite a subsidy. Does anyone no more about this?
we all have troll nature
sulli
RTFJ.
would even pay their mothers for the ten months they had to carry them around in their wombs.
This sickens me.
Mod me down, but I had to get it out of my system.
Rapid Nirvana
Herein lies the double edged sword: The Industry has all the $$$. They'll let you have some for awhile, but they will get it back in fucking spades. If anyone thinks the Industry gives one rat's ass about their artists, take note: Where is Hootie now? (not that I care ;)
Anytime you add a middleman, prepare to be screwed.
But what is to stop anyone from just recording a song off the radio?
To the RIAA, a digital transmission is easier to pirate than an analog transmission, as there is zero loss from one generation to the next. That's why we've seen sh*t such as the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm fairly surprised this has not been mentioned already: Relocate to a country not under the juristiction of the RIAA? Why not move to the U.K, Netherlands, Sweden or other areas of Europe.
Even locating the server to somewhere like Havenco's facility might be a viable option for a broadcaster desparately trying to save his/her station.
I'd rather have a bowl of coco-pops.
Except for the rum.
Steve Marks "5) Your statement that all the royalties could end up in RIAA's or the labels' coffers is most misleading of all. As I've already said, 50 percent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to artists (without passing go). The provision you referenced in our agreement with the artists' groups doesn't change that -- that provision was an agreed-upon mechanism to ensure that RIAA's investments in building the infrastructure of SoundExchange won't be lost to reckless decisions by the board. Remember, RIAA (not the artist community) invested millions to establish SoundExchange, and it is now giving 50 percent of the organization over to artists. Isn't it prudent to protect that investment with some kind of safeguard remedy in the event the board, without a super-majority vote, does something to undermine that investment? In any event, no one expects that that provision will ever actually be invoked, and the artist groups agreed to it. "
"..., 50 percent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to artists (without passing go)"
AND
"Isn't it prudent to protect that investment with some kind of safeguard remedy in the event the board,..."
so... which is it? DIRECTLY without passing GO or protection of your investment? Ah... gotta love lawyers
Artists never get paid, the RIAA is squashing fair use, the world will be better when people stop trying to stop me from using Napster . . .
I happen to agree with all of that. What bothers me is that no actual communication seems to be going on. The RIAA has its position, the Other Side (whoever we are) has its position, and they shout past each other every time a new issue gets raised. Is there absolutely no hope for any kind of meaningful discussion?
Assuming that the world will not actually end when the RIAA fails to kill every single Napster/Morpheus/Whatever system in the world, there is a great deal to discuss, in terms of how the production of creative works is going to be handled in the future. Where will (or should) such discussion take place?
Seems like a silly statement, doesn't it? I think the key to getting indepdenent artists out there (non-tainted by the RIAA) is dependent on themselves getting heard. If Internet Radio cannot play RIAA created songs, then the only music they can play will be made by the indies out there.
You know what this means?
a.) The RIAA can have all the copy protection they want. Assuming the indie artists don't follow suit (and I doubt they will), then it won't affect us.
b.) No more being bombarded by the RIAA's flavor of the week. BYE BYE BOY BANDS!!
c.) It is a LOT easier to get your indie song played to an audience. I don't think I could create a song that'd make it on anybody but a hobbyist station. But if they have to go with indies anyway, then it seems like anybody could sign up.
Suddenly, programs like Kazaa become a powerful marketing tool.
"Derp de derp."
The artists I like make all their money selling t-shirts and products on tour...
So true. In the last year I bet I purchased half of my new cd's either directly from the band at a show, or from their own web site. Often they are $10-$15 and I'm sure the artist makes more $ per unit than if I bought the same item from a store for $18.99.
The RIAA does not want us buying directly from the artists any more than they want us sharing mp3's online or streaming pirate radio to the web. If people really started buying a lot of music directly from the artists, you would see the RIAA come up with a law against it.
I almost hope the RIAA prices themselves off of the web, so that the only bands on the web are those who want to be heard because they have something to say musically, rather than because they want to make a million bucks.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Never mind that Toe^H^H^H Pearl Jam is a shitty ripoff of Nirvanna who is a shitty ripoff of someone else.
