Slashdot Mirror
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."This article is based on a lot of incorrect information. What appears
-- [ quote from The Register article ]
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which say that they are confidential and not for publication without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
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!
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.
And the lastest version supports easy relaying of shoutcast streams :) Peercast.Org
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?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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!
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.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
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.
All's true that is mistrusted
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
Some things would sound okay slower, but other stuff wouldn't - the voices would be deeper and women would sound like men.
So I guess now isn't a good time to advertise my pirate radio station that plays the entire Avril Lavigne album 24/7?
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
Why should webcasters have to pay more per listener than a major FM radio station?
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...
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).
when it rains, it gets real soggy. when it pours, i'm under the tap just _waiting_ for the joy
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.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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.......
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!
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
-- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
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.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
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.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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."
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 $500,000/year fees. I'm not impressed with it and your long rant leaves me less than reassured. Oh yeah, if you would tell your friends over at COX Cable to get their thumb off my upload rates and quit blocking my ports, I might be able to support more than one listener. I'm not going to hold my breath and I'm looking into this neat not so new 802.11B stuff. Please don't get any ideas about charging me money for avoiding RIAA rip offs there. Go away now.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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?
Technoli
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.
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
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
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?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
...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.
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?
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.Don't forget EBCDIC, on all those /beautiful/ IBM!'s (International Brontosaurus Machines)
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
capitalism at its best.
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*
no
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!
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.
Sigs are bad for your health.
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?
Stupid like a fox!
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.
and it was rejected THEN...! Why NOW is this news? It WAS news two days ago, but now it's STALE!
Yeah dude! Well said!
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.
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.
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.
Sigs are bad for your health.
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:
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?