Slashdot Mirror
Small Webcasters get Powerful New Ally
An anonymous reader writes "On, Sunday, October 20, 2002, the RIAA's subsidiary, SoundExchange, was set to introduce draconian new fees on small internet webcasters - fees that were designed to drive those webcasters out of business and preserve the RIAA's monopoly on the distribution of music in North America. One of those small webcasters is the Triangle's classical music station, WCPE - quite possibly the finest classical music station in the world. Now it turns out that WCPE has an 800 lb gorilla in their corner, and he's set his sights on the RIAA."
If you read the full article, you'll notice that Helms' office mentions that they heard from Religious broadcasters in the area that felt that the burden would still be too great on them.
Nevertheless, nice to see that even the Religious Right is "getting the idea" in terms of dealing with the RIAA...
Jesse Helms? I never would have thought that he was 800lbs...
www.christopherlewis.com
"Sen. Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican, on Thursday night blocked legislation designed to ease the financial impact on small Webcasters."
Does someone "in the know" want to clarify? Please?
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
The best trance stations on the internet went down because of this law, and my music selection has hurt since. The only one left is Digitally Imported, which is ok but I like Tag's Trance and XTC radio better. A "dance" radio station started broadcasting in dallas recently, it is ok but is very repetitive. And I did buy two or three cds of artists I had heard on tag's or xtc, but now I buy none. Well, those were import CDs anyway and RIAA probably didnt get anything from them.
How does this hurt the RIAA. This bill was going to forcibly reduce the royalties that these stations would have to pay. Now, with the bill blocked, they have to pay the higher rate or opt for the RIAA's "reduced" flat rate.
I'm not seeing how Helms, the 800 pound gorilla?, is benefitting the small broadcasters.
Really when it comes down to brass tacks ... when the rubber meets the road ... Does it truly mater why he did it? Politics makes strange bedfellows. This is evident. You don't have to like them to have them help your cause. US and Soviet Union in WW2 had the same enemy and worked together. Just need to watch people that you ally with in on situation in case they swig opposite on others that you are for.
It says he stopped it because smaller webcasters said the new 'lower' rates would be worse than the 'higher' ones after a certain amount of time and would drive them out of business. Even the new 'lower' rates were too high for some of them.. So im guessing it'll go from .07 per listener to maybe .01 which would still be too much IMO.. RIAA doesn't deserve squat for free advertising. RIAA should be paying webcasters to play the music.
After all, he specializes in MP3s, and his songs are streamed from his site and mp3.com, but then again, one of his song is called "Why won't Jesse Helms just hury up and die"
I guess we now know why, he's meant to save the webcasters.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
"In case it gets slashdotted?" The article is hosted on Yahoo News. You can't slashdot yahoo. Yahoo slashdots you.
The last time someone managed to make a network of hacked computers big enough that they could DDOS yahoo to a crawl, it made the national news. Slashdot isn't going to come near to that.
Well, you can bet the RIAA won't make the mistake of overlooking his campaign funding again! ;)
"...the Triangle's classical music station..."
What the hell is "the Triangle"? And why do they have a classical music station. Now I can understand a square might have a classical station, or maybe a pentagram would have an acid rock station.
Maybe it's because they use triangles in symphonies. What kind of station would a circle have, I wonder?
Best Windows Freeware
From a Senator like Helmes, this is a old school shakedown of the Copyright industry. Once, he gets enough money his "objections" will disappear.
I have a low opinion of Helmes not because of his purported politics, but because of the crassness of his behavior as a politician/campaigner.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Beethoven and Mozart will compose more symphonies if they can put bread on their table.
Folks, if you dislike the RIAA's tactics and would like to listen to some alternative music, please give classical music a try...there's nothing like listening to some good ol' music.
The best trance stations on the internet went down because of this law, and my music selection has hurt since.
Fuck internet radio stations. Make your own playlist. They may have killed mp3.com's personal jukebox, but they haven't yet killed fair use (completely).
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
What is the role of the government in all of this and why is there a need to regulate these prices?
If I am an independent musician, can't I just make a deal with a local webcaster at a rate that we negotiate?
Does anybody know?
Tor
Chemlab
Philosomatika
FlareSound
Link it
Love it
Don't forget to email your congressmen
Who obvious has a filter set up to delete emails from constituents.
