Latest Salvos in the Ongoing Battle Of Webcasting

detroitindustrial writes "The Register reports on a backroom deal that screws small webcasters. The Voice of Webcasters, working with the RIAA, negotiated a deal that Congress is trying to make into a law. These rates give big discounts to the largest webcasters, while leaving around 96% of the smaller webcasters to suffer and die under the CARP rate. This is being done through the bill H.R. 5469, the Small Webcaster Amendment Act of 2002. It was originally a one paragraph bill to delay the CARP rates for 6 months, and was widely supported in its original form by the webcasting community. After the RIAA rewrote it, it turned into 30-page monstrosity that had no relation to the original bill. It has already passed in the House. Ann Gabriel, who was on the International Webcasting Associaion legislative committee, recently resigned in disgust over this sell out." It appears that the Register article misrepresents a few of the issues. Rusty Hodge, of SomaFM, has more on the actual effects of HR 5469... This is an email from Rusty Hodge, SomaFM's head honcho, which was sent to the Pho emailing list. Reprinted with permission:

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 01:26:57 -0700
From: Rusty Hodge

The RIAA seems to have managed to really get a rift going in the
webcasting community.

I'll tell you all I know.

"Somebody shine a light of truth into the nature of these proceedings. You have many friends on pho list. Speak up. This is another dirty deal."
-- [ quote from The Register article ]

This article is based on a lot of incorrect information. What appears
to have happened was that someone on the carp@voiceofwebcasters.org
mailing list forwarded a bunch of messages from that list to the
author. (Nevermind that the mailing list messages have a disclaimer
which say that they are confidential and not for publication without
prior consent). I am annoyed that I was quoted out of context in the
article.

Tthe headline is based on one message that someone who opposed HR5469
posted, a message which is not accurate. The 96% number came from a
person who opposed all webcasting royalties and based his
calculations on the Shoutcast.com directory. It did not take into
account the broadcasters who operate via Live365 (which includes
thousands of broadcasters), the Windows Media radio directory,
Real.com, etc. It also assumed that all stations listed in the
Shoutcast.com directory are actually accessible. Because of the way
that the shoutcast automated directory works, even if you setup a
shoutcast server to privately distribute audio in your house or
within an office, by default it will appear in the shoutcast.com
directory. So will stations that do not have the network bandwidth to
reliably stream to a single listener. Anyone can run the Shoutcast
software on a DSL line, yet can't sustain a single listener because
of bandwidth limitations. And the statistic does not take into
account that many of those Shoutcast broadcasters are not based in
the US nor does this take into account where the listeners are.
(Remember, the DMCA/CARP fees only apply to listeners in the US.)

Now the current CARP rates - if you broadcast 12 songs an hour, and 7
average concurrent listeners, you'll be paying $516.50 a year. If you
only look at stations with more than 7 concurrent listeners on
average, or 5040 hours for the 30 day sample period, you get about
320 stations, and those stations represent 98% of the shoutcast
audience (based on listener numbers)!!! The remaining 2700 "stations"
are fighting for about 400 listener.

Of that 3000+ shoutcast stations listed who will be "screwed", more
than half of them do not have any listeners. If you have sampled
some of those near the bottom of the rating stations, you'll find
that many of them are either broadcasting silence, or their stream is
technically unlistenable (more dropouts than audio or you can't
connect to the stream at all).

(http://shoutcast.com/ttsl.html - has a rolling 30 day statistic
snapshot, which these numbers are based off)

HR5469 grants a lot more relief to a larger body of webcasters than
you'd think from reading that one mailing list. To the rest, HR5469
DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. If it passes or fails, nothing changes for
the smallest webcasters.

(By the way, Live365 is neither harmed or hindered by this bill.
Their statement is here:

http://www.live365.com/carp/hr5469statement.html

Live365 is also represented ONLY by DiMA. Additionally, Live365 covers
the royalties for their member broadcasters, their member broadcasters
are not directly affected by this.)

Any webcaster with an average of more than about 25 concurrent
listeners is better off under this deal than the previous CARP
ruling. Beneath that limit, there is no difference.



There is another quote that is very misleading in the article:

``And privately, even members who support HR.5469 agree that it will
"seal the fate of this industry to be dominated by big webcasters,"
according to correspondence seen by The Register. ``

Actually, the quote "seal the fate of this industry to be dominated
by big webcasters" came from Kevin Shively (also fellow pho) of
Beethoven.com, on 9 Oct 2002. Kevin has stated many times that he
does not support the version of 5469 that was passed.

The Register should have attributed this quote because it completely
changes the meaning of it. Beethoven.com, a 14-employee company, is
owned by Marlin Broadcasting, a company that owns several FCC
licensed over the air stations. Kevin does not support HR5469 because
he believes that it sets the definition of small webcaster at too low
of a level. But I'll leave it to him to tell you what he thinks about
the bill. Kevin has been a driving force in lobbying for fairness for
small webcasters, and ironically, HR5469 would probably not have
passed without him, and it is very saddening that he will not benefit
from it. Kevin will hopefully post his concerns with the bill (I
recall it is Section 4 that he has problems with).

For the record, SomaFM feels that 5469 is far from a perfect bill.
However, we think it is a good starting point. Kevin has expressed
concerns in this bill setting precedents that will harm many
mid-sized webcasters. I believe that NAB is not supporting the bill
for the same reason.

``But the compromised Bill has some surprising backers. SomaFM and
KPIG are urging listeners to support the revised, RIAA-negotiated
venture.``

I was quoted somewhat out of context talking about advertising. I was
talking about a variety of options available for small webcasters,
one of which was advertising. However HR5469 extends the definition
of non-commercial webcasters to any non-profit organization, not just
FCC licensed non-commercial broadcast stations. That rate is less
than a third of the rate that commercial webcasters pay under the
current CARP fees ($0.0002 vs $0.0007). This I believe is a big win
for non-commercial internet only webcasters.

I was also pointing out that $500 a year minimum, vs the small
webcasters demand for $250 a year minimum, was negligible. I was also
pointing out that as they grew, and hit the $2000 minimum under the
new plan, that they would have an audience of over 25 average
concurrent listeners and at that point should have not trouble
obtaining advertising. They could bill up to $20k a year and have an
unlimited audience size.

SomaFM is listener supported and commercial free. We are not a
501(c)3 non-profit. Under the CARP rates, we would have to pay $500 a
DAY - over $180,000 a year in royalties. We generate about $20,000 a
year in donations now, which has covered about 85% of our costs
EXCLUDING the CARP FEES, and was on its way to covering all our
costs. (The cost that isn't covered is the cost of all the CDs I have
to buy!) SomaFM operates bare bones, our studios are in my garage.
We believe that we can generate enough additional donations to keep
us on the air with the rate proposed in HR5469. For us, it's
$2000-5000 a year instead of more than 10 times that under the old
CARP rates. So it's a no brainer for us to support this.


Another inaccurate quote:

"Many webcasters have already resigned in protest from the body
that's supposed to represent them: the Internet Webcasters'
Association. "

One person, Ann Gabriel, resigned. And Ann Gabriel was not a
webcaster, she produces live web events. She is not liable for past
CARP fees. In her open letter (which I've included below) she seems
to imply that IWA and VOW are the same.

Voice of Webcasters and the International Webcasting Association are
two separate entities.

The International Webcasting Association or IWA (which SomaFM is a
member), is not a lobby group on behalf of small webcasters. However,
since the IWA dues are far less than the other webcasting-related
trade group, DiMA, it has many more small webcasters than does DiMA.
As I recall, DiMA dues are $20k a year, IWA dues $300 a year. DiMA
represents bigger companies like Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo and smaller
guys like Live365. Jon Potter can tell you more about DiMA's goals.


Here's Ann's letter. I'm only forwarding it because it says it's an
open letter to the streaming community and the press, which i believe
describes many here on pho:

>Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:24:40 -0400
>From: Annmgabriel@aol.com
>Subject: [carplist] HR 5469
>
>Open Letter to the IWA Board of Directors, The IWA Legislative
>Committee, David Oxenford at Shaw-Pittman, CARP-List Members,
>Members at large of the Streaming Media Community and the Press:
>
>On October 1, 2002, at 12:00 pm Pacific Time, I began a 10-hour per
>day live broadcast with the intent to draw attention to the plight
>of Internet Radio broadcasters and raise money to benefit the IWA
>Legal Defense Fund.
>
>I did this based on the belief I was working to support HR 5469 as
>it was originally introduced into Congress; a bill calling for a
>stay in the rates imposed by the Librarian of Congress and due on
>October 20, 2002; and because I believed that Shaw-Pittman, the law
>firm involved in negotiating the deal with the RIAA was working on
>behalf of the International Webcasting Association (IWA).
>
>I am appalled, outraged and disgusted by the turn of events I have
>witnessed over the last week and will no longer sit and watch the
>blood, sweat and tears of the many be drown out by the disingenuous
>hue and cry of the few.
>
>I will NOT support HR 5469 as it was introduced and passed on the
>floor of Congress on October 6, 2002, nor will I encourage anyone
>who asks me to support it. I will immediately turn my attention to
>contacting every Senator I can, both by telephone and by fax, to let
>them know about the grave injustice that has been carried out in the
>name of the small webcasting community.
>
>Regardless of the stand the IWA takes on this issue, I, today,
>resign my membership in the IWA. I cannot stand by and continue to
>support an organization that allows its members to be bullied into
>accepting legislation that was negotiated one, under duress and two,
>by a team which originally set out to negotiate a private deal for
>themselves with the RIAA.
>
>I call on the members-at-large of the webcasting community to ask
>themselves why the press release about the deal on HR 5469 was done
>in the name of the RIAA and the Voice of Webcasters. I contend that
>the IWA was not represented here and its members are not responsible
>for the legal bills incurred by Shaw-Pittman. It is my belief that
>this was not a deal negotiated on behalf of the IWA or all of its
>members.
>
>I have been asked by many in the webcasting community how this could
>have happened. I think it is time for me to respond, and to let the
>webcasting community know all the facts about how HR 5469 could
>change from one paragraph as it was originally introduced, to a
>30-plus page bill serving only the RIAA and a few on the negotiating
>team.
>
>I believe I have an obligation to tell the truth NOW, as I know it,
>to the many who have banded together to fight for a common cause.
>They have seen their hopes go up in smoke because of a backroom deal
>negotiated under duress by a team that did not set out to represent
>webcasters at large and does not accept that the RIAA has a complete
>lack of respect for the webcasting community and never intended to
>deal fairly, honestly or forthrightly with the issues facing
>webcasters today.
>
>I wish you all the best of luck moving forward in a very difficult time.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ann Gabriel

SomaFM was not involved with negotiating this deal, although we did
sign a letter in support of it.

If you think my support is wrong, I'd like to hear the reasons why.

--Rusty Hodge
SomaFM.com

Comments

good grief

[Anonymous Coward]

If this gets any worse, people are going to have to move underground and be forced to broadcast signals over radio waves or some such crazy medium!

If webcasting goes away....

[Viewsonic]

I'll just buy one of those new radios with hard drives built into them that are popping up everywhere. It's the new trend, and that will piss off the RIAA even more. Bleh.

Time for Peercast?

[RefriedBean]

And the lastest version supports easy relaying of shoutcast streams :) Peercast.Org

Re:Time for Peercast?

[Anonymous Coward]

is it just me or does peercast by default allow anyone to connect to your web interface, and log in even with a wrong password, and change the settings as they wish?

Re:Time for Peercast?

[RefriedBean]

When you first launch peercast, it only accepts connections from localhost, allowing you to set up a password, and your preferences. Only after a password has been set it will accept connection from outside.

Re:Time for Peercast?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the SOURCE? I can't make the linux version work under emulation. I want to at least try peercast. Why is it that I can't download the source?

I don't consider it a serious contender for anything until I can actually try it and until I can check the source to make sure I WANT to be running it.

Legal response

[gowen]

Is there not any legal remedy small webcasters can take, regarding the shocking carve up their larger competitors have set up. Surely this must constitute a cartel operation, or at least a breach of some relevant antitrust legislation.

ObDisclaimer: I am not a British lawyer, let alone an American one.

ObJoke: Why is there only one Monopolies And Mergers Commission?

Re:Legal response

[Gruneun]

Surely this must constitute a cartel operation, or at least a breach of some relevant antitrust legislation.

Why does everyone always jump on the large-organization-screwing-innocent-person bandwagon? The RIAA has the right to defend the property of its members. There's no legislation preventing someone from webcasting music of their own creation. Fair use does not include broadcasting content that doesn't belong to you. It disgusts me that people will badmouth the RIAA and then willingly support them through CD purchases or just plain steal from them.

Hypocrisy aside, I have an mp3 collection. The vast majority of those songs are made up of content I wouldn't listen to otherwise, and ceratinly didn't buy. I make no excuses, and should the cops show up on my doorstep, I would readily admit I did something illegal and I would, unenthusiastically but willingly, delete them. The last thought on my mind would be, "How do I convince the world that they're evil and I'm justified?"

Re:Legal response

[gowen]

Why does everyone always jump on the large-organization-screwing-innocent-person bandwagon?

Erm. I wasn't. I was jumping on the "large corporattions form cartel in order to unfairly crush smaller competition" bandwagon.

I made no comment whatsoever on illegal filesharing.

Re:Legal response

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

It disgusts me that people will badmouth the RIAA and then willingly support them through CD purchases or just plain steal from them.

Then you should appreciate my efforts. First, the obligatory:

RIAA Sucks!!!

