RIAA Says Webcasting Royalties Are Too Low

Karl writes "The RIAA announced today their intention to appeal the royalty rates for internet radio decided on by the Librarian of Congress. Today was the very last day to file for an appeal." The webcasters put out of business by the royalties include SomaFM, Monkeyradio, KPIG, and many others. At least a few Congressional representatives support revising CARP to give small webcasters a chance to survive.

Comments

MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[cca93014]

Jesus, I just said it RULED, and I'm not even American. Indeed it RULED.

I dont quite understand the reason tho. They've killed just about every decent net radio station out there - are they just making sure there's none left so they dont receive any royalties at all?

I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[mcwop]

Today, I announced that CD prices are too high. I appeal to all people to purchase more used cd's. The notice of my intent has been officially filed as a Slashdot comment.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[funky womble]

If you want to buy used cds from stores they cost just as much as it would new.

True (most of the time), though if you're doing it as a protest, that doesn't really matter: the point is that the money goes to someone other than the RIAA labels.

If you're helping to support a small independent music store, which might otherwise not be able to afford to stay in business, all the better.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Amazon Marketplace has pretty much any CD you want, used, for less than $10. To me that's perfectly affordable. And if you buy more than $50 worth, shipping is free. I was recently in the market for Jimmy Eat World albums and I couldn't find them at my local CD store, so I checked Amazon. I ended up getting the 3 CDs for $37 (that's with S&H), and they arrived 2 days later. One of them was even a promotional copy that wasn't supposed to be resold, so I'm doubly screwing the RIAA. Can't beat that!

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[KUHurdler]

Well, I'm struggling here with a way to win. I continue to NOT buy CDs and have been listening to streaming radio for quite a while now. Many of the internet radio stations I used to listen to have been hit hard with this. Some are still trying to continue with the heavy fees. One has cut their bandwidth so low it isn't worth listening to.

I just don't seem this gameplan winning anymore. I hate to say it, but it looks like the only way to go is underground.

I consider myself a pretty honest individiual that has been kicked in the nards too many times by the Entertainment Industry. I've started heading to piracy out of spite. Is this the general consensus?

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[splanky]

I'll preface this biased statement by saying that I own a record store :o)

Economics 101 of the record store music biz:
1. There are new 'developing artist' price points. A lot of pretty big name artists first came out at this pricepoint (Limp Bizkit's first album did, Godsmack's first, Avril Lavigne)... We (record stores) end up selling them for about 5.99 - 6.99 and they cost us about 5.75 to 6.50.
2. The superstar pricepoints cost us big bucks. The new springsteen album, for instance, costs just a tiny bit shy of 12 bucks. So we all sold it for 9.99 on the first day and, I'm not kidding, we lost about 2 bucks per CD sold.
3. Every store pays about the same for CDs from the manufacturers.
4. Stores make more of the their money now off of cooperative advertising. The cheesy mall stores that you see charge the record companies big bucks to have their posters up or their albums on sale.
5. Record stores have been fighting the labels for lower prices for years. However with the consolidations in the music biz, the labels have their bosses (i.e. the shareholders) pushing for higher and higher returns, so the labels can't afford to reduce the price of albums lest they be sacked.
6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.
7. The industry loses tons of money on most artists, but makes it up and then some on the big artists. However since the sales of big artists have been down, the economic detriment to the labels is obvious.
8. Almost all record stores would not make a profit without lifestyle merchandise (i.e. piercings, belts, lava lamps, etc.) and used CDs.
9. A typical record stores' profit margin on new CDs is LESS THAN 15%. No, I'm not kidding. And yes, I very much know what I'm talking about. That's less margin than gas stations and grocery stores.
10. The typical profit margin on used CDs and lifestyle merchandise is over 50%. You can see why we move to selling more and more of that stuff.
11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks. It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.

What would I do as a reasonable music consumer (as opposed to someone who just thinks music should be free and artists will still record if we steal their works)?

For new CDs, I'd buy those developing artist CDs and only those. That way the record companies will learn that if you charge 6 bucks for something tons of people will buy, but if you charge 15 bucks, very few will buy. If I wanted a big artist that is expensive, I'd wait for it used - The great thing about capitalism is that the almighty consumer will have his/her say and that if you show your elasticity of demand (i.e. you will pay one lower price but not a higher) pricing will change.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[GutBomb]

I ended up getting the 3 CDs for $37 (that's with S&H)

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[TheTomcat]

6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.

I believe it to be because anyone who actually likes the "hits" merely has to wait 30 minutes before it comes back up in any top 40 radio station's rotation.

S

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[PainKilleR-CE]

11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks.

I'd have to say that last part is not quite true. Office and Windows are probably among the most highly pirated pieces of software in the industry, and price point has a lot to do with that. A great deal of the popularity of the open source movement in business has more to do with cost than with the availability of the source code. Similarly, most gamers feel that the prices of PC games are too high (this may or may not be true of console games as well, I find that many gamers feel that console games are a better value in some cases because bugs are less prevalent with the limited platform than with PC games). The PC games industry has an added problem in that the early adopters (who pay the most for those games) also are the most likely to suffer from the bugs in that game and have to spend the most time working through those bugs. Software like Office, on the other hand, is something few people buy more than once every few years (Office 97 is still the most common version, though Office 2000 is growing), and usually purchase with a computer (at a lower price point, when they're already spending quite a bit of money).

As an additional point, the consumers of music CDs tend to represent a much broader range of incomes, whereas the majority of Office licenses go to corporations, and the gamers that buy the most PC games are the same people that are spending $400 on a video card that will be replaced in the product line in 6 months (meaning that they'll buy another video card in 6-12 months at nearly the same price point).

What my personal exposure to the PC gamers has shown (through doing tech support and running an online gaming league) is that gamers are starting to pay more attention to the price/performance ratio of their hardware, and are more willing to spend the $50+ for a new game from a reliable developer that has a good history (or perceived good history) of releasing games that are fairly well finished and will provide a great deal of entertainment for their money (ie replay value, online experience, and the depth of the single play-through). Gamers are streaming towards AMD CPUs for their price/performance, and nVidia's GeForce MX line, even though they know they can get something better if they pay more money, they get the best value, knowing fully well that the system requirements of games are well below what they're buying anyway.

It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.


Actually, although many people do feel that the value of newer albums isn't as much as older albums were previously, I think the biggest factor is that the music industry said that CD prices would drop, and they have instead risen. When I first started buying CDs they were about $5 more than the cassettes I was buying before that, even though they were already cheaper to produce than cassettes. Since my budget for music didn't grow, I was buying about 2/3rds as much music as I had been buying before, simply because I was spending $15 per CD rather than $10 per cassette. Now that my budget for that has grown, the CD prices have risen as well, and a new CD can run anywhere from $17 to $20 for even non-top-40 bands, unless I take the time to go looking for them at smaller stores with smaller selections to get them for the $14 or $15 I was paying 10 years ago. So, the record industry raised prices, lowered manufacturing costs (CDs cost about 1/2-1/3 the cost of a cassette to produce), lowered the royalties for many of their artists for CDs (experimental format charge), and lied to the consumers, saying the prices would drop when the CD became the prevalent format, and then never dropping the prices. Records cost more today, too, but that's understandable because of a much more limited supply and demand, so they're produced in much smaller numbers (a new record tends to run about $20-30, depending on the length of the album (how many records it takes up), the number pressed, and anything else unusual about it, such as unusual colours for the records themselves).

It's certainly not unusual for me to drop $100-200 every time I walk into a record store, but when I'm walking away with fewer albums each time, or have to spend more time in the store looking for something to spend that money on, I'm less likely to do it as often. I've also spent a great deal more money buying music online in the last 4 years than buying it in stores, because stores simply can't afford to stock a lot of the stuff I like to listen to (or, if it's Wal-Mart, Sam Goody, and the like, they will refuse to stock or sell many of the albums I buy, or only sell censored versions of those albums). After all, how many record stores want to stock a CD that they might only sell 1 copy of each year it's on their shelves? It's especially helpful that many of the record labels (or sub-labels in some cases) that carry a few of the bands I listen to sell direct from their website at prices that are near or lower than what you've quoted the major labels are selling albums to record stores for, and are very up-front about whether or not the version you're buying is censored (something that's sometimes not as obvious in a store).

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[Reziac]

Apparently you folks in the record store business are a bit slow :) The rest of the casual-shopper marketing world long since noticed that selling peripheral items (such as junk food sold at gas stations) is where the real money is at. The "main item" (frex, gas) is really there only to get people into the store itself.

BTW, the *profit margin* for gas stations and grocery stores is about 1%, sometimes less for grocery stores. As differentiated from *distributor markup*, which tends to be around 20% for *each* level of warehousing or distribution an item passes through. (That's why that 40 lb. bag of dog food that, regardless of brand, cost less than $4 to make, is priced at $40 by the time it hits Petsmart.)

Anyway, you're right -- I certainly feel I get more value in a $6 CD by some unknown than I do in a $15 CD by some major star. And I'm old enough to remember when new vinyl LPs (complete with posters, lyrics printed big enough to read, etc.) typically sold for under $10, despite that they still had the RIAA marketing chain driving up "costs" and that the physical media cost a whole helluva lot more to produce, store, and ship.

And I'll always look in the used bins first. Better value for my money. :)

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[Reziac]

Does help to differentiate gross and net, eh? :)

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[moncyb]

Maybe the person was talking about the small albums that go for about $6? You know the ones that have some new-fangled pop star with about 3 or 4 songs on it--usually remixes of the same song.

Oh the humanity! They have to sell singles for $6! I remember when singles were 3 or 4 dollars, and sometimes on sale for 2...

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[Sloppy]

The superstar pricepoints cost us big bucks. The new springsteen album, for instance, costs just a tiny bit shy of 12 bucks. So we all sold it for 9.99 on the first day and, I'm not kidding, we lost about 2 bucks per CD sold.

I don't understand why you do this. Is the idea that the loss-leader will get people into the store, and hopefully they will buy 4 to 8 other CD (where your margin is only 25 to 50 cents?!) to break even, and maybe a few more so that you make some money from the visit? I wouldn't expect that to be a typical retail music buying pattern.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[acoustix]

"Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better?"

I would say that albums have more fluff and are over-produced. We are at an all-time high of Top40 artists not writing their own material.

Chicago's first 3 albums were double LPs (CTA, II, III) and their fourth album was a quad LP set (Live at Carnige Hall).

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[SevenTowers]

As someone who has worked in a grocery store I can say that the profit margin after everything is paid is 1-2%. so 15% is actually excellent.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[morgajel]

6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.
I was gonna say something similar...

oh, you forgot the preceeding 's' on 'hit'

the reason 'hit' sales are down is the same reason there was the great disco burn of 1979...
"...the Chicago White Sox's notorious Disco Demolition Night in 1979. Fans were invited to burn disco records in the outfield of Comiskey Park and a riot nearly ensured. The White Sox forfeited the second game of the doubleheader."

um, people just don't like the music.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[ottffssent]

A few points:

Grocery stores make way less than 15%. This of course depends on what type of store and where it's located, but the grocery store I shop at makes way less than that, and under 5% on me.

