Broadcasters Appeal Royalty Ruling

tanveer1979 pointed out this story, but his summary of it wasn't much good. :) According to Reuters and Kurthanson.com, broadcasters (regular radio stations, not webcasters) are appealing a year-old ruling which would require them to make the same royalty payments for webcasting that webcast-only stations have to make. They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty payments to apply only to internet services which allow one to pick what music one receives - if the listener is force-fed a stream, like regular radio, Congress didn't intend for the royalty payments to apply.

Comments

Slashdot is teh suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I love you klerck

fp for jesus, who works at the taco stand

Re:Slashdot is teh suck

[klerk]

fuck acs, they stink like john katz!

Feh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh.

Good luck..

[FreeLinux]

I always thought that this particular law was garbage but, it passed anyway.

But, the radio broadcasters arguement to try to get out of it is so lame even I am not impressed.

Re:Good luck..

[cez]

since when does a law not have to be garbage to get passed...the broadcasters want to make more money so they fight the law, the labels want to make more money so they lobbiedbribed it into existence.

Re:Good luck..

[edrugtrader]

i am actually very impressed... the 'force fed' idea of music distribution is what the RIAA likes and will support. i however don't believe that they intended the law just for 'pick your own' online radio stations, rather online radio stations with no transmitter counterpart.

Re:Good luck..

[uncoveror]

The broadcasting and recording industries have both stopped giving us any music worth listening to, and now are trying to push congress in opposite directions. It's a shame congress listens to either of them. If Clear channel, and the big recording labels end up destroying each other, it might be a victory for music fans. Boycott the recording industry.and Boycott Clear Channel.

Re:Good luck..

[Archfeld]

How is this different from a streaming net radio station, I get what they stream or I try another station. I can also make requests via a realtime device similar in function to a phone, again, how is this different from radio ?

Re:Good luck..

[dubiousmike]

I couldn't be happier that the radio stations will get the same porking that the technophobe music industry has given to webcasters.

See, the radio stations actually have the power to fight this and get some results. Hopefully they won't ba allowed to be an exception. Or the law gets changed.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

good luck........

[dciman]

I wish these guys the best. But I seriously doubt they have much chance of changing the ruling. I fear the RIAA and big business has too strong a hold on the key parties in congress for them to be able to make much head way. It is really sad that the RIAA seeks to have such a strangle hold on every possible outlet for media. Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!

Re:good luck........

[HowlinMad]

Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!

yea, so they can get noticed, make it big, be signed to a record deal and then have their music restricted....

Re:good luck........

[afidel]

Well since Clearchannel seems to always get what they want when it comes to congress and they are against the fees I would guess that it will be a tough battle. Since there is popular support for killing the fees it may happen as we are aproaching an election cycle and a combination of big $ from clearchannel and popular setiment are both things congresscritters look for at that time.

Re:good luck........

[Out4Blood]

"The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the five major labels, said it hoped the radio stations would lose their appeal."

Some stranglehold.

Re:good luck........

[EvilBudMan]

>>Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!

Yes, and go see their live shows. There are plenty of good bands out there that don't have contracts with the majors. Go see them. I think the RIAA has really shot their self in the foot. The independents will start making some money now.

Re:good luck........

[phriedom]

I appreciate your cynicism, but I fail to see any connection between me buying a CD from a local band, and them signing a record label contract. In fact, if enough people buy music direct from the band, say over some vast public data network, perhaps bands won't need major labels at all. Hey look, there is a data network right here.

Re:good luck........

[Stonehand]

That's a big if, given that people who could /buy/ music off a data network could probably also find lots of /free/ music, legit or no, off another data network, which may or may not be just as good, but will in any event consume time "trying" that could have been spent "buying". Plus, some people might not want to buy if they get no "extras" like artwork, et al.

Re:good luck........

[Pxtl]

I've found most of the indy bands I've bought CD's from still go the extra mile to get album art and inserts. They might be shoddy quality, but there almost always there. Sometimes damn cool too.

Re:good luck........

[Saxerman]

It is really sad that the RIAA seeks to have such a strangle hold on every possible outlet for media.

I think the hypocrisy of the RIAA is even more sad. From the Reuters article: "Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses," said Steven Marks, a senior vice president at the RIAA.

Gosh, that's funny. That's exactly what I RIAA to do too. Stop spending time and money on legislation to protect your profit and come up with a product and price scheme that people actually want to pay.

Cue Nelson

[PinkStainlessTail]

and broadcast giants like Clear Channel Communications Inc. would be on the hook for 70 cents for each song played to an audience of 1,000 listeners.

Would this be a textbook example of an "unintended consequence?"

Re:Cue Nelson

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that prompt them to provide more varied music so their crap channels weren't playing the same 4 songs over and over again? 'Cause I wouldn't want to pay 70 cents for the same song over and over again :)

hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

fp,biatch.

Take that!

[Anonymous Coward]

got you.

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

no way. this is stupendus

FIRST POST!!!!111 OMFG~~~~~~

[mister_sparkle]

^_^

I hope they lose

[CableModemSniper]

On the one hand the law makes life difficult for teh webcasters so maybe the law itslef needs to be looked at. But if IRL radio stations get special treatment just because they happen to be IRL radio stations, thats just wrong. Suck it up and take your lumps like everybuddy else. Hopefully the stations will begin to realize how dangerous the RIAA is when it starts cutting into their profits. The more infighting the better.

Re:I hope they lose

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

so, if you want to be a net broadcaster, have a tiny little radio broadcast, even if it's over walkie-talkie, and follow into "duty free" webcasting. seriously, the thing about being "force fed" is entirely correct, I don't think it is right for the royalties to apply to streams like this, even from non-radio webcasters, which act for all intents and purposes like radio broadcasts. if they want these stupid royalties, keep them to the "play on demand" type downloads, not music streams.

Re:I hope they lose

[WEFUNK]

While we're hoping for things, I hope they BOTH lose and that consumers and independent webcasters and artists win. Actually, I also hope they both WIN, but only on the points that benefit consumers.

Unlikely I know, but when you have big money (Music) against big money (Radio) things start to get interesting and not so clear cut. Both sides will invest a lot of money to offer up compeling arguments for their side and against the other side. This is the ideal time for the little guy to come in and offer the wisdom of Solomon, selectively using the arguments of both parties to point out a rational compromise that benefits the end user and appeals to common sense.

Just a dream? Maybe. But there is a finite likelihood that a judge or lawmakers will propose a compromise. Since we agree with some of the arguments from both sides, why not lobby to ensure that the compromise is split to the consumers benefit? Also, this approach provides the politician or judge attractive rationale to justify what might otherwise be an arbitrary solution.

Re:I hope they lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they are getting special treatment, the rates being charged are 2-3 times higher commercial radio stations.

Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

because they RELY on radio to make thier music popular. No radio, no money, no RIAA.

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Warped-Reality]

I thought it was MTV... i know very few people that listen to the radio anymore. MTV is "trendy" and radio isn't.

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except MTV is so busy showing interviews, reality shows, "news", and other crap that they don't actually show any music anymore.

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Warped-Reality]

TRL!!! OMG carson is soooo hott... i'll buy anything he tells me too!

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

DOUBLE TAKE!!

They have music on MTV again?!? When did this happen?

MTV is 'trendy' again?!? When did this happen?

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[mlh1996]

MTV plays music? I thought all they had were commercials...

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[amRadioHed]

MTV plays music? I thought all they had were commercials...

Don't be silly. eMTv still has dozens of hours of reality tv programming.

Re:Even the RIAA wont let this stand. . .

[Squalish]

Brings to mind one of my favorite audio clips. Say what you will about trey parker and matt stone being immature idiots who enjoy potty humor, but they do have a better sense of what's going on in the world than 99% of the rest of TV 'personalities'.

I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only point

[dave_mcmillen]

From the article (Reuters): "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal." [emphasis added]

If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.

Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.

But here's hoping the broadcasters win. It would be great news for webcasters: just eliminate choice, the way God intended, and you're allowed to broadcast over the Web for free!

Taco-snotting is dying by poopbot

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft has confirmed: Taco-snotting is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Taco-snotting community when recently IDC confirmed that Taco-snotting accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all homosexual acts. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Taco-snotting has lost more fag practitioners, this news serves to reinforce what weve known all along. Taco-snotting faggots are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Faggot World comprehensive snotting test.

You dont need to be a Katz to predict Taco-snottings future. The handwriting is on the wall: Taco-snotting faces a bleak future. In fact there wont be any future at all for Taco-snotting because Taco-snotting is dying. Things are looking very bad for Taco-snotting. As many of us are already aware, Taco-snotting continues to lose faggotshare. White ink flows like a river of bubbly, thick jizz. The circle-snot is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core snotters.