Not unless you consider $$$ stuffed into pol's wallets creative.
...that is what I call art.
Now, getting them to do something for you without dropping the cash?
Curb
dum spiro, spero
jwz has written up a nice article that explains how the current licensing works and how the proposed CARP licensing would work here. There is no way Internet radio will be feasible if this goes in to effect, even without the added fees. Check out the information broadcasters would be required to report to the RIAA: there is no fewer than 18 pieces of information required for each song played! Not to mention the information that must be gathered from each listener. But just in case, the fees can be applied retroactively.
I hope that if this does go into effect, there is a large backlash. Remember that this is an election year. Votes still matter and politicians still care about getting them.
Hopefully other govts won't follow the US precedent.
Anyway how can they enforce this on some 14 year old shoutcasting through his cable connection?
My understanding was that it didn't quite work that way. Webcasters would have to pay BMI, RIAA, et al. regardless of whose music is played; it's assumed that a BMI/RIAA/whatever artist must be getting played somewhere, so those orgs collect he money, to distribute to their member artists as they see fit. Which means, N'Sync gets cash for some webcaster playing his next door neighbour's indie band.
Dream well...
Curgoth
The RIAA claims that web streaming makes it easy to copy songs. Nevermind that the quality of such a copy would totally suck. Nevermind that one could copy a song off the radio, rip & convert it to MP3 format & still sound better than a stream.
The real reason the RIAA wants to charge such high fees to streamers is to shut them down. The reason they want the streamers shut down is because it is an avenue for the artist to circumvent the RIAA.
When the RIAA says they are protecting the artist, they are lying. This fight is specifically designed to keep the artist in line.
So when is the RIAA going to go after non-internet radio stations and make them pay royalties? Why are they only going after digital music? Sometimes radio stations will play an entire album and that could be easier to record than music streamed over the net.
I don't usually do this because I don't see the point.
But someone please tell me how that was a troll.
Because I asked a question?
Because people responded and some discussion ensued?
Maybe it was because I said it doesn't take a lot of talent to create what passes for music lately. That's not a troll, that's a fact.
Anyone read yesterday's post about the pitch correcting Karaoke machine and how many 'artists' use similar equipment to improve how they sound?
Is using a machine to sing, and play your music talent?
That was my honest question that generated some honest responses, that I appreciated. So I get modded down by some idiot.
Very nice.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The ones I like make their own damn music.
I've been a Rogue Artist for a Year... It sucks, you eat cookies that taste like shit and live on savings... And never make a half a quater of a penny! Go to the Harmony-central.com forums, and ask them about it, they will all say the web is the worst gig ever!
Looks like I will be getting back into the between AM stations again listening to static and noise. Man that stuff clears my head.
Then YOU are the jackass.
The RIAA is one of many media cartels that control what we see and hear (e.g. "content") while screwing the artists (content-creators).
Musicians and songwriters get a very small portion of the profits from CDs, royalties etc. They go on tour and push t-shirts and other merchandise because those aren't controlled by the RIAA, and they can make some money that way. Likewise, writers get pennies for each of their books that sells. Big-name actors and actresses do very well (as they have leverage), but other people (perhaps even more important to the film process) like writers make squat. Virtually all the major news outlets in the country are controlled by just a handful of companies. The list goes on...
Of course, these cartels aren't all bad. A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book. A new music group wouldn't be able to publish, promote and distribute a CD - they don't have the capital. The record company does take some risk on when signing a new artist, and deserves to be compensated for the service they provide.
However, these companies have unfair leverage because of collusion and lack of traditional competition between cartel members. They take the lion's share of the profits, control and censor what gets distributed to the public and charge as much as they want.
When was the last time you went to the movie's and got to see one cheaper because Tri-star was having a sale to compete with Paramount? This never happens because most movies are produced by one monopolistic entity known as "Hollywood". There is no risk involved for the movie studios because they hardly ever lose money, even on bad movies. As a result, we get crap like Battlefield Earth.
Likewise, the diversity and quality of music has gone way downhill (espescially in recent years). The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear. New acts and new sounds have a very hard time breaking in because the RIAA has a vested interest in keeping up the status quo. I mean, if I hear that damn Linkin' Park song one more time I'm going to spontaneously self-immolate.