Most people don't pay $300 for Office, they get it bundled with their computer and don't realize how much it's costing them. I actually paid for a legal copy. It cost me $25. It wasn't worth it. I used it for about 6 months, maybe a dozen times in that time. Now I use openOffice.

11 - consumers hear about $100 million movies and can buy 2 hours of audio *and* video for the same price they get less than an hour of audio only on a CD. If it costs so much to make a CD that you can't make a profit on a $10 disc, someone needs to figure out how to make a CD for less money.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[demaria]

It also could create repeat customers. People know of your store's existance, and they may come back next time they are looking for CDs.

Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH

[ksw2]

1. There are new 'developing artist' price points. A lot of pretty big name artists first came out at this pricepoint (Limp Bizkit's first album did, Godsmack's first, Avril Lavigne)... We (record stores) end up selling them for about 5.99 - 6.99 and they cost us about 5.75 to 6.50. 2. The superstar pricepoints cost us big bucks. The new springsteen album, for instance, costs just a tiny bit shy of 12 bucks. So we all sold it for 9.99 on the first day and, I'm not kidding, we lost about 2 bucks per CD sold.

Dude, I'd like to know where your store is. I've never bought an album like this that was under 15 bucks. $5.99 for a new album? In my dreams... not here, anyway.

Do rates apply to streaming on-demand?

[turnstyle]

Does anybody know if the royalty rates apply to on-demand streaming as well as Internet Radio?

Re:Do rates apply to streaming on-demand?

[MindStalker]

On demand streaming is not the same as internet radio, and is treated the same as mp3 download sites (even if you protect it, which is impossible) He's why, sure someone could record internet radio, but it doesn't nessesarly give you the songs you want. If someone wants an mp3, they arn't going to turn to internet radio, they are going to search for it on a p2p network or use an on demand stream.

RIP Netradio.

[Zephy]

The Term "Nail in the coffin" comes to mind.

Re:RIP Netradio.

[Reality_X]

Unless... there really is a world outside the USA...

Outrageous!

[Ratface]

The RIAA are quickly making their way to the top of the hate list for any free thinking individual. Does anyone know whether their appeal opens up the possibility for other groups to argue that the rates are too high??

I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.

The only option right now is for brave broadcasters to practise civil disobedience and find ways to continue broadcasting. Support your favourite internet radio station!

Re:Outrageous!

[CrazyDuke]

"The RIAA are quickly making their way to the top of the hate list for any free thinking individual."

Well, I guess its a good thing for them there aren't too many of those left. Seriously, ask any ordinary Joe what he thinks about it. You'll be lucky if they have even half a clue.

Not a troll. Not a flaimbait. Just an observation on the sad state of affairs.

Re:Outrageous!

[PainKilleR-CE]

I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.


Diversity is exactly what they don't want, and any broadcaster that isn't owned by them doesn't matter to them, anyway. Even if 90% of the music that was available on Napster came straight out of the top 40, the remaining 10% was large enough to create some diversity, moving listeners to buy independant CDs or CDs from artists that barely register on the RIAA's scope. Diversity is part of what the internet has created in music, and is one of the biggest reasons that a #1 album today sells about half as many copies as a #1 album 10 years ago.

Before the internet was in most people's homes, the music industry could easily guide people's listening habits, and react when an artist managed to slip past them and sell CDs without their help. When Nirvana started selling copies of their first major-label album, the industry reacted by pushing them into heavy radio and MTV rotations and signing any band that sounded remotely like Nirvana, and then pushed all of that onto the airwaves. The same thing can be seen through most of the recording industry's modern history, ultimately speeding up the normal cycle of music being rejected by society in favour of something different, so the life-span of 'grunge rock' was about 2-3 years instead of the 10 years it might've been had it hit in an atmosphere where the industry wasn't pushing two-bit clones to try to squeeze out every penny. This is also why some artists will see one album or single bring in outrageous sales, and then the next will fall horribly, because people are no longer interested in hearing something from them when they heard the previous single everywhere they went.

Once the internet hit, people could find new music for themselves, or get recommendations (and samples) from other people all over the world, either through chat programs (including instant messaging) or through bulletin boards on websites either for artists they like or general music interest sites. Most of the larger online music stores will recommend things based on whatever metrics they use to determine what you might like from what you've bought (or what you're looking at), and will let you listen to short samples of the music. All of this means that people are spending more of their CD-buying money on back catalogues and lesser-known artists, so the recording industry isn't making as much of a profit as they could if everyone was buying what they told them to (though, of course, they're still making money off of most of those CDs, and they write off any money they lose from supporting a particular artist anyway).

Personally, the majority of my music comes from recommendations of people I trust (in terms of their tastes in music anyway), or from particular artists that I've found reliably release music I enjoy, even if their music changes in style quite a bit from one release to the next. In many cases I'm not aware that a new album has been released until it's been around long enough to get some reviews (or for someone else I know to have bought it), so I'll get a chance to find out whether or not I should worry about that particular album, and go find some way to really listen to at least a few songs from it before I buy it.

People are becoming more discerning buyers and are growing a more diverse taste in music. This makes the consumers less predictable for the RIAA's member corporations, and they, understandably, don't like that. What they should be doing to capitalize on this is open themselves up to cater to the internet consumers, but instead they're trying to push it away, because they don't understand, yet, how to handle this whole thing. Chances are that whatever they come up with will be lacking in some ways, but once they find something that's just good enough (rather than as good as can be), it'll most likely gain enough acceptance that the majority of people will forget what they've been doing here until the next new medium comes along, just as they'd forgotten about the fit the industry threw over tapes and just about anything else that came along.

Re:Outrageous!

[Weird Dave]

Not a troll. Not a flaimbait.

Aaaah! How is misspelling "flamebait" not a troll? See how you're making me respond now??!! It's almost as bad as if you spelled troll as "trole" or something.

I know, I know... YHBT . YHL. HAND.

Re:Outrageous!

[curunir]

Does anyone know whether their appeal opens up the possibility for other groups to argue that the rates are too high??

Dunno about the RIAA appeal, but this would. I submitted a story about it last week and it has yet to be rejected or accepted (grrr).

It would basically start the CARP process anew, creating a special classification for businesses who gross less than $6M / year. Those businesses would be allowed to participate in the CARP process for free (the original CARP process required a fee to have your opinions heard.) It would also allow those businesses to have a CARP rate different from the giant webcasters. One of the sponsors of the bill is the tech-savvy Rick Boucher (D-VA).

If you support the bill, go here and fill in your information and it will send a fax to your legislators. The process only takes a minute and if everyone does it, maybe it'll pass.

Re:Outrageous!

[jesterzog]

I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.

It's probably because the RIAA is not in the business of public relations. No matter how much people love or hate the RIAA, it's irrelevant. For 99 out of 100 people it's not going to change their good will or attitude towards a member organisation such as Sony.

It's the same reason the BSA doesn't care about making friends. It's not Sony who beats people up, after all.

Re:Bah!

[brain159]

The RIAA expect to make revenue by their usual tactics. They don't give a flying fuck about anyone else making money (especially not the artists).

Hilary Rosen is a dirty dirty whore

[kableh]

Nice to see that Hilary Rosen's email address isnt anywhere to be found on the RIAA website. Guess she knows better.

Fscking RIAA, glad I haven't bought a CD from them in 3 years or so. Now if you'll excuse me, time to go pirate some more music. Fuckers.

Re:Hilary Rosen is a dirty dirty whore

[AntiNorm]

and side question, the RIAA is a for-profit organization?? I always assumed(stupidly i guess) they were non profit, u know, a voice for the artists, not another arm in the octopus of profit.

They are officially a non-profit organization acting as a voice for the (for-profit) major labels that are RIAA members. I'd go to their web site to come up with a link to prove this, but I'm annoyed enough with their antics that the less I see of them, the better. Don't you just love how a "non-profit" organization can continually screw over your rights as the RIAA keeps doing?

Re:Hilary Rosen is a dirty dirty whore

[psi]

Hilary Rosen [SMTP:hrosen@riaa.com] Does this help at all? *evil grin*

Clearly the rates..

[I_am_God_Here]

are too low. They haven't put all the webcasters out of business yet so obviously the royalties are to low. I see where the RIAA is going with this.

I am begining to wonder about the RIAA business plan.
1) Bad PR
2) ???
3) Profit

Re:Clearly the rates..

[eXtro]

The RIAA's business plan is:

1. Profit
   
2. Buy legislation
   
3. Get bad press with a minority
   
4. Characterize minority as criminals
   
5. Higher profits
   

Seriously, most people don't even know what internet radio is. If the RIAA says that internet radio is piracy most of the public will just nod their heads and say "Go get 'em!".

Re:Clearly the rates..

[Loki_1929]

"I am begining to wonder about the RIAA business plan.
1) Bad PR
2) ???
3) Profit"

2) - lawsuits/congressional pay-offs/not paying artists.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[jweb]

From the text of the press release:

The Librarian of Congress was duped by Yahoo!'s self-serving testimony in the CARP.

This is, of course, opposed to the self-serving testimony of the RIAA.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle.

[Maran]

So they're calling a librarian a monkey? I think some of us know what happens when you do that. He's an ape ^_^

Maran

Here's an idea

[Salsaman]

Instead of streaming audio files over the net, stream image files.

Here's how it would work. The broadcaster takes an audio file, and converts it to an image (e.g. a png). Each client would have a plugin which converts the image file back to a music file. Now since you're not actually streaming audio files, the CARP charges wouldn't apply, would they ?

I am surprised nobody has suggested this before.

Re:Here's an idea

[liquidsin]

Good plan. Then, how about instead of sharing mp3s on p2p networks, we share zip files of the mp3s. That way, we're not actually handing out copyrighted music to anyone who wants it for free. They could get some software to "decode" the files and we'd be free and clear.

Re:Here's an idea

[liquidsin]

But this idea won't help at all. It's only a change in format. It's still being streamed, it's still content that the RIAA owns rights to, no matter how much any of us hate that. Encoding it into a different format, no matter what that format is, doesn't change the fact that you're still streaming music.

Re:Here's an idea

[sylvester]

I dunno where slashdotters get ideas like this.

The law is not code to find bugs in. The law is not stupid. The law has judges that are (mostly) hired and trained to use their judgement to stop stupid things like this. Your idea demonstrates such an unfathomable naivety about the way Western law works that I think you just might be a troll.

Most of the time when you see people skirting the law, they're using explicitely defined loopholes and tugging them bigger. Sometimes even those people get slammed by judges for pushing things too far. That's the whole point of having judges, is because we aren't good enough to write law (code) that thinks of every case.

Sheesh.

-Rob

Re:Here's an idea

[tomstdenis]

Doubt it. Think about it this way, a bunch of bits [e.g. vorbis/mp3/pcm data] is not sound either. So really all you are doing is sending a random assortment of bits than when decoded properly and sent through a DAC and amplifier to some speakers just happens to sound like music [thanks FoxTrot...]