*DrugCheese rants*
Better read it again. Payments are most definitely needed, starting yesterday. Furthermore, the payments are significantly higher than they would have been, had the bill passed.
I'm not a big fan of Jesse Helms, but it appears
that he is doing exactly what he should do as a
senator for North Carolina. He's representing the
interests of the state's residents in the Senate,
vs. representing the interests of an out of state
campaign donor.
How many states stand to gain under the webcasting
rates as approved in the House? Will there be a lot
of new jobs pursuing small webcasters who haven't
paid up? Will there be a lot of new technical skills
dispersed through the population by reducing the
number of webcasters through expensive licensing
and/or royalies fees? Will there be a boom in artisic
expression thanks to reduced chances for artists to
gain exposure?
Helms is right on this one. I wish more legislators
were looking out for their own constituencies on
matters like this, DMCA, etc.
Damin that Helms! I've released 3 albums of really killer sermons, and I haven't gotten a dime from these stations yet.
The article says that the bill was DESIGNED to ease the financial burden on small webcasters, but in all reality, it probably would not have.
.07 per person per song in royalties. Instead, at this point they can pay $500/yr (from 1998 to present, IIRC) to cover their costs.
.07/per song+person could raise some HEFTY fees.
They were to be charged
The small webcasters themselves had not been consulted when the original law was drafted and therefore felt that they would be put out of business by these "small" fees.
Sometimes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
Yet Another Web Site
I thought surely my stance of thinking both the RIAA and the Religious Right were both wrong about everything would never be problematic.
But, no! Now, I might owe my ability to listen to all my favorite death metal, synth-pop, and hard house/trance webcasts to a group of people who generally only support things I vehemently oppose.
So. . . confused. . . cannot pick. . . side. . .
So, Jesse Helms has not held onto his Senate seat for as long as he has by not taking care of his constituents. However, he's retiring this year, which means that he's not going to be able to do this for much longer. It's unclear whether either of the folks running for his seat (Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles) will take the same position.
The real question is... Why are Rep. Howard Coble (Also North Carolina - R) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (South Carolina - D) not doing the same thing?
Let's just hope that interest in the bill doesn't disappear. It would be too bad, now that they are paying a higher rate, if this got shoved aside by more pressing issues. Like, umm, ah... an Iraqi war?
He's an 800 year old gorilla.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
I'd call Senator Jesse Helms at least a 2 ton gorilla myself.... ;>
It is nice to see that Jesse Helms isn't taking a vacation in his last few months in office. (He's a short-timer -- he retires at teh end of the year.)
Catherine
The Religious Right, incredible as it may seem, can be the killer ally of the digital freedom movement, just like Stalin was in WWII. Remember that morality vs. copyright case? (the right to edit movies to the customer's content)
When talking to any individual with such orientation, we have to stress that the current copyright fundamentalism is made to favor Hollywood - you know, that big, unholy, pornography-peddling anti-God collective in California. Mentioning Scientology might help too. YMMV.
Now THAT is an 800-lb. gorilla.
I heard awhile back that Jesse Helms was threatening awhile back to throw his weight to get the DMCA repealed if the big corps didn't stop abusing it. Seems he thought the bill was a good idea when it was passed, but believes the ways its being used are not the ways it was intended.
Now this is happening. But this article is so poorly written-- it starts out saying that jesse helms blocked a bill providing netcaster relief, but then later seems to be saying he only did this becuase he was holding out for a bill that gave even more netcaster relief.
So, is the idea that he actually believes the copyright laws should be in the public benefit? If so, okay, it's always good when "conservatives" actually attempt to uphold the principles the country was founded on as opposed to trying to disassemble them, but if that's the case why hasn't he actually done anything against the DMCA except for some public whining about it? And what does he think about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is one of the biggest sources of food for corporate abuse of copyright? Has he just not read it?
damp cloth, to use the Streisand-style Shakespearian. The point is that some of Senator Helms' constituents had an issue with a bill and so Senator Helms held it up. That's the way it's supposed to work. This does not reflect upon any large political quadron.
I'm from N.C. and I'm shocked. I'm used to Jesse always being on the side of evil, but here he is casting a vote for the little guy. Has the world gone mad?
Now they have to pay the higher rate and gamble on whether they get any deal at all. Had Helms allowed the bill to pass, the small broadcasters would be paying a smaller fee and could follow up with another bill to gamble on.
A bird in hand....