They also leverage their monopolistic control over their "intellectual property" to extort profits from everyone they can. It can be argued that radio stations ought to get paid for promoting their products, but instead, they usually end up paying royalties. The arrangement benefits both sides - the profits shouldn't be so one sided.
Both the consumer and the artist would benefit from the breakup of these cartels. Competition would force record companies to compete on prices, and compete for acts (e.g. fair contracts). They would sometimes be willing to take on a risky new act on the chance that it could be big. Different companies would try to establish themselves in various market niches, creating diversity. Record companies would look to take advantage of new technologies to compete against others, rather than try to ban them (as they are competition from outside they cartel). News products, movies, books, etc. would also be cheaper, more interesting and more diverse.
Anyhow, that's my take.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
IANAL (but a first yr student, so sue me) but I wonder if there is a constituional challenge to this. Can this be denied under the 14th amdt, equal protection under the law. Webcasters and traditional radio stations are essentially the same thing (pushing music into a box, one does though radio frequency, the other does through 1s and 0s), both can be copied with roughly the same quality (.ra and the like are not high quality and approach the level of quality as a cassette or radio output, i'll let the audio geeks hash that out), but one group is denied the ability to play for free based on federal regulation.
Is this have basis of being a valid argument, Lawyers speak up!!
It's interesting how people on both sides of this issue agree that the record companies are still making profits. The RIAA cites lots of reasons why profits won't last with internet piracy; but the real reason profits won't last is because some day the people who keep buying $20 CDs will realize that making their own is VERY EASY. Just as Dell and others started making computers "internet-ready", they are now making them "cd-burning-ready". The internet took a while for everyone to use, and the same goes for audio cd burning.
Good question but, no, Picasso was never this subtle.
It doesn't matter to the RIAA if there are no web radio stations left at the end of this battle. They'll replace them with their own when they're good and ready. That's the whole idea- control.
The technology is improving.
:)
1 385268.htm
Most of the people didn't have equipment to copy LPs, and then tapes came along. And nothing changed really (although I bet there was legal battle, as I remember the one with VHS)
Now, CDs are digital equivalent of LPs
They were hard to copy originaly.
But it happened.
Same happens with radio.
AM, then FM and now satellite radio (that uses digitally encoded signal BTW).
The fact that streamripper separates songs is just technological advantage, same as perfect CD copies. You can't stop progress.
Found this washington times article BTW:
http://www.washtimes.com/businesstimes/20020204-7
The RIAA may suceed in forcing the Webcasters to begin paying for audio streams. The Webcasters in turn will have to pass the costs along to the users. The users will tell the Webcasters to go fuck themselves. Nobody will get paid and the plan will ultimately fail. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy listening to my MP3s and maybe even streaming them over the web to my friends using Shoutcast. The RIAA will find that there is no way to win against us. They must be eliminated at all costs. I will jump through the streets, happy and dancing the day Jack Valenti dies! And, I will be just as happy when the RIAA files for chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I had over 15 stations bookmarked. None of them work right now. I deleted the bookmarks and wont return again. Guess I wont be hearing those new artists tracks that could potentially make me buy their CD. What a silly way to lose money.
Well, god damn it. I'll start a fucking web radio and put WHATEVER music i want on it. Those piece of shit licensing folks(who have screwed artists for YEARS) CAN KISS MY ASS
CARP should have required compensation along the same lines of traditional over-the-air broadcasters.
That is, you pay a percentage of your gross revenue for unlimited use of the media. Period.
It puts the onus for reporting on the backs of RIAA to figure out who actually is supposed to get paid (albiet, radio stations do have reporting rules, they are widely inaccurate ).
Of course, that would be fair and would give web radio stations legitimacy. That's the last thing the RIAA wants.
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2002/02.htm l
"Someone on IRC said, 'how do they expect the little guys to survive?' I replied, 'No Mister Bond, I expect you to die.'"
The middle mind speaks!
Slightly off topic, but...
The RIAA blaming us "pirates" for artists not getting the money they should get is like the mafia blaming the vigilanties hunting the mafia for the mob extorting money from local business owners.
