Slashdot Mirror
Small Webcasters Sue RIAA
killthiskid writes "The Webcaster Alliance, a small group of 198 webcasters has sued the RIAA. CNET has the news, along with a growing number of other sites (google news). As many /.'ers know, in 2002 the Library of Congress decided on .07 cents per song (retroactive to '98). After that another bill was passed to protect smaller webcasters. Aparently, many webcasters are still not happy." Their complaint is online.
Keep the conglomerates and lawyers tied up forever. The rest of us can be free and happy.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
According to this article, the group is actually closer to 400 members, but I'm inclined to trust CNet. Regardless, most are apparently one-man operations and the like; their chances of winning--let alone having the courts "block the major record labels from enforcing their otherwise legitimate intellectual property rights in sound recordings until the alleged violations are remedied" (according to the above atnewyork article)--are, I'd say, slim to none.
how do you determine when you are listening to somone's intellectual property and when you are listening to someone's free speech?
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
alleging that the trade association tried to push independent music stations offline. The way the law is currently, you have to pay if you are going to make music publically available. Now this law is insanely out of touch with the way people use media right now, and it needs to be changed, but unfortunately, the evil RIAA was just doing what it was supposed to do. It sucks, but its true.
My user number is prime. Is yours?
Free Mac Mini
-Information Week Article
The bill should be passed TO the senate... pun intented.
Now that's quality legislation.
Buy the President
COMPLAINT
Perry J. Narancic, SBN 206820 LEXANALYTICA, P. C.
160 West Santa Clara Street Suite 1100
San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: 650-814-7688
Fax: 650-618-2700
Attorneys for Plaintiff WEBCASTER ALLIANCE, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Webcaster Alliance, Inc.
Plaintiff,
v.
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., Universal Music Group, Inc., Warner Music Group,
Inc., Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., Capitol-EMI Music, Inc.
Defendants.
) )
) )
) )
) )
) )
Case No.:
COMPLAINT
(1) Unlawful restraint of trade in the market for domestically copyrighted
sound recordings (Sherman Act § 1)
(2) Illegal maintenance of monopoly in the market for domestically copyrighted
sound recordings (Sherman Act § 2)
Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
1. This is an action brought under the antitrust laws of the United States to restrain
anticompetitive conduct by the Defendants which threatens to injure Plaintiff and its members as
a result of Defendants' exclusionary conduct in the markets for domestically copyrighted sound
recordings and Internet distribution of such sound recordings.
2. Plaintiff is a trade association whose members are engaged in the business of
Internet radio, also known as webcasting. Webcasting is the Internet equivalent of terrestrial radio 1
2 COMPLAINT
whereby digital data is transmitted in real-time, without downloading any physical files. But
unlike the broadcasting of signals in traditional radio, Internet radio involves the transmission of
streams of data to an individual listener.
3. Internet radio is a vital form of media that allows ordinary individuals to transmit
ideas, music, opinions and other content to an international audience. Like traditional terrestrial
radio, Internet radio is an important medium that allows for the free expression of ideas, news and
opinion. However, the commercial success of Internet radio as a viable line of commerce is
dependent on securing access to suitable content, which is subject to the intellectual property
rights of its owners.
4. To allow for the growth of this medium, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998 (" DMCA") to provide certain non-subscription Internet radio stations
with a compulsory license to perform copyrighted sound recordings. Under the DMCA, the
royalty rates for such compulsory licenses can be established by either a voluntary agreement, or
failing such voluntary agreement, the Copyright Office may initiate a Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panel (" CARP") in order to establish such rates.
5. A CARP proceeding commenced in April 2001 to establish royalty rates for Internet
radio for the period October 28, 1998 - December 31, 2002 (the "CARP")
6. The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc (" RIAA"), a trade association
controlled by the five major labels who account for over 80% of all domestically copyrighted
content produced and distributed in the United States (the "Major Labels"), acted as a negotiating
agent on behalf of its members in the CARP proceedings.
7. The CARP submitted its report to the Librarian of Congress on February 20, 2002,
which report included certain recommendations as the appropriate webcasting royalty rates. (the
"CARP Rates").
8. However the Librarian of Congress rejected, in part, the CARP report, and the
Librarian of Congress set the rates in a final order that was announced on June 20, 2002, and
which was published on July 8, 2002 (the "LOC Rates") 2
3 COMPLAINT
9. The LOC Rates were primarily based on the royalty rates that were agreed to in a
licensing agreement between Yahoo, Inc., the second largest commercial webcaster in the world,
and RIAA (the "Yahoo Agreement"). In his July 2002 f
Internet radio stations make money!?! Seriously though, if you make money off other people's stuff, you should pay them money. A percentage of these tiny station's meagre profits have to be a pittance, to be paid in twenty installments of one-twentyith of a pittance.
but .07 cents doesn't seem that high. thats not 7 cents, its $.0007.
one month is 720 hours, times 60 minutes, divided by 4 minutes/song, is about 10,000 songs a month. multiply this through, and thats about $7 a month to operate an internet radio station.
surely without multicast, the bandwith alone costs much more than this?
I didn't read the articles either, but this had to be cleared up for those who don't know the situation....
The RIAA, as an organization, managed to move themselves into a position where they are the sole entity authorized to collect and distribute the performance fees for music streaming. I am not aware of any group or comitee that oversees the RIAA in this activity, and being well aware of the unethical-when-they-can-get-away-with-it actions of their members, I think that it would not surprise anyone if the RIAA decided that smaller non-member music companies and performers were completely ignored when it comes time to pay out the fees RIAA colected on their behalf.
Ack, read that wrong, $0.0007/song/listener, dang people putting 0.07 cents and me misinterperting it.
IIRC, 0.07 cents = $0.0007.
It's been a while since my last math class, however.
So is it .07 or .0007?
.07 is in cents, whereas the .0007 is in dollars. They both come out the same.