It's good that more time will be spent in examination of this issue. Time is crucial for all of these issues of regulation of technology. Legislation and regulation of technology happens so quickly that people read about the decisions after they have been made and only after it is too late to give any input. Where is the public debate about these issues? It is often limited to places like /. where only a small portion of people can/will take part.
It's not just hanging chads that disenfranchise voters.
A large chunk of classical music manuscripts are out of copyright. That means that if you can find someone to perform it, you can create free music. How are musicians paid? Recordings of concerts, where the costs are already met by selling tickets, might be one way. The quality won't be as high as a specially-made recording but it might be good enough. Whether the performers would agree depends on how much money they would get from enforcing copyright on the recording and trying to sell it commercially (not much I suspect).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
the difference between that "reduced flat rate" and the 70 cents per 1000 listeners per song can really be quite huge (even to very small stations).
lets say a station reaches 100 people on average and at 4 minutes per track averages 15 songs an hour. that's 360 songs a day, or 131,400 a year... at the other rate of 7 cents per 100 listeners it works out to a fee of $9,198 a year. to someone like this a flat rate of $500 seems like a pretty huge difference... heck this flat rate would come to almost half as much even if you only averaged 10 listeners (500 vs 918).
too bad the flat rate is only good till congress acts on the pending legislation, because this deal would probably actually be fairly viable for quite a few webcasters
Someone mentioned this before, but he got modded to 0 for some reason. Sen Helms is not running for reelection. His term is up in January. There is no "shakedown".
say what? Helms blocked the bill which would have *lowered* fees for small webcasters. (Read the article!) The only reason the webcasters got a reprieve is that SoundExchange (the company that collects the royalties) decided to not collect payments until the legislation is passed.
So under the law currently on the books, if I sit down with my buds every week and record some songs and then stream a random mix of them off the server in the closet in my dorm room for other students to listen to, the government expects me to pay $0.07 per song to the RIAA?
Or do I only have to pay $0.07 per Britney Spears track? If that's the case, why don't all the webcasters just play independent music? Doesn't Britney Spears' CD explicity prohibit public exhibition anyway?
Erik
The Republicans are generally not friends with Holleywood and the music industry. The Democrats are traditionally those industries' allies. So while it's just a -tad- bit surprising, it shouldn't come as a complete shock. I never thought I'd see the day though when Jesse Helms would actually fight on the right side of an issue and be anything other than an embarassment of a senator.
he is very very responsive to his constituents. Every story I've ever heard about people contacting him for help (not necessarily positions on issues, but help) has had results.
I only hope that the senator who replaces him will be so responsive, and not just pretend to be from North Carolina...
What if my stream ONLY plays content that I created and that I hold copyright on? I have a stream that plays a three hour loop of the Best of my radio show, so I own the copyright on that and it's all that's on the stream... Why should I pay the RIAA for this? I'm not signed, and I'm just doing it in an effort to get more listeners for my show (which is webcast by my University, which does/will pay royalities for all music it streams).
Any insights would be greatly appreciated...
When your life is no longer your own...
This is great and all that the bill was held up, but Jesse Helms? The man has 9 toes in the grave, and will be lucky if he lives long enough to retire at the end of this year.
It hurts when I pee.
For some insight into the bill and why it's bad, read this slashdot story.
I agree that the Yahoo story is confusing, and it gives one pause to wonder why they're spinning it as bad for webcasters. Is there some hidden agenda?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Why do webcasters have ANY say in what the RIAA charges for allowing them to broadcast their music? If they think it is too much, then why not play music from another group that is more affordable?
How is this any different than somebody deciding to sell Ford cars and then complaining that Ford won't give them the cars to sell for $1 each?
If somebody owns something, then they can charge whatever they want to allow other people to use it. If you think that the charge is too much for the product, then DON'T BUY IT!
(It's possible that I'm completely missing some pertinent facts about this issue. If so please reply.)
Talk to us again once they get to censoring everything Hollywood puts out for sexual content and violence.
A question that I still haven't been able to get answered, is do all these fees apply for streaming your own content - like you talking, your friends garage band music, etc?