...only the RIAA uses lawyers instead of machine guns.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Is this like posting your IP address to see how solid your machine is?
How long does it take each morning to realize that your name is Paul and not John?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Well, since you asked...
He's holding some kind of celebrity golf tournament out on Kiawah Island (South Carolina)for charity. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it's sometime soon, I think, because I just heard about it on the radio.
This is what you get for living in Charleston, SC. Too frigging many churches, and Hootie and the Blowfish living in your town.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
RAIN fills lakes and streams, providing for a place for CARP to live in... It's a conspiracy!
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
Which Internet Radio Stations are playing music not encumbered by the RIAA?
Since the kind of people who want to do small scale broadcasting will never have the business infrastructure to fight them directly, they might get more results by sic'ing the feds on em. With some decent investigation, and with the kind participation of artists, I'd guess (IANAL or a securities expert) that there's plenty of material for an SEC investigation, and the right public mood for this kind of thing. If the RIAA and media conglomerates are really on the level, this audit should go just fine, with a PR golden egg at the end.
What kind of info-gathering does it take to get an SEC investigation started?
And she recently went to a really cool Washington Lawyers for the Arts panel discussion on this issue in Seattle.
It turns out that most of the panel attendees and audience actually believe that we in the USA are most likely going to end up with a legal situation more akin to the models used in Europe and Canada than to the more extreme RIAA positions.
One of the stopping points is the US Congress and the multinational music, TV, and film industries which feed them with dollars to influence their votes.
Naturally, this is my interpretation of what she told me about it, but it was good to hear that the lawyer community isn't being snowed by the extremists like RIAA.
And, yes, she is a fox.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book.
You're kidding, right? People do indeed publish their own books all the time, either because the intended audience is too small, the subject matter is too controversial, or because they have a burning desire to publish something that the media cartels won't touch for whatever reason.
Thoreau published some of his own works. So did Robert Ringer of "Winning Through Intimidation" fame and Henry Martyn Robert of "Robert's Rules of Order". So did Mark Twain, Zane Grey, Upton Sinclair, Carl Sandburg, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Rice Burroughs, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Gray, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Alexander Pope, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Edward Fitzgerald, Leo Tolstoy, Stephen Crane, Willa Cather, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe, Thomas Hardy, James M. Barrie, Walt Whitman, Vachel Lindsay, Francois Mauriac, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Richard Bolles, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Rudyard Kipling, A.E. Houseman, Marcel Proust, and Rod McKuen, among other names you would and wouldn't have heard of.
It is indeed possible to break through the cartel wall and be recognized if you have an audience waiting, although it isn't easy. For every name above there are 500 people who printed a thousand copies of "Aunt Wilma McGillicuddy, A Nebraska Life" and sold four. The Internet is probably the best facilitator for self-publishing and letting talent be discovered there's ever been, which is why it's so important the media moguls not be allowed to cut off its air supply.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Changing the distribution model WILL NOT change the way artists are NOT compensated today. They could charge a 100 bucks a CD - would artists be rich. No Way. The record industry sucks 98 cents out of every revenue dollar from the payment stream.
Believe this - record companies making promises about taking care of artists is pure bullshit. It is a puff of smoke blowing up your ass like puppies and apple pie and Jesus and smiling dirty blonde children. You don't hate children and puppies and Jesus, do you? How can you hate this or think we'll not compensate artists??? Are you a communist ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I help out a small Christian club in the Dallas area http://uprm.net by adminning an online radio stream. The majority of the bands that come to play are self-signed bands without a contract. For us to broadcast them on our site we just have them sign a contract excempting us from past, present, and future implications by laws requiring us to pay royalties. It seems to be working out well so far, I just don't know if it would stand up to a cluster of RIAA lawyers... oh well. Just my thoughts.
If I set up a web radio that only plays indie songs, and I do actually have on file permission from said artist (who owns rights to song), for every song I webcast, the poor RIAA lawyer who has to stand up and say "it's assumed that ..." is going to get another hole ripped somewhere by the defense ...
If a net radiostation plays music from a label, which could care less about the RIAA and is not represented by the RIAA, does the RIAA collect royalties for those streamed songs?