Now that I have that out of the way, let me justify my rights to say that I couldn't care less about the 90% revenue stream generated from today's popular music. It's not a lot of my money going there. I mainly support unsigned artists. If a new 'popular' song tickles my fancy, then I rely on one of the local used tape & CD shops to have an original used copy of it. It usually doesn't take long to get them in. I feel by doing this, I put as little of my money into the RIAA mainstream revenues as possible.

Re:Legal response

[Anonymous Coward]

"ObJoke: Why is there only one Monopolies And Mergers Commission [xrefer.com]?"

Because all the monopolies commissions have merged ?

Re:Legal response

[Gizzmonic]

Why does everyone always jump on the large-organization-screwing-innocent-person bandwagon? The RIAA has the right to defend the property of its members.

I think the better question is, why does the RIAA accept "over the air" distribution with minimal fees but wants to clamp down on internet distribution? They've made it no secret that they are frustrated with most large radio distribution companies...

Re:Legal response

[RealityThreek]

The majority of webcasters already pay money for the use of the content. They currently have been paying the same rates as normal radio stations. The RIAA wants them to pay MORE money because they are capable of broadcasting "near CD quality music."

I am going to continue to badmouth the RIAA because they are money-grubbing bastards.

Re:Legal response

[Gruneun]

It's really simple. If the webcaster doesn't feel that the RIAA's product is worth it, he shouldn't pay for it. If he doesn't pay for it, he shouldn't use it.

Anger or disgust with high prices doesn't justify theft. Otherwise, I'd have a plasma television on my wall and a BMW in my garage.

Suppor the Bill!

[theBraindonor]

Who cares what the news reporters are saying! Go visit your favorite webcasters, and see what they have to say. I guarantee that they have been crunching the numbers on this bill--they don't want to go bankrupt.

My favorite webcaster, Digitally Imported, fully supports the bill.

Again...before you start ranting away and listening to the FUD, check what your local webcaster has to say!

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[RebelTycoon]

Ya... but it went from 1 to 30 pages once the RIAA got involved. I am happy di.fm is supporting and going to continue online, but I want to know what else in the 29 other pages got inserted and just hasn't been found yet.

Expect in the future for the definition of SMALL to become larger and larger until that saying of "first they came for the stations with only 5 users, but since I had 5,000, I wasn't worried. ... Eventually they came for the 5,000... Who will defend me." I don't like definitions and groupings to be stated since those WILL BE CHANGED and the BOUNDARIES broadened to maximize the RIAA revenue in the future.

Basically they are grabbing what they can now, and knowing that in the future they will go for more, probably before anyone can organize in time.

Remember, this is the RIAA, unlike the MPAA that does enable LoTR and ST and SW, I have little to be thankful of the RIAA for.

So RIAA, get bent!

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the "this is not a bad deal" crowd seems to be missing is that if this deal fo 25+ litener stations goes through, there will be no second chance for the small stations. They are being thrown out of the lifeboat in an effort to save the big webcasters. The soma article said as much (without using the lifeboat analogy of course)

I (used to) listen to small offbeat streams that I'm sure didn't get an average of 25 listeners. Most of the Webcasts that I used to listen to have gone off the air, and the only hope of revival would be a change in the law.

There will be (at most) one revision to the current mess. If this is it, then all the Webcasts that I used to listen to are SOL.

It's swell that soma, or clear channel, or whatever they are called are fixing a parachute for themselves. I just wish that they weren't so willing to toss out everyone that doesn't look ilike they do in order to get what they want.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to my favorite Webcater (Live365) to see what they had to say.


Live365 remains frustrated with the process of obtaining a fair royalty rate. HR 5469 fails to provide long-term relief to any webcasters, as even the smaller webcasters will still be saddled with the old rates if they become bigger. We do not believe that any webcasters would have agreed to the terms of HR 5469, without the threat of bankruptcy looming over them.


It looks like someone carved out a sweetheart deal for themselves and screwed over everyone else.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[namespan]

My favorite webcaster, Digitally Imported [di.fm], fully supports the bill.

But which bill do they support? The original one, or the current version? Do they even know?

That's the most worrisome aspect of this whole thing. The "bait-and-switch" manuever, replacing one bill by another but still under the same name/number, renders expressed support very unclear.

Sure, talk to your favorite webcaster. But if someone says "Support H.R. 5469" or "Don't support H.R. 5469" make sure you know which HR 5469 they're talking about.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings, I am actually the founder of Digitally Imported Radio (Ari Shohat).

I can tell you that we did and DO still support both versions of the bill, except that the old one doesn't apply anymore.

Many misunderstand the government procedures on this, and I would be very confused as well if I wasn't in the middle of it... As I have explained to others elsewhere...

We DID Support the original bill as well!
Rep. Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the 1-sentence Stay bill on Thurs. Sept. 26. At the time it seemed bipartisan and noncontroverisal.

On Monday Sept. 30 the artist and label "spin" machine pulled into high gear. Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on House Judiciary, circulated a letter to all House offices, claiming a 6-month stay would "rip up the paychecks of working musicians, vocalists and artists."

The death knell for any chance that the 6-month stay version of H.R. 5469 had in the House came later in the day on Sept. 30, when the AFL-CIO (on behalf of artist unions AFM and AFTRA) came
out with a statement condemning it.

So the original Bill had no chance of getting through, so to go through with some negotiated deal was the only option save for death of stations.

What happened here though is, the same bill number was used, as I am guessing is a standard practice in US. I really didn't know that. I couldn't understand why they used the same HR5469, but that's the way it works. That's how it became something else. There was NO SWICHEROO, if that's what the accusation is, you'd have to ask the goverment how they make things work on this one.

In addition, I agree to everything Rusty from SomaFM said above. And I want you people to be aware of something... This bill, if goes through, is an Additional Option to the already existing rates. It doesn't push anyone out of business, it doesn't change previous rates, it only allows more people to be saved. The only companies (such as live365) that would not benefit are those that are too large to go under this deal. Note I said do not benefit, because they are also Not harmed explicitly by it in any way.

If the bill doesn't get passed, 96% of stations that support 96% of listenrs roughly might just shut down this week. The author of register article obviously seems uneducated about the trends and realities of small commecial webcasters.

About Digitally Imported Radio: We are a hobby station for almost 3 years. We are not a non-profit legally, but we don't yet make anything for ourselves. We run it as a hobby, and the only money we get is used right back into the station. We only get donations from listeners, and a tiny amount from banner ads (ha!). We just happen to have a lot of listeners who enjoy our FREE service fo the last few years, maybe that fact alone isn't sitting nice with a few webcasters who don't like this bill.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

The death knell for any chance that the 6-month stay version of H.R. 5469 had in the House came later in the day on Sept. 30, when the AFL-CIO (on behalf of artist unions AFM and AFTRA) came
out with a statement condemning it.

Now when it comes to copying music, and someone says "What about the artist?", I say "Fuck them too. Just as hard as the RIAA."

I will continue, with more ferver, to distribute copied music, with the additional benefit of "screwing" the "artists" as well.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to mention that the lower rates (and rate structure based on expenses/revenue rather than listener count) were achieved at the cost of higher minimum payments.

This has the effect of locking the (true) small webcasters out of this deal, and delivering all the benifit of the new rate structure to the big time webcasters (who would have to pay the minimum anyway based on their revenue/expenses)

It is dishonest to reply that the (true) small webcasters can still have the old deal. You yourself admit that the old deal would shut down 96% of the stations this week.

It is clear what happened. The big-time webcaster (and wannabe big-time webcasters) got their deal, and to hell with everyone else.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ari here again to reply:

>>>>
You fail to mention that the lower rates (and rate structure based on expenses/revenue rather than listener count) were achieved at the cost of higher minimum payments.

This has the effect of locking the (true) small webcasters out of this deal, and delivering all the benifit of the new rate structure to the big time webcasters (who would have to pay the minimum anyway based on their revenue/expenses)

It is dishonest to reply that the (true) small webcasters can still have the old deal. You yourself admit that the old deal would shut down 96% of the stations this week.

It is clear what happened. The big-time webcaster (and wannabe big-time webcasters) got their deal, and to hell with everyone else.
>You fail to mention that the lower rates (and rate structure based on expenses/revenue rather than listener count) were achieved at the cost of higher minimum payments.

Exactly! But that doesn't apply for hobbyists because they will still be able to use the old CARP fee with $500 minimum, instead of the new $2000. I tried to say, again and again, the old CARP fees are still good if you wish to use them, this is an Addition, a choice.

So in your scenerio, 4% of small hobbyists (who mind you don't really serve almost anyone anyway) do survive if this bill doesn't get passed. What WIll they do when go BEYOND their 20 concurrent listeners, when they actually CAN support more listeners? THEY WILL BE FORCEd TO CLOSE JUST THE SAME. Such short-sightedness, unbelievable.

If you like simple words here:

a) this deal sucks, but would let those who want to live anotehr day to continue to fight this live on.
b) If you get 20 or less concurrent listeners, you use the existing CARP rates which is minimum of $500 a year.
c) if you grow beyond that, you can switch to $2000 minimum under this deal which will make more sense for you.

I don't see why you are complaining, many misunderstand this as removing existing deal, which it does not. You can't pay $500 a year even with listener donations for a hobby? Then you shouldn't be talking because that means you got No Listeners! Besides, time and time again, this is a small-commercial webcaster deal, not "hobby", not "college webcasting", not "broadcasting webcasting".. so if you fall under those, you shouldn't be talking either, you got the wrong group. But even so, this bill does something for non-commercials. It drops the existing rate by like 2/3rd, if they so choose to use it.

What exactly do you object, people haven't pointed out a single thing other than they refuse to pay anything to RIAA (then don't pay, there are already appeals going on this. This bill will let webcasters live and go on with the appeals). So other than that, there's nothing concrete in anyone's complaint as of yet.

Ari
Digitally Imported
www.di.fm

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[frost22]

It doesn't push anyone out of business, it doesn't change previous rates, it only allows more people to be saved. The only companies (such as live365) that would not benefit are those that are too large to go under this deal. Note I said do not benefit, because they are also Not harmed explicitly by it in any way

This is nonsensical babble.

Any comparision or reference to the current situation is meaningless, since that one means death for most operators anyway. Any "improvement" not large enough to save them still means death for them, and is therefore equivalent to the current situation.

So you saved your (and a few other's) ass while leaving the majority of operators going down the drain.

Furthermore, you wasted the probably only possibility to get Congress involved on this. One of your co-conspiratoirs lauded the bill as a "good starting point". If this bill passes, it will be the end point as well - for many years to come.

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why you are complaining, many misunderstand this as removing existing deal, which it does not. You can't pay $500 a year even with listener donations for a hobby? Then you shouldn't be talking because that means you got No Listeners!


Re-read the parent. Already addressed. You yourself admit that CARP == death. Then you go on to say that CARP is good enough for anyone smaller than you.

News flash!!! Hobby stations don't hit up their customers for cash, and there is no potential for advertising to 5-10 listeners. As we have already seen by the mass of closings, the $500 CARP minimum + the recordkeeping requirements were the end of hoby webcasting.


Besides, time and time again, this is a small-commercial webcaster deal, not "hobby", not "college webcasting", not "broadcasting webcasting".. so if you fall under those, you shouldn't be talking either, you got the wrong group. But even so, this bill does something for non-commercials. It drops the existing rate by like 2/3rd, if they so choose to use it.


Thank you. This is exactly what has so many folks so pissed off at the commercial webcasters. They got their deal. Every one else is on their own.

Do you imagine that there is going to be another bill to address hoby webcasting? Don't make me laugh. The commercial webcasters have taken over the one chance that we all had to say "Stop! the CARP deal is wrong!" and they turned it into a "small commercial webcaster deal" (your words)

Well I could give a fsck about whether the commercial webcasters survive. You are in a business and need to manage your business. What was truely intersting about webcasting was all the small streams that ordinary folks put together because they loved the music.

We will always have commercial music. When will we ever see individuals sharing their "personal blend" of music again?

Re:Suppor the Bill!

[AriDIRadio]

Re-read the parent. Already addressed. You yourself admit that CARP == death. Then you go on to say that CARP is good enough for anyone smaller than you.

Mmm, yes sir, CARP = death Unless you are under 20 concurrent listeners. What good is this if only stations with 10 listeners survive, and they cannot grow. Because once they grow beyond 20 or so, CARP = death. In other words, CARP is bearable only under 20 listeners (nobody said it's good, it's terrible!!!) What I have said is, if you are a small hobbyist it is assumed that you want your listeners to grow (Like a hobby of collecting stamps. You don't stop at 10 stamps, the hobby is to collect them). Then until you get to about 20 listeners you'd use the CARP rate because it's cheaper, but beyond that it becomes unbearable, and this bill is the only thing *so far* that will permit you to conitune your hobby beyond that.

News flash!!! Hobby stations don't hit up their customers for cash, and there is no potential for advertising to 5-10 listeners.

Our station is still a hobby, and was a hobby from day one with 5-10 listeners. First you CAN get some cash, and you might afford $500 a year for a hobby (otherwsie get a hobby you can afford, that's tough life). Maybe I like to build a sports car out of my regular car as a hobby, but I can't afford it. Who do I complain to? See more below...

As we have already seen by the mass of closings, the $500 CARP minimum + the recordkeeping requirements were the end of hoby webcasting.

I can't say I agree. It certainly makes it tough, but it's "doable." If there is a will there's a way. Here's the big question though. $500 a year is only the year's minimum for recording works. You ALREADY have to pay around $523 or more combined a year minimum to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC? Are you assuming that's already paid for? So you have multiple problems with your hobby. Either you can't pay almost anything to anyone, or you pay. Don't complain to me it's too expensive, that's a fact of life. Nobody said a hobby has to be subsidized by anyone.

Thank you. This is exactly what has so many folks so pissed off at the commercial webcasters. They got their deal. Every one else is on their own.