If they do, is this not a complete violation of free speech? What justification could their possibly be for paying fees for distributing content an metaphorically unlimited bandwidth? Even if this is a clearly greedy move on the part of the RIAA, there are always at least rhetorically sane reasons for it. I can understand if was THEIR content you have to pay to stream, but what about your own??
www.enthea.org
by Rakarra (rakNarraO@SpacbPellA.Mnet) on Monday October 21, @02:18PM (#4497592)
(User #112805 Info)
Jesse Helms? I never would have thought a High Ranking Republican would get involved like this- and on the side of the smaller guy.
The Republicans are generally not friends with Hollywood and the music industry. The Democrats are traditionally those industries' allies.
Except of course for Howard Coble, R-NC who co-sponsored the p2p hacking bill we all disliked.
Vote for me, NC House district 34
http://www.victormarks.com
The same day that this story is posted, Whitney Houston's new album is leaked to the internet a full month before its release date. Awesome. Die RIAA, DIE!
~ now you know
That's short term thinking. What are you trying to do? Make next quarter's numbers look good so your stock will go up? Now we all know where that leads. Think longer term, at least past next Tuesday. This is like accepting points on your mortgage in exchange for a significant rate reduction.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The legislation that Helms blocked would have charged small webcasters a fee that, frankly, seems pretty trivial. If your margins are so thin that $500 per year makes the difference between making money or losing it, well, what you're running is not a business, it's a hobby. And, for that matter, I can easily see even hobbyists being willing to pay that much money. Heck, it's going to cost them more than that just for the data connection capable of supporting a half-dozen streams.
Now, I think small webcasters who broadcast their own material have a legitimate beef if the bill requires them to pay the RIAA, but for webcasters who are broadcasting a significant amount of RIAA music, then, frankly, it seems like a pretty decent deal.
I also think the artists have a legitimate beef, because practically none of this money will make it back to them. Since there's no accounting for individual songs required, there's no way to decided how much of the money should go to which artist. To record labels, that means the artists get none of it.
In summary, there seem to be problems with the way this is being done, but they're the same problems that exist with the Audio CD-R taxes -- the money goes to the Established Labels, regardless of what music is actually webcasted/copied, and the artists don't get any of it. But the amount of money is so trivial that I can't see it causing any real problems, even for semi-serious hobbyists.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Talk to us again once they get to censoring everything Hollywood puts out for sexual content and violence.
That'd be the point. See, the same people that are preventing you from watching DVDs on linux because you might steal them are preventing THEM from buying copies of "The Green Mile" with all the 'damns' changed to 'darns'.
Never confuse volume with power.
Unless of course, Jesse did it. Eat these links, Mods.
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MJ95/bates .html
http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/helms_note.htm
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=I SO-8859-1&safe=off&q=jesse+helms
Did you even check Google? Are you even old enough to vote? Give me a break.
I honestly don't know why Helms would be doing this, but I sure as hell know it's not for his consituents. If he would have spent half the energy on fighting for people that he spent on 'anti-homo/minority' legisltion, perhaps some good could have come out of his endless term.
Next time you mod, think. Or read. Or kill yourself, and save me the trouble of posting this.
I work in a large CD store on the East Coast (Which one? I'll give you a hint, we've been financially fucked ever since the late 1990s, only partially due to P2P, more due to some really stupid decisions made out in California [that's another hint]). This gives me a unique opportunity to get a mildly decent idea of what people are buying - there's an almost representative sample of college kids, ten year olds, minivan moms, old fogies, hippie burnouts, and Dr. Joe Average in his SUV. Granted, classical music is not the largest seller in this store. But the people who buy classical music buy in BULK. It's not uncommon for one customer to slap down three Benjamins (that's $300 for those of you not 'hip' to my street slang) at a time for his latest classical bonaza. And several "artists" (Charlotte Church, Bocelli, Sarah Vaughn, Diana Krall) have reguarly placed in the top 25 sellers for the store - during weeks when Dave Matthews, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and other mainstream artists came out with new releases. Granted, I'm not a fan of any of these artists (and Ms. Krall is slightly more in the jazz/vocals realm) - but what's important is that these people are selling in big numbers, which means SOMEONE out there is buying the stuff. To say that "people don't like classical music nowadays" is a rather ignorant statement to make. One of the reasons why classical doesn't often make it to the charts is that, let's take an example... Beethoven's 9th symphony. Would you like the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, the London Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Ensemb-- do you understand my point? There's a wealth of different versions to choose from, and so the already merely-moderate consumer base is spread even thinner.