I think the law [whatever it is] will hold regardless of how you package the audio as long as the message you are conveying is audio [or intended to be audio]

Tom

Re:Here's an idea

[Maran]

"we'll put them in a stabbing machine"

Wasn't there one of these in Futurama?

"Please select your prefered suicide method:
1) Quick and painless or
2) Listening to Bratney Spears and other RIAA sound-alikes."

Maran

Re:Here's an idea

[walt-sjc]

You obviously don't understand the DMCA. The part you refer to is about encryption or other technical method to prevent copying (or even using) the work by the copyright holder. That's not what the original poster is talking about.

Good old fashioned copyright law is what applies here.

Changing the encoding method won't protect anyone from getting sued. After all, when you rip off CD and convert to MP3 you are changing the file format. The contents of the file whether it's .ogg, .png, .mp3, or .xyz is STILL copyrighted music.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[13Echo]

Of course. The RIAA doesn't want to become obsolete. With everyone gone, they will still keep making money. They make deals with radio stations. They play what they want you to hear, They play what is cheap for them. They own your songs.

Of course, there are ways around everything.
Streamer

Slashdot: Streamer

This will be the future of Internet radio.

Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps government decisions like that should be treated just as if someone had declared that internet content will be strictly monitored, and that one no longer has control over what he/she can publish on the net. Otherwise, one by one the gov't may put into place smaller laws that affect the privacy of smaller groups on the net, and before we know it, each of us has some sort of net restrictions, and we won't be strong enough to do anything about it.
So, don't let the government profit in that way...they're one, we're many. Computer users of the world, unite! :)

We need offshore servers.

[MADCOWbeserk]

Why can't these stations stream off an offshore host. To me that appears to be an easy solution to give an FU to the RIAA. I'm not saying that they still couldn't shut people down, but it might be much harder.

Or maybe Peercast will save the day.

Time to initiate the /. effect

[Apocalypse111]

Those SOB's at the RIAA still haven't gotten it... if they just keep quiet, then actions like the following will not be neccesary...

Click Here to help the /.ing of the RIAA website or alternatly click here

Re:Time to initiate the /. effect

[liquidsin]

Use Opera. Open the RIAA site in five or six tabs. Set them all to refresh every three seconds. Tell the guy in the next cube down.

Re:Time to initiate the /. effect

[liquidsin]

Ok, 23 minutes later and my reloading of their page is taking forever. Of course, any site would take a long time to load at 50 bytes/sec. Looks like the RIAA can't handle their website's popularity.

Re:Time to initiate the /. effect

[commodoresloat]

that doesn't mean it's helping, just that some people are sympathetic to the hackers. I still think it isn't helping.

why are riaa artists still publishing their songs

[bunaminenu]

they don't want anybody to listen to their music, so, why are they publishing?

The obvious solution.

[yeoua]

The obvious solution, IMHO, is that there should be fees... that are based on percent profit. Why should the RIAA profit from someone who isn't profitting in the first place? This would essentially be free advertising, that the RIAA would not have to pay for.

Besides, who pays for radio anyway? So unless someone actually does pay, and the internet radio guys have ads... they get zero profit, and so the RIAA gets zero profit.

But still gets free advertising for whatever is being played. So what exactly was the problem?

And if they think that people will record songs from them and what not... well, its more difficult than it sounds. Recording a live stream is very annoying... similar to recording a radio stream. First, you have no idea when a specific song will play. And even if you continually recorded the stream to get to the song... or for more than once song, you still gotta edit it down to the individual songs. This is more trouble than its worth, when Kazaa or the like would do just fine.

Re:The obvious solution.

[RickHunter]

Not only that, but songs are usually webcast at a much lower quality than the songs you'd find on Kazaa. Which usually means pretty bad quality indeed. Good enough to compete with radio, but not nearly good enough to compete with CDs.

Of course, this ignores the fact that the RIAA has been training its customers to believe that quality doesn't really matter for years now...

Re:The obvious solution.

[jafuser]

But still gets free advertising for whatever is being played. So what exactly was the problem?

Very simple. The RIAA does not want diversity. They do not want small bands to be heard and potentially change people's tastes. They want to keep corporate POP music popular and they want the Top 40 to be WHAT YOU WILL LISTEN TO AND BUY(TM)©®$¥£.

Re:The obvious solution.

[dirk]

So if you don't make any money you should have absolute rights to do anything you want with other people's property without paying them anything? So if I don't make money I can make photocopies of a new book and hand them out? Redistribute GPL software without following the GPL rules?

I think the rates are too high, but the RIAA owns the rights to the songs. Just as we shouldn't safeguard the RIAA because their business model is outdated and being killed, we shouldn't safeguard radio stations whose business models don't allow them to make enough money to pay for what they are using. Should I be able to pay less for a BMW because I don't make as much as other people? No, I have to pay what they set the price at. Just because internet radio doesn't have a good enough business model doesn't mean they should pay less, it means they should get a better business model. If they don't want to pay the RIAA, they should play non-RIAA music exclusively.

Re:The obvious solution.

[Dionysus]

Radio doesn't pay per listeners. They pay a percentage of the profit.Check out http://www.salon.com. They have a lot of articles on this issue.

And RIAA doesn't own the rights to all the songs played by the webradio, but they still wants to be paid for it.

Re:The obvious solution.

[Sloppy]

The obvious solution, IMHO, is that there should be fees... that are based on percent profit. Why should the RIAA profit from someone who isn't profitting in the first place?

Whether you profit or not, you're using up someone's ears. If Joe Sixpack is listening to your free netcast channel play my song, then Joe is not listening to the commercial, profitable radio station that pays me when they play my song.

When businesses and non-profit-orgs compete, then selling things to them based upon profit, is discriminatory. Discrimination isn't always necessarily bad. But the case for why the government should institute a compulsory license that discriminates in your favor, hasn't been made well.

And if they think that people will record songs from them and what not... well, its more difficult than it sounds. Recording a live stream is very annoying...

This is the kind of argument that illustrates that both sides are [insert friendly/polite euphemism for "full of shit" here]. Recording parts of streams is trivially easy. Or if the tools suck right now, then it's safe to assume the tools will improve. All you need is a buffer with some history, then when you notice that a song you want to record is playing, go back in time and record it from the beginning. (Watch "live TV" on a Tivo some time to see what I mean.)

The reason this arguments reflects badly on RIAA as well as netcasters, is that recording broadcasts has always been pretty easy, even with radio. It's been a non-issue from the point where RIAA allowed songs to be broadcast at all, so bringing it up in the context of the internet, is a dishonest tactic.

Re:The obvious solution.

[sysadmn]

To be pedantic, you want fees based on revenue. It's too easy to manipulate profit. Look at the movie industry as an example.

Re:The obvious solution.

[digidave]

So if I don't make money I can make photocopies of a new book and hand them out?

You're missing the point. You SHOULD be able to photocopy a book for personal use and you SHOULD be able to let other people read the book, and in fact you are allowed to do both of those.

Web radio isn't burning copies of CDs and handing them out, they're allowing other people to listen. No copies are being ditributed.

Re:The obvious solution.

[curunir]

is that there should be fees... that are based on percent profit.

This was actually the original idea that CARP was going to use. However, one side of the negotiations vehimantly opposed it. Oddly enough, it was the webcasters that opposed it. See, the only webcasters who were able to participate in CARP were the big ones who were willing to pay for that privilege (yahoo, aol, etc). They hate the idea of doing a percentage of revenue since they also have additional revenue streams from talk radio, sports, and the like. One of the reasons the CARP rates are so high is because the webcasters were so adamant that it had to be a flat fee per listener.

If small webcasters had been allowed to voice their opinions, the CARP rates might not be as unreasonable as they currently are.

Re:The obvious solution.

[canadian_right]

What you are saying is that web radio indirectly harms other purveyors of music. Indirect harm has NEVER been grounds for changing a law, suing someone etc...

This would be like going to the grocery store and trying to sue someone who bought the apple you wanted.

The RIAA does not "allow" songs to be broadcast. The law allows songs to be broadcast. The RIAA collcets fees on "behalf" of the artists (already successful artists mainly).

Re:Bah!

[Pxtl]

Hmm.... one thing legislators do not seem to know about internet-based streaming audio is that it is both more and less limited then radio in terms of # of users. Its more limited in that internet radio cannot support as many users on a station simultaneously. It has the additional power though that you know approximately how many listeners you have at any given moment (you know how many computers are connected).

This means that, conceivably, internet radio stations could be charged on a per-listener per-song basis, instead of a flat rate that is unfair to the smaller-scale operations.

This would also satisfy the RIAA's calls for more fees - they could be much larger when applied to an internet radio station with as wide listenership as a regular radio station, but in general would be far less.

Contact info for RIAA

[Ratface]

http://www.riaa.com/contact.cfm

Here's a contact form to make your views known to the RIAA.

Re:Contact info for RIAA

[Lxy]

Do you get a real response or is it canned? I like the drop down box for the subject line. Let me guess, if I select "piracy" as the subject and ask them about ice cream, I get a 3 page form letter about how their artists are starving because people like me download too much music?

Re:Contact info for RIAA

[Milican]

My message to the RIAA... with rambling included...

Just wanted to mention that I support the IFRA. I would say almost all of the CDs I have bought over the last two years have been because of Independent Web Radio stations. The reason is because I don't listen to Pop radio much. I'm more of a heavy metal and techno guy. I would say that Internet radio has been directly responsible for my purchase of at least 20 metal CDs over the two years, and has been responsible for me attending at least three concerts. So just think... if you kill Internet radio there are lots of us non-pop listeners that just might sit back and not purchase any new CDs because we haven't heard anything new to buy... I have over 200 CDs that I like and still listen too... I can probably just sit back and listen to just those for the next five years or so without purchasing anything new. Please stop trying to kill Internet radio with CARP. Your non-pop music fans depend on it for new music. There is more to music than MTV and the Clear Channel Radio network. Internet radio helps you guys by making pure fan based radio stations that will help make your affiliates better margins on non-pop bands. Don't fear what you don't understand. Embrace the future and capitalize on change.

JOhn

The RIAA obviously understand nothing

[Nosher]

So the RIAA has the jaw-dropping temerity to accuse Yahoo! of "self-serving interest" (isn't that what business is all about anyway?). This is from the same organisation whose press-releases appear to suggest that CDs didn't appear until the 1990s, who even suggest that "turning music into a file is great" whilst trying to stamp out the ability of the rest of us to do so, and who wrote the book on "self-serving interest". Just what version of reality are these people partaking in? It's obviously not the same as the rest of us.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[hackus]

It has nothing to do with royalties. Copyright and Patents are designed for one thing:

1) To enforce existing market monopolies for those companies that have the legal cash stockpiles to do so.

2) Making sure the consumer never has a choice of any other medium or format that isn't controlled by the attorneys/board of directors of said company that currently has a market monopoly.