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
This was on Declan's list a few weeks ago but a House Subcommittee is seeking interested parties views on digital media and DMCA issues. This is the text of their letter. If you chose not to respond to their request and live in the US, then chose not to complain that Congress is not listening or only listening to $$, deadline for comment is April 8, so that gives you all close to a week:
March 11, 2002
To all parties interested in the application of copyright law to the digital environment:
The growth of the Internet has raised complex and controversial issues over the application of copyright law to the digital environment. Examination of these issues is increasingly important in light of growing digital music piracy, expanding public demand for online music services and the willingness and ability of many entities to meet that demand.
The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property has held a series of oversight hearings on digital music issues, culminating in a December 2001 hearing on the
recommendations made by the U.S. Copyright Office in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 104 Report. Legislation (H.R. 2724) addressing online music issues has also been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Given the topical nature of this subject matter, we are initiating a process to review relevant digital music issues and related proposals to amend the Copyright Act that have been brought or will be brought to our attention.
All interested parties are encouraged to submit written views on the merits of relevant digital music issues and related proposed amendments to the Copyright Act. The Subcommittee deadline for receipt of comments is 5:00 p.m. on April 8, 2002. The merits of the proposals will be evaluated in light of the views received and input from other Members of the Subcommittee, with the goal of discerning whether consensus exists on meaningful solutions to address identifiable harms. Subsequently, at a date and time to be determined, we will schedule a general meeting with all interested parties to share our findings.
We thank you in advance for your participation in this process. We believe it will produce valuable discourse on these very important issues and hope it will result in meaningful solutions to some of the problems and controversies surrounding the application of copyright law to the digital environment.
Sincerely,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR
JOHN CONYERS, JR.
HOWARD COBLE
HOWARD L. BERMAN
CHRIS CANNON
RICK BOUCHER
>If people really started buying a lot of music directly from the artists, you would see the RIAA come up with a law against it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I bet those CD's you bought were from relatively smaller bands, not larger ones. Most of the larger ones record labels would have a FIT if the band skipped around them to sell CD's. I know that was the case when we were with a label (albeit a much smaller one than Sony or similar). They were present at the shows selling our albums.
Random Musings
The RIAA's attack on internet radio can backfire on them. It could open the door for many new independent acts. If the internet radio stations seek out the independent artists they have a good chance of staying on line. I am encouraging artists I know (my sister included) to record some songs and send them to internet radio stations.
Ultimately, artists need to look at the math. They don't even need to do the math as many websites have now done that for them. They need to create distribution mechanisms and contracts that give them more control. Instead of jumping for the big money early, they need to overcome the urge to sign everything away for a big advance.
The technology exists for them to be able to do that today. Thanks to PC's recording is a snap. You can purchase your own automated CD burners where you can create CD's more quickly and easily than using your PC. There are many software tools that allow you to tweak your sound on the PC. It seems to me that the rich musicians will be those who understand the technology of music and the math of finances. No amount of help can save those who do not take care of their balance book by signing with the big labels.
Check out the Hal Turner show every weekday at 9pm EST. This web radio show would really drive the RIAA members absolutely nuts, listen to his show to find out!
If you are spending any time at all wondering whether digital transmission is a fair rational basis for an additional royalty stream, you're falling into the RIAA's trap.
;-)
This has nothing to do with fairness. This has to do with control. Don't for a second believe that payola is dead.
The RIAA needs to control broadcast in order to convince the general populous that song X is the new "hit" song. As others have mentioned, the bulk of a record company's promotional dollars go to a miscule fraction of their roster -- bands that have an image or an attutude or occasionally good music -- that can sell half a million CDs if song X is played Y times.
If broadcast were truly democratic, then there would be no way for a record company to predict what artists require those promotional dollars.
Uncertainty will kill the business, so the RIAA is acting accordingly.
The real problem is how to make the general populous care that their "taste" in music is carefully managed by the people who sell them $20 CDs.
That is where the revolution (if any) has to begin.
Now be nice, visit http://www.mp3.com/YumaHouse, and go listen to my band's music for free.
... the walls of the city shake"
- Ed Sanders quoting Plato.