Granted, classical isn't usually that popular with the under-30 crowd (generalization). But it's been constantly popular with the elderly for the past three or four generations - and those aren't the same elderly, because OLD PEOPLE DIE. However, new ones are always cropping up to take their place. You can usually tell them by the Oldsmobiles with the stuffed animals in the back.
I think the difference is that Quarex has never tried to forbid the "churchies" from listening to their music, but the churchies have a history of wanting to censor things that they find objectionable.
Ironically, the last parts of your post did describe the attitude of organized religion, though.
Murphy was an optimist.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If those midsized webcasters go out of business now, they deserve it frankly for shitting on the small players in order to save their own asses when offered a "compromise" deal by the RIAA. The problem is that the compromise was tailored to the group that was supposedly representing webcasters and happened to be made up entirely (apparently) of midsized to largesized webcasters.
A fundamental rule of business: if you shit on your friends, then get screwed because of it, don't come whining to me.
Jesse Helms as a white hat? I never thought he would be fighting for the rights of individuals and small business, but we'll take the help from wherever it comes from, right?
This is the first sign I have seen of the Republicans using copyright and/or DMCA as an issue against the Democrats. If ever there was an issue that shows an anti-consumer side of the Democrats' agenda, this is it. If the Republicans have any brains at all, they will make sure only Democrats are associated with the ever-more-desperate RIAA/MPAA initiatives. The wackier they get, the better it works!
Your ignorance is typical. Helms is clearly not running for reelection, and as always, his actions are those of a man of principal.
No, no. Thats *Darned* if you do, damned if you don't...
I have a stream that plays a three hour loop of the Best of my radio show, so I own the copyright on that and it's all that's on the stream... Why should I pay the RIAA for this?
You shouldn't. What makes you think you should?
dont know how i managed to bork a simple link
here it is
if we didn't have copyright laws at all?
I've lived in North Carolina pretty much my entire life, and I'm celebrating the fact that Helms will finally be out of office after this election. Great, he made the right call this time, but a broken clock is right twice a day, too.
;) I don't know what the conservative Republicans are making of this year's election, but I'm sure it'll be a lot more interesting than the last few have been...
Helms has stayed on office for this long for ONE very simple reason: He's pro-tobacco, and tobacco farmers in NC are almost "activists" when it comes to keeping their interests represented in the government, around here. If the tobacco market collapses, the ones who can't effectively change to another cash crop will be out of business, and most such farms are family affairs.
Helms' approach wouldn't work, except most other people seem too apathetic to bother voting someone else in; so, while people complain about it, they don't DO anything about it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I'm looking forward to this year's election: A woman from out of state on one side, and a Democrat on the other -- talk about a dilemma!
The Helms Era is finally ending, and at least some folks are going to celebrate.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
No, if you own the copyright (or hae permission from the copyright holder), then no one can sue you, so you don't have to pay anyone.
Boy, I ought to check my own facts first; Elizabeth Dole is a North Carolina native, so she's not pulling a Hillary on us, or anything.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
almost as ironic as how RIAA companies (whose artists gleefully trash the Ten Commandments) whine, "thou shalt not steal copyrighted tunes."
You might want to try opensecrets.org - he takes plenty of money from Big Tobacco, communications, ect. Unless a company lives in a house on Carolina St, rasing a family of small business owners, I don't see the 'people'. I see corporations.(Admittedly, everyone on the site has dirty hands.. :(
All that is completely beside the point that Helms is a racist and a homophobe. NC has no gay people or black people, so it's ok.
Frankly, Jesse Helms has been a political Juggernaut, and points out many things wrong with the system, such as lack of term limits.
Sure I blame the voters. I blame the non-voters more.
Ugh! I just agreed with Jesse Helms. I feel dirty.
t'nera semordnilap
He was heard saying afterwards:
"And when we're done with RIAA, we should think about a first strike with nuclear weapons in Korea, and in manchuria."
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Well, I think a lot more people are likely to hold the "woman" factor against her more than an "out of state" factor, if she had both, which is sad if true, but probably not surprising.
The out-of-state factor sort of depends on how centralized you like your government...