3) Using the power and cash that comes from that power, of such a market monopoly, companies and board of directories buy our lawmakers, and insure that laws are made to enforce any market monopoly in place. All perfectly legal I am afraid.

Finally this is not a question of royalties. Companies/organizations that control whole markets are not interested in third parties tiny little royalty payments. They want to own the ENTIRE market. That is the only way to stay in power.

Secondly, market volatility is prevented because you can squash any competitor to your organization that comes along that may destabilize the "status quo".

Entire markets online have closed for competitors to what the RIAA is and represents because they have enourmous cash stockpiles to grease the collusion of government lawmakers and therefore the legal system.

The AntiTrust system in this country is a joke, quite frankly. I don't even know why it is on the books. I think it is a TAX law. (i.e. If a company "all of a sudden" falls under the anti trust act they must not be paying someone in Washington enough money. As we have seen with Microsoft, you hand over enough money lawmakers go away, and you retain your market monopoly.)

Hack

Re:not so terrible?

[killthiskid]

So... you'd like for the free market to kill off all the non-comercial small guys? Yeah, that's the type of pressure I like to see.

Not.

And as for your opinion that the RIAA is 'trying to make internet media work' I say, pzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. There's absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to download (for a fee) any song ever created by any artist. The only thing preventing this is the RIAA extreme lack of trying to make internet media work. They don't give a god-damn about internet media and if it's 'working'. You know what they do care about? Money and Power.

Re:Bah!

[uncoveror]

The RIAA has nearly ended webcasting, which was a form of promotion that cost them nothing, and now want a royalty scheme that would end it entirely. Enough! Boycott the recording industy. Don't buy CDs.

It's time to schedule the RIAA boycott!

[dpilot]

Let's pick a time, at the moment I think February would do the job, and take RIAA sales *and music downloads* as close to zero as we can. Let's get heard. But getting the music downloads to zero is as important as the purchases, if not moreso. We need this to be a political statement, not just an economic one, even though economics are an important part.

Personally, I've been on a low-level RIAA boycott for years. A bit too much like Frank Zappa's "half-hearted war against apathy." The other side is getting my family to buy-in to such a thing. For that reason, I don't believe a Christmas boycott could be made to stick in a broad population. But I believe the month of February could make a loud statement.

We have 5.5 months to get it organized.

Re:It's time to schedule the RIAA boycott!

[Svartalf]

Or you could just not live in the U.S. Problem solved.

Aren't they trying that Norwegian kid for DeCSS?

The problem isn't solved by moving elsewhere because these players are worldwide and they tend to have other organizations and seem to be getting their way elsewhere as we speak. The solution is to affect them directly- in a manner they understand, hitting their bottom line.

Listen to foreign radio

[sien]

Isn't there a simple answer to this ? Just listen to foreign stations. The Internet is international. Make the RIAA lobby every government in every place, or attempt to block countries.

To start off - try JJJ which is an Australian alternativish station. For cool beats try Xanu FM.

Re:Listen to foreign radio

[Lysander Luddite]

I've done that. Listen primarily to a Japanese site ATM. I listened to TripleJ when in Oz last year. I'm not its demographic, but my god, what a refreshing change from US radio. If they streamed in mp3/4 I'd listen now, but its Real.

I have noticed some MP3 players find more foreign stations than others.

A bargain at twice the price

[tuxedo-steve]

I don't think it would have made a lick of difference if the L of C mandated royalty rates ten times as high: the RIAA still would have appealed, saying it's too low.

Just the nature of the game. Whoever dies with the most money, wins. The RIAA is just playing to win.

Re:Greed.

[Tranvisor]

If you had a job that you loved to death, but it meant that there was only one boss in the world that would hire you, would you stand up to him?

Would you speak out against him in public? Very likely you would not. Because this boss can get you shut out of your job for good. Sure you can go on doing what you love, but you won't reach nearly as many listeners. Add to that the fact that your boss is now actively pursuing shutting down every distribution method that you would use to do your job without him.

This is why very few artists have spoken out against the RIAA. "Want to continue recording music for the public? Shut the hell up and live with us, because congress sure won't stick up for you." is what the RIAA is basically saying to every artist out there. Except that they don't need to say it, it is in every artist's mind already.

I somehow find this quote appropriate here...

[Jugalator]

"Only the continuous and steady application of the methods for suppressing a doctrine, etc., makes it possible for a plan to succeed."
-- Adolf Hitler

Re:I somehow find this quote appropriate here...

[Lord_Slepnir]

"What luck for leaders that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

Think about it. While it's feasable to get slashdotters and the like to boycott the MPAA and RIAA, 90% of the population is too dull to know what they are and will continue to buy the latest Britney Spears (for teeny-boppers) or the latest Bruce Springsten / Beatles remix (the older generation). Most of the population, in fact, does not think, and so the __IA will continue to prosper.

Re:I somehow find this quote appropriate here...

[Chris Johnson]

"The customer is not a moron. She is your wife." -David Ogilvy

The advertising industry used to talk about 'The Great Unwashed' and talk about 'getting on all fours to look at the problem from the customer's point of view'. They were just as wrong as you are, and smarter agencies came along and ate their lunch.

The population contains idiots. That doesn't mean all of the population can't think, nor does it mean that all of the population that can, won't. The real question to ask yourself is- if the population did think, how, exactly, would you know? Quick, name 20 non-RIAA music labels. Name ten places to go and buy music without going through RIAA-controlled channels... even if the population does think, how are they going to know where to go if the information is kept from them?

Re:I somehow find this quote appropriate here...

[Chris Johnson]

The part you're missing is this: endorsements of supermodels, actors etc. are VERY INEFFECTIVE. They aren't persuasive. It's possible to test that sort of thing by running split campaigns, Ogilvy (again) is on record as having done just that, and celebrity endorsements are miserable at actually translating into sales.

But with celebrity endorsements, the advertising manager gets to talk to Supermodel/Actor/Etc, various people in the agency get to meet them on the set, spending the client's money- do you see why it's a popular technique even though it is not effective?

You can convince me to be ashamed of myself for knowing too damn much about how advertising works. I feel unclean :D but don't argue that your distaste for ineffective advertising forms gives you the grounds to prove the customer is an idiot. Like Ogilvy said, she's your wife. He is the neighboring Slashdot poster in the next thread along. (argh! the customer is a GEEK!)

You're arguing for a sort of peasant, luser life form that describes everybody but 'us' slashdot posters. Maybe a lot of the people out there don't know from computers, but a lot of them will have other skills. Everybody's a luser at SOMETHING. Everybody's a BOFH at SOMETHING. I guess I'm both- on the one hand, knowing a fair amount about the way advertising works and what you can reasonably conclude about the American public from it, and on the other, trying to convince an advertising luser who thinks that celebrity endorsements move products that their conclusions about the American public are unjustified.

At least the whole argument reeks of geekiness :)

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[nanojath]

Yeah, we all need to march on our centers of government and demand that they subsidize all businesses that "rule," whether or not they have a business model or any rational method of generating income.

Listen, I'm no fan of the RIAA or the trends in intellectual property law madness, but the people who own the rights to copyrighted material have a right to be compensated for the use of that material. And spare me the guff about information wanting to be free or how it can't be illegal to violate copyright because you don't physically steal anything or prevent the original owner from using the product. There's no law of physics that says cars can only go fifty-five, nevertheless we have speed limits.

Advice to the MonkeyRadios of this world: get a business model. Get one not based on being allowed to freely distribute someone else's property. And to you listeners who think it "rules," figure out if you want advertisements or subscription charges, or if you'd rather just listen to your CD collectiona and whine. 'Cause guess what - your news flash for the day is that this shit ain't free.

Why go out of business?

[BinBoy]

Does internet radio really need to go out of business? Is it impossible to exist without broadcasting the same copyrighted music that everyone else broadcasts? There are lots of independent bands that would love to have their music played without royalties. There's probably a lot of talented people who could do talk shows and news as well. Wouldn't this avoid any royalty payments? Surely someone in internet radio can produce original programming!

Re:Why go out of business?

[Lysander Luddite]

Even if you play all non-RIAA music, you still have to pay for bandwidth, a minimum fee of $500/year and still keep track of those ridiculous tracking requirements. (i.e. tracking the UPC code)

That alone adds to your costs. If you somehow manage to break even you can bet that the fee will go up as you are then bumped into the "business class" range of fees.

Re:Why go out of business?

[royalblue_tom]

The problem is the way royalties are collected in the US. The collection companies (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) collect royalties based on the industry standard - which includes music "owned" by the major labels. If you don't pay, the onus is on you to prove that for every track you've ever played, you have the copyright owner's (artist/label and songwriters/label) consent.

You have to prove this in court, because the RIAA will go after you with the finest lawyers in the industry. All together now ...

"This is Chewbacca ..."

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/ mu sic_law/calculation_royalties.htm

Justice Department Time

[haplo21112]

If the Justice Department could just finish up with Microsoft, they could get started on these guys...
The RIAA, and MPAA both need some old school trust breaking justice visited on them. These f***s are organized and legalized crime at its best.

SO what ...

[Lumpy]

I have started my switch to indie only music (It's kinda like switching from windows to linux btw...) as I have gotten sick of the crap that is being pulled.

well you know what... Local artists and indie artists are actually better than anything that is part of the RIAA's clan... You can actually talk to these people, and when they play for you they play their heart out for you and for the music.

My reccomendation to anyone upset about the RIAA? screw em, avoid their music, support only your locals and indie artists... (And look watch for the sellouts.. several used-to-be indie artists are now minions of the RIAA... and if they are, speak your displeasure and add them to your avoid list too.)

this is the only way it will change, and you will discover that your music will start to taste better.

Re:SO what ...

[Saint Nobody]

(And look watch for the sellouts.. several used-to-be indie artists are now minions of the RIAA... and if they are, speak your displeasure and add them to your avoid list too.)

ooh, you're so punk you're making me hot over here. fight the man! fuck the system!

what you don't realize is that most of the bigger indie labels are in the riaa, as well. it's not just the big 5. epitaph, fat wreck cords, moonshine, 4ad, six degrees, rykodisc, and rhino are all members. go ahead, take a look at the list. my policy is to (get this) buy the music i like enough to shell out the money for. i like the pixies who are on 4ad. i like tweaker, who's on six degrees. i like soul coughing who was on warner, but their greatest hits were put out by rhino. i like jane's addiction who was on warner for most of the time they were together. i can't remember off hand who put out the gorillaz album, but i know it was one of the big ones.

don't be so sanctimonious about your record buying habits. buy what you like, not what sticks it to the man.

Re:SO what ...

[nathanh]

Local artists and indie artists are actually better than anything that is part of the RIAA's clan...

My response, in a word, "bullshit".

You can actually talk to these people,

And quickly find out that they're druggies and/or idiots.

and when they play for you they play their heart out for you and for the music.

It's just a shame that they have no talent.