Lets keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Circle-snotting leader Jeff Homos Masterbates states that there are 7000 snotters of the circle-snot. How many users of anal snot are there? Lets see. The number of circle-snotting versus anal snot posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 anal snot users. SnotOS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of anal snot posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SnotOS. A recent article put the circle-snot at about 80 percent of the Taco-snotting market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 circle-snot users. This is consistent with the number of circle-snot Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of CowboiKneels walnuts, abysmal sales and so on, the circle-snot went out of business and was taken over by SNOTi who sell another troubled Taco-snot. Now SNOTi is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another gay whorehouse.

All major surveys show that Taco-snotting has steadily declined in faggotshare. Taco-snotting is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Taco-snotting is to survive at all it will be among heterosexual hobbyist dabblers. Taco-snotting continues to decay. Nothing short of a jizz-soaked miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Taco-snotting is dead.

Fact: Taco-snotting is dead.

- posted by poopbot: who doesn't like scat?

Cc6kOnlmts

Possible Bad Consequences....

[Dark Nexus]

If they lose, well, that goes without saying what would be bad about that.

But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.

At the moment, they've been lumped in with traditional stations that simulcast, in a kind of middle ground.

If this goes through, it could split that middle ground, sending the traditional stations back to where they used to be (a good thing), but send the webcasters further into the perverbial abyss of royalty payments.

Re:Possible Bad Consequences....

[FatRatBastard]

But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.

Maybe not. The like of Live356 streams (of which I have a crappy one {plug plug plug}) would also be off the hook, since those streams are like "traditional" radio (i.e. I pick the setlist, not the listener).

Or at least that's how I've read it, which certainly doesn't mean its true.

not only the money

[billybobSDK]

Money is not only the only issue here. A big portion of the law requires radio stations to keep an unreasonable amount of records regarding the number of listeners at any given time, all kinds of information about the song. This alone would crush the independent (college etc.) radio stations that simply cannot afford to implement the infrastructure. What is happening is that independent stations will forced out of the market, while the big boys who can afford the equipment will serve to further homogenize American music.

Re:not only the money

[kasperd]

keep an unreasonable amount of records regarding the number of listeners

I wouldn't claim to know the law in question, so I don't know if it applies to radio on the net as well as radio on the air. But obviously generating such records for radio on the air is practically impossible, while it would be fairly easy to get reasonable estimates for radio casted over the net.

Re:not only the money

[ONOIML8]

Actually it is not impossible to generate those records for RF broadcasters. For many years they have been required to keep station logs. One of the things they log is every song played.

In the old days, when my father ran a radio station, they would simply write down the artist and song on the log sheet as they cued the record. Oh, and the records were provided free of charge by the music companies as part of the service. These days the music comes in electronic form and is logged just as it would be for an internet broadcaster.

Those logs are then used to calculate how much money the station needs to pay the music service. If I remember correctly the pricing wasn't the same for all songs. Certain songs ("hits") cost the station more but that is ok because the theory is that the more hits you play the more listeners you have. The more listeners you have the more advertising you sell and the better the bottom line.

This is one reason that college stations and the like don't play popular music. The stuff they play doesn't get much airplay so it's supposed to be cheap or free.

At least that's the way I remember it, and I do know that generating the records has become easier.

Re:not only the money

[autechre]

Non-profit radio stations (such as college radio) pay a set fee to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC every year for the right to broadcast works by their artists. AFAIK, BMI is the only one which requires you to submit log sheets (randomly selected 3 days' worth, once a year).

Almost all college radio stations submit at least their weekly top 30 songs to the College Music Journal, because if you're not listed in there, labels and distributors (for very small labels) are far less likely to send you music (and posters, and Weezer pocket protectors, and...).

The parent post is correct: it's mainly the logging requirements that will be the issue. Crap like requiring a "unique identifier" and the listener's time zone means that you can't have a directory like shoutcast where people just click on the streams and listen; you've got to get them to fill out forms at your site EVERY TIME. This is terrible, and wrong; even if we're going with the "pay per listener per song" crud, as long as I dutifully keep track of the time period each listener tuned in, I shouldn't have to say anything else. That's a strain on the listener and the station, and an invasion of the listener's privacy.

I plan on writing (Free) software to do whatever it takes to stay around (see my .sig!), but I sure hope it gets easier than what the RIAA has proposed.

Re:FIRST POST!!!!111 OMFG~~~~~~

[mister_sparkle]

Offtopic I can understand, but "Troll"? How is this a troll? I'm not flamebaiting anyone here. An example of a "troll" would be, "OMFG LUNIX SUKZ BALLZ DOODZ!!11!!" Please learn your /. terminology. Thank you.

Force Feed Me -- Please!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that the "force fed" stream concept applies to a local broadcast station's use of a national show. I'd like to record some favorite national daily shows so I can listen to them the next day in my car during drive time. The present tangle of rules is blocking radio stations from providing some of those feeds and encouraging software makers to not make recording easy.

I'd actually prefer the local editions of the shows, so I have local ads and news which are directed at my area (some are commercial shows, some are by non-profit stations with local news). Some of the national shows have their own digital feeds but I'd prefer local versions.

Yes, I can record them directly off the broadcast signal. But some shows are on the air at the same time, requiring more juggling of audio and radio cards. And I keep tinkering with the house/LAN cabling, which tends to leak some RF near the antenna every couple of months.

small broadcasters...

[simpl3x]

unfortunately, this law pretty much kills local/college/independent webcasting, and leaves the the crap from regular radio with a monopoly. the web could provide some really interesting stuff down the road, particularly with wireless capabilities in cell phones. stream'n web broadcasts through your web enabled phone, mmm!

and clear channel is not exactly a pussycat!

Site is slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the text of the article

The National Association of Broadcasters is continuing its insistence that Internet simulcasts of over-the-air signals are not subject to sound recording royalties -- and it has filed an appeal to that effect.

Last August, a U.S. district court found that the webcast streams of terrestrial stations are subject to the DPRA (Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act) and the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

The NAB's appeal, a 64-page brief filed late Monday, contends that the district court erred in that decision. It also argues that broadcasters' streams should be exempt from copyright liabilities for the related ephemeral recordings.

The NAB argues that Congress, recognizing the mutually beneficial relationship of radio and the record industry, exempted "nonsubscription broadcast transmissions" from the performance right granted in the DPRA and DMCA. The NAB further argues that Congress "made plain that this exemption encompasses both any digital over-the-air transmissions of radio broadcasters' programming, as well as the broadcasters' 'streaming' of that same programming over the Internet."

However, the US Copyright Office determined, and the Court later upheld, that broadcasters would be subject to "sound recording" royalty rates for their Internet transmissions, in much the same way as "Internet only" webcasters. The NAB appeal calls the Copyright Office's interpretation "curious and artificial...digital hair-splitting."

The Recording Industry Association of America will be the largest benefactor of these royalties. In a response to the appeal, RIAA senior VP Steven Marks (right) told Reuters, "Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses."

The full 64-page filing and a 16-page "summary" are both available in the Adobe Acrobat ".pdf" format on the NAB website here. ... ...
With this filing, it becomes clear that broadcasters may not be aggressively working with Internet-only webcasters in fighting for reasonable performance royalties because they are, instead, arguing that they should be exempt from such royalties entirely.

In describing the impetus for the passage of the DPRA and DMCA, the NAB describes copyright owners' fears of services that would displace sales like "celestial jukeboxes," on-demand downloads and subscription services, and "multiple, highly-themed genre channels of sound recordings."

The NAB brief quotes a 1995 Senate report associated with enactment of the DPRA in 1995:

"Under this provision, any transmission to members of the public that is neither a subscription transmission (as defined in Section 114(j)(8)) nor part of an interactive service is exempt from the new digital performance right."

"Notwithstanding the views of the Copyright Office...that it is appropriate to create a comprehensive performance right for sound recordings...the Committee has chosen to create a carefully crafted and narrow performance right, applicable only to certain digital transmissions of sound recordings.

"The underlying rationale for creation of this limited right is grounded in the way the market for prerecorded music has developed, and the potential impact on that market posed by subscription and interactive services--but not by broadcasting and related transmissions."

Cmdr taco is gay

The 64-page filing is a bear to wade through, but from a layman's point of view it DOES seem as if the "related transmissions" referred to in the paragraph above must refer to Internet streaming of those signals.

How does this logic relate to Internet-only webcasters?
The NAB brief notes, "In explaining its refusal to impose new burdens on FCC-licensed terrestrial radio broadcasters, Congress identified numerous features of radio programming that place such programming beyond the concerns that animated the creation of the limited public performance right in sound recordings.