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
As the thread about Jesse doing this to protect small religious-oriented stations also touches on, the problem that the classical station is facing is that they're a niche market, while the standard music publisher packages are designed to handle the high-volume highly-commercial market. So you're paying the big bucks to broadcast the Top 40, or a couple of other big commercial genres (Country, etc.) even though you're not broadcasting it and you'd pay a lot less for your niche content. This probably affects web radio stations more than the broadcast radio market, because they're much more likely to be niche-content players as well as small players - the costs of getting into non-pirate broadcast radio, especially with the current Gosplan\\\\\FCC licensing rules, and the technical fact that broadcast radio is inherently local unless you burn huge amounts of power, means that you're going to have a mixed-content market, while the Web makes it much easier to find a listener base for your favorite Ukranian fuzz-grunge-collective dance music.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If a webcaster is based outside of the USA and includes a limitation clause that prohibits USA listeners from tuning in, would it be exempt from paying these licenses?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Different strokes for different folks. I hope Jesse has a good one.
I've been awaiting the damage to WCPE for some time. Happy to see that they might not be affected so greatly. WCPE is a great station where they play classical music and DON'T just get money from the government, like PBS. It's a good example of how the market has demonstrated the ability to provide something people think it can't, more efficiently than the government.
The Religious Right, incredible as it may seem, can be the killer ally of the digital freedom movement, just like Stalin was in WWII.
:)
And when we are done with you, my libertine geek allies, "we will bury you."
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
What the webcasters need to do is somehow convince Congress that it makes more sense to base fees on profits and not revenues. Then, once they've done that, hire the MPAA accountants and - presto - there will suddenly be no profits left (after paying the DJ, the webcasting fees, hardware upgrade, new cars, etc.) to pay the RIAA.
Seems only fair to me...
the churchies have a history of wanting to censor things that they find objectionable.
Wait a sec... I'm a churchie and my church doesn't censor anything. Please don't put all Christians into a stereotypical and narrowminded little box with a label.
Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
// jeku.com
But as was pointed out in another thread, Mr. Helms' term is up in January, and he is not seeking re-election. I can only pray that this bill continues past Mr. Helms' career, as most bills tend to die once their proponent leaves office - and that's assuming they're lucky to survive the proponent being a lame duck in the first place.
He certainly has a bad reputation (probably deserved), but he's not McCarthy - hopefully he'll be remembered more for this.
This sig no verb.
This situation is very complicated and confusing. It is not clear whether this development (Helms stopping this bill) is a good one or a bad one.
.07 dollars per song-listener fee. Then the house introduced a bill to provide a temporary stay with no fees for 6 months. I think they did this to buy more time.
.07 fee for some small listeners, but to implement a set fee schedule. The house passed this, and it is unclear if the House Rep's actually knew it had been changed or if the people who called in support liked the massively changed bill. Never-the-less the bottom line is that the change reduced the statuory fee.
The Library of Congress set the
Somehow the bill got rewritten at the last second to instead reduce the
Now, thanks to Helms, the bill failed in the Senate and so the LOC's rules take effect. Except that they really don't for RIAA music because the implementing organization has said they will accept less the minimum fees regardless of the actual amount due.
I'm thinking Helms wants next years Congress (which he won't be part of) to get a better long term deal for small webcasters than what the House bill would have done. However, by deciding to hold out, the status quo does change as the LOC rules take effect as a backdrop.
Confused? Skeptical? Me too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now -- when negotiating with the RIAA and Congress for the use of RIAA music, we will not win. Even if we win, we will lose. The best thing we can do is develop and support channels for non-RIAA music.
Amazing how public preception works. Since FDR's administration (1932-1945), the democratic party has decided that bread and circuses (wealth redistribution via social programs) are an effective means of getting reelected. Social security, welfare (AFDC), food stamps, head start, job corps, etc all are born out of this idea of taxing at high rates and then creating a bigger and more bureaucratic gov't. They get media play amongst the poor, their cronies get jobs as gov't workers, and they get relected. Unfortuantely, people become dependent on transfer payments from the gov't and never can dig themselves out of that hole, bankrupting the treasury, causing higher taxes and more inefficency, ad naseum.
To contrast the republican party has figured out a strategy that actually causes economic growth. The first step is balancing the budget or generating surpluses. There are three ways to do that, cutting defense/infrastructure spending( some call this corporate welfare, and done improperly, it is), cutting social spending, or raising taxes. None of the options look particularly good but by cost/benefit analysis, social programs are not as necesary for sustained economic growth, if the other two have their desired effects. Lower taxes or spending on useful projects (research, road development, arpanet) stimulates business growth, increasing employment. Employment means more money for goods consumption by the populus, leading to further employment and a good healthy economy, increasing revenue into the treasury despite a lower tax rate. If surpluses are present, they can be turned around into social spending/more frivilous expenses (performing arts, national parks).