I'm glad that you think you're now ultra-hip and "edgy" for listening to music that nobody else wants to listen to. But eventually it will become obvious - even to you - that 99% of indie is shithouse. The RIAA has their fair share of very talented artists, and not listening to them just because they're RIAA "minions" is the real hypocrisy. Why don't you try listening to music that is good, rather than music which is politically correct?

I am now SUPER PISSED OFF

[Tranvisor]

I feel like firebombing Rosen's office. I swear.

When I read this story I got a bad feeling. I whent to www.reallifecomics.com , a good comic by the way, to listen to some good old final fantasy radio. live365 now requires $5/month. Jesus fucking virgin Mary Christ.

I now have to pay the RIAA money to listen to old video game music?? Music which I know was written and performed by the Japanese?? Yeah, I'm certain Hilary will send Square the check. Yeah right.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
No more final fantasy radio??????!!!!!!!!

Indie rocks (no pun...)

[jonr]

Check out this band, one of my favorites: Devics.com.
Any other bands you people recommend?

Re:Indie rocks (no pun...)

[Lumpy]

go to Iuma.com and get your fill if indie artists of every type and style..

It's what mp3.com was supposed to be... a showcase of the free artists...

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[13Echo]

There is no problem with getting a business model, or even adding commercials. The problem is that CARP rates are REDICULOUSLY HIGH. Look at this.

CARP Rates - Final

What it boils down to is this... Are you a friend of the RIAA? If not, prepare to pay the price. There is no way that any webcaster can stay around at these rates... And that's the point. They want them to be even higher so that those that might barely get by also don't have a chance. That way, only those in bed with the RIAA that play what THEY want you to hear can afford a license... A different license that doesn't apply to the normal CARP rules.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Listen, I'm no fan of the RIAA or the trends in intellectual property law madness, but the people who own the rights to copyrighted material have a right to be compensated for the use of that material.

Fine. How about we get rid of the of the webcasting surcharge and just pay the regular royalties that both radio and webcasting already pay? The whole point of the webcasting royaltis is to make it so expensive to do that it's prohibitive for anyone that isn't already an established broadcaster. This has nothing to do with business models - this is about preserving the status quo.

Here is a better Idea....to solve the Problem

[haplo21112]

I am willing to sue the RIAA, to gain the rights that we should all have. If we can find a way to attack the suit, and reason in support of it.

Goals should be:
1. To establish that once a CD is purchased it is mine and I may do with it as I please.
2. Establish RAND fees for streaming music that fair to the artist who recorded it.
3. Prove the RIAA is a Monopoly and should be taken apart piece by piece.
4. Prove they have controlled the music industry for far to long...and have done a piss poor job of it.

Re:Here is a better Idea....to solve the Problem

[Sloppy]

Prove the RIAA is a Monopoly and should be taken apart piece by piece.

I don't think this is possible to prove; it just doesn't appear to be true. Check the list. There are a lot of labels that I don't see anywhere on there.

Re:why are riaa artists still publishing their son

[funky womble]

I think they do want people to listen to their music, that's the whole point. What they don't want is for people to learn about and start to like other types of music which the RIAA members aren't involved in, something which is more likely to happen with a broad base of internet radio stations.

There's not much point in paying to setup an internet radio station which broadcasts exactly the same as the broadcast stations: there's a lot of work involved (and I think a lot of people listening to mass-market media aren't really inclined to do that kind of thing).

So you tend to find a much wider variety of music on 'net radio, which gives people choice of music from different countries, and genres not traditionally represented by RIAA members. Not really conducive to having member's music heard all the time.

I think another part of it is that it's quite a bit harder to push music to a large number of online stations, all run by different people, than it is to promote to the normal broadcast stations, which are often represented by a few parent companies, and I'd guess probably common playlists.

Compare with some of the reasons people came up with as to why they thought the RIAA went so hard after AudioGalaxy. (AG really went out of their way to filter mp3s of artists who didn't want their wusic shared, not just RIAA members but everyone, so I don't think the copyright-violation claims by the RIAA entirely ring true there).

Why is there a fee at all?

[smiff]

With conventional radio, the record companies pay the radio stations (via indies) more than the radio stations pay in royalties. Live streams are simply advertisements for music. The record companies don't want those advertisements shut off, and they don't care about the royalties.

This is all about control. The record companies want internet radio to pay royalties, so the stations will have no choice but to accept payola from the record companies. The fact that internet radio stations tend to play independent music further threatens the RIAA.

I will say it again. This issue is not about royalties. It is about controlling the market and silencing the competition.

HOTT troll! Except...

[dave-fu]

...if you're a webcaster, if you don't play a single bit of music, under the new "agreement", you still owe the RIAA $500. If you play nothing but independent labels not affiliated with the RIAA or foreign labels (also not covered)? Still owe them $500.
They get more money from webcasters who play their property, but they also get money from webcasters who don't. How does that make sense?

Lightening Rod

[TheConfusedOne]

As others have pointed out. The RIAA's "business plan" is to run interference for the big 5.

We're all too busy fuming over Ms. Rosen's latest pronouncements to bother remembering that it's Sony and Vivendi and the others that are ultimately responsible for this.

So the business plan is:
1) Bad PR
2) Distract public from Sony
3) Sony makes mondo profits.
4) Sony pays RIAA.

Feel free to substitute other RIAA member companies for Sony.

The RIAA is Right!

[teamhasnoi]

Of course, webcasting royalties are too low! How would the cash-strapped RIAA be able to compete with someone who could just 'stream' at will?

Besides, the RIAA keeps costs down for the consumer by making sure that only well-known, popular music gets streamed, not obscure artists who haven't proven themselves on MTV.

Clearly, the RIAA has our best interests in mind. Copyright and royalties are complicated and should be left to them to figure out. This also frees up artists like Britney and N*SYNC to focus on what's really important. The music.

This saves us all money and trouble in the long run. Go RIAA!

Color me doubtful

[Kefaa]

While this looks good on the surface, it is a very few representatives. The RIAA can even use this as PR. "Look even Congress thinks changing the laws are a bad idea." The RIAA has shown little hesitation in throwing money at the issue of their bottom line. If this gets any headway at all, it will die in committee.

Until someone shows Congress why they should not support the RIAA/MPAA (i.e. they do not get re-elected) expect it to be a long cold winter.

Sadly, this is exactly the attitude the RIAA wishes to foster...hopelessness.

Re:Color me doubtful

[Luminous]

You are right, the RIAA wants people to think it is inevitable that their way will be THE way.

The only way to stop it is for the Artists to take a stand and reject the system. Artist's should form their own record label (too bad United Artists is already taken) and create the system the consumer's want.

It may mean the artist has to forego SuperStardom but I think that is a good thing. A musician is just an entertainer and isn't necessarily deserving of any more idolation that he/she can muster on his/her own.

RIAA needs a reality check

[Lxy]

I work for a small radio station here in the US. We had a few listeners in Germany that liked us. They'd e-mail us all the time and request stuff, it was pretty cool.

Then the mighty hand of the RIAA took away our webcasting. We couldn't afford their rediculous fees and the audio server is now someone's workstation.

Here's what I don't get. By playing the music we play, we encourage those listeners to go out and buy CDs. Apparently the RIAA doesn't understand that. Somehow, allowing people to hear a SAMPLE of music the RIAA produces, encouraging people to buy a full album, is considered piracy to them. Do they realize how much of their sales are based off of listeners who heard it on the radio first? Eventually the RIAA will probably sue radio stations out of existence for this "piracy" that they've only tolerated thus far.

I particularly liked This post yesterday. Substitute in your favorite *AA. I think this is the future of RIAA owned music as well.

Re:RIAA needs a reality check

[Lxy]

I should clarify a little...

It was decided administratively to take the server down before the RIAA's axe started coming at us. If RIAA had attempted to take us to court, we'd be off the air. I never inquired to the actual amount, I'm part time (they can't afford to keep me on full time, even though they want to). They haven't told me the down and dirty details, but as I understand it, it would have more than DOUBLED the cost of running our station to pay the RIAA fees.

Re:RIAA needs a reality check

[Fooknut]

I asked that question of my fav online station.
They told me $0.007 per song per listener.

This adds up to around a dollar per day per listener for an 8 hour day (assuming 15+ songs per hour).

Add the fact that the web allows for so many listeners (hundreds or thousands at any one time), ADD bandwidth/equipment fees and it gets very expensive to do online radio per day. For the big ad driven stations who are supplemented by broadcast it may be no big deal. But smaller stations have little or no income and simply cannot support the system.

Re:RIAA needs a reality check

[captaineo]

By playing the music we play, we encourage those listeners to go out and buy CDs. Apparently the RIAA doesn't understand that. Somehow, allowing people to hear a SAMPLE of music the RIAA produces, encouraging people to buy a full album, is considered piracy to them.
Ah, but when people are listening to (airwave) radio, they are listening to/sampling what the RIAA wants them to hear. With internet radio, they don't have that element of control. So they'd rather shut you down than have you promoting artists who you may like but who are not on the industry's schedule of who gets to be a hit. (or, god forbid, artists who have not signed away their soul to a major studio)

If you're still not convinced...

[plaa]

I was searching for info about CD prices, as a local newspaper said they were on the verge of dropping significantly. I came across the RIAA explanation why a CD cost so much. In typical Slashdot manner, I haven't actually read any RIAA stuff before.

Read it and weep. That should convince you what double-faced bullshit the RIAA is spurring about. A few extracts:

Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.

So they tell us that a major part of the cost comes from advertising to us, which has no value for us? Great... (Okay, this is a bit beside the point.)

For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.

Are they saying they pay the radio stations to play and promote their music? A bit of a contradiction I'd say...

Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.

The CD was invented in 1980. They're comparing the production price of a three-year-old technology to its price 13 years later? Oh, give me a break...

Re:If you're still not convinced...

[Che Geuvarra]

I wonder why he did not mention the cost of stamping a cd is less that .50 per cd. Which gives them plenty of profit especiallyof a multi platnium album. We see the kind of deciet in corporate america, why should the record industry be any different they are hiding thier real costs and expenses as well. People of the world we are getting shafted, they will not stop until we are bleeding money out of every orafice. Che

Re:If you're still not convinced...

[Jeremy Erwin]

The RIAA claims that a CD that scaled to the CPI between 1983 and 1996 would cost $33.86 1996 dollars.
(The CPI rose nearly 60 % during this period.)

This means that the price of a CD was about $20 in 1983. (I don't know what kind of music the RIAA listens to, but the CDs I'm interested in do not sell for $12.75. Does $17.99 ring a bell?). Of course the CD was sold as a premium item, rather akin to what SACD and DVD audio are today. Perhaps we should compare the price of vinyl in 1983 to the price of CDs in 2002.

Re:If you're still not convinced...

[teamhasnoi]

I posted about this very section in one of the other (legion) RIAA stories. Here's the link. Enjoy.

They're right, you know ...

[jc42]

... and what we need to do is publicise the dangers of internet music piracy, as in this article.

(The Onion has had some very, uh, informative stories on this issue. They're well worth reading, and passing on to friends.)