Yes I know, misery loves company. "If I am hurting, I at least want you all to hurt as well." The emphasis I make here is, again, it's an addition to current rates, not a transition or change. Nobody crafted anything to Hurt you. So instead of complaining, my good sir, why don't you band together with your hobbyist friends and get a hobbyist deal added in addition to this that you like (and that RIAA will like).

Do you imagine that there is going to be another bill to address hobby webcasting

As I suggested above, it's a free country more or less, why don't you get a band of like minded webcasters who can afford to pay $523 to musicians a year, but not afford $500 to recording artists a year, and make the best of it.

Don't make me laugh. The commercial webcasters have taken over the one chance that we all had to say "Stop! the CARP deal is wrong!" and they turned it into a "small commercial webcaster deal" (your words)

Absoutely wrong, this bill has nothing to do with saying "CARP is wrong!" That's not the way the process works. I remind you, again, that APPEALS are going forward, that's one way to say it's wrong. An addition or amendment to something, is no way to say it's wrong. You may argue you might not get another amendment, but don't say you won't have the chance of saying the rates are wrong altogether! That's still going on. I suggest you grab a group of like-minded webcasters who can once again afford the musicians (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) $523 per year, but not $500 year for minimum recording fees, and go forth with appeals.

Webcasting: Its whats for breakfast.

[EvilAlien]

I love the smell of government-created competitive disadvantage in the morning.

I'm not sure how things work in the US, but in Canada this kind of law would be open to quite a bit of challenge on that issue alone.

The players in the recording industry need to be slapped with antitrust investigations or something roughly equivalent to bring the truth out into the open.

Good

[Theatetus]

Heh heh... I loved the gratuitous mention of the blind guitarist in the article

This is great. Really. It's an incentive for webcasters to look for sources of content not controlled by a media cartel. If you can't find decent bands who are willing to let you broadcast their music for free, you probably shouldn't be running an Internet radio station.

Re:Good

[IamTheRealMike]

If you can't find decent bands who are willing to let you broadcast their music for free, you probably shouldn't be running an Internet radio station.

You're assuming it's easy to find bands who'll let you do that. I've suggested it to a few, trying to find music for WOPN - they all said no, citing the perception that if they'd previously given away their music for free, it would be harder to get a record contract. They all dream of fame and fortune, and if they think supporting net radio will put that dream in jepoardy, they won't do it.

Re:Good

[IPM Macross]

I have never had a problem. There are thousands, literally, and thats just in the electronic/gothic/industrial genres. Once you establish yourself as friendly to these artists and labels, they will find you and come to you. also contrary to what some people say, the music is often really good. Indie / small friendly label music is all my station has played since 2000, before that being a 50/50 mix involving better known acts in the same genres. The downside is the paperwork I (and fellow indie stations) will now have to do in order to prove that we have permission from each and every copyright holder. There's a few thousand man hours of typing here. It'll be one hell of a database when it's done though.

Re:Good

[mrobinso]

> It's an incentive for webcasters to look for
> sources of content not controlled by a media
> cartel. If you can't find decent bands who are
> willing to let you broadcast their music for
> free, you probably shouldn't be running an
> Internet radio station.

Bingo.

When all is said and done, there are far worse things going on in the industry besides the shenanigans CARP introduces. Incredible predatory business practices and pricing models by the big streaming providers, ridiculous licensing schemes from the streaming software makers. How much is a Helix Server license for 25 concurrent streams?

The RIAA is only an obstacle when your content falls inside their domain. Stream indies and original material and kiss them goodbye.

What's left is still a nasty pile of obstacles that will kill most small webcasters.

Webcasting doesn't work.

[Trusty Penfold]

I don't think broadcasting music on the Internet could work, so I don't know why all these people are complaining about not being allowed to try.

It takes me 10 minutes to download a 3 minute song ... that means if it was broadcast I would have to listen to it at 1/3 speed.

Some things would sound okay slower, but other stuff wouldn't - the voices would be deeper and women would sound like men.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Iamthefallen]

yeah, but on the upside, Celine is suddenly tolerable

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, because i'd rather be subjected to 10 minutes of Celine than 3.

not.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[weird mehgny]

It takes me 10 minutes to download a 3 minute song ...

Mind you, it takes one minute for me to download a 3 minute song. In other words, I would lose time by listening to webcasts instead of just downloading the music files as plain warez :)

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Ioldanach]

It takes me 10 minutes to download a 3 minute song ... that means if it was broadcast I would have to listen to it at 1/3 speed.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out if I should laugh at a joke or just wince...

You know, the webcasting streams typically don't broadcast at 128 or 160 kbps, like the music you'd typically download. Most webcasting offers 64kbps, and some have options of 48 or lower and 128 and higher streams. For a voice station 32kbps is just fine (at least on ogg), and some codecs can handle music pretty well at low bitrates. Of course, its kind of like AM radio versus FM, but if its the only place you can listen to what you like, it can be worth it.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Naah. You would just hear evrything in 3x speed.
So evryone sounds like mice.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Naah. You would just hear evrything in 3x speed.


Could this lead to a comeback for David Seville and the Chipmunks?

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[BigBadBri]

It works for me - at least when I am working where my DAB set gets a poor signal (i.e. downstairs at home) - I listen regularly to BBC 6Music on my ADSL connection, and even cranked down to 64Kbit/s it's perfectly listenable.

Granted, when I had a dialup connection, I couldn't download and listen at the same time, but the sound at 44Kbit/s was still tolerable.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Mind you, it takes one minute for me to download a 3 minute song. "

A 3 minute song in one minute? You a Chipmunks fan?

"SmackmybitchupSmackmybitchup!"
"SmackmybitchupSmackmybitchup!"
boombabeebaBAbada!boombabeebaBAbada!boombabeebaB Ab ada!
"MYBITCH!"

Heh I doubt that song'll appear as a Chipmunk's greatest hit.

Re:Webcasting doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

are you coked up?

seriousely i can stream at 192 without a problem, not to mention still download other stuff and surf etc.

i guess if you have a 56k modem streaming is out of the question, but even a godaweful ISDN can do it

Hm.

[Komrade S.]

So I guess now isn't a good time to advertise my pirate radio station that plays the entire Avril Lavigne album 24/7?

Re:Hm.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's a perfect time to advertize your bad taste in music??

Justice

[Deton8]

Why should webcasters have to pay more per listener than a major FM radio station?

Re:Justice

[ottffssent]

Well, because they've got lower, I mean higher, I mean . . . Shit, it's the internet and everybody who knows nothing about it knows there's money in them thar' hills!

That's probably only funny because I didn't sleep last night. On the plus side, I'll bet the bill makes perfect sense now though!

Re:Justice

[iamr00t]

Well, efficiency I guess.

You can't argue that it's much easier to track how many listeners you have and where in the world via internet radio than via real radio.
In fact, there is no way real radio stations can be charged per-listener.

That brings up another point - real radio stations have to spend alot of money on licensing (actualy no idea how much) and equipment upfront.
Internet radio stations on the other hand are much easier to start up and scale.

The bottom line is that internet radio is better radio for both IP holders, broadcasters, me and you (in terms of variety). It's just that pricing has to be based on real world figures, not .dom-bubble ones.

Re:Justice

[Alsee]

Why should webcasters have to pay more per listener than a major FM radio station?

You have to pay a higher royalty when you are giving someone a copy than when you're just playing a recording.

You see, no one who listens to a radio ever records it, and everyone who listens on the internet is keeping a permanent copy.

That is the reason. I don't know weather to laugh or cry.

-

Re:Justice

[namespan]

Can someone who knows please explain the fee structures for broadcast radio and webcasting (either scheme) so we can get some numbers?

Re:Justice

[Nessak]

I disagree with the RIAA/DCMA on allmost everything, but you need to think about what your saying.

A Major FM radio station still needs to pay a *lot* of cash for transmitters, FCC fees, power, etc. If a "major" radio station had only 7 listeners, the cost per listener per song would be greatly higher then for a small webcaster paying CARP rates. I know as a fact a small NJ/NY non-profit FM station with a volenteer staff just makes it by with a $600,000.00 budget. Thats a lot of listeners/bandwidth if they were only webcasting.

Of course, radio can scale well without increasing costs whereas webcasting (bandwidth, CARP) can not. One extrea listener on FM costs nothing while it costs a little more on webcasting.

But lets not forget what we're talking about mainly is small webcasters being hurt. The reason many small webcasters are webcasters is becuase they could never afford the costs of actully getting FCC licenced. (Even if the equipment and music was free.)

What we need is some sort of fair flat rate or percentage rate fee for webcasting. The recent bill, while still unfair to many groups, is closer to this then the orginal CARP rates. We should still push for more fairness for small non-profit webcasters, but to imply that FM is cheaper or that webcasters should pay absolutly nothing is just wrong.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's your opinion that because your broadcasting is financially inefficient, it's ok that you pay the RIAA less to do business? So the new field of netcasting has to subsidize your beloved hobby? Bzzt. Wrong answer, son.

Re:Justice

[/dev/trash]

I record FM all the time.

Re:Justice

[Alsee]

I was explaining thier reason for charging more for internet radio than regular radio.

-

Re:Justice

[broter]

...to imply that...webcasters should pay absolutly nothing is just wrong.

I think you've missed it. Just because the costs of web casting may be smaller does not imply that IP owners are entitled to more money. That runs counter to the philosophy of copyright in America (although IANAL). Royalties should not be robbery only limited by the broadcaster's pocket book.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

In "over the air" radio, you have NO idea how many listeners there are. But Internet radio, you do. Most netcasters have indications of how many are listening to a stream at any given time.

Bait And Switch

[cybrpnk2]

Boy, I really feel shafted by all of this. I listen to several channels at Live365 and received a notice from them asking for emergency short-fuse support of the ORIGINAL HR 5469 which was supposed to go to a vote in only 72 hours or so. I went thru the email-my-congressmen-and-senators routine and felt smug that I had done my part to help. Now the original bill has been rewritten so that it's not the one I asked to be supported. This whole thing is so unfair when compared to the sweetheart deal the over-the-air broadcast radio stations operate under because they are effectively commercials to go buy a CD. So who is the Gang of Bigwigs that has circumvented this whole mess by arranging the rewrite? Despite my distaste for them, I've got to admit they sure know how to work the system...

Re:Bait And Switch

[lobsterGun]

Perhaps you should read the links associated with the story before bitching. If you do you'll find that you really aren't screwed over and that the bill isn't what you've been lead to believe.

Re:Bait And Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should read the links associated with the story before bitching. If you do you'll find that you really aren't screwed over and that the bill isn't what you've been lead to believe.


Ummmm .... Perhaps you should read the links associated with the story.

Since the granparent mentioned Live365, a simple look at their statement results in their statement: This bill is no good. (paraphrase)

Realize that, due to the CARP decision, Live365 has _already_ turned the screws on their webcasters. As a result, most of the best streams on Live365 have gone off the air.

Mentioning that this bill doesn't make Live365's situation any worse misses the point.

Re:Bait And Switch

[jenkin sear]

I wouldn't worry too much- congressman (representatives and senators) routinely ignore email- most of it is astroturf. If you really want to influence a decision, call or write in the real world...

Tim

Re:Bait And Switch

[Milican]

Yep, my Live365 station is off the air. Don't see why I should have to pay $5 a month to anyone to promote someone else's music. I did it as a hobby and as a music fan, but I'm not paying to promote someone else's music. Fucking RIAA. I already bought the damn CDs, and I bought the fucking CDs because I heard them on Live 365. Oh well, I'll just go underground with my own private shoutcast station and of course it will be invitation only... no invite.. welcome to /dev/null!!!

JOhn

Re:Bait And Switch

[rustman]

Bit of clarification here:

1. Live365 had chosen to work with DiMA, whose other members are at odds with what Live365 wants as a deal. Other DiMA members (Yahoo, AOL) do not want a percent of revenue deals like Live365 wants, so DiMA isn't pushing for a precentage of revenue deal, and hence Live365 is screwed.

1a. The RIAA refused to include Live365 in a "small webcaster" deal. Because even though the broadcasters on Live365 are small, Live365 is one of the largest webcasters in terms of their aggregate.

2. The original version of the bill was just a delay for 6 months, to see how the courts dealt with the appeals that have been filed. It just postponed things, it didn't solve problems.

3. The original version of the bill was tabled. That is, it was dead in its original form. The bill's sponsors (e.g. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner's legislative team.)

4. The gang of bigwigs isn't a gang of bigwigs at all if you're talking about the webcasters who are supporting this bill. It's a gang of despearate webcasters who have a lot to personally lose. Actually, the rewrite of the bill was crafted by the bills original sponsors in conjunction with the RIAA. David Oxenford, a lawyer/lobbyist representing small webcasters, was also involved trying to make the best deal for webcasters. (Like, getting the retroactives down to $2000 a year from $5000 a year.)