That's how "Reganomics" or "Trickle-Down Economics" is supposed to work, unfortunately, the only modern experiment in it was corrupted on two fronts, with both sides blaming the other. Regan had a grudge against the Soviet Union, spiralling defense spending out of proportion (corporate welfare) in hopes of starving out their capabilities of production. Democrats held on to their Social Security and other welfare programs because they controlled congress. With those two chewing a greater and greater federal debt every year. Late 1987, the economy went through a cyclic dip, similar to the one that we are in now, but as a result of high debt rates, people weren't able to weather the storm. Bush I made an additional mistake in 1990 by compounding the problem with a tax hike in the 1990 budget bill. This kept the economy from rising back up. After the republicans took congress in 94, they attempted to restart the experiment, producing a budget surplus, but the bubble burst in 2000-2001 and 9/11 put unique pressures on the economy. Assuming a republican senate take over, the experiment might be able to run from start to finish of an economic cycle, proving or disporving its viability as an economic model
Read my plan to save the Bengals
It seems to be painting Helms as the enemy of small webcasters, blocking legislation that would have given them cheaper rates. But based on a story on /. a few days ago, I believe the law in question is a 30-page RIAA rewrite of a bill that in its original 1-paragraph version would have eliminated the royalty fees entirely.
when questioned about a new state zoo, Helmes replied "We already have one, just put a fence around Chapel Hill."
Actually, that's pretty funny.
The Religious Right, incredible as it may seem, can be the killer ally of the digital freedom movement, just like Stalin was in WWII.
Ahh yes, Stalin's 'digital freedom movement' rocked... only it was about the freedom to move one's digit on the trigger when facing hordes of conspirators.....
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that Digitally Imported hit a record high of about 11,000 concurrent listeners tonight... this is great as on friday they didn't even know if they'd still be broadcasting after the weekend.
Beethoven's been dead for a long time, but you seldom listen to a pre-Steamboat-Willie performance of Beethoven's music. Usually what you listen to is some modern orchestra that performed and recorded the music in the late 20th century, either under modern copyright laws or under pre-Berne US copyright laws. So you're buying a Deutsche Grammophon recording of Furtw"angler's 1929 Berlin Philharmonic performance of Beethoven's 5th(that one's listed as "dubious") or EMI's 1954 recording of the same piece with Furtw"angler conducting the Vienna Philharmonic, possibly in a form remastered by somebody else and printed by the El Cheapo Classical CD Society in 1998.
Piracy's not unknown even in classical circles... More dubious recordings
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Aren't the Dems supposed to (historically) work for the little guy?
;-). The only senator that we know was a member of the Klu Klux Klan is a Democrat (Robert Byrd). The Democratic Party by-and-large gets it's funds as from a small number of large donors (the "big guy"?) the Republican party to a significant degree gets it's funds from a larger number of smaller donors (The "little guy"?) . As a result the Democrats depend more on "soft money" and the Republicans on "hard money" so the Democrats who voted for campaign finance would be hurt by it much more than the Republicans who voted against it. All of these examples seem counterintuitive to the conventional wisdom about the parties - perhaps reality is more complex than conventional wisdom will admit.
Real life is full of these (apparent) ironies. The only member of the AFL-CIO to become president was Ronald Reagan. The 1964 Civil Rights Bill was largely passed by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats (like Al Gore Sr. - It's too bad Prescott Bush retired in '63 and GHWB didn't win his '64 election
I'm also against state sponsored gay marriage--if they want to get married in their faith fine, but I don't think the state can or should legislate morality, I'll leave that to the churches.
To be logically consistent you would then be against state-sponsored straight marriage, too. By giving special priviledges or burdens to a straight couple who want to get married in their faith - isn't that also legislating morality?
Why not be consistent? Either allow gay couples the same rights that het couples get, or don't give couples special rights over people who freely choose to remain unmarried.
God is real unless declared integer
>"Even the religious right".
>>"...Republicans..." The religious right are all Republican, yes, but most Republicans aren't of the Religious Right. I can still remember the controversy surrounding admitting the religious right to the heart of the GOP.