"Specifically, radio programs (1) are available without subscription; (2) do not rely upon interactive delivery; (3) provide a mix of entertainment and non-entertainment programming and other public interest activities to local communities to fulfill FCC licensing conditions; (4) promote, rather than replace, record sales; and (5) do not constitute "multichannel offerings of various music formats."

Rightly or wrongly, that may have been Congress's rationale for establishing a royalty for Internet-only webcasters but not for broadcasters. -- KH ...

RAIN is brought to you today by:

The Hiwire ad network is the leading source for meaningful streaming audio ad buys, based on Arbitron Webcast Ratings for March 2002. Representing over 400 terrestrial stations and the most popular webcasters, Hiwire delivered over 240 million ads in March. Hiwire and its content partners are enabling streaming audio as a national medium with a reach (8.5 million listeners a week) that is comparable to most other accepted national media plan components.

Advertisers are using a proven creative form - radio advertising - to reach the Clear Channel Station Group, ESPNRadio.com, Live365, SurferNetwork, StreamAudio, Ultimate80's, Beethoven.com, and many others with one buy.

Click here to get the full story on the leading provider of live ad insertion and the leading ad sales rep firm for streaming audio sales.

AZ Republic story says 'Net radio royalties will hurt indie artists
From the Arizona Republic: "If music Webcasting -- the streaming of music over the Internet instead of through radio receivers --makes it through the present decade, it will be no thanks to the federal bureaucracy.

"A much-dreaded ruling out of Washington, D.C., last month could mean the end of small Webcasters and the crippling of large ones...

"How is all of this important to music, to music-lovers and music-makers? Consider the case of Valley pianist Julianne Markavitch. Markavitch is an independent artist who records and produces her own compact discs. As with other independents, her main concern, post-production, is how to market her product.

Johnkatz rapes little boys

"An Internet station called Beethoven.com has been the answer. Beethoven.com streams and promotes Markavitch's recordings when standard broadcast stations are not even remotely interested. Should Webcasting be crippled by performance royalties, Markavitch and other independents would suffer...

"Internet streaming is live and cannot easily be downloaded for later play. It's easier to tape music from FM radio. The feds seem to have confused Internet radio with Napster, the file-sharing service that offered free downloadable digital files of copyrighted performances.

"Internet radio is a force for presenting and promoting a far greater range of music than could ever be showcased on broadcast radio alone. It would be a shame to allow its destruction because of governmental confusion.

"The good news is that the Librarian of Congress' decision can be appealed. Many Webcasters and artists are preparing those appeals."

Read this piece from the Arizona Republic here.

Have an opinion? Drop us a note! (Or, to use your own e-mail software, click here.)
Your e-mail address:
Your name (if not obvious from your e-mail address):
Kurt and Paul, this is deep background -- don't quote me!

Thanks!

Tech Administration holds digital entertainment workshop today
The Technology Administration will host a public workshop today on digital entertainment and rights management.

Representatives of the IT and content industries will address the technical issues involving the legitimate distribution of digital media and the tools available to protect digital content.

According to the administration's website, topics to be addressed include efforts to pursue solutions that provide a predictable and secure environment for digital transmission of copyrighted material, what obstacles hinder the open commercial exchange of digital content, and consumers' attitude towards online entertainment.

The Technology Administration is part of the US Department of Commerce.

We'll send you a brief daily summary of each day's stories with a clickable link to the RAIN home page.
First name (req'd):
Last name (req'd):
Station/market (or company or school):
E-mail address (req'd):

Jamie macarthy is a fag!

Reader feedback
Here's feedback on the proposed copyright legislation introduced by Congressmen Coble and Cannon (RAIN coverage here)...

"Vote Howard Coble out of office..."

I have an idea!

Why couldn't all of us, webcasters and listeners alike, find a way to send a mailer out to all the Constituents in North Carolina's 6th Congressional District (which is served by Republican Howard Coble), and let them know what is at stake in the coming election...webcasters' right to broadcast on the 'net at a fair price, and listeners'/consumers' fair-use rights?

I would like it if we were able to encourage voters in the 6th District to vote Howard Coble OUT OF OFFICE in November!
Dean Bodholdt

On the Librarian's determination...

"The black market as I view it: radio..."

I agree with the ruling, these people spend a lot of time recording and editing their songs, for people to enjoy, not take advantage and play to a vast group of people worldwide.

It's about time the copyright symbol holds meaning to these people that take advantage (aka the black market as I view it: radio).
Georgia

Fisher new Radio Web Network Director of Sales Development
From a press release: "Thirty year radio and Internet veteran Michael R. Fisher has joined Radio Web Network as Director of Sales Development. Fisher joins Radio Web Network from First MediaWorks...

"Fisher's Internet experience includes work as sales manager for RadioWave.com and the IQ Television Group...

"Radio Web Network is a website sales, management & promotional network headquartered in Portland, Oregon focusing on the radio industry. Radio Web Network manages, operates and consults more than 65 radio station Web Sites."

Fisher told RAIN, "A radio station website that truly becomes an extension of the radio station online that 'superserves' P1s can impact ratings. The eight Arbitron Edison reports gives us all the documentation anyone should need. Traffic generated to the web site by a well-executed programming and permission based e-mail marketing campaign will generate the success advertisers are looking for."

Silenced by royalties
Here is a growing list of webcasters who, because they don't feel they can manage webcasting royalties in a viable business, have decided that it's in their best interests to silence their streams. (We thank them for their hard work and dedication to their audiences and the industry, and wish them luck in their future endeavors...)
All80s.com AudioCandy.com
BlueMars.org Celtic Heritage Webradio Chez Whitey
Entercom stations Good Time Oldies Radio Greater Media stations
GrrlRadio HitRadio.biz Hot Hit Radio
IdahosCast.com KDFC/San Francisco KKDV/San Francisco
KKPT/Little Rock KOIT/San Francisco KTRS/St. Louis
KWXY/Cathedral City Lotus Radio stations McClure stations
Minion Radio MonkeyRadio.org MYNDFK.com
NetRockRadio.com NextMedia stations Perkigoth.com
Powerrocks.com Progrock.com RadioBoston.com
RadioCentral.com Radio Free Akron Radio Free BD
Radio Free Tiny Pineapple RadioMaxMusic RKNA: Aural Arcana
SavageRockRadio.com Simmons Media stations SomaFM.com
StarDogRadio.com TagsTrance.com The City Radio
therockfm.com The Zoo WAAF/Worcester
WCKW/La Place WLUP/Chicago WMMR/Philadelphia
WOVRadio.com WYYB/Phoenix Yahoo! Radio stations
Have we missed others? Use the feedback form above or e-mail us here.

Public stations now off line
This is from the SOS: Save Our Streams website, which focuses the struggle against thewebcasting royalty rates as they pertain to independent educational and noncommercial stations.
KWJC-MO; WRSU-NJ; WERS-MA; KTSW-TX; WSUM-WI; WSTB-OH; WONB-OH; WXOU-MI; WZIP-OH; WUTK-TN; KDIC-IA; KETR-TX; WSBF-SC; WRMC-VT; KSDS-CA; WNYU-NY; WSUW-WI; WEVL-TN; KRCL-UT; WSRN-PA; KXCI-AZ; WUVT-VA; KSJS-CA; KDHX-MI; WPTS-PA; KBCS-WA; WMHW-MI; KBVR-OR; KXRJ-AR; WDWN-NY

Silenced iM Network affiliates
Zydeco to the Bone; Nuevo Wave-O; Jazzeteria; Altrok.com; Celtic to the Bone; Extra Smooth Symphonie; Melancholia; Qawwali-On-Demand; 60s RnB to the Bone; Just Classic Rock; All Top40 Hits; Piecemeal; Swing Central; Cafe Twilight; Jazz to the Bone; Drone Sickness; Gospel to the Bone; Truly Cool, Cool Jazz; 400 Years of Hits

Linux sucks!