Fortunately there hasn't been any major influx of subversive music into the larger culture since that grungy NW stuff came out of KCMU, Seattle and KAOS, Olympia, back when rents were still cheap enough in the NW that musicians still woodsheded there.
It's taken two score years to heal the damage done to Western Civilization by Elvis. Thank Jesus our corporations are ahead of the creative urges today, and may the government preserve them there.
____
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
One way to circumvent the RIAA is to go to Kazaa or Morpheus or wherever and download music from your favorite artist... and then mail the artist an anonymous money order for $1.00 for each song you download. Download an entire 12-track album, send 'em $12. You'll be saving money over buying albums in stores, and the artist will see a lot more green.
Heck, $0.50 per song would still be ten times what the artists get now.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Maybe he's got multiple personalities and spends his days rotating between the Beatles. Next, he'll post as George and then Ringo. Who cares? get over it.
.
I record a really crappy song, give it to all the web based streamers, then set up an array of clients to stream that song over and over again until I'm rich... what's wrong with this business model?
First understand that there are two kinds of copyright in music. One is the (c) copyright to a published song like say "Happy Birthday." The other is the (p) copyright to a recording of a song - think of Jimi Hendrick's performance of the "Star Spangled Banner" as recorded at Woodstock.
When someone plays a recording of Happy Birthday on the air, the (c) copyright holder gets money, but the record company that paid to make the recording does not. On the other hand, when Jimi's "Star Spangled Banner" gets played on the air, no one gets a royalty since the song is public domain (and a copyrighted recorded master doesn't get compensation for play on radio).
In the view of the record industry (meaning the owners of huge back catalogs of recorded music) the fact that only the (c) copyright holder (i.e. the composer/songwriter/publisher ) gets paid money is a huge missed opportunity - it's something they missed back when radio was new & when no politician wanted to peeve the radio station owners. This has been a thorn in the record industry's side ever since.
In my view, a lot of what is happening is an attempt to change copyright law using the progress of technology as an excuse. If you can say it's not radio, then you can ask for more money - which is what they've wanted all along. And if radio as we know it goes away, they can then collect a new revenue stream beyond sales (which they see rapidly slipping away.)
The long range result - people get their music for free, advertisers pick up the tab, and music gets worse as commercial potential of a record is determined by how willing advertisers are to stomach it - this is largely why commercial radio is so middle of the road awful.
Save Save Save! Limited time offer! Hire a WebNovice now and save thousands on your bottom line. Who needs a webmaster when you can have a webnovice for just 1% of the cost? Operators are standing by...
:-)
I think this is obvious it's a simple money grab. You can search for historical and current referances to countries that have a radio tax via google.
And just to note, this isn't the same as a sales tax, this is a tax on a tax, with a yearly fee. Sound familiar?
Om, nomnomnom...
Nah, maybe he's the pope and his name is John Paul
Yes, mostly small indie-type bands and blues acts. If you ever see the MC Hammer episode of VH1's Behind the Music, it is interesting that when he was first approached by the labels, he turned down their offer, because they were offereing him something like $200k if he sold something like a half a million records (I don't remember the actual numbers), and he had already made half that much selling his own lp's literally out of the trunk of his car at discos. To him, signing with a major label for the usual terms would have been a step down financially.
Too bad he wasn't so financially savvy once he hit the big time.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Uhh, that's interesting. Do you have any actual information on how and where to submit comments? Is there an online form or should comments be submitted via snail mail? Do you have an address for either?
I would very much like to be able to do this, but I want it to be fair. If it is a group it can be hard to get the money to everyone. Sending $x to one member asking him/her to distribute it to the rest of the band takes faith. Should I pay extra to the songwriter? Should I pay the production crew (technicians)?
For the next stage, it would be nice if there were some scheme by which I could remain anonymous, but -- say like if the RIAA storms my house -- provide proof of purchase if need be (cryptographically solved, but we "need" one standard way to do it).
Damned it, I just want to pay the artist(s). I do not want to pay for advertising I don't see/hear and/or do not wish to see/hear, and A&Rs and lawyers whatever else crap there is.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
It's funny, because I found out KALX (UC Berkeley radio station) is broadcast on the internet... just in time to hear it will be shutting down due to licensing fees. Great.
The heck with the RIAA. Next time you download a lot of songs from an album, send $15 in the mail to the artist. Attach a note, "Really liked x, keep up the good work."
Its interesting, looking at the debate going on about culture and how many corporations own it. How people here threaten to vote for anti-RIAA politians. However falling quality of entertainment, is only side effect of what is going on in North America. It is a decline of corporate culture. Corporations of the past( and short present ) have ridden on waves of promises to higher riches and more choice for everyone, while basics that were driving them neglected basic ethics, rights for the name of the dollar.
I admit I despise what US has become. Why? US in its early years was a anti-corporate republic where companies too large were broken, for their power was too corrupting and would draw unscrupilous individuals. As years went, laws were masked, shaved, until the state they are in now: providing for safety of rich, vowing freedom of individuals for rights of corporations that apparently are necessary for happy life of US. But life is not happy. Employee's rights are being curbed at every possibility. Privacy is only a dream, and those who speak out against government wether fair or not are to be feared pronounced terrorists.
Your senators will tell you what you want to hear, and as soon as they are up there, they will turn the back on you, and turn their friendly face to corporate bidders to take your rights away.
Many americans did not even finish school, let alone have secondary degree. How do you expect them to understand that copyright mumbo - jumbo. What they look for is another tax break, daycare for their kids, maybe government loan to start their business. Admit it, computer literate compose a tiny fraction of voting population, so you will not really be heard. Those who put copyright into their election campaign promises are to be misunderstood...
Remember is is unamerican to be anticorporate, and those who are not with us are against us. So you will be stuck with Mr Bush for another term, because of campaign reform, and other nice ways son of exCIA(most evil agency) director. CIA is known to pull coups in other countries. How america is any different? Well enough of that.
Keep these small communities glowing, maybe someday it will become a wildfire.
Oh and copy all CDs you get, or give the CDs you buy to your friends to copy, whatever. Go to concerts of bands that you like, buy t-shirts and other stuff - thats the only way to help artists. I repeat, do not buy CDs, if you do, make sure to hand out 10 copies of them to other people. Or less. Get other people to do same.
Time to make RIAA HURT.
I believe that the way things are currently worded in the RIAA's plan, if a radio station broadcasts a show on air and the same show simultaneously on the web, they the broadcaster will have to pay royalties twice for the same content. Once for the airplay, and once for the web broadcast.
One of the main points that we are getting thrown at us regarding digital media, is the copying factor.
... )
They say that the quality doesnt deteriorate (ooo, spelling) regardless of the amount of copies that you create, and the subsequent copies of these copies (and so on
But i have to say, why have they not kicked up a fuss about digital radio channels ?
I for one have a device that lets me record from digital radio to cd's.
To be fair, It is more common for webcasters to play music that they havent 'bought' or licensed, so i was wondering if this was infact what is causing the bulk of the problem.
Maybe some regulation of webcasting is a good thing, after all, Piracy is illegal.
Won't webcasters just set up in Canada, or any other jurisdiction with good bandwith?
Will the RIAA be able to force them to jump through hoops if they do?
Blah, Blah
It seems to me that there are both independent and large artists/recording groups that are looking for new ways to get their music heard (garage bands anyone?). Why don't the web radio people start a movement where the artists can give consent to web radio stations to play their music. And it doesn't have to mean free. Heres the idea.
Free to non-profit web radio stations (and I mean true non-profit, not just those that are non-profit to save money on taxes).
Assuming an average of 10 songs/hours round the clock every day of the year, that equates to 87,600 songs in the year. If a for-profit company makes up to $50,000 in annual net profit (after bandwidth costs), they pay $0.10 per song(and not per song streamed). If they make $100,000, they pay $0.20 per song, with an additional $0.05 per song increase for every $50,000. And all the money per song goes directly to the recording artists, not the RIAA. Just an idea.
We worked for months to get my college radio station up. Underground stations will always exist, and so will pirates. But what about us? We wanted to do something legit.
[insert witty comment here]
IShitOnThisPost Yeah fuckhead, how does it feel?