Here is a list of the people who support HR5469 and have publicly signed a letter to the Senate in support of it:

3WK L.L.C. - Jim and Wanda Atkinson, Owners
http://www.3wk.com - St. Louis, Missouri

Boomer Radio , Ron Rubin, President and CEO
www.boomerradio.com - Boalsburg, Pennsylvania

Classical Music Detroit, L.L.C - Robert F. Ottaway, Founder
www.ClassicalMusicDetroit.com, Detroit, Michigan

Carol Hess, Chatmasters Streaming Network
Lewisville, TX

Freshwater Radio, Michael Anderson
http://www.freshwater-radio.com, Great Falls, MT 59404

Houndogradio, Frank Coon, Owner
http://www.houndogradio.com, Stone Mountain, Georgia

KPIG, Bill Goldsmith, Online Operations Manager
Santa Cruz County, California

Montpelier Communications L.L.C., Onion River Radio
Frank R. Schliemann/Founder
http://www.onionriverradio.com - Montpelier, Vermont

Radioio, Mike Roe, Owner
http://www.radioio.com , Jacksonville, Florida

RadioParadise, Bill Goldsmith, Owner
http://www.radioparadise.com, Butte County, California

Radiostorm.com, Inc., Michael Donahue
http://www.radiostorm.com , Sudbury, Massachusetts

SomaFM, LLC, Rusty Hodge
http://www.SomaFM.com - San Francisco, CA 94110

Ultimate 80s - Dave Landis, Founder
http://www.ultimate-80s.com - Los Angeles, California

WebMedia Consulting, Inc. (Digitally Imported Radio)
http://www.digitallyimported.com - Staten Island, New York

Wolf FM - Steve Wolf, Owner
http://www.wolffm.com - Nashville, Tennessee

i think what bothers me most ...

[dlasley]

is FUD has spread to the Register, which i usually associate with something pretty close to reality in an information source. bummer.

more info and yet another point of view at Bill's RadioParadise (scroll down to the comments section).

Re:i think what bothers me most ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how all the big time webcasters are banding together to get theirs. (fsck everyone else)

Can you say Clear Channel?

Driven underground, but not dead.

[Bonker]

Webcasting, at least the individual-run stations I see, could care less about CARP or any fees anyone seeks to impose on them. The individuals I see who do care about it don't have any plans to stop broadcasting, but instead intend to take their broadcasts deeper underground. A tactic I have seen is that a broadcaster will firewall his shoutcast or icecast stream and then do allows on individual IP addresses that want to listen based on e-mail requests. Of course this is easily defeatable by someone with half a brain, but not by automated methods.

Another thing I've seen is webcasters who refuse to play music commercially released in the U.S. They play J-, K-, and C-pop, some of which is quite good. They play German techno and metal, and un-US-released Euro-pop. They also play tracks that are freely available downloads from amature-music sites like Acid Planet

This is, of course, the music industry's largest fear... that the U.S. public will realize that they are not the only, nor even the best source of music in the world.

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[Tottori]

Uplink underground, uplink underground. If you say that one more time, I'll uplink your ass, and you'll be underground!

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[goon america]

... or they could just broadcast from outside the US. The beauty of the internet, you can have intercontinental radio, and no way to stop it unless you want a nationwide packet filter.

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[Planesdragon]

no way to stop it

Hah. Hah, hah, hah!

Anyone who things that "intercontinental radio" will keep them safe from RIAA has something else coming. They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.

Everyone has a cost. Some people just have costs so large no one is willing to pay them.

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[goon america]

My only answer to that is, has P2P radio taken off yet?

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[broter]

They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.

IANAL, but I believe that the US courts tend to think that if you live in the US or make your 'product' available to US citizens then you come under their power. So if you live here (US), like me, you'd still have to go underground to broadcast.

I'm all for the unsigned stuff, though.. I think it's about time we hear some music that isn't on the air due to payola.

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[rustman]

Legally, it doesn't matter where the broadcaster gets the material from. Unless they have explicit waivers from the copyright owners - they are required to pay the CARP fees to SoundExchange (part of the RIAA). The DMCA authorizes SoundExchange to colelct royalties on behalf of ALL COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

So unless you have explicit permission (waivers) to play music ovr internet radio, you're breaking the law.

Note: over the air radio stations are of course, exempt from this law, it only applies to internet radio and other "non interactive" digital transmissions.

Oh, and digital broadcasts by FCC licensed stations are exempt too. The NAB (national assoc of broadcasters) is slightly more powerful than the RIAA when it comes to lobbying.

Re:Driven underground, but not dead.

[Cliche Nazi]

the individual-run stations I see, could care less about CARP or any fees

The Cliche Nazi must point out that if you could care less, then you care. Usually however this peversion of a cliche is used to indicate that the speaker does not care. Such carelessness indicates that the speaker is neglecting their cliches, and that makes the Cliche Nazi mad!

The origin of the cliche is simple, obvious and mnemonic, and there is no excuse for getting it wrong:
If you don't care at all then you could not care less

US controls the internet (?!?)

[martin]

Again , still...

Now how do they expect to police this with providers based in non-USA territories????

I'd love for some of the larger internet sites (yahoo, google, live365, mp3.com) to up and move to (say) Russia, or some other country with a decent amount of connectivity and watch RIAA/MPAA etc try control to them. (I'm sure someone can suggest such a region).

yes there's be issues (cf deCCS and the Norwegian justice system), but it would be interesting non the less.

Anyway back now to normal broadcasting.......

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[st0rmshad0w]

Back to normal broadcasting he says. Ha! Normal broadcasting around me is horrible and has been for years. I listen to webcasters because they give you a choise, rather than being spoon-fed the latest crap. The only thing I use broadcast radio for is traffic and news. The case is the same for most people I know.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[CrimsonDeath]

That's just it ... they don't.

If you had read anything about it, you would know that this only applies to US-based stations, and then even only for their listeners in the US.

It's just like stations on the borders -- they don't count listeners on the other side in the royalty calculations.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[kesuki]

Well, the problem with that is that sreaming takes so much bandwith that it would flood both the undersea fiberoptics and the satelite networks that make up the global pipeline, if they were really popular. America has an insane amount of unlit fiber, partially because of the cost of burrying more fiber, and partially because technology increased the capacity those same fiber optics could carry. the world does not have an insane amount of unlit fiber.
This is why technologies that increase fiber capacity are so important, especially if they only require minor modifications to the equipment (eg: nothing that would require say trying to change any physical reapeaters along a several thousand mile long undersea fiber optic cable)
If you can 100x fold the capacity of 'existing' undersea pipelines it would reduce the cost of bandwith greatly and perhaps increase the revenue of those pipes, because you could go for traffic volume, instead or trying to entice people into paying a premium for it. I think that some of that has already come into play, since I've noticed much improvement on my access to taiwan and german sites, but it's still not perfect, and ultimately undersea bandwith will always carry a premium over land line fiber. Although ironically, it's potenetially cheaper to use a river and underwater optic cables than to dig up a city, although I'm sure that the largest cities that would be most applicable to already have a tunnel system which would remove the cost of 'digging up the streets' however, it would be interesting if rivers made it cheaper/easier to expand fiber infrastructure beyond the 'major' hub cities.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[martin]

So how so I prove I'm not a US citizen (or even that I am). Goes back to the days of US crypto export when I had to prove I was a US citizen by supplying a valid name/address etc before I could download.

IMO it won't work from a practicality point - everyone will become Icelandic :-)

Still would like to see one of the big stations move out of the US due to this.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[martin]

Not really the issue - people use the internet in non-US locations :-)

Sure the places to host for high bandwidth are limited geographically (New and London being the top two). It's all about getting the content to the end user.

Now if I could get 100 OC-48 pipes into Afganistan then that would suddenly become a nice location to host from.

The problem here is RIAA (and the MPAA etc) are trying to place a royalties on content providors. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing IF they get down to people who made songs (content) in the first place. BUT is doesn't (see earlier /. stories for this).

I can't how how they can police the royalty calculation - they expect people to own up to being US citizens and assume that the providers are passing on this info. I'm sure that there will be point where it will be cheaper for (say) live365 to move to Australia (or whereever) and rather than RIAA royalties. IE RIAA may effectively price themselves out of the market.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[Anonymous Coward]

The fibre's cheap, and there's lots of dark fibre everywhere with any kind of half decent connectivity.

The switching, on the other hand, is very expensive...

Anyway, if US regulations mean a load of theirstreams disappear, that's a domestic problem... I'll just have to drop a few streams from my bookmarks and add more of those nice fast Dutch stations...

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[CrimsonDeath]

Well, of course that's a problem, but what they'll probably base it on is where you're connecting from. This information can be pulled out of the ARIN database.

There are quite a few large stations outside of the US already, and a very simple move for any of the stations would be to move everything to Canada. There, you can still connect to the US backbones but escape the tax (kind of ironic, that).

Of course, there's been talk of similar royalties in Canada, but I don't think it's gone anywhere yet, as they're waiting to see how the mess in the States sorts itself out...

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[rustman]

The DMCA/CARP royalties apply to all listeners in the United States. LISTENERS. It doesn't matter where your transmission originates, or where your servers are.

Which also means, US-based internet stations can broadcast only outside of the US with no fees. But the RIAA never mentions that.

Re:US controls the internet (?!?)

[geekee]

That solution won't work for US listeners. They'll get the govt. to force ISPs to block the illegal content.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

If it hadn't been for the greedy hackers "sharing" their music, the RIAA wouldn't have noticed the Internet at all.

That's not true. The industry saw dollar signs long before the average pimply faced teen knew what mp3 meant. Their business model--top-down music engineered by committees of accountants and marketroids--has failed because no one wants to hear music designed for the lowest common denominator. With the failure in their business model, a failing economy, unprecedented consolidation of media and politics, a gullible public, many easy scapegoats, they (and you) are perpetuating the fallacy that people who share music are to blame.

Nice troll (really--I'm a fan), but I think it's not subtle enough. Especially the "You people should be ashamed of yourselves.". ROTFFLMFAO!

Newsflash!

[wunderhorn1]

NEWSFLASH: Large webcaster supports bill that helps large webcasters, calls on small webcasters to cut their whining.

I mean, really, the difference between $250 and $500 is "negligible"? WTF? These people are hobbyists, they run these stations for friends and a sparse few random listeners. If paying an extra $250 is no big deal, then perhaps Mr. Hodge could send a check for that negligible amount my way; I'm a poor college student and could use the cash.

Re:Newsflash!

[rpresser]

If you can't afford $500 but can afford $250, go spend your $250 on something else instead of running a webcast.

Re:Newsflash!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't afford $500 but can afford $250, go spend your $250 on something else instead of running a webcast.


After all, anyone who can't afford the minimum probably wouldn't play the right music anyway.

We can't have that.

Re:Newsflash!

[curunir]

Here's a news flash for you...People like Rusty are also hobbiests. He makes nothing from SomaFM (donations of money and bandwidth never cover his costs.)

If you can't affort $500, you're small enough to not attract the RIAA's attention. Meanwhile, you're trying to de-rail a bill that would allow stations like SomaFM to provide thousands with a quality source of interesting music. It's because of people like Rusty who have put a lot of work into these negotiations that there is a deal that makes small-time webcasting even remotely feasible for you. Show some friggin' respect.

And how is your situation improved by this bill not passing? You're left with only the CARP rates which go into effect this month that would end up costing you way more than $500.

Yeah, it sucks having to pay the RIAA $500, but a) you're not going to get a better deal and b) you're ruining independant internet radio for the rest of us (and by us, I mean listeners). So cut your whining and let the bill pass.

Re:Newsflash!

[wunderhorn1]

So which is it? Is the RIAA not going to notice me or not?

Personally, I'd bet on them noticing, and personally, I'd rather fight for a fair deal for everyone, not just the biggest of the little guys.

Re:Newsflash!

[curunir]

I'd rather fight for a fair deal for everyone, not just the biggest of the little guys.

Great, then fight for it. Go negociate with the RIAA and make a deal. That's what these guys have done. They realized that the current deal only favored much larger webcasters. So they hammered out a deal that will keep them on the air. They fought hard for the provisions that they did get (it's not like the RIAA was eagerly hoping for all the stuff in the bill). And you get the benefits of all their hard work...after all, the bill is better than the CARP rates, right?

So what do you do? Do you thank them for working out a bill that actually allows you to continue broadcasting? (something the current rates do not) Do you go out and lobby for your own settlement? No. You whine that you can't get your way and try to ensure that others don't either.

On top of that, Rusty posted to the mailing list a long list of loopholes created by this bill that would allow you to keep broadcasting. Simply band together with other small broadcasters and you all get to split the $500 payment...suddenly you have the $250 minimum you keep whining about.

Re:Newsflash!

[laura20]

There's no such thing as too small to attract the RIAA's attention. Ask any takeout place that ever got busted by the RIAA for playing the radio for customers.

Re:Newsflash!

[rustman]

That would be ASCAP/BMI busting them, not the RIAA. There is no sound recording royalty for playing the radio or records in a public place. Do you do have to pay the royalty for the musical composition, and that's what ASCAP and BMI collects.

There are 2 different royalties that webcasters have to pay.

And ASCAP and BMI haven't noticed 90% of the webcasters listed on Shoutcast.com.

Rusty you talk a load of c***p

[NigelJohnstone]

I read Rusty's comment, but its playing with words. If the royalties have a minimum payment and a maximum payment then they favour the big guys over the little guys.
It does not matter how you count the number of radio stations, all that matters is there will be many more big guys than little guys in the years to come.

Next, this was a bait and switch move. Nothing you said changes that. They put one bill forward, got public approval for it, then switched it for another.
The fact you are among the ones who gained from the changes alters nothing.

What the RIAA did was split you guys in two, they pull a quick switch, and split the opposition in two. You turned your back on the little guys.

Also yet again the RIAA has shown that Congress is a little puppydog whose chain it can yank.

This is a nasty sellout.

Re:Rusty you talk a load of c***p

[IPM Macross]

The RIAA didn't split us in two. There was ALWAYS two camps on the VOW list. The Register article, while slightly dramatic in presentation, only scratches the surface of the internal workings. Many of us recieved email and telephone calls threatening us when we didn't just go along with whatever certain members of the group said or did. It was a bad situation from the get go.

Re:Rusty you talk a load of c***p

[rustman]

If the royalties have a minimum payment and a maximum payment then they favour the big guys over the little guys.