Jazz to the Bone; Hot Bubblegum 100; Dream Chamber; Modern A Cappella; African to the Bone; Hillbilly Radio; Cajun N Country to the Bone; X-tra Energy Dance; World Intensity; New Orleans to the Bone; Modern Rock Hits; Rastaman's Reggae

MainLine Rock; Latin to the Bone; House Party; Love Field; Planet Musiquarium; The Breakbeat Jungle; Succubus; Bollywood; Club Reggae; Hyperspace; Murder, Betrayal and Redemption; Top RnB Hits; ChitrapatSangeet; Resonant Radio; Sweet Revenge

Female Voices; Old Dawg Country; EnginesOfReagan; Lovecats; Muddy Channel; Movie Music; Adventures In Radio; Truly Alternative; Alt Songsters to the Bone; Spacerant; Trance-ilvania; Vox Radium; 50s RnB to the Bone; Box O Bone's; Digitalis; darcade; Not AA Radio; Busted Heart Radio; Shuaku No Bi; Hillbilly Radio; Kickin' Kountry; Cyberspace Sonata; Solvent Loud Radio

Upcoming conferences
July 25-28, 2002 The Conclave 2002 Learning Conference: Minneapolis, MN
Sept. 12-14, 2002 NAB Radio Show 2002: Seattle, WA
Oct. 1-4, 2002 Streaming Media East: New York, NY
Oct. 20-22, 2002 NAB European Radio Conference: Prague, Czech Republic
Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2002 CMJ Music Marathon 2002: New York, NY

Re:FIRST POST!!!!111 OMFG~~~~~~

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

What you guys are missing ...

[JoeBuck]

... is that the radio stations' argument, that "Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs", if it prevails, would eliminate the payments not only for radio stations, but for net-only streaming services, as long as it's a stream where the program director or DJ, not the individual listener, chooses the songs to play. Nowhere are they saying that they deserve special rights because they have an FCC license to broadcast on the radio. It is the RIAA spokesman who is saying that the radio stations are seeking "special treatment".

Given this, I don't understand the objections I'm seeing here.

Re:What you guys are missing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point! Mod this up.

Re:What you guys are missing ...

[Mike626]

I'd have to agree. If the broacasters are successful in this suit, and the basis of their case is that their music is sequential rather than random access, I don't see how the ruling couldn't apply to webcasters as well.

It also occurs to me that the main issue with the royalty payments must be with the ability to record the stream, and the possibility that the stream is close to CD quality. From the beginning, I thought a solution would be to dilute the quality of the broadcast to radio quality (less than 96 kbits) or to deliver the content as 3WK does, and deliver a high quality mono broadcast.

Typically, I use webcasted music to be exposed to new bands and genres, and I don't see how the music industry could be opposed to that. Sheesh.

mikegraham.net

Re:What you guys are missing ...

[Dr_LHA]

Typically, I use webcasted music to be exposed to new bands and genres, and I don't see how the music industry could be opposed to that. Sheesh.

Because at the moment webcasting represents a level playing field in terms of what gets played. This means that the big record companies (lets face it the RIAA are not looking after the interests of small indie labels - only the Sonys of this world) can't control what you listen to.

The result is: You start buying stuff from small labels intent on quality and rewarding the artists. Sales on major labels go down. Anarchy and/or Communism ensues.

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[perrin5]

umm, not to be fussy, but I would like to point out that an appeal is usually heard before the JUDICIAL branch, and the only time the RIAA is going to be able to "lobby" is when their legal team is on the floor.

Personally, I believe that they might just get it thrown out, as selective enforcement, but the issue is really what the "intent" of the law was. The danger of my "stealing" a song from streaming audio is about the same as my stealing it off the radio.

I'd love to see the lawyers say something like this: "It doesn't matter whether they _could_ copy it from our stream, because they are FAR more likely to copy it from kazaa" and watch the RIAA's head explode.

lnux report

[Anonymous Coward]

LNUX 1:57pm 0.79 -0.0603 -7.09% 216,900

darned if you do, darned if you don't

[MarvinMouse]

Well, here's an interesting catch-22.

If CCU gets the rights to broadcast online without paying the fees, then it looks really bad for everyone involved because it'll look like congress and the big corps are all scratching eachother's backs. As well, the recording companies will raise more hell because they won't be getting all of the money they feel they deserve.

If CCU doesn't get the rights to broadcast online without paying the fees, then CCU will raise all hell, because they already broadcast for minimal fees over radiowaves. Plus, having a media conglomerate mad at you isn't a good way to win elections, I think the politicians have found.

This situation, if resolved, will be resolved totally behind closed doors I think, because short of repealing the law altogether, the only solution will leave everyone with egg on their faces.

Just a really interesting catch-22 when laws aren't thought through completely.

Re:darned if you do, darned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

the only solution will leave everyone with egg on their faces

Dude.. do you seriously think whatever the outcome is, it will get any press coverage?

The entire protracted CARP battle, from the passing of the DMCA to its conclusion, got not even a peep out of any mainstream news source i saw. The "man on the street" still has no idea CARP or the DMCA exists, much less that there is a "struggling internet radio community" or what a "linux dvd driver" is. Try walking around sometime and asking people what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is, and seeing if anyone is aware that since that law was passed all of the radio stations in their hometown are owned by the same two or three companies. You won't be pleasantly surprised.

Face it. No matter how awful the outcome of this, no one responsible will face consequences. No one will even hear about it except for the slashdot/kuro5hin crowd-- and they're all incredibly disillusioned anyway, so that won't make a difference.

Re:darned if you do, darned if you don't

[binarybum]

how will people not knowing about it not make a difference? Most of those people wouldn't care much anyways since they're happy with their clear-channel top forty music selection, and that kind of music isn't threatened by these decisions at all. What really matters in this case is the outcome of the trial and the formation of legislation around this issue.

More people knowing might mean more decisions favoring the people rather than the RIAA, so if you feel not enough people know (and I agree) start telling them about!

Biggest Winners

[faithfriends]

Its ironic the biggest winner is generally keeping its mouth shut. The behemoth AOL Time Warner is keeping its mouth shut, it stands to be a huge winner on both sides of the battle. AOL will continue charging consumers and taking out of one pocket to pay the record companies in the other pocket. It gets to easily eliminate smaller competitors through "legislation" while consumers lose out in the end.

Jeremy
http://www.faithfriends.com

This post

[Anonymous Coward]

Is protected under the Digital Millemium Act 2002.
It is illegal to moderate this post.

Re:This post

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to encypt it with something first. I don't have to worry about decrypting something that isn't encrypted. No DCMA here.

Re:FIRST POST!!!!111 OMFG~~~~~~

[Anonymous Coward]

How could anything be "offtopic" in this thread? The post was a fucking smiley!

You moderators need to get your thumbs surgically removed from your assholes.

Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight from the Linux counter:

At Jul 17 2002 18:22:01 GMT, there are
128683
users registered
100241
machines registered

Now I will be nice and not even discount the number of double registrations that is no doubt included in these stats. Doing some simple math, based on the fact that the world population is over 6 BILLION, that means that rougly 2% of the entire world uses Linux.

Re:Reality Check

[zhar]

I'm afraid your math is off by quite a lot. If 2% of the entire world uses linux, then 12 Million people would be using it according to your world population statistic of 6 Billion.

6000000000*.02=12000000

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

2% of 6 billion is 120 million, and I think there are significantly more than 6 billion people in the world now. I think it's over 6 1/2 billion, in fact, quickly approaching 7 billion.

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

...now I understand why America doesn't adopt the metric system.

Powers of ten are too confusing.

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell, dude? Most people in this world don't even have access to a computer. This statistic is pretty much useless.

IPsec Implementations

[Shamanin]

Yeah, the laws have softened in the U.S. yet no Linux distribution (other than ones originating from outside the country) will ship with an IPsec implementation pre-installed.

There is still alot of fear that this softening of restictions will eventually rebound.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
----------------------
Here is a list of some distributions that do include IPsec and their country of origin:

SuSE Linux (Germany)
Conectiva (Brazil)
Mandrake (France)
Best Linux (Finland)
Polish(ed) Linux Distribution (Poland)

slogan

[tps12]

I propose a new anti-royalty slogan: "In 1776 we fought to rid America of royalty. Let's not bring it back." It uses the two definitions of "royalty" to add humor to the message, which is that royalties are unamerican. Thoughts?

Re:slogan

[Vladimus]

This does bring up an interesting point. Businesses insisting on royalties for everything under the sun are building up taxation without representation.

And force-feeding thought through control of the media is somewhat akin to forcing Americans to house soldiers. Same kind of violation.

Hmm...need a better closing line...

[Darth Troll]

How about, "What you talkin' bout, fool!".

Re:I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only poi

[Spy4MS]

It's still easier to use Streambox Ripper to grab the link and record the stream, rather than the audio. That way you get a copy that is exactly as good as the one that got streamed.

There's currently no way to prevent stream rippers from saving songs. Even with a lot of fancy Javascript hiding the stream's URL, you can get it through a packet sniff of the http request.

Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[$criptah]

I still don't understand why RIAA is so anti-radio. Okay, I do understand that they try to protect the authors and collect fees, but without the radio (any form, radio, webcast, etc.) nobody will hear the music. I would not buy music that I haven't heard. Would you? If they want to profit, they must give up their law suits and let radio and webcasters play whatever they want. That's how people hear the music and then buy it. People tend to buy what they like, and I do not think that all the past law suits against radio stations made associations like RIAA and people behind it very popular. Tag's Trance and other small webstations were closed as a result of their actions and that makes me want to stay away from buying music.