You are correct

[sulli]

Hilary probably gets all wet and squishy inside when we say she's a bitch, because this means she's doing her job. The bad guys here are Sony, Vivendi, AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and the fifth that I can't remember. They're the ones to bash here, except certain parts of AOLTW as they are also on the other side of the fence (own Nullsoft).

A memory from 1973's "Flashback"

[e-gold]

Last Sunday morning I was on a 3.5 hour drive, and listening to a radio show called "Flashback." They were doing 1973 rock songs, blended with news and ancient commercials from 1973 (and of course, modern radio commercials -- mostly for Florida's teeming personal-injury bar).

Anyway, during one of the "1973 news" segments, the host read something official from (a group like the RIAA but not the RIAA itself, I think it was some sort of musicians' union?) that forbade musicians from recording any more albums on vinyl, because record albums took jobs away from live musicians! Once he had read this very-brief news-piece, the announcer didn't comment at all, but he went right on to play what I'd call "album rock." (I forget the song.) I sat there, thinking about the RIAA, and Jack Valenti, etc. doing the same thing today.

I wish I could be more precise, but this is the best my memory can do. My point is that these groups, whose "generals" want to continually "fight the previous war," always end up doing their own side more harm than good.

IMO what's needed is more ways for fans to pay for individual songs they like (rather than entire expensive CDs) with LESS friction & more freedom-to-choose. This would benefit all consumers, and the productive people in the entertainment industry.
JMR

Just listen to the Blues!

[n-baxley]

Most of the good artists are dead and almost all the good stuff can be found used and cheap! The perfect solution.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[MadAhab]

Sure, I'll give you the link right after you prove to me that lack of a business model is the problem the webcasters have. You know, let's see the numbers you've worked out.

I mean, they only pay rates proportionally dozens to hundreds of times higher than radio, and radio stations don't make much money, so it must be poor accounting that's driving hobbyists and people with virtually no costs off the net-waves, right? Get a fucking clue.

Promotion and the RIAA

[siskbc]

As a record store pointed out elsewhere, the RIAA likes the status quo of 10 years ago (ie, airwaves over internet) because there are fewer stations in each market and it's easier to control them all. They pay money to get certain songs and artists promoted. They can't do this with internet, so if internet flourishes, they will have virtually no control.

The RIAA needs to do this because they make less than NO money on most artists. They need the bulk of sales to come from a relative few artists or they will start losing lots of $$$. With internet radio free, consisting of many different formats, listners will get turned on to all kinds of new artists, so fewer people will buy the next Brittney or Dave Matthews album and will search out an indie artist. This will be bad for the RIAA under their current model. So they need to kill internet radio - their pricing scheme has nothing to do with them making money off net radio, they don't want to!

Of course, the non-Luddite method for the RIAA would be to embrace the internet as a great and new means of distribution and production that could actually help them cut out middlemen and such. How great for them would it be if they could get people legally burning their own CD's? Goodbye expensive fabrication plants. Goodbye shipping costs. Goodbye record stores. They could about double their profits this way. Hell, they could lead the way in internet radio - huge RIAA-sponsored internet radio stations dripping with bandwidth would be immensely successful, possibly even marginalizing the current indie internet radio stations just like they have the indie "airwaves" radio station.

But they won't do any of this because they fear technology - they and the MPAA always have. Always will. So have fun with your Top 40, so-called "alternative" (currently a talentless mixture of metal, distortion, and whining), and drum-machine hip-hop.

Boycott CDs

[Zelet]

Please everybody, we need to get together on a SPECIFIC DATE on when to start a CD boycott. This has to be publicized and noted to everybody possible so that the decrease in sales will not be attributed to piracy.

The problem with the current "boycott" is that everybody started at their own time and pace and now there is just a "slump in sales" that is blamed on piracy. Let's get together and set a date. We need a date that is meaningful and will have maximum impact.

Help guys! (and gals)

Re:Boycott CDs

[EllF]

The problem, I think, is that despite (most of) the bitching that goes on here, no *real* change ever takes place. In my experience - both as an activist and a student - effective change is not a matter of holding signs, or yelling, or writing letters to anyone.

Substantial change needs to be an process that grows out of a large number of people, each of whom makes the decision to live differently. Every movie that you pay $7 for, every $15 you shell out for a CD, every time you Consume, you're putting money into someone's pocket. The product you get in return is *supposed* to be appealing - and when you make the decision to take part in that exchange, you support whoever is responsible for its creation and/or distribution.

Most of us have a pretty solid dislike for the MPAA and the RIAA. They are nasty companies - they're out not just for their own profit, it seems, but for the complete control over how people will be exposed to the music they choose to promote. A lot of people here seem upset by this now, but nothing changes; the /. audience and editors roll over and grab their ankles every time something shiny is waved in front of their eyes. Warcraft III was a great demonstration of this - a company that performed in a nasty manner, was derided for it, but now is forgiven. Why? It's Fun! It's New! What They Did Wasn't That Bad!

I don't know if it's a trend that can be reversed, except on an individual basis. I saw Minority Report in the theatres last night. I've made the decision to not go to the theater again - there are enough independent films shown in my area to satisfy my hobby, and given the crap coming out, I'm not missing anything. The few exceptional movies do not justify my giving money to the same people responsible for stocking the movie billboards with trite, cliched nonsense. I don't need the MPAA grabbing me by the balls and trying to massage an emotional response out of me anymore. I don't buy CDs except from independent artists. I *like* difficult books and films and music - if that makes me an intellectual elitist, so be it. At least I don't feel dirty about where my money is going.

It depresses me, but I simply can't believe that even a sizeable minority of *any* population segment, let alone /., would agree to not be consumers, even in a small way, for any length of time. The carrot is just too appealing for most people - and if the man holding the stick is an ass, well, so what? Right?

Simple...

[thumbtack]

Just walk in and ask where the independent music section is..They say "We don't have one" and you thank them and turn around and leave. Have all your friends do the same thing. The Recording Industry won't listen to the consumer, maybe they will listen to the merchants. Every store has limited floorspace, and if they add independent, then the RIAA cabal loses space.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[kableh]

Since when does sanity play any part in our government? And prove it to you? Read the text of the ruling yourself: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/carp/webcasting_rates .html.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the proof Notice the row with the heading "Combined minimum fee." I'm not sure who that money goes to, but even if you're streaming YOUR OWN MUSIC, you pay $500. Does that make any sense to anyone???

Also, I did some quick calculations regarding the back fees that are due. Assuming someone has been streaming music nonstop since October 28, 1998 (the earliest date for which back fees are due), with 5 minutes per son (which seems overly long), I figure that person owes $29 307.60. Most people don't have that kind of money.

KPIG -- sounds more like a RIAA station

[AntiNorm]

The webcasters put out of business by the royalties include SomaFM, Monkeyradio, KPIG, and many others.

KPIG? The PIG makes it sound like this identifier would be more appropriate for a station the RIAA ran.

First it was ok, now its not?

[thumbtack]

First the rate was fine, they didn't even grouse when it was lowered by the Librarian of Congress. Now its not ok.

Re:First it was ok, now its not?

[MadAhab]

Of course. They waited until public attention was off it a bit - which also gave them time to gauge the response - and then applied the next level of culturcidal tactics.

Why are they doing this? Because they can, not because it's right. Some people think that anything you can get away with, especially in pursuit of money, is righteous simply because virtue is a matter of being rich. Do not let these people into your homes under any circumstances.

Re:Multicasting.

[MadAhab]

This is a good idea and absolutely essential. But on top of multicast, you'd want a p2p way of multiplying the number of streams served. There are a couple ways this could be done:

1. Work with existing streaming technologies and build p2p reflectors. This will probably require an encapsulating protocol, however, and clients that can use it. OTOH, this will increase the number of peers.
2. Write a ground-up streaming system that can serve to regular clients in a format they can understand, e.g. ogg. OTOH, this makes free riders overly abundant.

There are a couple of things the software will have to address:

1. A lot of people have limited upstream bandwidth or aren't peers on the net (private IPs). This means that there will always be a stream-availability problem. Oh well.
2. For the same reason, low-bandwith streams are probably about it. Oh, well.
3. RIAA and other gangsters are already salivating at the thought of shutting it down from the start. This means having a more distributed p2p architecture a la gnutella.
4. Due to the numbers of people likely to be non-reflectors, i.e. leaves not branches, you would want a tiered system - kinda like ntp - where tier one providers provide streams only to those who reflect streams further. Since clients could be hacked to lie about their level, you would need access controls to stop leechers at the tier one level. But these would also be a pain to maintain, so there would have to be some automated way of checking to see if your downstream clients are in fact making streams available. To prevent trivial hacks, these checks would have to be performed by another peer of tier one.
5. There would most likely be *large* buffering going on. But a stream delayed by a minute or more from the original source would not be a big deal most of the time.

It's non-trivial to write something like this. It could also decide the war being waged against humanity by the information priesthood.

What do you expect?

[spotter]

from the press release.

Currently, a Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel (CARP) meets once every two years to decide on royalty fees for web radio broadcasters.

Does one expect non CRAP'y decisions from a panel that's named like this. They even changed the acronym so we wouln't realize this.

List of labels with a clue,please add to this list

[Arcturax]

My favorite webcasting site, DigitalGunfire.com was about to shut down but was SAVED by 3 of the labels they played, who gave them SIGNED contracts saying they could play their music 100% Royalty free! These labels recognize that DigitalGunfire is actually helping them with FREE promotional broadcasting.

So if you are into industrial/electronic music, check out these three labels and buy from them if you like what you hear (check out DigitalGunfire.com for a few hours or days if you want to listen before you buy!)

Here are the labels: (Industrial/Electronic genre)
Alfa Matrix
Metropolis Records
Inception Records

If anyone knows of other indy labels who have given sites permission to play Royalty free, please add them here and list what Genre they fall under!

Here's another...

[Anonymous Coward]

"A witty quote proves nothing."
--Voltaire

Re:Here's another...

[Jugalator]

Did that quote just contradict itself?
Oooh, my head! :)

I invoke Godwin's Law...

[No Such Agency]

Though I suppose it doesn't strictly apply in this case, as nobody is arguing the counter-case in support of the RIAA.

Why can't you circumcise the RIAA?

[gila_monster]

Because there's no end to those pricks. Jeez....

A few minor points

[No Such Agency]

1. Good luck. You'd probably have better luck suing the Church of Scientology. Hilary R. would crush you and anyone helping you like bugs.

2. RIAA is not really a "monopoly". They're a trust ("a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially : one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition" - Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary). In fact they've been shown to be guilty of price-fixing.

In a related note...

[Glock27]

The RIAA has anounced that it's website is under attack by hackers. "It appears that a large group of anarchists from a site called 'Slashdot' are attempting to overload our massive dual-386 webserver by repeatedly accessing our site. We have notified the FBI and will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, using the DMCA, Patriot Act and whatever other legislation we can push through a clueless Congress."

[This was satire, ICYDU.]

Nobody's accusing record _stores_ of getting rich

[xant]

Although 15% is an unusually high profit margin in any industry, let alone retail, as several have already pointed out. 10% is usually a target margin.

But even 6 bucks is too much for music if you ask me. The marginal cost of that CD is probably no more than double the cost of running the CD stamper, when you only count production costs. The rest is distribution markup for a product that can be distributed for free. Unfortunately, record stores are on the wrong side of that equation . . . they are the distributors for the evil music industry. It's not a supportable business model in the long term.

That's what people who "make their money on the music industry" simply don't get. Nobody cares about supporting the existing sales infrastructure or the existing business models. We want our music cheaper, and we can get away with taking it for nothing, so we do, legality and morality be damned. Arguing about how the rules should be made, or how we should voice our unhappiness to those "in charge" is moot from the beginning: we're in charge, and we've already made the new rules. The new rules say we get our music for next to nothing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that.

If only those planes went into the RIAA's building

[JohnDenver]

Why is it terrorists rarely attack the cartels?

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[jtrascap]

"Someone needs to hit the people in charge of the RIAA with a clue-bat several times..." Which makes me wonder, "Where have all the good assasins gone?"

Re:So how hard would it be

[Chris Johnson]

Go ahead.

ampcast.com/chrisj

And if you get the CDs you can rip whatever you want off them in any format you want and even dupe the whole CD- the words 'please copy this CD for your friends' are literally written on every CD.

I mean it. I do this stuff to be listened to, and I can afford not to sell it- I subsist other ways. Play me. I can't pay you to do so, but neither will I sue your ass :D

Re:RIAA & MPAA boycott!

[TheConfusedOne]

I'm all for it. I agree with you it's just a bit ironic sometimes when we try to mobilize the troops around here.

Additionally, I liked the point that you added *and file downloads* to your original boycott call. A boycott will only be successful if we actively cut ourselves off from the music rather than merely using an alternative source.

Is There an official list of RIAA artists?

[Twister002]

Is there an official list of RIAA artists anywhere? I looked at their website but I only saw a few that they were using for exploita...errr....promotional reasons.

Re:Multicasting.

[walt-sjc]

I don't think you understand multicasting.

With multicasting, you don't NEED p2p reflectors. The data is transmitted over any given network ONCE no matter HOW MANY people are listening. Limited upstream bandwidth is not an issue unless your stream bitrate is lower than your upstream bandwidth rate.

I suggest you read up on the subject.

They Make Streamers Pay More Than Broadcasters

[MoNickels]

Doc Searls has some interesting points on Nielsen Hayden's site (scroll down or just read it copied below):

Regular radio pays fees to ASCAP and BMI that go to composers, not to performers. And they are based on a station's revenues, not on a per-play/per-listener basis.

There is little or no copyright burden on ordinary radio. You pay nothing for what you hear on your city's KISS-FM station, and that station pays nothing except to composers. Generally they get the records for free ("for promotional puposes only" it says on the CD) from the record companies, or for a fee from some other service.

There is no equivalent between the burden placed on regular radio by current regulations and that placed on Internet radio by the CARP/LOC regulations. The burden on Internet radio -- in fees, in reporting, in every other respect, is stuff NEVER experienced by ordinary radio. If somebody ever even thought of bringing them up in Congress, the NAB and its legislative tools would squash it like a bug.

But Internet radio got lined up for execution because the DMCA, under pressure from a paranoid entertainment industry, characterized webcasting -- then still very young -- as something other than radio: as a "performance" delivery system, kind of like a digital venue -- a virtual club.

This characterization was born of the fear that eventually digital copies would in fact be "perfect" copies of a performance, and that therefore the artist should be compensated on a per-listen basis.

Then the DMCA based fee guidance on a "willing buyer/willing seller" concept wrapped in fuzzy and circuitous guidance language which was based in turn on the assumption that the only thing close to webcasting in prior reality was commercial radio, which has no such thing as a "willing buyer/willing seller" relationship with its audience -- only with its advertisers, which is irrelevant.

The DMCA authors ignored the example of public radio, which *does* have a seller/buyer relationship with its audience (who are customers, or at least in that position). The authors also ignored the existing webcasting successes on the Net itself, which include KPIG (which sold advertising at a higher rate because it had this bonus 2000+ people all over the world at any time, listening live) and countless other stations that put out a PayPal tip jar that collects up to $3000 and more a month in some cases.

Of course, most of these first economic models for the industry hadn't yet happened while the CARP was meeting, so they missed it. Why pause to actually observe an industry in the midst of birth? Hell, why even invite them to a meeting?

Nearly none of the major webcasters (KPIG, WCPE, Radio Paradise, SomaFM, etc.) were invited to the hearings. Live365 was, and apparently botched it by submitting and rescinding testimony, according to one RIAA guy. (That story is in Salon.)

So the CARP panel based their fees on the Yahoo example, which was worked out by Mark Cuban before he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in stock that he later unloaded way before the crash. Now he's known for buying big toys that most famously include the Dallas Mavericks.

Mark's plans for Broadcast.com were to scam the feds into helping him drive the small fry out of the market. He'd do that by negotiating a per-stream deal of some kind, rather than a percentage of revenue deal. That's because percentage of revenue would favor the small guys who had no revenue. Fair enough, but his scam was to agree to charges on a per-stream basis, and then multicast all the streams through one porthole, so it would be charged as just one. That porthole never got done, and was under wraps when the "Yahoo deal" was negotiated. And Yahoo has since dropped out of the radio business (wasting the whole $5.7 bil), making the CARP rationale even more absurd than it already was.

Most of this, including a highly disclosing email from Mark Cuban, is archived at RAIN.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[monkeydo]

Your calculation assumes 100 people listening continuously to 12 songs an hour, every hour for the last 4 years at $.0007/song/listener. Please give one example of such am Internet radio station.

On SomaFM's home page they claim to have calculated their annual royalties to be $176,541. Of course they don't show their math, but using the same 12 songs an hour figure we can arrive at 176,541/365/24/12/.0007 = 2,399. Wow! They have 2,400 people listening to their station 24 hours a day and they can't figure out how to make $180,000 a year off of it?

I have some suggestions for them:

1. Assuming each listener listens on average 2 hours a day, that's 28,800 total listeners. Each listener could cough up $7/year to pay the entire bill.
2. 
   
   If the had 4 30 second commercials each hour they could charge $5/spot. That's a CPM of $.20. I'm sure they could find some sponsors who want to support Internet Radio for that much. If they are willing to increase the commercial loading they can lower the CPM.
   
   They can play music from non-RIAA labels, and they can also deal directly with the labels for better rates. Regardless of what the other poster said if you don't play covered music you don't have to pay any royalties including the minimum.
   

As for the Monkey Radio guy, he went off the air because he didn't want to give *anything* to the RIAA, so it wouldn't matter to him what the rates were.

And to those bitching about the retroactivity of the rates, you should know that the reason they go back to 1998 is because that is when the decision was made to start charging the royalties and it has been known all this time that when the rates were finalized they would be retroactive to that date. Anyone who didn't want to pay no royalties no way no how could have gotten out then.

Live365.com and foreign music

[EMIce]

Well, I just headed over to live365.com to listen to some malayalam music - hardly RIAA controlled stuff, it's made in India. I couldn't listen because the broadcaster hadn't paid his pay per performace royalty fees as dictated by the librarian of congress. Where exactly does this royalty go? I can't imagine that some small music company in southern India is getting royalty checks.

Does this surprise anyone?

[Newer Guy]

The RIAA would take your first born child if they could get away with it!

Seriously though, does this surprise even one of you? I didn't think so. It probably doesn't surprise Congress either...and it actually might HURT the RIAA. How? The past few months have been bad times for big companies. Their greed has ruined many people's retirement. Even Bush and the Rebublicans in Congress are running for cover - look at how quickly Republican opposition to the Democrat's business ethics bill evaporated and how quickly it became law.
Now here comes the RIAA...a cartel of five companies that control most of the recorded music in the U.S., claiming the established fees for streaming (the biggest cut of whom goes to them) that either already have or will put most of the smaller webcasters out of business need to be even more.

This could be a P.R. disaster for the RIAA.

Re:Bah!

[uncoveror]

Email is easy to ignore, but snalmail takes a long time. If you have access to a fax machine, a fax gets their attention the quickest.

Broadcast royalties are an artist-ripoff sham

[jms]

Radio royalties are just another way of ripping off artists.

Here's why.

1) Record company signs artist. Loans artist money to record the album. Artist records album and gives it to the label to promote.

3) Label pays "independent promoter" $100,000-$500,000 to have the song placed on the radio. Strangely enough, it works, and the song is added to radio station playlists.

4) Every time the song is played on the radio, the radio station pays a couple of pennies to the label.

5) The label takes their 90% cut from those couple of pennies, and applies the remainder half-cent -- the "artists's share" of the radio royalty -- towards paying off the "independent promotion" payola bill.
-----
Broadcast royalties are a sham -- a smokescreen. The record labels know full well that there's no money to be made on radio royalties. The real money comes in when people start to buy the vastly overpriced albums. For the record labels, radio play is nothing more than advertising for their cash-cow albums, and they have no problem with paying heavily to get that "advertising" on the air, be it payola or "independent promotion." The record companies want to pay radio stations to get their songs on the air, and they do it any way they can, because it's the only way that they will ever start selling albums. This is the reality of how money flows between record labels and radio stations. It sharply contrasts with the official fiction that radio broadcasts are a source of revenue for artists and labels.

If broadcast royalties actually reflected the market, then radio would have reversed royalties -- The record labels would pay the radio stations every time their songs are added to their playlists, or played on the air. Everyone understands that radio stations are in the business of putting commercials in people's ears, and we understand when they are paid for doing that. The disconnect comes when people deliberately try not to understand that radio stations are also in the business of putting music in people's ears, and the record labels line up with cash in hand to get their advertising on the air.

Somehow payment for exposure is OK when the product is soap, but not OK when the product is Backstreet Boys albums. Why? Both are advertising!

The answer seems to reside in this elaborate fiction of the airwaves as a "public trust." People want to think that the radio stations are providing a valuable service -- by playing music on the air -- and the statutory royalties reenforce that fiction. In reality, radio stations spend 95% of their time playing two different types of commercials -- commercials for advertisers, and commercials for record albums. Except that the record industry has the law rigged to conceal the fact that radio station music is also advertising as well, by requiring tiny, tiny royalties to be paid to artists, and concealing the real huge cash payments that are the real driving economic force between record labels and radio stations.
-----
Back to the royalties. Who the hell can afford to pay those royalties? What's the real agenda here?

There is one group of companies that can afford to pay the statutory royalties, no matter how expensive they are per user. Those companies are the RIAA companies themselves, because they will essentially be paying themselves. I suspect that the real reason that the RIAA is pushing for sky-high royalty rates is to ensure that no one except for the RIAA corporations themselves can possibly afford the rates.

Then they will be free to "take over" internet radio, have used the royalty rates to drive the rest of the competition off of the net.

Or so goes the theory.

no-fee internet broadcasting licenses are the catch.

It will be interesting to see if "no-fee" internet broadcasting contracts become a trend. I think that royalty-free internet radio could become enormous for a couple of simple reasons:

1) It is something that a hobbyist can do
2) Therefore, if it can be made easy and legally safe to do, thousands of people will do it
3) Those royalty-free stations will only be playing songs from non-RIAA labels. Thus, the entire medium will be indy-saturated, the playing of major label songs on internet radio being, essentially, forbidden by law.

Eventually, those indy labels are going to start making money, because people are going to start hearing the music, and eventually buying the albums. The turning point will come when an independent album starts to rise up the charts -- even though it has ZERO broadcast radio play -- soley on the strength of internet radio exposure.

At that point, you'll see record companies start to quietly offer successful internet radio stations money to place their songs on their stations, except that this time there will be no "public trust" fiction to interfere with the natural market forces.

At the point when it actually becomes possible to make money on internet radio, watch for an explosion of new internet radio stations.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[198348726583297634]

Ruled.. in my pants.

I have written a haiku about this ruling:

Monkey ruled my pants
like a bird that also ruled
in my pants, it did.

Re:Nobody's accusing record _stores_ of getting ri

[monkeydo]

I guess you haven't heard of a little Internet site called Ebay? They have lot's of CD's and you can set your own prices. If no one is willing to pay more, you win!

It's interesting to note that some of the auctions close at or above the retail price, indicating the cost is not the limiting factor, but the availability elsewhere.

The time has come to stop dealing with the RIAA

[rhizome]

Really people. The RIAA was set up by the big record labels for exactly this purpose: to take the heat. As long as the agency footing the stinky policies is "the RIAA" and not "Sony" "EMI" or whomever, the labels branding stays intact and the corporations get to retain the illusion of keeping politics out of commerce and culture.

The RIAA is comprised of a group of labels who are behind all of this. They are the ones who should feel the heat. It's the RIAA's job to be a scapegoat. Don't let them.

Wither AirBubble (nee GoGaGa.com)...

[Etcetera]

The thing that pisses me off most about this all is that there is genuine music and a legitimate format that I simply cannot get any anywhere else (and I live in the US's 6th largest city): eclectic radio.

GoGaGa.com was the greatest thing since sliced bread. With its completely kitschy (sp?) mix of World music, dance, reggae, spoken word, radio play snippets, radio play remixes, and anything else anyone happened to bring in, they truly re-defined the term "eclectic radio".

GoGaGa went under, but many of the personalities and behind-the-scenes folks tried to restart it at AirBubble.com. They were doing a great job, too -- until the royalty issue hit :(

Evil, evil, RIAA...

(That's a good link to keep up to date about the royalty fight, they're staying pretty on-top of it.)

Re:Link to actual grocery store margin

[Hitokage_Nishino]

A local supermarket company recently celebrated achieving over 4% operating profit.

Kinda makes that 15% seem grand.

Re:Multicasting.

[strags]

The company I'm working for right now does exactly this.

Our software uses P2P connections between listening peers to lower the bandwidth costs for the stream provider. We also do a metric assload of work to ensure that buffering time is kept to a minimum and if the parent peer disappears suddenly, redirection is as swift and unnoticeable as possible.

In real-world situations we are able to save 75-80% of bandwidth costs on 100Kbit streams.

Re:Multicasting.

[strags]

Actually, multicasting isn't a viable solution for streaming across the Internet in general.

It's great for streaming content on a single LAN (provided your switches are multicast aware), but since most internet-radio listeners are on physically separate networks, they would need to tunnel the multicast stream onto their LAN - which necessitates them receiving their own copy of the stream anyhow.

The didiculous appeal, and a simple solution

[hillct]

I found the RIAA background on their appeal to be quite amusing. It says in part:

The Librarian of Congress was duped by Yahoo!'s self-serving testimony in the CARP. Yahoo testified in the CARP for one reason, and one reason only -- to lower the rate that would be paid for Internet-only transmissions.

No Kidding! I can't imagine why the Yahoo testimony would act to advance their own self-interest...! I have to agree with the RIAA that CLEARLY the rates are too low because there are still a few internet radio companies in business. If that doesn't PROVE the RIAA isn't takind enough money off them, I don't know what would.

The Solution:

The RIAA was created to insure that artists were compensated for their work in a time when such compensation of indevidual artists for their work, would have otherwise been impossible. Times have changed. Artists no longer need the RIAA, or for that matter ASCAP or BMI but broadcasters need to provide the artists an alternative. I'm no fan of direct mail marketing but they have a trade association which acts to implement self governance where otherwise there would be legislation governing the industry.

In the case of the Recording and broadcast industry, a private organization has stepped into that governmental role, and through extensive lobying efforts, actually has legislation on the books that backs their esentually userous behavior. IANAL, but I assume this legisltaion doesn't name the RIAA specifically, instead requiring that through some means, the artists must be compensated for their work. It follows that a new organisation could be established that managed escrow accounts for ALL artists, into which royalties would be paid by broadcasters, in an ammount a little more than they are paid by the RIAA, on a per broadcast basis. The accounts would be structured such that ONLY THE ARTISTS would have access to the funds. Any artists wishing to gain access to these funds would simply have to provide appropriate identification as the performer for which the funds were being held, then agree that these funds were being paid as appropriate royalties for the rebroadcast of their music by the broadcaster-members of the organization. Certainly issues atround copyright onership of the music (where in the eample it is assumed the artist owns the copyright to their music) would have to be addressed, but the point is simple. The RIAA keeps a large percentage of the funds they collect, supposedly, to dispurse to artists. Certainly a modern organization, using modern technologies, and without all the baggage of the RIAA would be able to handle this situation in a more efficient manner.

--CTH

That's nice.

[Sj0]

Quit complaining. The lot of you deserve to be locked up for criminal conspiracy.

Re:Greed.

[5KVGhost]

If you had a job that you loved to death, but it meant that there was only one boss in the world that would hire you, would you stand up to him?

But how much would I love my job if I woke up every morning knowing that I was essentially an indentured servant, entirely dependent on the pleasure of a boss who cared nothing about me at all and who would happily replace me and destroy my career on a whim?

Maybe it's just my frustration speaking, but I think artists who allow themselves to get suckered into that kind of codependent relationship deserve what they get.

I'm frankly getting tired of hearing how powerless they are. They're the ones who create the music, without which there would be no music industry. The RIAA has only as much power as the artists want them to have, and if they really want things to change then they're going to have to grow some backbone and start making it happen. They can't fight the RIAA by proxy.

The RIAA claims that it's only a few disaffected artists who are unsatisfied with the current situation, and for all I know they might actually be right (though I'm pretty sure it's not.) Consumer and governmetn pressure is hard enough to mobilize when you have hard facts, and anonymous grumblings and anecdotes can only go so far.

Re:sweet!

[Arcturax]

That is because they aren't signed with an RIAA label. If a label isn't part of the RIAA, the RIAA makes sure that the big stores don't carry them at all. Yes that is illegal but the RIAA is an illegal cartel and has been for years but no one in the govt cares because the RIAA knows how to grease palms.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[hackus]

I agree, compensation should be given to those who information we use. But the problem is the system for patents and copyrights don't do that.

Patents are enforced for way to long of a period of time, and how patents are enforced and issued in this country with regards to technology is not well policed. (i.e. submarine patents...with JPEG for example...)

Secondly, I think we have to recognize that other countries that do not recognize these particular forms of information lockout (patents and copyrights) may very well destroy our economy.

I am of course referring to countries that build thier entire infrastructure markets on Linux for example.

You could also argue, that if it wasn't for Linux, alot of ISP's would have gone out of business and we quite possibly would have a very very different kind of internet.

One that would probably be only for the rich and the very powerful who could afford the access fees, the computers and software to get online in the first place, etc.

We need a revised patent and copyright system, starting with getting rid of patent law, and DMCA and copyrights to begin with and creating something that provides equity for the producer and consumer in this country.

It can be done, but I am afraid too many powerful and very rich companies won't permit the status quo to go away anytime soon.

Hack

Re:Greed.

[5KVGhost]

Congratulations. You've just very concisely described the modern workplace.

Perhaps your workplace, unfortunate AC, but certainly not mine. I have a boss who's a nice guy and who does everything he can to make my job enjoyable and productive. I try my best to do the same with the people I supervise. There really are pleasant places to work out there.

And if something were to happen to make my current job intolerable then there are other places I could make a living in my chosen career. An evil boss might give me a bad reference, but no one's going to blackball me for life or tell me I can't make a living. Unlike certain musicians.

used CDs?

[commodoresloat]

Sorry; the RIAA thinks that is piracy too and is looking to tax that next.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[DarkZero]

Copyright and Patents are designed for one thing

I just thought I'd point out that copyrights and patents were not designed this way, but instead corrupted into their current state. The original copyright and patent laws in most countries were originally much more sane.

Re:MonkeyRadio RULED :'(

[Eric Damron]

I understand the frustration at the greed of the RIAA but this is a bad idea. The RIAA will seek out and sue people streaming music. Don't underestimate the depth of their greed!

That site is worth a read

[xixax]

From http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-7.cfm on why CDs are so expensive:

Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive.

I just love the bald-faecd guts of it, "Hey, payola costs money and it's a hard job!". By their own admission, they are seeking legislative protection for an inefficient and antiquated businness model. With P2P, the consumers pay for all of this.

Xix.

Petition to Repeal CARP

[Snover]

If this doesn't get modded up here, I don't know where it will.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nocarp

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[gorilla]

You're assuming that their only expeneses are the webcasting royalties. This is obviously not true.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[monkeydo]

Quite right. But the other expenses aren't new, nor are the brodcasters bitching about them. The broadcasters can pay the royalties any way they choose the same as all their other expenses. It is perfectly understandable that the webcasters don't want to take on any additional expenses, but they want to continue to use other's music. How is that fair?

I didn't reply to the AC, but of course no one is forcing the webcasters to attempt to make a profit, or even have a business model. If they want to continue operating at a loss and living off personal money and donations, fine this is simply an additional expense. An expense that they have known was coming for the last 4 years. No one can claim to have been blind sided by this.

As for those who choose not to make a profit, the rates for non-commercial broadcasters are half the rates for commercial broadcasters.

Re:HOTT troll! Except...

[monkeydo]

If SomaFM had an average of 2,400 listeners around the clock they'd be paying around $20,000/month just for bandwidth. 2,400 streams X 16kb/sec (just a guess) = 38.4Mb/sec. Of course I don't think they were because I think their numbers are bullshit, but if they have been paying $240,000 a year for bandwidth they must be getting money from somewhere.

I have seen lots of webcasters claim they will be out of business because their bill will be $x (where x is a large inflammatory number) but I have yet to see a single webcaster show their math. Until they do I will remain skeptical of their claims. I'm surprised so many here take these numbers at face value.