They don't. Either you read wrong or I didn't explain clearly. The "maximum" is the amount of money you can make to be categorized in the small webcaster fee schedule.

Here's the actual law:

`(iv)(I) Subject to subclause (II), an `eligible small webcaster' is a webcaster (as defined in section 261.2 of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2002) that--

• `(aa) for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2002, has gross revenues during the period beginning on November 1, 1998, and ending on June 30, 2002, of not more than $1,000,000;
• `(bb) for 2003, together with its affiliates, has gross revenues during 2003 of not more than $500,000; and
• `(cc) for 2004, together with its affiliates, has gross revenues, third party participation revenues, and revenues from the operation of new subscription services during 2004 of not more than $1,250,000.

And the part on the percentages:
For eligible nonsubscription transmissions made by an eligible small webcaster during the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2002, the royalty rate shall be 8 percent of the webcaster's gross revenues during such period, or 5 percent of the webcaster's expenses during such period, whichever is greater... [it then goes into details on exceptions but you can look that up for yourself, and the royalty goes up in 2003-2004]

So there is no maximum, and that's why netcaster aggregators like Live365 don't like this bill, because it doesn't give them a break... and they had some HUGE expenses back in the dotcom days.

The inclusion of royalties based on expenses actually does a lot of harm to deep-pocketed netcasters, the guys who had lots of venture cap and spent like crazy back in the late 80s. But the people who have been webcasting for a while, and doing it on a shoestring budget, they're the ones that will benefit the most from this.

It does not matter how you count the number of radio stations, all that matters is there will be many more big guys than little guys in the years to come.

No, there will be fewer mid-sized guys. The big guys are few and far between and don't care. They're happy to pay per song per listener because they see radio as an add-on to their existing internet offerings. Yahoo and AOL don't want to pay 10% of their revenue when they could pay per song per listener. The whole reason the CARP fees are so high is because when the fees were being set, the big guys wanted a barrier to small competition.

Everyone is acting like the RIAA $500 minimum is the only fee that a hobby broadcaster would have, but it's not. And I don't see all the complaints about the minimum $700 a year internet radio stations legally have to pay to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. You know why you don't? Because the smallest broadcasters are off everyone's radar. By the time that ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and even the RIAA come looking for you, you've established a good sized audience.

One this this bill confirms is that multiple hobbyists can get together and stream multiple streams from a group web site. Why isn't anyone talking about doing this? Congress gave you a loophole, take advantage of it. Hell, take it a step further. Create a non-profit version of Live365. HR5469 even expands the definition of non-commercials to include any non-commercial organization, not just FCC-licensed non-commercial stations, and they can qualify for the lower per song per listener rates from the original CARP ruling.

Next, this was a bait and switch move. Nothing you said changes that. They put one bill forward, got public approval for it, then switched it for another.

Hi. That's how politics works.

Bills change. Every special interest is trying to get something put in the bill to make them happy. It's all about compromise. The original version of HR5469 was tabled. There was not enough support in congress to pass it. So the sponsoring congressmen made changes to it, shopped it around to all the other congressmen, and finally they all came up with something they could settle on.

Why am I suddenly the bad guy? Am I not a little guy too? Just because I spent a lot of time and effort working to create a radio station that people could enjoy? Because we established a small but decent sized audience? I wish I made some money from the "selling out" I'm accused of doing, at least I would have something to show for it!

But all I'm doing is trying to get SomaFM back on the air. It's still going to cost me $6500 in retroactive fees if HR5460 passes (and $2000 a year after that). Do you think I'm happy about that? But compared to $200,000 or more if HR5469 is not approved.

All for a glorified hobby.

All because I want to expose more people to the music that I love, the music that I can't find anywhere else on the radio in the US.

Thanks for listening to my "load of crap".

--Rusty

20k a year in donations to cover WHAT expenses?

[cHiphead]

RANTRADIO.COM

I've been listening to rantradio for years and they sure as hell don't need "$20,000 a year" in donations to operate. Actually, they do it full time as a hobby and lose money anyway, but not tons of money. Cimmerian, the station manager, is perfectly capable of going out getting help and 'bandwidth donations' in a split second.

Hodges of SomaFM is full of shit. I liked SomaFM, I really did, but its blatantly obvious that the $$$ signs are all Hodges is seeing now.

Re:20k a year in donations to cover WHAT expenses?

[curunir]

Your favorite internet radio station might not need $20,000 / year to operate, but its also a lot smaller than SomaFM. When you serve more users, costs go up.

I know Rusty and can vouch for the fact that he doesn't make money off SomaFM. How do I know that? I'm a co-worker of his at his daytime job. I don't know what else to say, but that you're an ignorant fool for making these kind of allegations against someone who has devoted a lot of time, energy and his own money into providing a free service for people, most of whom are far more appreciative than you are.

Re:20k a year in donations to cover WHAT expenses?

[cHiphead]

when you serve more users? come on. if its about doing it for the sake of doing it, thats all good and well, but Rusty has walked himself into a corner on this. perhaps rant isnt as big as soma, but if it takes *$20,000* to only cover 85% of the operating costs of a free, not for profit web radio station with no commercials, perhaps you should take a step back, look at what your doing and realize that all that money is essentially disappearing for a glorified hobby. How hard would it be to use your community resources instead of hard cash to run most of the station? With the big money comes big greed.

I dont know him and you do, and this is just my ill informed opinion on him and I certainly don't know the entire situation. I'm only bothering to post on this article because I was running one of the really tiny not for profit streams for a while, and the deal Rusty took part in did not provide relief to anyone like me and its no 'starting point' at all for those of us with a whopping 12 listeners. Am I the only person who thinks ANY royalties for small, never for profit stations are wrong?

Re:20k a year in donations to cover WHAT expenses?

[curunir]

It's pretty hard to pay ASCAP/BMI/CESAC fees with "community resources." If you think that Rusty doesn't leverage every connection he has, you're wrong.

If you'd subscribed to the mailing list that most webcasters are on, Rusty outlined a number of loopholes created by this bill. For example, you could band together with a few other small webcasters and split the $500 fee. As long as all the material is sourced at the same location, there is only one fee.

Like it or not, the group that lobbied for this bill tried to save its own neck. If you don't like the agreement, go lobby for your own bill...you're free to ignore this one.

Re:20k a year in donations to cover WHAT expenses?

[rustman]

This rant (no pun intended) about SomaFM's expenses is kind of off the topic.

But if anyone would like to know the details on what it costs to run SomaFM (with 10 channels, and we have 12 ready to go if we can get back on the air), drop me an email. I'll be happy to discuss it. rusty at somafm dot com.

The $20,000 number was a projection, based on raising $8,000 in the first 6 months of 2002. We haven't raised $20,000 in a year yet - maybe someday we will. SomaFM has raised $25,000 total during our entire lifetime - We went on the 'air' in '99.

Why do you say that $$$ signs are all I see now? SomaFM would have to bring in a lot more than $20,000 in order for me to make any money off it! And you know what? I wold LOVE IT if SomaFM could be my full time job! Why wouldn't I? But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

So I run SomaFM as if it were a non-profit business. And I do run it as a business, because I want it to be sustainable. Ideally, I would like to see it become a true 501(c)3 non profit. But we'd need to be bringing in a lot more money to make that a reality. (The accountant and auditor costs, corporate tax fees, and all that other crap you need to be a 501(c)3 corp, mean that it will be a long while before we can do that.)

Rusty Hodge
SomaFM

Naive Approach

[Kefaa]

For the record, SomaFM feels that 5469 is far from a perfect bill. However, we think it is a good starting point.

A "good starting point" are words we would probably hear describe the DMCA at its inception. However, instead of moving back to a more reasoned approach, it continues toward even more draconian measures such as Fritz's most recent incantation of what Fair Use and infringement mean. Of the now infamous, "skipping commercials is a contract violation" speach.

I believe Rusty is sincere in his belief that this is a good start. However, I also believe it naive to think the tail will ever wag the dog. However, when the RIAA sent in a team of people to "re-write" this bill, looking out for "others" best interests is not why they are there. Further, to think that the bill will at any time in our life time be "revisited", except to make the restrictions greater and the fees higher, is unrealistic.

As the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Re:Naive Approach

[srmalloy]

A "good starting point" are words we would probably hear describe the DMCA at its inception. However, instead of moving back to a more reasoned approach, it continues toward even more draconian measures such as Fritz's most recent incantation of what Fair Use and infringement mean. Of the now infamous, "skipping commercials is a contract violation" speach.

It's the same 'negotiating' tactics you find in the g*n c*ntr*l arena -- you have one side pushing for more individual freedom and one side pushing for more control. The control side is arguing for 10, and the freedom side is arguing for 0, then the control side proposes a compromise at 5, which the freedom side accepts, figuring that they've preserved some of what they wanted at the cost of conceding some things to the control side. Then the control side turns around and says "You've conceded to 5; we want 10", and the freedom side is back looking at the original chain-to-the-wall restrictions the control side wanted, except that they've already given up half their negotiating room.

And in the time it takes for the freedom side to retrench and accuse the control side (accurately) of hypocrisy and negotiating under false colors, the control side has established the 'compromise' at 5 as the 'natural state of affairs', and has painted the freedom side as reactionary and anarchistic because they want to go back to their previous position of 0 ("We've already got 5, but it doesn't solve the problem; all we're asking is 7, but they want to go all the way to 0; we can't have that kind of lawlessness").

A compromise is a solution only when there is a meeting of minds and a commitment on both sides to honor the compromise; when one side immediately returns to their original position and looks at a compromise only as the other side having given up half their negotiating room, what you have is grounds for repudiating the original compromise -- but it's so much harder to get a law repealed than it is to get it enacted in the first place.

Rusty, CARP is evil

[twitter]

You say,

To the rest, HR5469 DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. If it passes or fails, nothing changes for the smallest webcasters.

Others say, CARP is crap. If there is no change, it must still be crap.

Here's the ammount of money I'm willing to give the RIAA to broadcast/host/make available non RIAA music - 0 -. That's zero, zilch, nadda, nothing baby. That's the deal, you can keep your golden stream on the soon to be obsolete fixed frequency radio broadcasts with their $500,000/year fees. I'm not impressed with it and your long rant leaves me less than reassured. Oh yeah, if you would tell your friends over at COX Cable to get their thumb off my upload rates and quit blocking my ports, I might be able to support more than one listener. I'm not going to hold my breath and I'm looking into this neat not so new 802.11B stuff. Please don't get any ideas about charging me money for avoiding RIAA rip offs there. Go away now.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded "insightful"? It should be "troll".

Hackers BUILT the Internet, you moron.

Use the market, Luke

[Agent Zero]

If the evil empire or the RIAA/BPI or the devil with whom they are in league wishes to stamp on people, the quickest, not to mention cheapest way of getting redress is to use the market and encourage mass abstension from purchases of their products. A form of words like: "I will no longer purchase materials wholly or partly produced by RIAA members, and will ensure that others have sufficient information to make their own choice..." might be useful. An internet blacklist of RIAA material would have a wonderful calming effect on copyright hotheads. After all, even a monopolist faces some kind of demand constraint. Something like: "We are your customers. And you know those people you want to f**k with? That's not us." might do wonders to concentrate minds on the real issue.

Re:Use the market, Luke

[namespan]

I'd love to see this work. But I think the fact of the matter is that there's no way in heck or Utah that the majority of the population is going to care enough to resist the shiny lure of their favorite pop, country, or alt-rock band. Even one of my favorite "Indie" labels ( Razor and Tie records) may be part of the RIAA -- I'm not sure. How does a buyer know what's RIAA music anyway? How do you make an average buyer even care?

Re:Use the market, Luke

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has a way of forcing markets to work.

Here's how it could play out:

1. Webcaster rates are unrealistic.

2. Webcasters play public domain (non RIAA) content from musicians that release into public domain.

3. Free music gets exposure to public via webcasting.

4. Free music artists gain exposure and subsequent market stature.

5. RIAA sees that their own IP is being devalued by less exposure to masses due to increased exposure of free music.

6. RIAA lowers their rates to a point where webcasters will be willing to pay in order to play.

7. Thus, the market dictates the reasonable rate that the webcasters pay.

Re:Use the market, Luke

[anonicon]

CDBaby.com sells nothing but independent music by artists who've chosen to remain independent instead of signing away their music to an RIAA label.

I'm working with them now to make things better and easier for the public. We will make the RIAA irrelevant, but not today. Stay tuned!

Re:Use the market, Luke

[Snork Asaurus]

I often muse about the scenario that you describe and even fantasize about it. In my fantasy, steps 1 - 4 are as you describe:

1. Webcaster rates are unrealistic.

2. Webcasters play public domain (non RIAA) content from musicians that release into public domain.

3. Free music gets exposure to public via webcasting.

4. Free music artists gain exposure and subsequent market stature.

But then we diverge. My fantasy is as follows:

5. RIAA continues to have their collective heads up their collective butts, continues to try to dictate the rules to consumers and buys more legislation from their paid political employees.

6. RIAA continues to raise prices of CD's because, gosh darn it, they deserve it.

7. 5&6 finally cross the line that pisses Joe and Janet sixpack off.

8. Joe and Janet start to listen to non-RIAA cartel independent artists in speakeasy's that pipe in underground webcasts and play independent music. Joe and Janet suddenly realize that the musical rainbow has more colors than white and ecru. They like it and ask for more.

9. The RIAA cartel's profits fall through the floor. Shareholders sell, sell, sell. RIAA cartel member companies go into bankruptcy. The musicians the were indentured servants to the cartel are freed and join the new movement.

10. Hilary Rosen gets job as waitress in donut shop.

11. The world is a better place.

Re:Use the market, Luke

[clueless_penguin]

10. Hilary Rosen gets job as waitress in donut shop.

I love donuts. Now I will never be able to eat one again. Bastard.

Re:Use the market, Luke

[Snork Asaurus]

OK.

10. Hilary Rosen gets job as waitress in donut shop. In Kabul. Naw, the Afghans have suffered far too much already.

10. Hilary Rosen gets job at the DMV. Ooops, power trip.

10. Hilary Rosen gets job as a roadie for Metallica. That's the ticket. They deserve each other.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[LMCBoy]

In their zeal to "free" intellectual property, hackers are destroying the Internet.

First of all, this is a complete non-sequitur. The bill in question is not about "freeing" IP, it's about making the royalty rates for webcast music reasonable. RTFA.

Hackers, with some help from Al Gore, invented the internet as you know and love it today. If it's being destroyed by anybody, it's the large, moneyed corporations who see it as nothig more than a global platform for sending advertisements.

Downloading (or worse, streaming realtime) huge binary files is a classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

Oh it is not! Transferring data (binary or otherwise) is the whole point of the internet. That's what it is for. Do you really think that streaming is worse than downloading? That was a joke, right?

A few people have this insatiable need to play music directly from the Internet instead of just buying the CD and the rest of us get enormous ping times.

Shenanigans. The idea that streaming audio is bringing the internet to its knees is too idiotic to be even laughable. I'm streaming right now from Radio Paradise. It's using 8k/s of my bandwidth.

Bastards.

[SatanicPuppy]

The thing that jerks my chain is all the restrictions that are being applied here that are NOT applied for open air radio. Music fees? Right! Most radio stations get their music FREE from the damn record companies, just so they'll play it! Oh, but not the internet! Oh no, crappily broadcast mp3s are scary and industry destroying! OH PLEASE CONGRESS SAVE US FROM RLC ONLINE! THEY HAVE 11 LISTENERS! AAAAAAAAA!

Christ, this makes me wanna go pirate some music.

Re:Bastards.

[SirSlud]

> Most radio stations get their music FREE from the damn record companies

Actually, money goes from Label => 'Indie' => Station. Radio stations get paid to play songs. Read about it here

Of course, radio is a limited-shelf-space medium, so it should be no surprise that it costs to get access to the shelf space.

The internet features unlimited shelf space which is why they are just trying to price the small fish out of the water via licencing fees. Since they can't own all the real estate, its a supply and demand thing that doesn't play into the RIAA's members' hands.

Since...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since she sucks, who the F cares about her.

Is that really all that complicated?

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Oh it is not! Transferring data (binary or otherwise) is the whole point of the internet.

Umm, can you give me an example of NON-binary data that gets transfered over the internet?

PHO?

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

WTF is a PHO, besides a TLA? I thought it might stand for Pin Headed something-or-other, but seemed to be used in a much kinder context.

Re:PHO?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pho list is an email list of people interested in discussing issues related to the convergence of technology and entertainment. It has been up and running for about five years now.

We also gather for bruches over bowls of pho (Vietnamese soup) in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, London, Moscow and Beijing.

People interested in subscribing to the list can submit an application at Pholist.com

Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[teamhasnoi]

Only play non-RIAA music! There are a million and one unsigned geniuses out there.

Granted, it would take more work to insure a semblace of quality, but artists can record in their basements what would have taken a mid-level studio five years ago. The RIAA can't touch what it doesn't have control over.

Leave the biglabel stuff alone. Christ, it gets enough airplay as it is. We certainly do not need another nuMetal station - The greatest hits of one band with different names!

There is plenty of music that has nothing to do with the RIAA, would bend over backwards to be on a station (probably would record a web only version just for you).

If you don't believe me, spend some time in Minneapolis, MN. The land of ten thousand lakes, and twenty thousand bands.

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Are there any internet stations that currently play all non-RIAA (shark-free) music that we can listen to and support?

"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[IPM Macross]

Since you asked, I'll bite. In Perpetual Motion http://www.ipmradio.com non commercial. We're all here for the music - and the beer. As for the actual quality of the content - There's some duds, of course, but the vast majority of the stuff submitted to the show is high quality. There's an awful lot of small artist run labels now a days, and theyre putting our some good music as well as keeping themselves up to date and informed on the new methods of getting the music to the masses who would otherwise never hear it. As I've stated elsewhere, the law makes it difficult even if one doesnt play RIAA artists. As a station, I have to prove that any works I broadcast are covered by waivers signed by the copyright owner. It's a major administrative undertaking. So I suppose if you really want to support indie / rogue radio stations, offer to come by and help type. ;)

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[curunir]

The RIAA buys small labels for this very reason. You'd have to check your playlist constantly to make sure that the RIAA doesn't own the rights to any song that you play. To say that this taks is onerous is an understatement. Basically, the RIAA uses its money to force everyone to deal with them.

So while everyone here likes to troll /. by posting the overly idealistic "just don't deal with the RIAA" (with no mention that 100 other people have posted the same idea to 50 other internet radio articles), it's just not a realistic idea. But you got your 5, so I guess you can be happy and everyone who modded this post can happily mod it up to 5 the next time someone posts it.

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[teamhasnoi]

I have 1,000,000 karma (Mega Super) so the 5 doesn't matter - what I'm am saying is: Have a relationship with unsigned artists. They are not hard to find. They will love the exposure, you will have a RIAA free radio station, and you get to bring unheard and sometimes startlingly original music to the public.

Nowhere did I say that it would be easy - other than the fact that in a town like Minneapolis, you can throw a rock and hit 9 musicians. (and 3 of them are amazing...)

I happen to be one of those 'unsigned masses'. I can tell you from personal experience that I have dealt with many incredible musicians who would love to 'give' a song or album to an independent streamer.

Sure, you have to look - but I guess that still would be easier than trying to deal with 30 pages of legislation.

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[curunir]

Most streams have very simple instructions to submit music and are eager to play it provided it fits with the overall theme of the stream. However, ensuring that none of the music in your playlist has fallen under the control of the RIAA means constantly auditing it which is a major pain in the ass.

Every station operator has to deal with the RIAA or face the sisyphean task of keeping their collection "clean." Your original post (one that has been repeated ad nauseum here on /.) was advocating the later and I said that it isn't feasible from the webcaster's standpoint.

My advice to you is to stop waiting for an "all-indie" station, find a stream that plays music similar to yours, and submit your music. I'm sure the operator would be happy to play it.

Re:Why not avoid RIAA altogether?

[Reziac]

ISTM what's needed is a central registry of royalty-free music, as submitted by the copyright holder (the artist or whoever) so there can be no question about its legal status AND it's easy to keep track/look up any given song's status. Also, if the artist then signs with a label and doesn't bother to notify this proposed registry, he should have to pay his own royalties.

Maybe someone is already doing this, since the concept seems so obvious :)

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[LMCBoy]

That was a dig at PG's mention of "streaming huge binary files", as if it was somehow worse than streaming huge text files (yes I know text files are binary-encoded, which is exactly why his use of the word was...amusing).

Thanks for noticing, though :)

Tragedy of the Commons

[Vengie]

Actually, the Classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons follows:

I am a cow or sheep farmer.
I may use the commons to graze my animal.
The commons may only support N animals.
There are P farmers.
Therefore, I may safely graze N/P animals without damaging the commons, like all other farmers.
There is NO incentive for me to not damage the commons, since I can profit extra by adding an extra cow.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat for each individual farmer.
This easily, _without_ a second iteration, produces NP+P cows, NP+P > NP, so the commons goes to ruin.

Having said this, can someone please show me how in the hell _not having obscene webcasting rates_ is a tragedy of the commons?
Webcasting may or may not have an economic impact on artists (*cough record companies cough*) and I make NO STATEMENT regarding that as I have absolutely no statistics and am completely unqualified to do so -- HOWEVER -- I am intelligent, rational, and quite capable of pointing out that the situation does NOT closely resemble the Tragedy of the Commons. (Music is a non-depletable good. Unlike an apple or a blade of grass -- comestibles and other consumables -- if one person listens to music, it can be listened to by another. The tragedy of the commons only applies to PUBLIC ACCESS goods which are CONSUMABLE)
-nuff said

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[goon america]

No, music is a public good, because it is (1) nonrival: the quantity available for others does not decrease when one person consumes it, and (2) nonexcludable: once a single person consumes it, it is difficult to prevent others from obtaining it. It's a free-rider problem.

Point is, the economics doesn't matter. The RIAA views internet radio as a threat and is using its clout to put it out of business. Why would you ever think it was economically viable for the public as a whole? I don't think so.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that the tragedy of the commons is NP complete?

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Arthur Dent]

There is no tragedy of the commons. This is a common (pun unintended) fallacy.

Assuming that the commons can support N grazing animals, and there are P farmers, and you want to set N/P +1 grazing animals out on the commons, do you think the other N-1 farmers will let you?

Nice try, but no cigar.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Weaselmancer]

Music is a non-depletable good. Unlike an apple or a blade of grass -- comestibles and other consumables -- if one person listens to music, it can be listened to by another.

Aha! You've hit the nail on the head!

Music isn't a consumable, but the industry wants you to think it is. They think the Tragedy of the Commons applies, because in their skewed version of reality music is a consumable. Free music will destroy the music industry just like free milk would ruin the dairy industry. Their business model is more like a dairy, and that's the reason for the big fight.

Weaselmancer

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Weaselmancer]

If I may, I believe you've missed the point.

The tragedy of the commons is a model, not an exact representation of reality. It's intended to demonstrate an idea and nothing more. Yes, farmers in real life would club the farmer with P/N+1 cows. It's a simplified version of reality we're talking about here.

But it does apply. Let's say you start a streaming broadcast station. Then I do. Unlike the farmers, how are you going to stop me?

Weaselmancer

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[odin53]

Well, you're right that it doesn't reflect Hardin's classic example, but I think they're talking about an *implication* of the tragedy of the commons: the free-rider problem. If what amounts to a public good (non-excludable, nonrivalrous) is being provided by private entities, the free-rider problem will arise, wherein the good is under-provided because of its public good nature. That is, more people will take without paying or giving some sort of compensation (for example, producing some of the good themselves, giving back, etc.). If that happens, the producers will slowly pull back production or even exit the market, resulting in underprovision.

The classic case is national defense. Say, for example, a private company provided defense for a small country, and that no matter who pays for it, the defense is national (i.e., there's no protecting just individual citizens of the country; if it has to protect one, it ends up protecting all). Also assume that defense is necessary. The defense costs D, and there are P citizens. Surely, there are a few people who find it extremely necessary to have national defense, so they'll go ahead and pay D/P. If this is enough to get going, the company might go ahead and provide defense -- after all, the people are paying. But once this happens, the nonpayers see that they are getting defended too, and then rationally (for an individual) reason that they don't have to pay after all. Of course, if each individual non-payer reasons this way, the company will not get D, and thus not be able to continue providing defense. Therefore, it will stop, and defense is underprovided.

This is a classic problem of a public good like national defense, and the result is the same as for goods like a blade of grass on the commons: government has to step in. For the commons, the government ends up enforcing a property law system, else it gets ruined and no one can enjoy; for national defense, the government ends up providing it, else it gets underprovided and no one can enjoy.

That is why you're right that it's not the tragedy of the commons per se, but you're wrong in the bigger sense, because the free-rider problem is implied in the tragedy.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Skjellifetti]

Depends on the definition of a "commons." If the definition is that each farmer has the right to graze as many animals as they choose, then there is tragedy of the commons. If each farmer can graze only some limited number, then it isn't really a commons.

One caveat that has already been mentioned is that there is only a single turn. If the number of farmers is small, they can band together and institute and enforce rules governing the number of animals each is allowed to graze (your point), but they will only be incentivized to do so if the game is repeated each year. The caveat to the caveat is that this may require a relatively small number of farmers. Otherwise the transaction costs of trying to get agreement from all farmers may exceed the benefits of the agreement. The depletion of world fisheries may be the result of the high costs of making and enforcing such agreements. I agree that this classic problem has little to do with the music industry.

Someone else has observed that music is a pure public good in the lexicon of economics due to its nonrival and nonexcludable nature. Pure public goods are usually underproduced in an economy since the producer is unable to capture any revenue once the good is produced and so will not produce enough to meet the marginal social cost = marginal social benefit conditions. The usual remedy for this problem is to subsidize the production of the good. Many societies already do this for both art and classical music through programs like the US National Endowment for the Arts coupled with public art museums, concert halls, etc. Maybe we should do this for popular music as well. This creates its own headaches (no pun intended) since few of us will ever agree on what is good music. This latter problem crops up in the art world all the time, especially with works that some feel are offensive, so it is not a complete solution.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Skjellifetti]

But it does apply. Let's say you start a streaming broadcast station. Then I do. Unlike the farmers, how are you going to stop me?

Lets say I start a widget factory. Then you do. How am I going to stop you? I fail to see why a streaming broadcast station is more like a commons and less like a widget factory. It is not the production function of the good that causes the market failure here, it is the nonrival, nonexclusive nature of the good.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Arthur Dent]

I'm sorry, I do not get the point: If I start a streaming broadcast station, and then you do, why on earth do I need to stop you?

Of course I will hunt down and shoot like a dawg anyone who breaks into my server and uses my bandwidth for their streaming station. :-)

Maybe I'm not getting the point, but if you have your own server with your own connection to the internet, why should I be concerned if you are running one streaming station (or twenty for that matter)?

If the internet is being considered as a commons, that is just plain wrong. Last I heard, bandwidth is not free, so I'm not sure how it can be considered a commons.

Arthur.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Weaselmancer]

I'm not defending the original article's viewpoint that streaming media is like the tragedy of the commons! I agree with both you and Skjellifetti. It isn't.

You asserted that the cow+1 farmer would be clubbed by other farmers, therefore the commons tragedy doesn't work. My assertion was that the model of the commons tragedy isn't invalid for that reason - other webcasters cannot club competing webcasters. That's all I was trying to say.

I have a headache now. I'm going to go take a nap. =)

Weaselmancer

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Vengie]

CLARIFICATION:
My goal was actually to be FUNNY. The statement made was this is the "CLASSIC" case of the tragedy of the commons. My only statement was that the "CLASSIC" (or Canonical) case of the "Tragedy of the Commons" involves cows in England, not CD's in the USA.

Fax Fax Fax. Tie up your senitors Fax machine

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fax your senitor from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/%7Ewillr/cb/sos/
It has a nice letter and everything. All you do is enter your zip code, name and it plugs everything else in.

PLUG UP THEIR FAX MACHINES!!!!!!

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[wunderhorn1]

That's binary in the sense that it can't be decoded using a plain-text character encoding standard (such as ASCII). It's a common usage of the term, smart-aleck.

So.... what do the two bills actually say?

[namespan]

So... what did the old bill actually say?

What does the new one actually say?

I really can't tell from the articles or the comments... can someone give a simple explanation of the fee structures?

Our future lies in P2P Radio!

[GuNgA-DiN]

P2P Radio is our future!

$2000 minimum???

[Alsee]

RIAA.COM is down, so I can't read that link. The slashdot story and the register article are vague. They seem to suggest that the minimum fee would rise from $500 to $2000?!?!?

If I read that right, that's ReallyBad.

-

Clearcast for Webcasting

[Bob9113]

From what I've been able to deduce, basically there was a bill in congress, HR 5469. It was a very short bill which put off CARP for six months. Webcasters were universally calling on their listeners to support the bill. Just before the bill went to the floor for a vote, the RIAA tacked on thirty pages of ammendments. With all the public and industry support, it passed easily, despite the fact that the public support was for the unammended version.

The most significant part of the ammendments is that they create a decreasing royalty system. The more you broadcast, the less you pay per song. This ensures that something like Clearcast will exist in netradio. This makes it much easier for the RIAA to control what's played the same way they do with Clearcast.

The decreasing scale kicks in at a low enough level that all of today's popular webcasting sites will see a reduction in the royalties they are responsible to pay relative to the current law--so they all blindly support it. What they are failing to realize is that there are no really big webcasters yet, and that this law guarantees that those big webcasters will come into existence. All of the current stations will be undercut by the megacasters who will be paying lower royalties. They will either; have to put on more commercials than the megas and lose their listeners, keep their commercial level low enough to keep their listener base and operate in the red, or sell out at fire sale prices.

This bill will eliminate independent webcasting (for better or worse). As for you Rusty, you're an idiot. You're a big fish in a small pond now. Wait till you meet a killer whale--you won't even know what hit you.

Re:Clearcast for Webcasting

[Bob9113]

Correction: ClearChannel.

Here comes the new boss...

[TheSHAD0W]

...Same as the old boss.

I read Soma's rebuttal, and frankly, I thought it was a crock of crap. Just because most current small stations aren't listened to doesn't mean they should be thrown to the wolves, or that there wouldn't be newer stations that would fare better.

This ruling effectively creates a limit below which operating a small webcasting station using RIAA-controlled music is effectively impossible. Only well-funded offerings will be able to survive, and this will limit the number of potential stations. This benefits the RIAA enormously, since they HAVE enough money to "consolidate" those limited number of stations, placing them effectively under their control.

Has anyone READ the bill?

[dschuetz]

It was originally a one paragraph bill to delay the CARP rates for 6 months, and was widely supported in its original form by the webcasting community. After the RIAA rewrote it, it turned into 30-page monstrosity that had no relation to the original bill. It has already passed in the House.

Okay, lessee... thomas.loc.gov... H-5469.. Two versions... first version -- huh. doesn't do anything, just delays stuff. (The entire text of first version: The determination by the Librarian of Congress of July 8, 2002, of rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings and ephemeral recordings, pursuant to section 112 and section 114 of title 17, United States Code, shall not apply during the 6-month period beginning on October 20, 2002.)

New version... modifies USC 17-112(e).. Hm... Findlaw.com... er, hm. Inserts sentence--Hey! Does anyone have a version of patch (1) that works on the US Code? ... Okay, it's complicated, and confusing. But it seems to me that the simple "1-paragraph bill" did absoultely nothing except delay everything for 6 months (as mentioned in the article above but glossed over by many posters), and the "30-page RIAA-sponsored monstrosity" actually attemts to present a solution.

I'm sure other people have done a much better job of summarizing the bill's actuall effect, but it looks to me that, for small webcasters, it:

• Sets retroactive rates (1998-2002) at 8% of revenue or 5% of expenses, whichever is greater
  
• Sets 2003/2004 royalty rates to 10% of 1st $250,000 in revenue, and 12% of revenue above that
  
• Allows for three equal payments over 12 months for back royalties
  
• Sets minimum back-royalty payments for 1998-2002 of $500 to $2000 (or up to $5000 if you make a lot of money)
  
• Allows for election of alternate (.02 cents per performance) royalty structure
  

Now, I'm not a webcaster, so these numbers don't mean too much to me. It looks like a "small webcaster" is someone who didn't make more than $1,000,000 from 1998-2002, who isn't expected to make more than $500,000 in 2003, and isn't expected to make more than $1.25 million in 2004. That's pretty big, for a "small" webcaster.

So what I don't understand is this:

• DMCA is passed. Provision is made for LoC to set royalty rates.
  
• Library of Congress sets said rates.
  
• Everybody hates those rates.
  
• Bill is introduced that doesn't fix rates, but simply delays them for six months, giving people half a year to figure out how to shut down without going into bankruptcy court
  
• New bill is introduced that actually addresses the rate issue in reasonable fashion
  
• Webcasters support new bill
  
• Register article comes out saying that new bill screws people over, give us back the old bill (which, remember, didn't do anything
  
• Slashdot picks up Register article (imagine that!) and 90% of posters agree with Register's FUD
  

I just don't get it.

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[SirSlud]

People have been stung so many times by the RIAA that anything it does is construed as being bad.

It's a trust thing. The RIAA has lost any trust it had with webcasters (and many consumers), so anything they do, good or not, will be met with opposition. Its just deserts.

People and organizations have reputations, trust levels, etc. Once they breach that trust or act in underhanded or selfish ways, their well intentioned actions will go unnoticed or untrusted. Thats human nature.

That said, I don't know enough about this issue to judge their intentions either which way. Its just that you cant go from mean person to nice person and expect people to forget what they know about you and judge you only by your virtuous actions.

I sense a lot of mistrust regarding this issue, and the recent payola and MAPS (fixed price) scandals are good reasons why I think its a valid position.

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is simple

The increase in minimum payments (ongoing, not just for back payments) disproportionally hurts the real small webcasters (who have to pay the minimum) without huting the corporate webcasters (who would have to pay that much based on volume anyway)

This bill is the final nail in the coffin for the hobby webcaster. (There isn't going to be a second bill to address the (really) small webcasters. If this passes, this is all the help webcasters will get.) The ClearChannel webcasters who would pay $2000/year in royalties even without the minimum will have enought liteners to make money with advertising. Everyone else is out of luck.

Get it?

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[frost22]

* New bill is introduced that actually addresses the rate issue in reasonable fashion

wrong

* Webcasters support new bill

wrong

I just don't get it.

right

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[rustman]

More FUD. This bill does NOT INCREASE MINIMUM PAYMENTS. Webcasters have the option to use the original CARP finding, with a $500 minimum. So you can do it the old way, or the new way. No one gets screwed any worse than were initially screwed.

Because of the limitation on revenues ClearChannel webcasters can not take advantage of this. (That limitation is also why Live365 can't take advantage of this.)

If this bill doesn't pass, do you really think any other bills to help webcasters will pass?

As for this being the final nail in the coffin for Hobby broadcasters - you're wrong. There are all sorts of loopholes that hobbyists can take advantage of. For example, this allows multiple channels - so several hobbyists could get together, develop a web "portal" that featurs all their broadcasts, and SHARE THE ROYALTY FEES!

There is also no reason why you couldn't start a small version of Live365 with a group of people. As long as your annual revenues and costs are below the threshold you could have 20 or more broadcasters share paying the royalties. It's all about how you structure your hobby.

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, your a big shot in the web casting thing, and I remember the drama back when the excrement hit the atmospheric agitator.
I've been considering doing a small cast of non RIAA old music and spoken word.
Looks to me like I'm fucked and would have to pay the RIAA for the ability to play stuff in the public domain and that is not RIAA member property.

Anyone that supports that kind of crap dosnt much deserve the support of listeners and the smaller stations.

If it's such a not big deal, why dont YOU take up a few hundred of these smaller hobby casts? Oh wait it is a big deal all the sudden.....

Re:Has anyone READ the bill?

[Reziac]

"Small webcaster" in RIAAspeak means a revenue of not more than $1.25 million??! There are small-town *commercial* radio stations with less revenue than that.

Another thread talked about how as few as 7 listeners was considered enough to garner revenue. Dunno about broader-product companies, but as a small specialty business, I've learned that anything under 10% of available population (or about 50,000 persons, whichever is larger) is not worth the cost to advertise to, because it simply won't hit enough interested people. Advertise to a few dozen or a few hundred? No way, and I can't see why any other business would advertise on such a microscale either, unless via very micro ad charges. IOW, I don't see how these small webcasters can possibly make enough "revenue" to cover costs, let alone pay fees and royalties at these levels.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[goon america]

Their business model--top-down music engineered by committees of accountants and marketroids--has failed

What the hell are you talking about? Did I miss the story about the RIAA's bankruptcy hearings? CD sales are way up for the past few years, and thanks mostly to those manufactured boy bands/tele-whore "artists". You mean the model has failed you -- you personally don't like what it gives you. That doesn't mean it failed for everyone applicable.

You call that flamebait?

[wunderhorn1]

Flamebait? What I said was true, and the "smart-aleck" while meant to be good natured, was still (IMHO) deserved.

Now if you wanna see some flamebait, I think the MODERATORS today are TOO FSCKING CLUELESS to know the difference between BINARY and ASCII. I think they're SUCH NEWBIES they've never even FTP'd a file before, or if they have they never figured out why their DOWNLOADED EXECUTABLES WOULDN'T RUN and their MP3s were all COOKED.

In FACT, they probably never even REALISED why open-source advocates like to see SOURCE CODE in PLAIN TEXT rather than simply DOWNLOADING "BINARY" EXECUTABLES?

AND, to TOP IT ALL OFF, these SO-CALLED "MODERATORS" *CLEARLY* haven't been around the net long enough to have seen a REAL FLAMEWAR. They wouldn't know a FLAME if I shot one right up their FAT ARSES!

Now bring it on, lusers, I've got plenty of karma to burn.

Re:You call that flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if ASCII is not binary, what is it then? Ternary? Analog? Seems like you've got some more larnin to do.

Re:You call that flamebait?

[frost22]

Yeah dude! Well said!

Re:You call that flamebait?

[wunderhorn1]

At least the ones on now know how to call a spade a spade.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[orangesquid]

Don't forget EBCDIC, on all those /beautiful/ IBM!'s (International Brontosaurus Machines)

Honest question.

[DaveOf9thKey]

Is Internet Radio worth saving?

Seriously, is this where we should focus our energy? 96% of all webcasters are practically broadcasting to themselves and nobody else. Even the hobbyists at the center of this controversy have either a few hundred or maybe a thousand regular listeners. Meanwhile, Kazaa and Morpheus have been downloaded from CNet a combined 238 MILLION times.

What that tells me is that the vast majority of music lovers out there do not want to be tied down to a PC to listen to music. You can't play a webcast in your car, the place where most people listen to the radio -- at least not without a lot of cash, a lot of hacking, and a lot of Wi-Fi in your area, and even then, a cash-hemorrhaging satellite service like XM is cheaper and offers more flexibility and better quality sound. Most people seem perfectly happy making their own playlists on their 6-disc CD changers and MP3 players.

So why are we spending all this time bickering about the symptoms when we should be attacking the root cause of the problem -- the DMCA? This is a classic divide-and-conquer ploy, and the RIAA is laughing at all of us. We have bigger fish to fry than this, folks.

Re:Honest question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I play webcasts in my car.. simply save the stream to disk and brun... duh

Re:Honest question.

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! Internet radio is worth saving. It is my ONLY source for "trance" music, like the Massinova project, and DI. I can't get this music anyplace else... perhaps Moscow has some excellent "over the air" trance stations, but not here.

Yet, another example of...

[DaytonCIM]

capitalism at its best.

so?

[bludstone]

so, the obvious answer is to break the law if this passes.

nothing changes

problem solved.

good day.

*gets carried away to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for webcasting*

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I can - packet latencies. Effectively an analog signal, hard to modulate given all the hops that are not under a transmitter's control, but given the near infinite divisibility of time, certainly a way to transmit information in an encoding that is not necessarily two-state.

Re:Hackers are destroying the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hackers BUILT the Internet, you moron.


Ummmm.... actually, I'm pretty sure it was the DARPA (US military) that built the internet

Royalties?

[AaronStJ]

Out of curiousity, what royalties are webcast stations paying now? Why can't they just join ASCAP, like we real radio stations do? According to their payment plan ASCAP distributes rights to "radio, TV, cable, bars, clubs, restaurants, shopping malls, concert halls, web sites, airlines, orchestras, etc."

I understand that CARP stinks, and I agree that webcaster shouldn't have to pay such high fees. But what, if anything are they paying now? And what's wrong with existing solutions?

Re:Royalties?

[frost22]

Why can't they just join ASCAP, like we real radio stations do?

Because, a I understood the thing, the RIAA wants them to pay extra cash on top of author fees (more than 100%), unlike you "real" stations.

Re:Royalties?

[rustman]

The CARP fees are in addition to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees.

Webcasters are required to pay ASCAP/BMI (and SESAC if they use SESAC music). Most do. As I recall, the minimums are about $700 a year for ASCAP and BMI combined. SESAC has this cofusing royalty structure based on web page views and not listeners to your streams... but SESAC has a very limited catalog of music, and most modern music is not licensed through SESAC... so if you're not playing their music, you don't need to licence through them.

ASCAP/BMI/SESAC represent the composer of the music.
SoundExchange (RIAA) represents the owner of the copyright of the recording of the music.

Most public performances of sound recordings are exempted by the copyright law.

However, the DMCA specifically requires internet radio broadcasts to pay the sound recording royalty, and authorized SoundExchange (a division of the RIAA) to collect those fees on behalf of ALL copyright holders.

Re:Royalties?

[thumbtack]

Webcasters must pay ASCAP and BMI just as meatspace radio does. In addition to paying the publishers/songwriters through ASCAP and BMI, the webcasters have to pay "Performance Royalties" to the label/artist for the license to stream the music. Terrestial radio doen't have to pay performance royalties (unless they also stream their broadcast). Let's not forget the fact the the labels actually pay the terrestial stations to play their music. (through independent promoters, they would never actually do anything illegal)

Where the RIAA and its member labels screwed up was in trying (and succeeding)to get performance royalites on streaming. Had they left that alone, and treated webcasting as "Internet Radio" and gone for royalies on downloading they wouldn't have half the problems they have now. (other than the accounting practices, the contracts and running up expenses artificially to assure the artist never recoups).

How come everyone except the artist gets paid up front? Forget the advances, they go toward the recording, paying the producer, the engineer, etc.

Re:Royalties?

[Wall,_The]

This whole big issue of payments for the copyright holder WILL come around to us "real radio stations" sooner or later. The way I understand it the DMCA applies to webcasters because their signal is "digital" so as soon as IBOC (In Band On Channel) digital radio starts becoming a reality we will have to start paying our toll to the bridge troll too. That's why I'm supprised that the NAB wasn't more opposed to the DMCA early on. But to their credit almost nobody knew anything about the DMCA until it was passed.

For more information...

[Raccroc]

http://www.saveinternetradio.org/ also has a lot of good information about the bill for anyone who's interested.

Re:I don't Support the Bill!

[IPM Macross]

I am a local webcaster and I say the bill is worthless unless you happen to fit into the tiny financial segment of webcasters that were in on the top secret meetings. I departed the VOW list about three weeks ago just after it became clear to me that the hobbyists, educational and other non-coms (who make up the majority of webcasters in the world) were being used only as pawns and publicity, and not being considered or represented in any deal making processes. Am I bitter? absolutely. I and every webcaster I know have spent the entire summer writing letters, faxes and making phone calls to every aide in every congressional office and media outlet and begging our listeneres, friends and family to do the same to support every new idea the VOW turkeys came up with, only to have it shoved back in our face as a waste of time when the next big idea came along. At the end of it all, we (hobbyists, edu's and non comms) weren't represented even slightly and it came to light the through all the effort, the back room deal was going on the entire time. These small commercial guys and have will argue that the fees for hobbyists are cheap. "Oh, you can afford a couple thousand dollars in retros and $500 or a $1000 a year" - No we can't. Most hobbyisyts are getting by only on free broadcast sites and help from friends who have spare bandwidth. To sum up, I don't play Britney Spears, and I am certainly not helping foot the bill for her next boob job.

I submitted this story 2 DAYS AGO!

[Newer Guy]

and it was rejected THEN...! Why NOW is this news? It WAS news two days ago, but now it's STALE!

radio has ALREADY BEEN gutted

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a good solution, except
the FCC is just another (perhaps even
more so) corrupt organization.

If you start broadcasting a signal that
goes any sort of distance, the white vans
will triangulate you in a matter of days
and you should see the fines associated
with unlicenced broadcasting, and apparently
they are somewhat like a third-world police
force, in that bribary is expected and
generally effective.

If it actually got popular, the RIAA would
probably have an easier time influencing the
FCC with money than they did with these guys.

It would seem that there are no broadcast
communications channels available to the
individual that are not regulated to near
uselessness.

While off topic, needs to be said.

[Mr. Arbusto]

Just as a reminder or idea, Next time we hack the RIAA website be sure to remember the following things: - Post DeCSS Source - Post DeCSS Binaries - Post a Dramatic Reading of DeCSS Just a friendly reminder from a member of the community.

It's True! I don't spell check

Free music, just like free software

[bwt]

I'm confused by all of this. If the RIAA is pushing small webcasters away form RIAA music, won't that push them towards non-RIAA music? To me, that is a good thing. People need to stop trying to figure out how to co-exist with the RIAA and start figuring out how to get rid of the RIAA. Severe financial penalties for small RIAA puppet webcasters is a good thing.

Why aren't people here taking the same line they take with open source software? If you aren't allowing free use and copying then WE SHOULD REJECT YOUR MUSIC TOTALLY. That means rejecting artists on all major labels. It means creating a community of non-RIAA artists and stations. The RIAA is the Microsoft of music, and it's JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE to like proprietary music. We need free music, just like we need free software.

Why slashdotters posting links non-RIAA webcasters? Why aren't slashdotters creating music (I expect some of you are musicians) that is royalty free? Why aren't slashdotters creating web-sites to focus attention on free music? Why aren't slashdotter submitting stories about bands they like that create free music?

The RIAA needs to be destroyed. RIAA supported musicians need to be destroyed. If your favorite musician is an RIAA musician, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Re:Free music, just like free software

[RealityThreek]

I just listen to music and am annoyed that the RIAA attempts to prevent me from doing that. I'm not out a fundamental change in anything. ;)

And although I am in favor of free software, that by no means is because I think commercial software should not exist.

Taking a hard line like this isn't going to get you anywhere. My favorite musicians are under the RIAA umbrella because it makes it easier to do what they really want to do; make music.

Don't Even Try to Figure it Out

[serutan]

Small webcasting is utterly insignificant to the music industry in real terms. Anybody in a college dorm could play music 12 hours a day to an average of 7 listeners. Small webcasting is two cans and a string. Why does the RIAA care? Don't ask. The RIAA is run by people who are so mindlessly greedy that it is *impossible* for normal people to understand how they think. It's useless to try. They simply want all the money in the world and will do anything in their power to collect it. If they could, the RIAA would send a surgeon to your house to implant a metering device in your head that would send them money every time you heard a musical note. The only reason they don't is that they can't, at least not yet.

It's a waste of time to try to figure out the RIAA's motivation. Accept that they are insanely greedy and deal with their actions as insanity.

hr5469

[Anonymous Coward]

Is corruption in action. Ask yourselves how many times that CBDTPA 's name was changed. Hell, does anyone even know what the NAME is ANYMORE?!

so now were going to take a bill, get the public behind it, then change the bastard before it gets voted on.

SCREW CARP, SCREW *AA, SCREW DMCA, SCREW DRM. This is all just a bunch of CRAP. It is NOT in your best interest, it is all about greedy motherfuckers who want to rip your ass off.

Replastering walls when the foundation is cracked

[geekotourist]

So what I get out of these articles, including today's interesting followup Register article is that convenience trumps good research and good data. Even though the foundation of these negotiations- the rate set by the head librarian- was based on flawed data, we should still use it. It would be inconvenient to restart. Congress can't handle working on an issue twice. And I suppose Congress really can't handle the idea of designing laws that require regular checkups and reviews to see if the original assumptions hold up.(1) Annoying but not surprising.

At the start of all this, the librarian set the rates based on one Yahoo agreement. But Yahoo set these rates to shut out (kill off) smaller broadcasters. Marc Cuban admitted this, as was reported here. Yahoo admitted this to Congress- from
this SJMercury article:

"David Mandelbrot, Yahoo's vice president of media and entertainment, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May that the agreement had been misapplied ``to set excessive rates for an entire industry.''

I've read nothing that implies that the head librarian has admitted that he used a flawed data source. Not to mention the inherent flaw of using just ONE sample point. Sure, sometimes you can use a single point for a decision "J likes this movie, so I'll see it." But basing rates that can strangle an entire ongoing industry on one sample? With your one sample being an obvious statistical outlier?

Even in qualitative research you still make sure you have *representative* samples. But this shouldn't be qualitative. This is business. A sector of the economy, however new and small. For this you use quantitative data. For this you hire an econ graduate student and have them spend a couple of weeks gathering data... But ONE sample point??!?? For an entire industry??!?? (Visual of 10,000 Statistics lecturers snapping their chalk in disgust.)

(1) i.e. remember the debates on reporting requirements and sunset provisions in the PATRIOT Act? Congress seemed to say that asking Congress to revisit and rewrite (or simply extend) the law 2 years later was an unusual request: better to just make it indefinite. The Executive Branch acted as if requiring reviews, updates and progress reports was tantamount to not wanting the law at all. And even the Supreme Court isn't immune, which would be bad news for the Eldred case and Lessig. The Scotus questioning implied that even if the extension is *wrong*, negating the extension could cause chaos. Wouldn't want the public domain and the Constitution to get in the way of Convenience, would we?

The truth about Beethoven.com

[Shively]

While I wish Rusty were right about us, Beethoven.com is actually a company with ONE full time employee and a few people who work part time and help out because they believe is what we're doing and why we're here. Our parent subsidiary Marlin Broadcasting is a separate company that owns two FM stations and an AM station - hardly a large broadcasting company - and is privately family owned. Comments that were attributed to me by the unfortunate article in the Register over the weekend were unconfirmed and unsubstantiated and purportedly were leaked to that writer from a private mailing list. The writer did not check with anyone to confirm that they actually wrote what they said, or what the context was for those comments. It was irresponsible journalism at best. As for HR 5469, the problems that many people have with it, that I have heard, is that it potentially sells out the future of Internet radio to help a few fairly successful (in terms of audience) webcasters be relieved from retroactive royalties. It doesn't guarantee these companies ability to survive, obviously, but it does allow them to not be destroyed by the retroactive royalties. The problem for everyone else is at what cost to the industry. If it allows these companies to continue to swim, is it worth it if it makes the water toxic? Kevin Shively Beethoven.com

...and the libertarian perspective?

[webbroberts]

What I don't understand is how it has become the responsibility of the US Congress to negotiate what SHOULD be a simple contract agreement between those who SELL the music and those who wish to redistribute the music.

In a perfect world, this negotiation would be conducted either unilaterally (RIAA sets price structure only for RIAA music), or pairwise (RIAA negotiates with each webcaster to bypass published rates). This would ensure that EVERYONE recognizes that the broadcasters are being screwed by a private organization, and only with regard to a small subset of bands.

I could name 10 dozen bands who would LOVE for their material to be played repeatedly on any number of webcasts, at no cost to the broadcaster. They just want to have their music heard. The RIAA has somehow become the government-selected golden child of music publication. But it completely overlooks the fact that there is NO SHORTAGE of music. What is scarce is decent editorial control, public channels, and listeners that actually give a damn about what they hear.

Rusty got it wrong - a rebuttal

[detroitindustrial]

I posted a detailed rebuttal to the misinfornation, faulty conclusions and outright lies in Rusty Hodge's comments on the first Register article.

Re:Rusty got it wrong - a rebuttal

[rustman]

Your assumptions that is someone tunes in for a fraction of a second will be counted as a listener session is incorrect. See here:

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/webcast_regs.html

The Register notes, however, that the Webcasters' concerns regarding the Panel's determination not to grant its request to impose no royalty on songs less than 30 seconds in duration are ameliorated for the current licensing period. Under the proposed terms of payment, a service may estimate the number of performances for purposes of determining the extent of copyright liability on an "Aggregate Tuning Hour" basis, which calculates payment on the basis of 15 performances per hour.32
The Webcasters had advocated the use of "Aggregated Tuning Hours" as a way to address their
concerns regarding the Panel's decision not to provide a lower rate for partial performances.
Webcasters Petiton at 71-72. Their argument, however, is not the bases for the Register's recommendation to provide for use of the estimation methodology throughout the license period.

The Register is proposing this course of action in the short term merely to address separate
concerns of the Register regarding the logistics involved in reporting the number of performances
of sound recordings. This recommendation on the part of the Register should in no way be construed as undermining the Panel's decision that transmissions of sound recordings of less
than 30 seconds are compensable.

Close This approach alleviates a Licensee's obligation to account for and pay for each performance, including those that are less than 30 seconds in duration.

Re:In non-troll news, that sniper bastard...

[Anonymous Coward]

you should remove the sniper's genitalia with a forklift!

Last Post!

[alpg]

Florence Flask was ... dressing for the opera when she turned to her
husband and screamed, "Erlenmeyer! My joules! Someone has stolen my
joules!"

"Now, now, my dear," replied her husband, "keep your balance and reflux
a moment. Perhaps they're mislead."

"No, I know they're stolen," cried Florence. "I remember putting them
in my burette ... We must call a copper."

Erlenmeyer did so, and the flatfoot who turned up, one Sherlock Ohms,
said the outrage looked like the work of an arch-criminal by the name
of Lawrence Ium.

"We must be careful -- he's a free radical, ultraviolet, and
dangerous. His girlfriend is a chlorine at the Palladium. Maybe I can
catch him there." With that, he jumped on his carbon cycle in an
activated state and sped off along the reaction pathway ...
-- Daniel B. Murphy, "Precipitations"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...