I always through we should take out Canada first ;)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Behavior has never been the sole determining factor of guilt in our legal system. If someone convinces you that pushing a button will bring the elevator to your floor, and it blows up a building, you aren't the one who blew it up. It matters less "who pushes the button" than what each intended to do. A person who steals bread to feed his starving children is in violation yet shouldn't be punished the same as someone who destroys a loaf of someone else's bread so that children will starve. To ignore intent is just simplistic to an extreme that indicates you've perhaps not considered the matter.
So is state sponsered marriage legislation of morality? Its not for hetrosexual couples? But it is for homosexual couples? Its not legislating morality when the legislation supports your cultural worldview, but it is "morality" when it doesn't support your worldview? I sense a contradiction. As long as its a crime...regardless? Isn't that... wrong?
Who else will come to the rescue of a free internet besides people who think traditional media has made them look like a bunch of loonies and made them pay dearly for their broadcasts? That's right, back to square one, the religious folks want their voice. Most of them, despite the anti-smutt campains, are friercly anti-government. It's no shocker. Gutenburg printed a bible, you know. What other people did with moveable press was not his business.
Talk to your local bible thumper and tell them about 802.11B today! They've got the resources, political connections and organization to not only build their own free networks, but to make sure they stay leagal.
Take that! All you trolls that accused me of being a zealot or an evangalist - you might have been right.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
listen to this
I agree. If swilldon is so big, perhaps he can pay up your fee for you so the RIAA can continue to protect, mmmm, themselves and you can keep on putting out tunes that nothing to do with them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Note to class: ASCAP and BMI are the two organizations which collect money from current FM/AM/(Cable)TV* broadcasters in exchange for music rights. ASCAP/BMI have set fees based on several standards, namely, listener mass, and the amount of revenue the station pulls in.
This new web-fee hoopla stems from the additional fee for broadcasting, simply because you're using the Internet as a means of transmission. A webcaster would pay a webcasting fee ON TOP OF the already established ASCAP/BMI fee.
It's like saying - hey, we want you to pay 50 extra on this gallon of gasoline for road taxes. Then, you turn around and make anyone with an automatic transmission pay an extra 25/gal, for no reason.
I think the surprising thing is the lack of publicized ClearChannel comment over all of this. I would think that they'd want to be able to run Internet streams for their thousand radio stations, without additional, "web only" fees.
They are the true 800 pound gorilla. Yet, are as quiet as a church mouse.
*MTV can be loose with music, placing whichever songs they choose in their own programming, without an authors consent, because they pay their ASCAP/BMI fees.
Nonsense, heterosexual unnions have nothing to do with marriage. They are biological unions for the procreation of the species. Simple.
Heh, submittied too fast..heterosexual unions/marriages have nothing to do with _morality_ I meant. my mistake.
I note that YET again you offer no facts of substance, no complaints of substance, nothing other than mere liberal illogic and propaganda. Actually no, you don't even try to form a coherent sentence in your reply this time. thanks.
You have a definite point about intent, I won't deny that. But let's face it, if you beat someone and pistol whip them, and then kill them etc (Matthew Shephard) it shouldn't make a rat's ass difference what your motivation was..you should go to jail if not worse.
To restate, you make the point that if there is NO intent verses ANY intent there should be a distinction drawn..sure, this is in part the difference between a crime of passion and premeditation. On the other hand, if there is intent to kill/beat/whatever, it's completely irrelevant WHY you wanted to do these things (at least in terms of the target's sexual preference). IF you can explain to me why for instance matthew shephard's killers should be treated any differently than anyone else that executed a like crime, I'd love to hear.
Here's my reason for saying that heterosexual marriage isn't a moral issue--it exists because of biology. Marriage (at its core) as an institution exists to formalize breeding relationships, that's all (historically this is the reason for such things as harems as well). If the purpose of the marriage is NOT procreation (which by definition it can't be in a gay marriage) then it enters the realm of morality, and I say the state should have no part here.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
Probably his favorite internet radio station said to him:
"If this bill passes, so will we"
Things like that can really open up some peoples' eyes.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Ethan, living in CA, married- Ethan?
/. or learn the legislative system and bend it to represent us.
Holy Cow!
running for office is necessary- we can either sit and whine on
Shoot me an email -- ethan@yahoo-inc.com
I didn't see yours listed on your site anywhere.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck