Slashdot Mirror
Senate Committee Holds Webcasting Hearing
jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."
The Librarian of Congress can do three things. He could approve the decision, which nobody seems to like.
You know, I'm glad someone said it...
The best thing the Librarian of Congress could do would be to reject the proprosal, and then deal with the inevitable appeals in Federal Court from the RIAA. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. (when they aren't busy dialing our Congressmen!)
maybe?
KCRW, an LA NPR station, has been playing PSAs about this. They have a great page with a sample letter to your Congresscritter. And be sure to check out SaveInternetRadio.org. This is something the average non-slashdot-reader can understand far more than they can or will bother to comprehend DMCA, SSSCA, or the Russian who wrote software that let people read books, so there is a slight chance that the forces of ignorance won't take this round.
I thought we liked Orrin Hatch? Now he's a bad guy? Damn.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
You'd think this would be like Hollings' SSSCA where he really only invited the *AAs to testify, with one token technology person to abuse in front of them ("yes massas, isa earning my payoffs"). Instead they're actually inviting many concerned parties from all sides.
Cool, something good may actually come of this.
This is a direct result of poltical pressure from small webcasters, and shows that the system does respond to such pressure.
Last Thursday, before the Roundtable at the Library of Congress on the CARP recordkeeping rules, there was a "Hill Walk" organized by Kevin Shively of Beethoven.com and other small webcasters, who went to the Capitol and meet with legislators and their staffers to explain their position. Earlier, on May 1, the same group organized the "day of silence" on Internet radio, to show the result if the situation wasn't changed. This hearing was one result from this politcal campaign.
More information about this grass-roots effort can be found at SaveInternetRadio.com, and some of the best coverage is in the Radio and Internet Newsletter.
http://www.rice.edu/cb/sos/ -- Information pertaining to the effect of the CARP recomendations upon non-commerical radio stations.
http://www.kurthanson.com/ -- RAIN is a trade publication for the Internet Radio industry. This is an excellent site to keep tabs on how the campaign is going to stop these fees and reporting requirements.
http://broadcastpromotions.net/carp/ -- This site allows you to send faxes through their web site and directly to the person in Washington that you should be bugging.
The CARP proposal, if passed, will take effect on or about May 21, 2002.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
heh. I get up, load up the old standby /. and what happens, I begin to get pissed off. Great way to start my day..thanks slashdot!!!
From "The Bitch";
"As you know, RIAA members own the copyrights in over ninety percent of the legitimate sound recordings produced in the United States, and..."
..and what? you are hungry for every frigging penny we can give you?
You woke up in a bad mood one day and said to hell with it? Someone find this woman a man quick! It is MS. Rosen afterall......ok, that's it, which of you (non) self-respecting geeks gonna jump on the grenade for the rest of us? You get a place in geekdom history on the wall next to the Smelly guy and Linus. Oh, and those old dudes with the slide-rules...you can play in their sandbox if you want. Someone get this woman out of commission for a while...I'll start by donating my trusty ear-plugs to the first geek that steps up....
HA, that'll happen.
Sent from your iPad.
I'm interested to know : Do law suits like this happen in any other countries apart from the US, or do we just not hear about them?
Independant broadcasters are bad for the record industry because:
-They dilute the market
-They end to ignore the record companies marketing strategies and play whatever they want
-They are frequently ethical individuals whose playlists can't be bought out/blackmailed with advertising accounts.
Of course from the listener's point of view that translates to:
-They provide interesting diversity not found on top 40 radio
-They are in a position to reveal the "3 hits + filler" approach to albums
-They are free to express their taste in music, without fear if external influence.
Incidentally, I am affiliated with the RIAA (APRA/AMCOS member), and I don't approve of their practices.
tapirfarmer@[evilempire].com
It is expected that Hatch will drop new pro-artist, pro-consumer, pro-web legislation soon that is a breath of fresh air in this ongoing debate. The only thing missing is a compulsory license to legalize Napster. From his statement:
1) artists ought to be able to exploit or benefit from works that are not being exploited by the labels that currently hold the copyright, such as out of print works.
2) artists ought be paid their online revenues directly and those revenues should not be unfairly discounted because of traditional, but inapplicable, offsets.
3) artists should be able to keep their own online identifiers, their domain names, so they can more directly control their relationship with their fans online.
4) we need to explore how to make copyright ownership information available through the Copyright Office more accessible and usable through the Internet.
5) we must help ensure that market power in content is not unfairly aggregated to the detriment of other legitimate distributors of online music who seek fair licensing opportunities.
Did anybody else notice how much Sen. Hatch talked about his own singing experiences? Maybe that his how the RIAA has bought off these committees, by offering them an album?
Perhaps its time for a new industry association to pick up the reigns the RIAA dropped? How about a new entity that's tech friendly who could sign new artists (its not impossible)? I'm sure most musicians wouldn't mind having new revenue streams to tap, its just more money in their pockets. All I'm saying is I wouldn't mind seeing someone defending the artists that had a clue and wasn't refusing to face the tides of change. By properly paying the artists the money they are due, and selling CDs at a decent price, online distribution could more than easily make up the slack of the lower prices/reduced profits that the RIAA has in place now. Online distribution/radio HAS to be cheaper than retail channels. Common sense says so. All that would really be needed is to sign the new acts the RIAA would like and slowly convert the currently popular ones. Who in their right mind would stay with the RIAA backed companies if they can see the greener side of the fence? (pun intended)
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
I am the IT Director at a college radio station...these fees would cripple the station if we had to pay them, probably shutting us down. Is there anyone out there talking about exempting college radio stations from paying royalties?
And how much money will all of you be spending to see Star Wars, thus contributing to the supporters of the DMCA?
At least this shows that the RIAA isn't AS dumb as they seem, they probebly first wanted to call it Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel (CRAP) but someone had some sense to change that =)
To: Fans and supporters of internet radio
From: Howard M, radio.wazee (www.wazee.org) founder
Independent internet radio is at risk and we must all act in order to keep our streams alive!
The US Copyright Office (via CARP) has recently issued a recommendation for royalty fees Webcasters must pay to RIAA member organizations. These fees are not only excessive but ARE NOT PAID for music broadcast over-the-air.
The rates proposed by the CARP will seriously impact independent internet radio station operators -- including radio.wazee. Our estimated MONTHLY royalty payment to the RIAA would be about $1500-2000 - this is in addition to the license fees we already pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (about $1100 total each YEAR)
In addition to the excessive rate structure, the proposal requires Webcasters to report at least 24 data elements for EACH SONG we play, each quarter. Some of this information includes YOUR hostnames/ip addresses! We consider the RIAA reporting requirements not only to be administratively impossible, but an invasion of your privacy.
Remeber folks -- radio.wazee is a non-profit, community oriented station. We accept no advertising and receive no revenues whatsoever! The added fees and costs associated with RIAA royalties and reporting will surely put us in a dire financial position - and may cause us to shut down entirely.
The BOTTOM LINE here is that the RIAA is working RIGHT NOW to silence internet radio -- well, internet radio other than what the RIAA's labels choose to produce. The excessive fees and reporting requirements will clearly force many independent Webcasters to cease ooperation.
What you can do:
- write your congressperson
- write your local newspaper
- write the US Copyright Office
- post your comments in our message boards!
- Keep Listening!
Visit www.saveinternetradio.org to learn the history and details of this issue.
Please do whatever you can -- AND DO IT RIGHT NOW -- to help keep the music alive!
Howard M - radio.wazee
www.wazee.org
Copyright Royalities Arbitration Panel (CRAP)?
If a top-rated radio station in NY had an online listening audience the size of their on-air audience, they would pay $15 million in license fees, or over 25% of their advertising revenue. Similarly, for the entire radio industry, the cost would be $2.4 billion, or %13 of total revenue.
He plainly states that most existing radio stations could not afford to webcast under those conditions, much less any Internet-only stations, whose costs would be double that amount. He even covers the variety of music that is not available on commercial radio that would not be broadcast if web radio were to disappear. If this doesn't convince the Libarian of Congress that the CARP royalty rates are way out of line, then nothing will.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
In reading Hatch's statement, I don't see any mention of the DCMA. All it looks like to me is a request for more thought about legislation that would be fair for everyone.
I mean, really, if Supreme Chancellor Valorum had not been forced out by the Vote of No Confidence that Senator Palpatine talked Queen Amidala into calling for, the Trade Federation never would have been able to get this oppresive, freedom-crushing legislation through the Senate.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel
just a bunch of bottom feeders.
To really understand this, and to hear for yourself the difference between a great station and the canned corporate crap we get on most FM stations now, check out KPIG. They play such a variety of music, and the manager requires them to play NOTHING that is top 40. KPIG is at http://www.kpig.com.
I always like to point out that you can actually help do something about this. Contact your Senator and Member of Congress. IT WORKS. The more they hear from people onm an issue the more seriously they take it. Go here: http://capwiz.com/nyt/dbq/officials/. Type in your zip code to see who to contact. It makes a difference. Try it.
I just get done reading "The case for the Empire" and I took at the headline of this article and when I see the word "Senate" I immediately think of the Starwars Republic senate, not our own. I :)
think I've had enough starwars now, time to return to reality.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
It's interesting that "they" are listening. Why?
This doesn't necessarily mean that the politicians personally care about this issue. It is more likely to mean that we are seeing the birth of politics on the Internet. The independents are gaining a voice because they are more effectively rallying support for thier cause than the traditional lobbiests.
I'm happy about this.
What I'm not happy about is that once this process is understood by the majors, the same folks we dislike because they shut us out of pollitical processes today will be the ones controlling the debate on the Internet.
Be aware of this.
...The real questing burning in my mind is what it would do to stations like Japan-A-Radio
who don't play any american music. We do however play
some english versions of the same tunes, and we do know that some of it is licensed in the U.S. Most recently, Disney picked up 'Spirited Away'. How would
this affect Japan-A-Radio?
Japan-A-Radio plays the best in Japanese Pop and Japanese Anime Music from Movies, TV Series, and more. you can find it at: http://www.japanaradio.com
We don't have "compulsory licenses" for novels, poetry, software, etc, do we? Yet somehow broadcasters (whether radio waves or internet, I don't care) think they should be allowed to get licenses to redistribute whatever they want to, without having to negotiate terms or jump through any hoops.
Can someone explain to me why music is different? Are music broadcasters abusing the system or are people who want to share other non-music copyrightable stuff getting screwed?
I wonder what some people around here would think, if Microsoft wanted to share your software with (sell your stuff to) their customers, by paying a small fee for a compulsory license instead of having to agree to terms of your choosing, such as those in the GPL.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you decide to put on a play covered by a publisher like Samuel French or Dramatists Play Service, your royalties will vary depending on whether your group is professional or amateur. Usually the amateur rate is fixed and fairly nominal -- $50 per performance is what I'm remembering -- and the professional rate most likely depends on the size of the theater and the intended run of the play. (You have to get a rate quote from the publisher for professional performances, something I've never done.)
So, why not base Internet royalties on the size of the audience, or perhaps the number of simultaneous streams a broadcaster can handle?
This would allow the larger broadcasters to pay the larger royalties and hopefully allow the hobbyists to pursue their hobby without it bankrupting them.
Surely the RIAA must realize that they can make more money from small payments from a lot of source than from big payments from two or three sources. Unless this is all about power, which is entirely possible, in which case nothing short of shutting down everyone who isn't buddy-buddy with them will make them happy.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Surely the RIAA must realize that they can make more money from small payments from a lot of source than from big payments from two or three sources.
While what you say is true it's not always the way decisions are made. I worked for some years at the HQ of a Fortune 100 company. I will never forget explaining to a VP how the method we were using cost the stakeholders more than was necessary and having her explain to me that the method we were using came out of another department's budget. Her (and my) bonus was based on how we spent our department budget.
If a record executive has decided that N'SUCK is will make x profit given n promotion dollars it is not in his interest to let other factors influence the outcome.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I find it interesting that this story has generated so few comments. Apparently, there is little interest in the political process that will actually determine the balance of rights moving ahead. I guess many would rather complain after the decisions are already made.
This note really indicates that you can make a difference -- if only you take action. Bear in mind that some/most/all Slashdotters know more about the reality of internet radio than the LOC. This is probably also the case for most highly technical issues.
You will have to guess which of the 39 commenters I am, but I note with some satisfaction that the reply comments from the RIAA indicated that they read my initial comments, and they couldn't figure out how to respond to one of the issues raised.
Ok, I think we should all stop complaining and whining and put our money where our mouths are. The RIAA and MPAA have a ton of money to throw at these guys, but there's one thing they want more than money; and that's re-election. Why? It means more money in the end. Now I have an idea on how to do this, and I think we can fairly easily make it work. Please at least hear me out if you care enough to have read this far:
.. "Your senator wants to put you in JAIL for taping your favorite TV show!") We make an example out of 1 or 2 and the rest start wondering if they're next. They then weaken or withdraw their support for the entertainment industry and we start getting what we want for a change.
A small lobbying group forms to represent the interests of the consumer against the major media companies and their representatives (RIAA/MPAA/etc). Everyone who can sends in at least $10 or so by check, money order, cash, whatever. Assuming we get no other funding and no one sends more than $10, we should end up with roughly $1million in total. (assuming not even half of the slashdot readers send in). Obviously, this is nothing compared to the 60 and 70 million dollars that the entertainment industry puts in the pockets of politicians, so we take a more targeted approach. We pick the most vocal ally of anti-consumer/pro-entertainment industry legislation (offhand, I'd say Hollings) and target their constituents with ads all over the TV and radio. Every dirty trick and rotten bill he puts forth, we sensationalize the hell out of it, then put it right in front of the people deciding whether they're re-elected. ("Your senator wants to make sure you can't even listen to your own CD on your computer!"
That's my basic idea, if anyone wants to refine it, post a reply. This is a real way we can get something done for a change, and a small amount of money put forth isn't going to kill any of us. Even if it fails completely, you're out $10; so what? If it succeeds, you'll have been a part of something great. Anyone feel like putting together a full proposal with a timetable and tangeable steps at putting this in place? Feel free to post. This isn't just a US problem, the world needs to wake up from this dream that a corrupt entertainment industry can have its problems solved by legislating away rights supposedly guarenteed to us. It's time we did something about it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."