P.S.: and if your music doesn't sell, well the problem is not with the people who listen or broadcast it.

Re:Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[Stonehand]

People buy books they know little about, from authors they've never read. People go to see movies that they've never read reviews for. People preorder computer games (for much more than a music CD, generally) long before the games are complete and without ever seeing a demo...

Music and television are, perhaps, the two major entertainment segments where people can almost always easily and so completely(*) "try before they buy", and that's only possible because the content creators get paid for the broadcast already (in the form of royalties, ad revenue, et al).

(*) Compared to, say, demos, short test drives, a walking tour through a house... if you hear a song on a radio, you've heard the /complete/ song.

Re:Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[srmalloy]

I still don't understand why RIAA is so anti-radio.

If the RIAA could come up with some way to extract performance royalties because you let someone walk by on the sidewalk outside your home and hear you playing a CD on the stereo in your home, they would. After all, if someone outside your home can hear it, it's a 'public performance', and you have to pay more royalties.

Re:Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand why RIAA is so anti-radio. Okay, I do understand that they try to protect the authors and collect fees, but without the radio (any form, radio, webcast, etc.) nobody will hear the music. I would not buy music that I haven't heard. Would you?

That's exactly what they intend. If you're unable to "try before you buy" it makes it that much easier for them to shovel out the new CD of the week from the new Corporate (Boy|Girl|Teen Pop) Band of the week to the mindless masses.

Re:Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[$criptah]

I do agree with you, but without hearing a complete song, would you buy a cd? This is a very good question, how much do you need to know about a CD in order to buy it? When I buy software, I usually make sure that it is worth it and I like to try it out first. I like FreeBSD, I tried it, enjoyed, and bought a subscription. With music its different, I don't think that I can buy a CD by listening only to one minute of one song. It doesn't work for me.

Re:Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

[r_barchetta]

Maybe we shouldn't put it past them. (Never underestimate your enemies...) However, I don't think we should be worried about this anytime soon. At least not in the U.S. From Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101:

To perform or display a work "publicly" means -

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Playing a CD on your home stereo (especially in-doors) doesn't fit the criteria.

-r

Everything I learned in Civics Class was Wrong

[pestihl]

If I capture a song from the radio on my computer alla mp3 then webserv that, would I still be doing wrong?
I mean come on, It was just given to everyone for free right off the radio.
Yeah someone paid for the airtime so that everyone could have it for free, but I'm not understanding how the internet is effecting their business. They give everything away for free anyway. Yeah yeah, with pop up add type comercials you can't seem to get away from.
These laws that are about controlling people are going to get this government in alot of trouble.

I am ashamed of the country I live in. When it comes to ip. When a company with big money has more of a voice than the people who live in it, I call that proto-fashism.

Even this Capitlist-Socalism that people like to hang on thier sleeves is a far far cry from Democrocy. What on earth was I taught schools. It's Time for a COUP! I'm sick of being controlled by the actions of a few idiots with golden parachutes.

Down with the Fed's having more Control than the States. This country is obviously to big to control under one Government.

nuff said.
pestihl

Re:Everything I learned in Civics Class was Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

Re:Everything I learned in Civics Class was Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame Andrew Jackson for perverting the Federalist government into a Nationalist government.

Re:Everything I learned in Civics Class was Wrong

[Vuarnet]

What on earth was I taught schools. Apparently, not grammar.

What about requests?

[Zathrus]

So, assuming this appeal is accepted and you can webcast for free as long as you don't take playlists, what then happens to requests? Can a DJ take a request from a caller and play it over the air and simulcast it over the web? What about picklists on web sites (radio station has a list of their 40 "top" songs, pick and click to request it be played for the 3rd time this hour)?

Welcome to the murk.

I have to side against this appeal... if only because maybe then the radio broadcasters will fight for something vaguely resembling reasonable tariffs. In a purely self-centered way, it doesn't affect me since I don't listen to webcasts anyway. But, on the whole, I think that slapping down the RIAA and getting reasonable tariffs put into place is the Right Thing anyway.

Re:What about requests?

[Enry]

Some radio stations will requests, then air the request just as the song shows up on the playlist.

Not sure about all-request shows though.

Re:What about requests?

[rogo78]

Don't worry about requests. Requests don't exist. Playlists are developed by a radio station's program director (PD) well ahead of time, and it's the DJ's job to play the songs in order. Also, to speak when the script says to speak. Sure, DJ's will take requests. Odds are the song will be coming up soon anyway. At the very least, they can make up a name.

There's one exception I'm aware of. KQRS in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, allows (or allowed) four requests per hour during the overnight. This is unusual, though: most stations completely automate the overnight shift.

I've got a buddy who often works the Saturday, noon-6pm, and Sunday, 6am-noon, shifts at an outstate rock station. He'll voicetrack the midnight-6am shifts for the rest of the weekend.

There's a way to tell if the station's being voicetracked. Listen to the weather report. If the DJ tells you the current temperature, it's live.

As for the webcasting rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rates established are compulsory only in the abscence of another deal between the artist(s) and the webcaster. So, perhaps a group of independent artists could license their music at a cheaper rate. "Play songs by these artists, and we'll charge you less."

Work with _us_

[Milo Fungus]

"Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses"

Maybe the RIAA could work with us instead of trying to force everyone to bow to their authority. If they squeeze webcasters to death and put fair use in a straight jacket then they are forcing us to find our music elsewhere, like Open Audio projects.

Not so fast, Joe

[JoeShmoe]

No, what you are missing is that radio stations are saying that the NAB fees they are already paying should cover them regardless of the transition method (radio or Internet)...which makes sense.

So in a sense, the radio stations say they don't want to be charged twice for the same thing. The FCC license only gives them permission to be on the air, it doesn't have anything to do with what they can play on the air. If it wasn't for the NAB, radio stations would be pretty bleak (probably just all talk shows).

So webcasters are still screwed. Even if the radio stations succeed and get the precident set that stream-only radio-style webcasting doesn't get charged an additional fee...there is still the problem that webcasters can't join the NAB and pay a general royalty tax to gain a compulsary license.

A silver lining this is not...

- JoeShmoe

.

No, the NAB wants special treatment for radio

[Animats]

The National Association of Broadcasters is asking for special treatment for Internet transmissions by "FCC-licensed broadcast stations". In the NAB's words:

• Summary of Argument:
  AM/FM streaming -- the Internet transmission by an FCC-licensed radio broadcaster of the program fare offered by such broadcaster pursuant to its FCC license -- constitutes a "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" within the meaning of Section 114(d)(1)(A) of the Copyright Act, and thereby is exempt from the limited performance right in sound recordings conferred by Section 106(6) of the Act.

  ...

  While there is thus no need to resort to legislative history, that legislative history nevertheless confirms the plain language construction of the "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" exemption, and demonstrates that Congress did not intend to impose sound recording public performance copyright liability upon FCC-licensed terrestrial broadcasters that simultaneously stream their radio programming to listeners via the Internet.

So the NAB does want a special deal for FCC-licensed radio broadcasters. Internet-only webcasters would not benefit from this deal. Nor will they benefit if the NAB wins this lawsuit. Read the filing.

Unlikely allies

[Twon]

This might actually be helpful to some webcasters if they win. All of the web radio stations I've played with have been non-interactive, so if the broadcasters win this one it might apply to them as well.

Re:Unlikely allies

[tetsuo13]

It won't. If this passes it'll mean that the people in charge (paid by the RIAA) have sat down and carefully crafted a scheme to let off the terestrial stations (also paid by the RIAA) but not let the webcasters off at all. The only way I could see it benefit us webcasters is if it passes, all of us will cry not fair and it will be [even more] obvious that they're out to put webcasters out of business.

The more I read and hear about this the more is sickens me! Lately the US has been run by big corporations who buy their way into Congress =\

Hobbling the competition is the point

[FaithAndReason]

Way back in 1995, the NAB and RIAA already began to realize that the Internet might be a threat to their established business. (Hey, they may be greedy, but they're not stupid!) So, they did what you might expect an established American business to do: they bought a law to protect themselves against competition, the DPRA (cool - another 4-letter acronym to hate!)
According the NAB's own words in the linked "summary" posting, p.4:

The impetus for the legislation was concerns of the recording industry that certain emerging businesses enabled by developing digital transmission technologies might provide music transmissions of such nature and quality as would displace record sales.

This little gem of a quote is part of the NAB's appeal document! The NAB/RIAA does not even attempt to hide the fact that the purpose of the DPRA was specifically to target select-and-download services and prop up "no-choice" broadcasting.

Unfortunately for them, the US Copyright Office refused to play along, and decided that all Internet streams would be charged similarly. So, they're understandably upset that the law they bought and paid for isn't protecting them as well as they'd like. (Some days, even a CongressCritter is a lousy investment...)

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the law was clearly intended to exempt them from royalties, so they'll probably get a "clarification" buried deep within the next huge steaming pile of legislation regarding the Office of Homeland Security or whatever.

As to those who have posted "hey, Congress won't do that -- it will make it way too obvious that they're supporting the fat cats in the RIAA!": what color is the sky in the world where you live (and how can I get there?)

Re:Hobbling the competition is the point

[mpe]

Unfortunately for them, the US Copyright Office refused to play along, and decided that all Internet streams would be charged similarly. So, they're understandably upset that the law they bought and paid for isn't protecting them as well as they'd like.

Hardly the first example of winding up "hoist by their own petard" when lobbying for/buying a law.

Not what it could have been

[A nonymous Coward]

Didn't the BBC get in trouble earlier this year by deciding to not carry some broadcast of some royal happening? I thought maybe this was the typical late slashdot news.

Mod parent up

[drew_kime]

Dude, sign in. Someone might hear the great point you just made.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, OFFTOPIC!!!

[Shamanin]

How can this be off topic? IPsec is a collection of cryptological transformations for encrypting IP traffic!!!

Re:WHAT DO YOU MEAN, OFFTOPIC!!!

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

You wanted the other story. This is about music.

Everything I learned in Spelling Class was Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

There, I fixed the topic for you.

Force-fed a stream

[sulli]

isn't that what SomaFM et al. do? You don't pick the songs on Groove Salad, for instance.

What exactly are the fees today?

[TheFlu]

Can anyone detail for me exactly what the fees are today? I run a small station with a handful of loyal listeners and if the fees are very small, I'm not opposed to paying them.

Who exactly gets the fees? Where do I send the money? And should I even bother with it when I only have a few listeners? Are there any other fees besides the .02 cents per song listed on this page?

If I pay these fees can I pretty much stream any music I want to no matter what?

Re:What exactly are the fees today?

[formzero]

You can go here to see what your fees would be. There is also a lot of great info here on faxing your Representative and Senators. There is a new campaign to put a stay on all webcasting fees as we speak. Everyone should send their faxes. There is also info on who has been silenced by the recent rates.
Fees and Info

The minimum you wil have to pay is $500 a year. Hope this helps.

That's just like the RIAA to go after their market

[chris_mahan]

First, they made the customers the Evil ones.

Now the radio stations that Advertise their product (payola notwithstanding) are also the Evil ones.

I wonder who else is there to piss off... Artists have been raked over the coals already... I guess that leaves the shareholders of the media conglomerates.

Look for large accounting scandals and dismal profit warnings...

Seppuku is not viable business plan.

On an aside: Anyone know of a list of recording labels that do not belong to the RIAA?

Michael Strikes Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael whips out his big censor stick and rewrites the story submitter's post then goes on to name and deride the original poster! Maybe some of those anti-Michael trolls have it right.

Someone is shooting their own foot

[Anonymous Coward]

If radio stations can't/don't want to pay and stop playing big business music, instead only indie/etc music, someone will lose a lot of money, no?

You know what? Break the laws!

[vmalloc_]

I think the Slashdot community should start practicing a little bit of civil disobedience. Refuse to pay the fines, and broadcast over the web anyways. There are at least several thousand web radio services out there, if somebody wanted to enforce the law, they would have another DE-CSS or Gnutella on their hands.. They could try to shut down sites, but inevitably fail, and cause a huge uprising amongst the online community, and probably most of the offline as well. Any and all lawsuits involving money will eventually crumble, because it's hard to call a nerdy kid in his parent's basement an evil cybercriminal for simply playing back music. Also, good luck trying to get any money out of him.

If you don't agree with the laws & regulations, don't abide by them. Take some risks. I mean, I'm not going around saying we should start torching the RIAA building with molotov cocktails or anything, but when stupid stuff like webcaster royalties comes up, complain about it and broadcast anyways.

You guys need to get more guts. We've been fighting corporate radio with no-license pirate radio for years.. they send MARSHALS to bust those places, for god sakes! Saying you disagree with something is important, but you're not making any progress until you start being an activist, too. The big wigs that create things like webcaster royalties don't talk, they ACT. You need to start acting too, or they're just going to trample on your rights while you sit there saying "Well I don't agree with this.."

Re:You know what? Break the laws!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to post back after you've done some of what you advocate - if you have net access from jail. Easy to take potshots from the sidelines, telling "you guys" that they need to get more guts, take some risks. I'd be more inclined to listen if I were able to read about the risks you've take and the time you've served.

And, fyi, "civil disobedience" isn't just breaking the laws - it's deliberately taking the consequences. The folks who broke the race laws in the South, and went to jail (or worse) for it, Ghandi, et al - that's civil disobedience. Read a bit of Thoreau, get a feel for what's really involved in doing this right.

Re:You know what? Break the laws!

[PastorOfMuppets]

OK, how about you post a link to your broadcast site.

RIAA again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah bend over and take it like a man, RIAA wants ALL your money!

Re:RIAA again?

[Strog]

I already gave it to the IRS.

I work in the radio industry....

[Newer Guy]

I used to work for "the evil empire (AKA Clear Channel)", at their Internet portal station Worldclassrock.com. They had intended to run all their net stations as regular radio stations with one single exception: the ability to click on the title and buy the record online. Seems to me that this would benefit the RIAA, not hurt it.
At the time we ran about 12 different streams, only three of them approaching FM quality. Those three streams (64K Win Media, 64K Real G2, 96K Real G2) were constantly rebuffering even on big pipe broadband connections.
I'll tell you this with certainty: making a good quality recording with real time streaming is almost impossible. There's simply too many interruptions to the stream! I think the reason downloading music files is so popular is that they don't happen in real time so the resultant file has time to become complete.
Once again the RIAA has proven to the world how purely dumb they are.

Re:I work in the radio industry....

[Wyzard]

Right now I'm listening to 128kbps MP3 streamed over ordinary cable broadband, thanks to Icecast, and I have never yet heard it skip at all. Do the math: 128 kilobits per second equals 16 kilobytes per second. That's really not all that much, to anyone who isn't on dialup. I don't know what your listeners were doing wrong, but I've played several of these at the same time with no ill effect.

Lines

[Shadow Wrought]

Everyone knows the line has to be drawn somewhere, they just don't want to be on the outside of it. Maybe instead of trying to avoid paying royalties entirely, the should try and negotiate a lowering of the royalty to factor in the greater number of listeners.

Re:Lines

[God! Awful]

There is no extent to which Slashdot readers will not go to defend their right to receive something for free.

-a

Re:Lines

[Steve G Swine]

There is no extent to which Slashdot readers will not go to defend their right to receive something for free.

s/defend/write about/

CCU won't pay

[martissimo]

At least it's not very likely.

If you listen to the May 22'nd broadcast of the Diane Rehm show (crappy RM format though), the recording industry's representative makes it very clear that the rates agreed upon will only be used as a base... and that they will be happy to lower rates (even possibly to nothing besides ASCAP/BMI)... for the webcasters who play the music they like, and want promoted.

I'm sure CCU will get a sweetheart deal, and it wont really take a suspicious looking law to do it, just a lil handhsake with Rosen.

a reply from nancy pelosi

[petong]

this is a reply I received from Nancy Pelosi after writing her regarding the CARP proposal:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the royalty fees for webcasters that
were recommended by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). I
appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, on February 20, 2002, CARP released its recommended royalty
fees for webcasters. The rate for Internet transmissions and for
retransmission of a performance in an AM/FM radio broadcast was
recommended to be set at $.14 per performance. On May 21, 2002, the
Librarian of Congress issued an order rejecting the CARP recommendation,
and on June 20, 2002 the Librarian of Congress set the rates at $.07 per
performance. Rates for noncommercial broadcasters as well as the fee
webcasters and broadcasters must pay for the making of ephemeral
recordings were decreased from the CARP recommendation.

When Congress passed DMCA, our intention was that artists and copyright
holders be fairly paid for commercial uses of their work, while webcasters
though the Internet would be able to provide competitive programming of
value to consumers. Congress intended the statutory license process to be
fair and efficient, so that the webcast industry could be free of legal
uncertainty, grow quickly and pay creators increasing amounts as the
industry developed.

As these rates go into effect for webcasters, please be assured that I
will be watching this issue carefully. Thank you again for taking the
time to express your views on this important subject. I hope you will
continue to communicate with me on matters of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi
Member of Congress

Re:a reply from nancy pelosi

[Amazing Quantum Man]

In other words,

Dear Constituent,

I've been bought and paid for, but I'll pretend to lend a sympathetic ear.

Tough luck, Sucker.

Love, Your CongressCritter

Re:a reply from nancy pelosi

[Eccles]

You forgot:

P.S. Next time don't forget to include the check.

Re:a reply from nancy pelosi

[herbierobinson]

Notice that she got the rates wrong by two orders of magnitude....

Re:I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only poi

[EllisDees]

Or just use xmms and select 'save stream'. ;)

Internet radio should be treated as an extension

[anewman]

Now that the big trend is radio stations simulcasting all over the world, I personally think that internet broadcasting should be seen as an extension of previously existing range. I worked for a 10-watt college radio station, and we recently went on the internet. Granted, our ASCAP/BMI fees were only $5,000 a year (roughly), since we were so small and educational, but our broadcast range is increased with internet broadcasting. 75 to 100 listeners can tune in over the internet, which, even on a small scale, increases our listenership. For larger commerical stations, they ought to have to pay some, too. They pay quite a bit in music licensing, but internet broadcasting allows them to extend their range. Therefore, they are reaching more of an audience, and are a more "powerful" station. I don't see the problem with it -- ASCAP/BMI really isn't that much to begin with, in the grand scheme of things.

independent music??

[Anonymous Coward]

what about GPLing music or such and then streaming that? if the artist is the one offering it via a webcasting service and they are not tied to the RIAA then they are not tied to all this leagle bunk right?

or am i just too stupid to understand all this monopoly junk?

or how about moving the servers to native american reservation colocations where you would be imune to all this junk?

there has to be away around this monopoly junk and be able to make a very viable, leagle underground.

So the trick for a Webcaster would be ...

[wytcld]

So the trick for a Webcaster would be to also be an "FCC-licensed radio broadcaster," which means all the college stations could Webcast. It also brings in the issue of what the minimum cost is to become FCC-licensed. Are there HAM licenses that allow for music broadcasts?

Re:So the trick for a Webcaster would be ...

[Lish]

My thought exactly. The fee schedule for AM/FM stations is here (pdf, it's on page 66), and is based on the number of listeners. Seems like it'd be a reasonable workaround, if your "broadcast station" is in a low-population area so the cost would be low. The catch of course, is the expense of the broadcast equipment, and the application fee.

Re:So the trick for a Webcaster would be ...

[Kwil]

Actually.. if you go non-commercial, you can pick up an Amateur Vanity License for $12.00, with no renewal fee required.

At least, that's what I read on page 19 of your second link. Is there any requirement that if you have an Amateur License you actually have to be broadcasting on the radio waves? I think paying 12.00 to be exempt from the 'webcasting' fees requirement is probably a good deal.

The question is, does the Amateur Vanity qualify for the exemption the NAB is looking for?

Re:So the trick for a Webcaster would be ...

[jmorris42]

No. This is way off topic, but just so nobody else reads this and gets their hopes up.

The Amateur Vanity fee you see listed is for a Anateur Radio operator to trade in the random generated callsign for a callsign of their choice.

Since all music is verboten in the Amateur Radio Service it has no bearing on this thread. A Ham can't even sing a public domain song into the microphone by a strict reading of the regs. Plus there are almost no conditions (exception for emergencies involving risk to life or property) where an Amateur station can retransmit the signals of any other service, not can an Amateur knowingly transmit a signal with the intent that it be retransmitted by another service. (There are a couple of exceptions, if you are a Ham you should know them but they don't matter in this context.)

You pay for choice, I guess

[ianscot]

They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty payments to apply only to internet services which allow one to pick what music one receives...

If we're having a debate about what congress intended, as opposed to what the law actually says, then somebody did a p*ss poor job of writing the legislation. Golly, which moneyed interest could be behind such a poorly conceived bill's being voted through?

... - if the listener is force-fed a stream, like regular radio, Congress didn't intend for the royalty payments to apply.

"Force-fed" -- unusually good word choice for slashdot. If we have too much choice about what we're getting, that's piracy -- PIRACY! If radio programmers get to steer the boat, though, stopping off only at Disney-owned resort islands along the way and keeping us from collecting any shells except from the sanctioned gift shops -- well, Welcome to the Love Boat, I'm Julie McCoy and I'll be your cruise director. It's piracy, see, if you try to steer the boat yourself...

Man, do broadcast industries just not get the point-to-point mojo. These are companies that think the internet is just another distribution channel, and that advertizing Time Magazine on CNN's Web site is really happening "synergy." Hoo-boy, what a grand vision that is, huh?

Re:FIRST POST!!!!111 OMFG~~~~~~

[mister_sparkle]

Just think, some pitiful little geek out there is hunched over a computer keyboard, gleefully moderating posts to make up for their lack of self-esteem. Yay!

They got it wrong. It should be vice versa.

[$criptah]

I think RIAA got it wrong. They make money by selling the music, radio station advertise their products (songs), therefore RIAA should encourage the broadcast of the songs in every way. Moreover with declining quality of songs, I think that radiostations should charge artists for playing some songs. Come on guys, aren't you tired of listening to crap like "Its getting hot in here" or "H to the izzo"? The constantly try to shove some crap down our throats. Every time I turn my TV on to MTV or E! (happens once in a month, when I press a wrong button or browse through channels) I see rappers, and all the other pop-stars decked out in gold, driving brand new luxary cars and living in enormous houses. How do they get the money? They make money on CDs that are promoted by different media channels. It hurts, becuase it seems like they don't get enough and they want to sue the ones who provided them with popularity and wealth. Thanks,

Re:They got it wrong. It should be vice versa.

[TheHouseMouse]

I also have to take a second look when I check out MTV cribs. Supposedly...according to RIAA and some newspaper articles, all musicians are dirt poor and struggling to eat on the $.02 they get per CD. However Lil Bow Wow has a pimped out Mercedes C class with 20's and richie rich on the floor mat, and a house filled with crap bought on mad spending spree's. Then Master P (his dad?) rolls up in a Bentley. Truly though, I think that Antares (makers of the Auto-Tune, it can gently snap a voice into certain keys, or when abused it can often be mistaken for a vocoder) should start collecting fee's from the RIAA because Antares makes it possible for even Brandy to sound like she has a shred of talent. I can almost guarantee that 45 of the top 50 albums use Antares or similar hardware/software. I recently read an interview with BT (he produced N'Sync's "Pop!"), and he described how he went through literally a thousand differen't edits on their vocals. And J'Lo's music is 66% background singers. ARGG! I CAN'T TAKE IT. I'M GOING TO ESPLODE (the correct spelling of course, lol). Well, back on subject. Of course both airwave and net radio stations should pay royalties. Especially the webcasters, because all those people are out to do is make money and rape musicians intellectual property. If it weren't for organizations like the RIAA, who else would stick up for the little guy? ::puking puddles of sarcasm right now::

Re:They got it wrong. It should be vice versa.

[oooga]

Radiostations do charge artists for playing songs. It's called "payola" and it's a huge fucking problem. Only WAY overproduced artists get any airplay, everybody else never makes back their advance and goes into debt, and nobody but listener-sponsored radio plays anything worth listening to. Instead of encouraging payola, you should speak out against it.

Re:They got it wrong. It should be vice versa.

[Darkninja666]

The rappers you see are nothing more then an image. What you don't see is the rapper of old, who sells just enough records and gets just enough to live on. And still works all week!
You realize that for the ones that don't own their own label (which means that they keep a larger majority of the earnings and the earnings of other artists), all that crap is bought by three ways:1)Moregage (sp?) themselves silly, because you know their first album was a hit, so the money just going to keep coming. 2)They borrow it, like all that jewerly that you see celebs wear around town. All "borrowed" from one diamond store in Beverley Hills.3)The labels (aka the evil ones) provide it, and you had better be sure that they take it back after they no longer sell albums.....Hell for the classic example look at MC Hammer, or TLC or ...... I think the only "artist" that earned actual money was Alanis Morisate (sp, oh who cares), she negoicated with MP3.com to fund her turn and instead of money, she took stock in the company BEFORE it went public. And when it did,she made a cool couple of mill. And then had the gall to turn around and comdemn mp3s. .....Heres a last thought for you, if these "rappers" and other artists are making so much money...Why don't you see some 80's bands on Cribs, or 70's bands or Rappers that were a big hit a couple of years ago....hmmmmmmmm?

Re:They got it wrong. It should be vice versa.

[$criptah]

I do agree with you on that point. There is a lot of 'image' and 'bling-mother-fucking' bling goin on. Why don't I see all the artists that were big hits a couple of years ago? First, I don't want to see them :) Secondly, the real artists are still there, I like my oldies, I like classic rock and all the other music that I listened to when I was a kid. You have a very good point, about the Labels that own their performers, in this case, it is even worse, since RIAA wants to pockets more money and the artists won't see a big difference.

These people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Reuters article: "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal."

That's idiotic. Neither downloads or interactive services are not covered by the DMCA's compulsory license. It says that in the legislation. There's nothing grey about it. Congress intended the performance license to apply to web radio (or rather, the RIAA, who pimped the legislation, intended that), and if webcasters have to pay, then Clear Channel and everyone else who simulcasts their radio brodcasts should have to pay, too.

Rich

Re:I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only poi

[homer_ca]

"the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary"

And what's the bitrate on the stream? 64K or less? No MP3 collector would ever bother saving a crappy 64K MP3 of a song they wanted to keep. It would sound better taping off the radio. I know there's a few 128K Shoutcast stations out there, and someday 128K and higher might be the norm but not anytime soon.

I don't think any Internet music law could be completely fair unless it took into account bitrates to distinguish between high quality (good enough for archiving) and low quality (for previewing and sampling) streams.

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[monkeydo]

The danger of my "stealing" a song from streaming audio is about the same as my stealing it off the radio.

The likelyhood, or the dificulty may be the same, but the danger certainly is not. If you record the song from a digital stream you have a same generation copy that you can distribute ad infinitum with no loss of quality.

Nobody really cares if you tape the radio and share the tapes with your friends. They do care if you make perfect copies and share them with the world on the Internet.

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[Woko]

It's lucky that the Judicial branch is well known to be fully impartial, and would never vote along party lines. If they did that, they'd have the power to annoint their own preferred president.

The NAB is BIG BUSINESS

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nat'l Assoc. of Broadcasters has a very powerful lobby, hence why they have resisted at every turn the RIAA's attempts to make them pay for sound recording royalties.

The NAB wants Internet radio dead as much as the RIAA does. The NAB HATES college radio. All they do is draw listeners away from their commercial stations, either by providing different content, or by "potentially" interfering with the coverage area of large broadcasters.

Re:That's just like the RIAA to go after their mar

[homer_ca]

"On an aside: Anyone know of a list of recording labels that do not belong to the RIAA?"

I found this through a little gooogling. There's also a link on the page to fake indies.

Re:That's just like the RIAA to go after their mar

[chris_mahan]

Thanks :)

Um...no.

[Hub_City]

If your argument is that a stream, any stream, provides its listeners with a perfect copy of music being played over it, you are wrong.

MP3, RA & WMA are lossy to begin with. The lower the bit-rate, the less they sound like the original.

- A 256K stream might approach the quality of the original CD...

- A 128k stream might approach the quality of hearing that CD on FM radio.

- Most webcasters are using 56k streams or less - roughly the same as AM Stereo. Why? They want to reach as many listeners as possible, given the limits of their connection to the Internet (not to mention the limitations of the Internet itself.)

You might make a perfect digital copy of the stream, but the stream is not a perfect digital transmission of the music it's transmitting.

-HubCity
(I have many streams at www.altrok.com courtesy Live365, whom I'll be paying to keep them running; if you believe they transmit perfect copies of the music I'm playing, you need your hearing checked badly.)

Re:Um...no.

[Malachi]

No doubt. I was wondering what the prior author was speaking of when he went air vs stream.. I listen to streams all day at work.. hell if I can find one at 256k.. that'd be a dream.. then to make it stable so it doesn't hickup enroute or get garbled like so many do? Even with a 15 second buffer I still get packet drops and crap in the stream..

Sometimes radio is better.. ooh.. concept. heheh.

Now when I2 comes out.. in whatever future that is.. then we will see digital streams at digital pure quailities.. which my mouth and mackie 8/24's drool for. Until then, it pisses me off that the ruling made SOMA shutdown..

buggers,

-M-

Re:That's just like the RIAA to go after their mar

[formzero]

Here is a list of label members of the RIAA.

RIAA Affiliated Labels

It is safe to buy from any label that is not listed here. Please do not support these labels affiliated with the RIAA.

Let me get this straight..

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Record companies pay radio stations to play their top-40 music.
2. Radio stations pay record companies for playing all music.
3. Webcasters pay record companies for playing all music.

Where does this leave those stations (web or otherwise) that don't play the top-40 stuff, and don't get paid by the record companies for that?

And now, the top-40 radio stations don't want to pay extra for webcasting the same top-40 music that's everywhere anyways.

pick what music one receives

[Anonymous Coward]

> They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty > payments to apply only to internet services which
> allow one to pick what music one receives

All my radios have a Tuning Knob, don't yours?

Re:Internet radio should be treated as an extensio

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a very powerful college radio station with millions of potential listeners. We've been streaming for years and years, but we still don't have that many online listeners. Of course, it's very convenient and cool to have the stream, but the proportion of online listeners to potential listeners for us is quite minimal. And if we did start to have a deluge of listeners, it would eat up our bandwidth.

By the same token, commercial stations are not going to have the same quantity of listeners on the Internet. If they do have a good number, the stream bitrate has to come down to compensate, or the service becomes non-free. The station owners have to make money somehow.

Or both: anarcho-communism!

[commodoresloat]

Seriously though this is what is such bullshit. I'm all for laws protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. But the law in question is not about that at all; it's about protecting a business model against competition. These freakin' armchair capitalists hide behind free market ideology to justify their actions, and yet they have the government step in to squash their competition.

Re:I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only poi

[Rasta Prefect]

If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.

As opposed to the technical challenges involved in dropping a Cassette in your tapedeck and pushing "record"?

I know what I'm missing.

[twitter]

Given this, I don't understand the objections I'm seeing here.

Quick summary of RIAA/NAB position, "Give us a break, because we suck. Those other guys offerd you the ability to chose what you wanted and that hurt our sales, so we crushed them. Now let us further wreck the digital media by eliminating choice there too."

What I'm missing is choice in the music I'm exposed to. It's not on the radio, and it's hard to find legitimatly from the internet these days. MP3.com is owned and other services have been shut down or are being poluted with crap. I have to go out of my way to hear anything but 40 year old recorded crap here in Baton Rouge. Oh yeah, NPR, the voice of the community is helping out. Thanks, Big Brother, your laws have set me free to chose between you and utter shit.

monopoly industry not so dumb.

[twitter]

Seems to me that this would benefit the RIAA, not hurt it.... I'll tell you this with certainty: making a good quality recording with real time streaming is almost impossible. ...Once again the RIAA has proven to the world how purely dumb they are.

No, the RIAA/NAT will simply continue to make the internet look bad. That's why they are currently polluting the sharing networks, no? In this case they are asking for special treatment, because they suck no less, so that they will be the only providers of "internet music". They will make the new media suck like the old and laugh all the way to the bank as each broken stream and each advert played on the internet competes for bandwith that "pirates" use to get around them. Bogus! Not dumb, oppresive. Not creative, but effective. Sounds like the schoolyard bully to me.

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[Anonymous Coward]

If I make an analog copy of the digital stream (trivial), and then redigitize it, I can make infinite generations of copies from that analog copy.

Silly argument?

Yes, absolutely. But its essentially the same argument that you're making.

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[PastorOfMuppets]

And what if you just record a regular radio broadcast digitaly?

how will they market clockless chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

SO will the new pentium9 be 0mhz, or infinity mhz ? :)

Re:I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only poi

[altgrr]

Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.

My Psion Wavefinder receives DAB digital radio, and allows me to directly record the mp2 stream, exactly as it was transmitted (at 100% signal, which I usually get), without conversion of file format. Digital radio, however, was hailed as a revolution by all concerned, and it didn't seem to bother the recording industry that I have a nice little source of 192kbps stereo music whenever I feel like it.

Oh, and I can record from all the stations on the DAB multiplex simultaneously without tying up my sound card. So why do they have problems with Internet stations?

Petition CARP

[Snover]

Petition to Remove CARP!

Re:good luck........ Judicial vs. Congressional

[Grab]

But interestingly, digital radio is now a reality. So if you tape off that? or even better, record to your PC and blow it onto a CD? Hmm, guess they've not really thought about that! :-)

Grab.

Interesting RIAA response

[A Cheese Danish]

From the Reuter's article:

"Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses," said Steven Marks, a senior vice president at the RIAA.

Now, what I find interesting about this is that the RIAA is basically telling radio is that there is a new business model being built, one that revolves more around collecting performance fees and royalties than the actual sales of a physical product. This would make sense from their POV, seeing as how physical media sales are slipping. What better way to keep the income rolling in than to find a way to charge for every single type of song out there.....every time it is broadcast/played/thought about.

People desperate for money can be scary.