They're both right, as they use different units. The
The way I see it, this issue is simple. There is no reason at all that webcasters should be forced to pay more to play songs than broadcast radio. We all know how much radio pays the RIAA. (hint: less than nothing) But that's because the industry can control the radio biz through payola. Webcasters are distributed and beyond control, and THAT'S why the RIAA's trying to force them to pay massive fines which radio doesn't. The only reason this is even an issue is the insistance of our government that anything Online has to be treated like it's a completely different entity than its offline counterpart. There's otherwise no excuse to make the webcasters pay, while simultaneously paying OUT to radio stations. It IS monopolistic behavior, and very possibly illegal - as hopefully the courts will decide.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Well too fucking bad. The RIAA owns the rights to the music. Stop playing RIAA music and you can then stop paying RIAA rates.
Oh my fucking god, I'm like a genius or something!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
0.07 cents or 0.0007 dollars. There are 100 cents in a dollar, right ?
Oops, 3 people who cant do maths with
.07 cents is 0.0007 dollars.
moderation powers!
In my book
.07 cents == $0.0007
Reading for comprehension is fun!
He said .07 cents or 7 hundreths of a cent, or $0.0007 as the article said. They are one and the same.
Informative? $0.0007 == 0.07 cents. D'oh!
My journal has hot
Terrestrial Radio broadcasters would probably be pretty upset if they had to pay 0.07 cents for every listener listening to each given song through out the day.
sig
While 7% of revenue or 10% of expenses (whichever is greater) for the last 4 years on a shoestring budget would put alot of small mom/pop/kid radio stations out of business.
Funny how Record industries will pay to get thier music played on FM Radio, but on the net, they will just start their own partially owned net Radio stations and crunch the little guys.
So, wheres the good free (non-riaa) Indie radio stations? With all the talk of "F*CK" the RIAA, wheres the alternative Garage/Indie/etc radio? I listen to Techno, and the best streams are UK Based. Wheres the alternatives?
I've always heard .07 *cents* per song, which would be the $.0007 number.
If that's the case I'm just not sure what they're bitching about. If you figure the average song is 3 minutes long, there are 1440 minutes in a day. So that equals around 480 soungs a day for a webcast. At $.0007 a song that's $.336 dollars a day. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, a little low actualy.
Non gratis rodentus anus
Both. 0.07 cents == $0.0007
If said web broadcasters really do object, the best way to hurt the RIAA is by not using their music.-There are plenty of bands out their on the web whose music could likely be picked up relatively cheaply, and denying the RIAA future profits.
Write an entry in your bloody journal. This is just childish.
This sig intentionally left blank.
If I recall correctly, it was .07 cents per song, per listener, so you're at $0.336 per listener per day, which can add up very quickly with enough listeners.
Ok ok :)
:)
I just read ".07 cents per song" as "seven cents per song" in my head.
At least give me some credit for reading the complaint before I posted
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
If I'm reading this right..the webcasters have to PAY ~200 US a year (3 min song avg.) to the recording industry to play their music?
So why aren't radio stations paying this? They use RIAA "protected" material all the time. Is there a diference between broadcasting on the 'net & broadcasting over the radio (from a legal standpoint, that is)? I can get input from a radio station wired into my PC & record it...does that mean I'm pirating music? Or the fact that I bypassed all the storage media to get that music the real issue here?
*begin sarcasm* Or is that "lisence fee" covered in the payola they get from the music industry to push the latest "pop-phenom"..??*end sarcasm* sarcasm
I would like to propose that the idea of having the 'RIGHT' to own something or to do something is also mitigated by the responsibility one is willing to take, not only to protect that right, but also in general. I do know that the idea of the U.S. Constitution is based on the idea that human beings have inalienable rights and that these rights need protection.
Let's continue: The right to own a creative work is then mitigated by the ability by the right of someone else to enjoy that creativity; if I am creative in isolation it is called masturbation. So if I want an audience I need to allow them to enjoy my work. What are the responsibilities of the audience versus the composer versus the pimp errrrr agent...
Thats the question. Not rights...responsibilities.
It does me proud to see a group of people try to stick it to the RIAA.
May they bitch-slap the RIAA like the ho-bags they are.
And don't forget to wear a Jimmy-hat when you have them bent over. We don't know where they've been.
as long as they own the rights to this stuff, they will be able to do what they want. This is not really news. A solution would be to not buy/use anything from the RIAA. If no one is buying their stuff, they will have to lower prices or risk going out of business. Nothing to see here, move along.... -Officer Barbrady
how do i go about becoming a webcaster?
.0007 * #tracks + myprofit. sure, i'll "stream" it at the bitrate, meaning that it will take them an hour to download "listen" to the cd. but after that, it is legal to timeshift things broadcast off the radio, no?
i would love to set up a site where anybody could download any cd (.wav quality) from me for $
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Stop playing RIAA music and you can then stop paying RIAA rates.
"Stop playing RIAA music"? What other music is out there? Many major record labels and music publishers are owned by the same companies. Even if an independent recording artist writes his own songs, how can a songwriter prove in court that the songs he writes are in fact original, that is, that they haven't already been written by somebody else?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I am not a lawyer...
That being said, the complaint as written is based on the Sherman anti-trust act, and in my opinion holds some water. The RIAA does control the vast majority of sound recordings in the US. They are acting in a manner to eliminate competition and maintain that monopoly. They are not doing this by producing a better product, or offering it at a cheaper price, but by clubbing smaller entities with "intellictual property" laws and forcing common aggreements on everyone.
In sum:
1. The RIAA is looks a monopoly.
2. The RIAA acts like a monopoly.
3. The RIAA acts against smaller firms to maintain the monopoly. (Prevent compeititors from entering the market.)
That sounds to me like enough of an argument for Sherman Anti-Trust to be applied.
If you RTA you'll see that the webcasters don't want to get the music for free, but just for a price they can afford... Which is a good argument when RIAA acutally pays radio to do exactly what the webcasters do.
... is that web broadcasting functions like traditional broadcasting. Playing a song owned by the RIAA is advertising the RIAA's product. Although I agree with you, that ideally bypassing the RIAA would be the solution. A nice free market solution. Now if we were only monopoly free...
Brought to you by the Department of We Don't Give a Fuck.
The complaint goes like this:
Prior to when the current webcaster royalty rates were determined, the RIAA met with Yahoo! to work out rates seperate from those put forth by the Librarian of Congress, or LOC. The LOC, in turn, used the Yahoo! rates as the baseline for a "fair market" royalty value.
A similar case occured between SoundExchange (a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA) and the Voice of Webcasters (VOW) organization, except that the rate was now four times what the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (what the LOC based the final decision on) had deemed okay.
The lawsuit alleges that the RIAA unfairly inflated the Yahoo! royalties to the point where they would not legitmately be a 'fair market value'...it was price-fixing, with Yahoo! as (possibly) an unsuspecting ally.
But what about Voice of Webcasters? Good question. The suit also claims that the RIAA/VOW negotiations were in bad faith on the part of the RIAA, and that the RIAA forced those VOW members who remained for the entire negotiation to enter into an agreement, later encoded into law as the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, that would make it even harder for webcasters to survive.
Basically, the Webcaster Alliance wants the RIAA to be barred from enforcing their copyrights against webcasters until a legitimate, non-abusive rate can be found, and that the RIAA pay for their legal fees.
They're also asking for a jury trial. IANAL (duh), so I don't know if that's a good or bad idea.
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
Whether this group succeeds or not, it's good to see them standing up and fighting. The general populus might take more notice and the government certainly will. This is a step in the right direction.
"I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
There are plenty of bands out their on the web whose music could likely be picked up relatively cheaply
How can a webcaster know for sure if an independent band's self-written songs are in fact original?
Will I retire or break 10K?
it almost wants me to become a lawyer so i can take their money and laugh at their chances
tip: in the real world why do you think radio stations are licensed and play adverts ? what do you think that advertising revenue pays for ?
(unless the record company negotiate different terms aka payola)
RTFA ---
"This lawsuit is a publicity stunt that has no merit," an RIAA representative said.
This is a quote that fully belongs somewhere in EVERY story about the RIAA. For example it really fits the recent RIAA sues music swappers stories.
This was modded from a high of +3 Informative dowun to -1 Redundant and another genius with mod points came by and rated it as Informative to raise it back to 0: Informative.
If you are going to use your mod points, take a quiet moment to READ THE FUCKING POST.
We don't want him.
Guess where the Offtopic mods are coming from. Hint, the name starts with M and ends with ichael.
The RIAA owns the rights to the music.
Actually, they represent the owners of the rights to distribute the music. Lets not forget that they are merely the evil frontman for the greedy record labels...
Doesn't anyone proofread legal documents anymore? Or is that "prohibitively" too expensive as well? I am referring to line 4 on page 3 of the complaint PDF file.
I would GLADLY pay 7/10000 dollars for the right to broadcast a song. That's 0.07 cents per song!
Obviosly they made a mistake.
Of course you want them to win, right? But you must offer the pessemistic prediction. You must alternate between cynicism and pessemism.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Bullshit. Educate yourself before you start spouting nonsense. If that were true, why would stations like SomaFM.com that play independent and non-corporate music still be forced to pay the RIAA? They have permission from every artist that they play. Why should they have to pay the RIAA after they pay the artists? The RIAA doesn't even represent the music they play. They are just supposed to hand over the money and expect the RIAA to give ALL of it to the people that deserve it.
How about Bassdrive.com? They play noting but drum & bass. Not one single true electronic artist is signed to a major label that is represented by a major body, including the RIAA. Every one of their artists happy to get air time on a popular network, and those who get played and ask for money get it. Why should they have to pay the RIAA?
Everyone has to pay the RIAA because their lobbyists got a law passed that assumes ALL music is represented by the RIAA and that they have final say over who gets compensated, not the artist. What happens to the money when the RIAA can't find the rightful artist (most likely an independent)? Who gets it then?
Well considering most webcasts don't have ads, or anything to make money with besides cafepress tshirts, 3-5 percent is likely to be .07 cents a month. Even then they will complain, and no one will be happy.
SAILING MISHAP
How the fuck is this offtopic then? If Mikey is content to force upon everyone his trivial problems of installing an ADSL line on every post posted on the front page in the past hour, why the hell not comment it?
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
I would GLADLY pay 7/10000 dollars for the right to broadcast a song. That's 0.07 cents per song!
Multiply that by the number of listeners. Multiply that by the number of songs you play in a month.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Michael: what a pathetic little turd. I wouldn't expect any more from slashdot.
Your right. $.336 per day per stream isn't that much, until you consider that they are streaming multiple streams. They could have several thousand streams going at once. Lets assume that are a very small shop and have 10 streams going. That is now $3.36 a day or $1226.40 a year. A larger shop doing 100 streams would pay $12,264 a year. 1000 streams would be $122,640 a year. Spinner.com does 22 million songs a week. That's $800,000 a year . Now they will have to pay those fees back to 1998, so you are going to have to multiply those figures by 5. Now do you see where the problem is?
Well this is different. If you have to pay the RIAA regardless of what you play then even a percentage of profits is a stupid idea.
If this is truly the case then people should be [and probably are] contesting the validity of the law. Almost like levies on CD-Rs in canada. Personally I use CD-Rs for two purposes. Backups and pirating software. The levies go to music industry types though... what about software industries?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
... in this whole mess will be the lawyers, not the consumers. Hang on, I wonder if the RIAA can get nailed under the Patriot Act for being a terrorist organisation; law suits instead of bombs?
--
Actually, it wouldn't.
The RIAA's subsidiary, SoundExchange, is currently the sole designated agent for collection distribution royalties, as per the U.S. Copyright Office.
What this means is that SoundExchange, a.k.a. the RIAA, is authorized to collect on behalf of all copyright holders. Even those who aren't members of the RIAA proper.
To put it another way, even if I were to start a band, and a Shoutcast station devoted solely to my band, or to local unsigned bands throughout my city, the RIAA (as SoundExchange) could knock on my door and demand royalties! And since none of us are members of the RIAA, we wouldn't see a red cent!
This is just a taste of the asinine legislation currently binding webcasters thanks to the RIAA's powerful lobbying power.
It seems that the current generation raised on Internet don't realize that for hundreds of years there have been laws esatablished to protect people's rights and just because law on the internet has been difficult to enforce doesn't mean that people's rights stopped being important.
There is an alarming trend for the opensource community to appear to outsiders as very cavalier with issues dealing with protecting rights for others to derive profit from their works. Perhaps the mindset is "I gave all my code away for free, why should I care if you make money from your game/music/movie/software/patent/intellectual property/licensed image/registered trademark ?".
Do "opensourcers" belive that if something is not covered by a GPL-like license that it's okay to ignore that license, just because they're not afraid of being caught?
I'm all for patent reform and whatnot, but... until laws are changed, those laws still exist. Do I think that the RIAA and MPAA are locked in a downward spiral and that they're getting ready to pull a 'SCO'? Sure I do. With a world full of indedpendent artists and movie makers and the internet as a distribution method, It's completely conceivable that we could have "GPL" bands and movie studios releasing GOOD STUFF onto P2P network. Hey opensource/free software community: In a band? Have a video camera?
Ever wonder why department stores play MUZAK? It's because they PAY a company for the rights to play that MUZAK in their store, and MUZAK is cheaper than real music. If we really care so much, isn't it our responsibility to provide an alternative?
If you own a bar and play a radio with hip-hop tunes on it, do you know that you should be paying royalties to the artists? Do you know that if you run a restaurant and you show a movie in your restaurant that you are supposed to pay royalties?
Do you know that you're not allowed to have a picture of Bart Simpson on your website? Do you know that your favorite movie sound clips may not be 'fair use'?
Just because the internet has made it easy to share content, doesn't mean it's right or legal. Try to picture it from the viewpoint of Linux vs. Commerical OSes - if you don't want to support MPAA and RIAA, then *WE* need to provide an alternative, otherwise we need to play by their rules or petition to have the rules changed.
What gets me is that subscribers are PAYING for his little comments about Speakeasy. Christ, take it up w/ Speakeasy, Michael. Try acting professional for once. Leave Slashdot out of it.
This guy is way out there
where'd you get that? eminem?
you know, there are styles of electronic music other than rave.
*sigh* not that you care.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I just watched this post get hijacked.
It was at +2, Offtopic. Meaning tons of positive Karma.
Then Michael came in and "ajusted it."
MOD PARENT UP (Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, @08:00PM
This is at 12:37 EST (-5:00ZLU)
I have NEVER EVER seen a score ? before.
Poor Michael's feelings must of gotten hurt. Just shut up, Michael. You're like the plague, only not as cool, because nobody really fears you. You just make them sick.
I am happy that people are standing up against the rediculous crap that gets posted here, ESPECIALLY since some people pay for it.
point zero seven cents is the same as point zero zero zero dollars
SoundExchange is the company in charge of collecting the royalty payments by the webcasters. They don't collect royalties just for the RIAA copyrights, they are in charge of collecting for ALL songs that are copyrighted. Even non-RIAA.
So you don't even need to play 1 RIAA song, you still are slapped with these royalty payments. You actually would have to get an individual agreement with EACH individual copyright holder, to be allowed to play their song, and abide by whatever means you come up with them.
This is a tedious process, and although plausible... ?? Not only that, but if each and every webcaster that wanted to play non-RIAA songs went to each of these indy labels to come up with an agreement... I am sure the indy labels would find it difficult to keep track of each arrangement. I suppose they would find it easier to just go with SoundExchange.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
The slashdot crowd is more intelligent than most, so I'd like to help everyone understand the portions that aren't even present in the above article and are certainly a part of this story, as I have been talking to Ann Gabriel of the Webcaster Alliance on a regular basis lately.
This is not about the actual rate per song, although it is certainly an issue, as much as it is about the fact that the people who are forced to pay this rate are not given a chance to take part in the negotiations. This is in part to the prohibitive cost to enter into the negotiations, as anyone who wants to participate in the CARP hearings must bear the cost of the hearing itself, which consistently runs into more than a million dollars per hearing. The cost of the hearings is not determined until it is finished, and is calculated at the rate of $200 per hour for each of the lawyers on the panel.
The real issue is that the RIAA pre-negotiates with the major players, leaving them as the sole representative of, oh, everyone in control of the current music cartel. This means that they are colluding their copyright power to exclude others from negotiating.
In the Napster case, the federal judge found that the RIAA was a monopoly and was using collusion in a refusal to negotiate, which was the basis for David Boise's counter-suit and a blatant violation of the antitrust laws. In Napster, the judge decided that since Napster was "bad" first, the RIAA got away with it.
The webcasters consistently get told by the RIAA that they are playing too much independent music, in a manner that legally amounts to threats and bullying. Many webcasters have dropped major label music altogether.
The other issue is that the RIAA, through SoundExchange, which is basically an RIAA subsidiary, collects all the money for royalties. Since the independent artists are not part of the RIAA, we will never get paid our portion of rightfully earned royalties.
Additionally, the FTC has found the RIAA in violation of the antitrust laws several times in the past 12 months alone -- price-fixing seems to be the greatest consistently violated provision but one seldom spoken of violation was using the record clubs to avoid paying royalties to authors. Each time they get caught, they settle out of court, try to kick it under the rug and continue on their merry way.
The RIAA completely controls radio, the media, and is now trying exert its monopoly over the Internet. In the case of the Internet, the real problem is that the indies can use it, too.
Considering that the music industry sends out in excess of $4 billion annually in free physical goods (average over the past five years), you'd think that they would embrace the free promotional tool available. The problem for them is that the independents have access to it, too.
The entire idea behind calling downloaders pirates and making the false assertion that downloading copyrighted material is theft is to intentionally exclude the tens of thousands of us who WANT people to download and listen to our music.
It's not about those fractions of a penny per song. It's about the fact that less than 10 percent of the recorded music controls more than 90 percent of the market. The rest of us aren't allowed in.
We can reach a global audience without the record labels right now. That's why the RIAA is fighting so hard to criminalize P2P. Because then they own the entire market for recorded music and the only way to reach the public will be through a major label contract -- again.
Antitrust is the ONLY way to stop the RIAA.
Hell, Digitally Imported has many flavors of techno. Some are Trace, Hard Trance, Vocal Trance, Euro Dance, Goa-psy Trance, Deep House, Hard House, Classic Techno, Chillout, DJ Mixes which only cover some of the 60 different electronica "Techno" type music genres.
on content created or owned by another.
The resulting actions of people using p2p software (in trading in copyrighted material) and viruses alike threaten to change the internet forever. Regulating the internet is a relative untapped resource for opportunist and bureaucrats alike. Some recommendations I've already heard from polictical bodies include FCC licencing per port to semi-functional hardware standards.
A little superficical freedom (it is theft, the product would not likely exist without the ability to profit off of it) now at the expense to the future of all.
The thing I don't understand, though, is why the RIAA necessarily feels its a good thing to form the webcasting industry into a more professional, tightly-knit one. Wouldn't they benefit from a stronger bargaining position when dealing with small independent webcasters who have little leverage and are a dime a dozen?
The only thing I can think of immediately is that the RIAA feels those small guys don't bother always to pay royalties anyway, perhaps.
CNN posted this up:
n lo ading.music.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/28/dow
Seems like the use the MP3 metadata to find out who has downloaded the files. There's a good article on perl and manipulating metadata on MP3s from:
http://husk.org/perl/id3s/mdmcwp.pdf
Cheers to all the PERL and linux hackers
1. I actually read the complaint, and it makes sense to me. OBTWIANAL
:)
2. The complaint is in plain english, hereby disqualifying it fit for Slashdot Bashing.
3. This is slasdot so here it goes anyway
eddie had an internet station run out of high school
Found out about CARPA fees, man he was blue
He met a girl DJ, she was bummed too
The future was in question
They moved their setup into a place they both could afford
He found a nightclub he could broadcast live for
Live bands over the net caused some discord
The RIAA's lawyers said they'd hit thier legal limit
Broadcast Into the world wide Web,
Paying outrageous royalties makes me blue
out in the world wide web,
RIAA aint' got a clue
Congress helped out with SWASA, ed took their intentions to heart
He got a part-time student to help named bart
They were a sucess and it went in the RIAA charts
The future was in question
Their bandwith blasted out unchained jingles
Both met movie stars, partied and mingled
Their lawyer said with this Class action suit "i'm getting a tingle"
The future was in question
Broadcast Into the world wide Web,
Paying outrageous royalties makes me blue
out in the world wide web,
RIAA aint' got a clue
Broadcast Into the world wide Web,
Paying outrageous royalties makes me blue
out in the world wide web,
RIAA aint' got a clue
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering.
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
I'm surprised how little about Fee Waivers I've seen. I'm aware of one lable (Artemis Records) who had agreed to waive their fees (statutory licensing).
Why not reward companies (or individuals) who are willing to be more flexable? I'll be sending out a flurry of requests of the next month (preparing to launch my own micro internet radio) and I will only be featuring artists who are willing to be played for the free promotion alone. Why support the RIAA?
Big companies might not be able to do this, but they probably have the budget (and income) to pay for the right to use the music. They probably should pay.
Quack, quack.
I've emailed Taco and Michael, requesting that Michael seperate his personal stuff and his job and leave Slashdot out of his little tiff with Speakeasy. I'm sure I won't get a response, just like the times Michael couldn't keep his political beliefs and snide comments off the front page. I really do think he's crossed the line this time.
This guy is way out there
It wouldn't be the first time michael's modded down tons of comments. Check out this massive Score: -1 thread. It's hilarious.
I also have talked to a couple of artists that I play on my stream and they were happy that someone was actually playing their music which you wont hear anywere on regural terrestrial stations or unless its played at a rave that has an old skool theme
Old skool Jungle/Hardcore webcast
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Is this per song, or per user?
That is, if you have a single webcast, round the clock, at the above rates, would that make it $10.08 per month per webcast or per user?
In the former case, then who cares, you can fire up 10 round-the-clock distinct webcasts for about $100/month. Seems fair.
If it's per user, then 100 round-the-clock listeners would put you at $1000/month. That would be like a radio station paying these fees according to how many listeners they have at any given moment, not an approximate fee based on how many people might be listening.
Just wondering, I don't know how this pricing was planned, or even how the radio equivalent is, myself.
That's not a flat fee, that's per webcast. About $10/month
That's per user.
As many others have pointed out already, this is all about control. They can control the radio so that you hear the same 7-10 songs every hour. The only time you hear something outside of that block is when someone has a new album coming out and you hear all their old stuff that week. They never play anything else. They never play anything different.
There are far too many internet radio stations possible for them to be able to buy them all the way they've bought radio (Payola..don't argue this fact. Radio is paid for. ASK anyone in radio before you argue this fact). As a result I can go online and listen to nothing but bob marley, or protest songs from the 60s or polka or russion techno or even just plain old 80's cheese. NOt during lunch. NOt once a year on some special holiday weekend. anytime I want. They can't use internet radio to push this week's hot new albums or the billboard top 40 adn it pisses them off to no end. So instead they're gonna price the fees in such a way as to kill off all the internet radio stations except for a handful who will undoubtedly sign special contracts agreeing to pay less in exchange for "format control". the result: You get less. You get less music. You get less variety. You get to expand you mind and musical boundaries less. YOu get to hear your old favorites less. YOu get less.
RIAA gets more control.
That ain't right. Internet radio should NOT have per-listener fees.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
So how is this offtopic if I'm responding to Michael's comment on THIS STORY?
This guy is way out there
I've listened to most of those, and they all suck. Chillout especially sounds like it's done with one of those 32-key Casios with a lame 7-bit sampler.
Michael needs to get fired, sealed in a room with Seth Finkelstein, and let both of them vent out their homo-neurotic difference of opinion on what 'freedom' is. Posts by Michael are getting a little tiring, and being an employee of OSDN, his opinion IS representing the company, which COULD have legal repercussions (perhaps slander? IANAL). It'd be nice if the editors would let the userbase submit the comments, and leave their own off of the front page. If they feels so concerned about something, become a subscriber and post it to the story like the rest of us.
Sure you can get a waiver specifying zero royalties payable. Try to pay the artists anything and SoundExchange get to collect it. And we know they're not going to pass it on to a lot of independents.
Basically this makes it impossible for non-RIAA artists to sell streamed music, they're forced to give it away. How long till the RIAA find a way to redefine web downloads as streams for the purpose of copyright fee collection?
Really? How in the world did they get away with making a law retroactive? I could have sworn that was prohibited in the constitution, something about ex post facto laws...
...I don't want to join, and I only want to donate $10, not the $20 minimum registration fee or the fixed $75 donation. Where's the real Paypal link?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The RIAA is like a donkey cart owner suing the automobile. You're not good for anything anymore so just sit down and shut up. IP as we know it is a totally recent creation. Before that there was no pop music machine. You couldn't make one shitty song, have a huge company cram it down the throats of everyone in the world, and rape people in the ass for 20$ a pop. You couldn't own a sound. You owned yourself, and your guitar, and your skills to play it. No, to become famous, you had to actually ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING. People had to think that it was worth shelling out to come see you, and if they didn't you either STARVED OR GOT A JOB. Has there ever been another time in history before IP when the most widely known artists were widely derided as manufactured, talentless crap? NO. Back then, music was open source. A composer would play music, and we were free to learn it or get the sheet music and play it ourselves. If you couldn't play it better than anyone else, you were good for nothing. Now, with the advent of "recording" a song gains its identity by the person who sings it. The idea of songs that can be recorded, put onto shiny little discs and sold for lots of money was very nice and all, but it's over now. Time to go back to the way music has been done for the other 99.99% of human history. Bands will continue to record and produce CD's because they need the exposure. With such a globally-aware marketplace, bands without professional MP3's available will just slip through the cracks. In order to make money, they're going to have to do it the way musicians have been doing it since the beginning of time....put out a guitar case or charge admission. This will also have the added benefit of eliminating whiny little princesses who expect that those damn commoners are going to shell out for her new cd. This is not a totalitarian state (yet). There's nothing in the principles of a free market economy that states that broken business models should be kept alive via legislation and lawsuits. The RIAA is going down, and it's going to take as many file-sharers with it as possible. So look out, things aren't going to get any easier for a long time.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Did anyone else notice several (3) typos in the complaint?
Examples:
pg 11 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PARYS FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:
--
pg 10 24 One such barrier,m for instance
--
pg 6 paragraph 33: Sound recordings which are either created or distributed in the United States accounts for approximately $14 billion in annual revenues.
--
IMNBAL,BIAA (I may not be a lawyer, but I am anal)
$8.95/mo web hosting
Maybe but that's exactly the way to hose organizations like the RIAA: Just think what would happen if everybody who owns a cd/dvd burner would put $5 in a fund to pay a bunch of lawyers to make the RIAA short existance thereafter as miserable, humiliating and painful as possible?
The problem is as noble as your goals are it isn't up to you to do so.
:-)]
What if people broke into your house only to clean it up and replace your 13" colour tv with a 53" tv? Would that be ok? [well personally I wouldn't mind
I totally agree the RIAA should go with the flow and make the most of netradio and P2P. However, it isn't up to me what the RIAA chooses todo [nor you].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'll admit I'm kind of curious myself... I read slashdot pretty regularly, but I have no recollection of a big blow-up between Michael and Speakeasy... though apparently somebody's got a beef.
I thought Speakeasy was supposed to be pretty geek friendly.
Somebody on the inner circle want to enlighten me?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Too bad there is no way to make a single AC a foe.
If you are over 18 and live in america, then it is up to you. People still elect politicians, not corporations. They can donate all the money in the world, but it comes down to your say.
Text of an email I sent to Speakeasy:
o rder dept.*
These comments are taken off of the front page of www.slashdot.org and were made by michael@slashdot.org This seems to be very bad publicity for your company. Will you be posting a response? You may want to have your public relations dept take a look at this website and these comments.
(in order)
> *from the speakeasy-dsl-sucks dept.*
> *from the speakeasy-has-spent-two-weeks-without-placing-my-
> *from the i-thought-premium-price-meant-premium-service dept.*
> *from the not-in-speakeasy's-case-certainly dept.*
*from the even-writing-to-speakeasy's-ceo-gets-no-results dept.*
This guy is way out there
Goa-psy Trance
That's Goatse Trance.
And the original poster was right: they all suck.
This is NOT offtopic since I'm only responding to the editor's comments on THIS STORY. Of course, it could be Michael moderating me down.
This guy is way out there
"This lawsuit is a publicity stunt that has no merit," an RIAA representative said.
Does anyone else find this very ironic? Meanwhile we've got the RIAA suing college students and anyone else they can...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Prior to when the current webcaster royalty rates were determined, the RIAA met with Yahoo! to work out rates seperate from those put forth by the Librarian of Congress, or LOC. The LOC, in turn, used the Yahoo! rates as the baseline for a "fair market" royalty value...The lawsuit alleges that the RIAA unfairly inflated the Yahoo! royalties to the point where they would not legitmately be a 'fair market value'...it was price-fixing, with Yahoo! as (possibly) an unsuspecting ally.
If Yahoo was not an ally in this, how could the inflate the prices? They are negotiating with a company about rates. Whatever ends up as the final rate would be a fair market value that both parties agree on unless there was a conspiracy between the 2. Yes, I'm sure the RIAA wanted the highest rates possible, because that is the way business works. Yahoo wanted low rates, the RIAA wanted high rates, and they met in the middle. Seems if there wasn't a conspiracy, there is no validity to the claims at all.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Try some IDM, then.
If I may, not because I am a naysayer, but because I care about the Consitution and want to protect what it really says. When someone misquotes or misunderstands it that hurts everyone.
Ex post facto in the Constitution refers strictly to criminal law. Congress can't make something illegal now and go back and prosecute people for it. They can't add new punishment for people who already did something. Etc.
This is not really criminal law so they can constitutionally do this. Just like they could retroactively raise tuition fees or taxes, etc.
If you want to illustrate the breadth of electronic music, then for the love of god, don't use digitally imported. Check out Soma FM for a wide range of electronic (and some other) styles.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
There are plenty of good ones out there. I have absolutely no sympathy for "webcasters" who don't believe their own hype. If we are to overcome the RIAA and these "independant webcasters" are to lead that charge, they don't need the fucking RIAA to do it.
The time is long past to put up or shut up, and thus far no webcaster seems to have the self confidence to do the former. As a lover of many non-US signed bands and an aging punk formed in the age of DIY music, frankly, I find that attitude incredibly insulting.
Nope, they get no lovin' from me at all. I hope the RIAA wins this one, too - anything that makes it harder for online broadcasters to play the industry's overhyped corporate shit is better than the "freedom" these hypocritical fuckers portend to be fighting for in the name of "the little guy."
You ask faceotously, but theres a real answer to this. Its "free" speech if its not written down beforehand, i.e its not IP if its extemporaneous. For this reason, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech results in no royalties for the king family because king did not write it down beforehand, he spoke from the heart. So, if its written down, youre listening to IP, if its not youre listening to free speech.
The thing I don't understand, though, is why the RIAA necessarily feels its a good thing to form the webcasting industry into a more professional, tightly-knit one. Wouldn't they benefit from a stronger bargaining position when dealing with small independent webcasters who have little leverage and are a dime a dozen?
Its the same reason the RIAA loves Clear Channel, control. Its easy to buy off one large company, sure, it takes a chunk of change, but the RIAA has that. And in return, it buys them exclusivity, the vast majority of radio stations only play RIAA blessed content, so the independent labels get shut out. If you have thousands of smaller stations running things, the RIAA has to track down, and convince each one to play only their stuff, which might be a tad harder to do. Individually, each station will cost less to buy off, but as a whole, when considering the logistics of it, the overall cost is probably much higher.
Further, the fewer avenues of distribution available to independent artists, the less likely they are to be heard, and choosen over a RIAA backed artist. This keeps the RIAA in control, and keeps the money rolling in.
I'm just glad to see someone finally standing up to the RIAA, and calling them an abusive monopoly. The tactics employed by them to keep control make Microsoft look like a chior boy in comparison. At the very least MS couldn't keep people from hearing about alternatives, what the RIAA is doing with these fees is just that. Its a fee designed to keep small webcasters from attracting an audiance, who might just hear an independent band, mixed in with the RIAA bands, and decide that they want the independent's CD rather than the RIAA's.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
The oh so great Canadian levy on CD-Rs was passed when I was 12 or so.... And no, politicians in Canada don't care about what people would call "issues". They're all about bashing each other in public forums.
e.g.
"Stockwell Day doesn't care about public education. In fact, [snicker], he is in favour of locking children in cages for medical experiments."
"Jean Chretien is a french bastard who doesn't do jack squat, but at least his name isn't Stockwell."
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It's easier to control the actions of one large entity than many small ones.
Murphy was an optimist.
Ummm...no...not even close.
Radio stations pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
Online webcasters, in addition to paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, pay royalties to SoundExchange.
The notable difference between what you've said and the actual situation is that the RIAA has a limitted membership consisting of only the larger labels. However, membership in the groups that collect royalties is basically unlimitted. Royalties are distributed to labels/artists based on statistical sampling done at random to determine what percentage of the pie each label/artist is entitled to. It might end up favoring the big labels, but doing it differently would make the whole process incredibly complex.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
When it comes to Internet radio, however, the RIAA "contends that Net radio services are different -- since there are ways for listeners to digitally reproduce the music -- and should therefore pay the sound recording fees" (Cnet, 7/20/02) The RIAA (in the guise of SoundExchange) charge per-listener fees that add up to much more than traditional analog stations would pay.
Now my question is, is this fee schedule for digital radio specific to Internet radio, or do non-Internet based digital radio sources (XM sattelite radio, DirecTV music channels, Digital Music Express, etc.) pay it too? If not, are their royalties more akin to Webcasters' or to analog broadcasters? While I realize these services subscription rates could much more easily cover royalties than could a small Internet radio site, I am curious as to what approach the RIAA takes towards these services and how consistent it is with their rhetoric about broadcasting digital music.
So why don't all the webcasters use multicast or some other technology that makes it impossible to count the number of listeners? Sending a separate stream to several thousand users is sort of a waste of bandwidth, no? Shouldn't broadcasting over the 'net be governed by exactly the same rules as broadcasting over the airwaves?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Not to nitpick but that is just not true. Cliqhop (one of the stations on SomaFM) has played many large, mainstream artists in the past hour (squarepusher, autechre, mu-ziq, etc.) From what I can tell all of their stations are the same. They may play a larger mix of independent artists but they definitely play non-independent artists quite a bit.
Okay, as I understand it, the RIAA is making the argument that each listener on a given webcast is copying a song to do so, and the broadcaster is thus liable for that. Bear with me and let's assume for the sake of argument that this is valid reasoning.
Now, where does that leave satellite radio and the digital cable providers like Time Warner who have dedicated music channels in their offerings? By the same line of reasoning, are not both of these distribution methods liable for the same goofy "one listener, one copy" line of reasoning the RIAA has managed to foist onto webcasters? If not, why? The digital reciever in your dashboard or the cable box has to copy the content just like your computer does when listening to a webcast. What about DTV stations that run concerts? If being a digital broadcast is what has the RIAA's panties in a wad re: webcasters, it seems horribly unfair to level ridiculous fees on them, but not the other digital broadcasters.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
None of this is going to change until someone does it. But NO ONE is going to do it by riding the RIAA's coat tails. That's why this battle is blindingly misguided, and why I have yet found a logical reason to support these allegedly "independent" webcasters.
SomaFM is more than one channel. Some do play more popular artists, but not all of them.
Just as I said, alternate between pessemism and cynicism. Get them both in when you can. You think you're original? Yawn.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
It occurs to me that someone should design a device which recieves radio transmissions and has the capability to record them directly into mp3 format. In addition, it should be able to intelligently separate transmissions into individual songs and discard "junk" such as commercials and talk radio.
:P
Hmmmm...interesting idea.
*big red stamp* [PATENT PENDING] *end big red stamp*
This should be well within the power of a complex tape machine, and hopefully will blur the lines between internet and terrestrial radio as far as distributing copies goes enough to make one of two things happen:
a) Webcasting is recognized as pretty much identical to terrestrial radio. RIAA royalties removed.
b) RIAA tries to push its royalties on terrestrial radio. Radio stations across the country band together and legally beat the crap out of the RIAA.
I am also not a lawyer, but this seems like a pretty smar move to me. It seems to be that a jury is much more likely than a judge to rule in favor of the webcasters. After all, it's people like the jurors that enjoy listening to music on their computers. Whereas a judge is more likely to rule strictly by the book, for the jury, 'free internet radio' vs. no 'free internet radio' will be a no brainer. This might be enough to gain the jury's sympathy, whereas the RIAA (a big bad corporate entity that wants to shut down Kazaa) has no chance of winning the jury's hearts.
Stupid like a fox!
> Lables? they're like ladles, only with the cup part facing the other way ...
A shoutcast stream at 32K (somewhere less than AM quality) with the possibillity of "getting lucky" and having 20 users (from around the world) connected at various times throughout any given month will be a hobby that will cost you around $25 - $100 (about 200 GB of data if the slots stayed filled) to just make available. You will not be making any money. Do it for fun.
So -- I am paying an average of $50 bucks a month to stream less than AM quality music to at the most 20 simultanious users.....Yet at the very least they want me to pay $2500 minimum yearly plus about $7 per listener per month to do this.
That is ludicrus. That is awful. What do I owe if I invite 25 friends to a party at my house put 50 CD's I have purchased in a CD changer, hit shuffle and then play in the background as my party goes on for 4 hours? That is more akin to what a webbrodcast is -- than comparing it to a real life FOR PROFIT radio company that has the advanatge of a small dial that can only fit 15 or so channels in a band between 87+ to 108.0 and lots of bored people driving their cars home from work.
Look at shoutcast -- you have almost 4000 servers competing for 30,000 users. Each server has anywhere between 5 and 500 slots. Their is no commercial radio station that could make payroll for 1 week with those kind of demographics.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
If a band creates a work and specifically says that small non-profit webcasters have a royalty-free license then wouldn't it be a violation of their speech rights to collect a royalty?
(Also, the same question, but the band specifically releases their work into the public domain.)
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Ok. Try this on for size. Why would anything less than the ability to stream 128 kbits per second to at least a potential 1000 users scare the RIAA. I mean look at the bandwidth that would take:
Calculations Complete For 1000 listeners at 128 kbps Calculations @ 1 Month Kilobits = 364,953,600,000 Kilobytes = 45,619,200,000 Megabits = 348,046,875 Megabytes = 43,505,859 Gigabits = 324,144 Gigabytes = 40,518
Even having the possibility to have 100 users at a time would run you about 4,052 GB per month. I think the price of bandwidth alone should be enough to regulate the threat for the RIAA.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Many colleges are using Internet radio, especially ones (like us) that live in areas which make it impossible to get an FM license (too many stations already; there wasn't even space for us to get an LP-100 license). Most college stations don't play exclusively electronic, but do during certain hours (being freeform, we play electronic when a DJ is on that plays that sort of thing. Color-coded schedules are a good thing.)
:)
That's where you'll find the good non-RIAA stations. Yes, some RIAA-label-signed bands still get a lot of airplay (Tool and Radiohead come to mind), but most of the stuff we get in and put on the shelf is from small labels like Dischord, Touch and Go, Fueled by Ramen, Archenemy, etc.
Shameless plug? Yes, but remember, I don't have a huge advertising budget funded with ill-gotten gains.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
song writers get nothing unless they are also the rights holder
Bullshit. Why do you people invent shit like this?
SoundExchange is an entity created within RIAA.... Remember?
Funny how the editor of Your Rights Online is so quick to suppress dissent.
This sig intentionally left blank.
I just checked and every single song history lists at least 1 major artist (probably more, I just don't have much knowledge in some of these genres.) Yes some do play more than others but that still negates your statement that they have the direct permission of each artist they play.
It's all a moot point anyway, as SomaFM has never said they don't want to pay royalties, just that they want them to be fair.
Yes, but it is still a distinct organization that is not part of the RIAA. It's membership includes far more of the smaller labels that the RIAA's does. The parent poster was saying that the RIAA will be collecting all the royalties and wouldn't distribute them to smaller labels/artists and, despite the fact that SoundExchange was started by the major labels, it does not represent only their interests.
There's a lot of ways the RIAA is evil, but their methods for collecting royalties isn't necessarily one of them. There may be other statistical methods that would work better, but there isn't a way to distribute royalties based on exactly what is played.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
You're just trying to stir dissent! Look at your email! SP[ ]EASY.NET ['EAK' IN GAP] That sounds A LOT like SPEAKEASY to me! You're one of their spies aren't you? Michael's RIGHT to be so paranoid of you guys. You're all trying to shut down his operation, well man, HE'S STICKING IT TO THE MAN, and you work for the man, so he's gonna stick it to you. GO MICHAEL!
You can say it a thousand fucking times, you can mod this into oblivion - the fact remains this is utterly WRONG. Online broadcasters are supposed to keep logs of all media served so they can account to the "BIG FIVE." Well, guess what? If you're doing your fucking job as is required in the first place (ie keeping those logs) and you really are NOT playing any of their works, then you have all the proof you need to disprove any assertions made by these clowns when they come knocking. And if they press the matter, under that same piece of law you have legal recourse not only in civil court, but the FTC will also likely be interested in hearing from you.
I want to see every webcaster get agreements in writing from 2000 indie labels.
Not terribly hard. A webform with a nicely labeled "submit" button is all it takes. All I hear from you is the same I hear from these "indies:" whining and deception.
COMPLAINT
... made a finding of fact that RIAA had artificially inflated many of rates in the Internet radio license agreements it entered into before the April 2001, including the Yahoo Agreement, in order to establish a "benchmark" for an eventual CARP proceeding. In so finding, the Panel found that RIAA only entered into negotiations with those entities that were willing to pay high rates (even with unstable companies) and that in so doing "RIAA created a virtually uniform precedent with rates above those that most buyers would be willing to pay".
42. The CARP
CARP had reason to throw out all of the deals other than the Yahoo deal.
Lets assume the Yahoo deal truely was a single shining example were the RIAA did nothing to abuse the process. It is STILL a case of a monopolist in control of 90% of the market coming down just enough to making a single deal with the single highest possible buyer. If I had a 90% monopoly on the bubblegum market I could probably fine one buyer somewhere who will pay a dollar for each stick of gum. That is hardly "fair market rate".
In particular these webcasers want to play indy music - NON-RIAA MUSIC. And as their complaint points out indy music sellers are quite willing to agree to far lower rates than the RIAA. One particular point the complain negects to mention is that most indy music suppliers are more than happy to agree to a rate of ZERO. Yet the rate SET BY LAW is set by a single and suspect deal by a monopolist with the single highest bidder.
Fair market deal my-ass. Webradio should function under the same rules as radio.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
hehe... Stockwell's such a turd.
> Lables? they're like ladles, only with the cup part facing the other way ...
And are only useful for making very large Black & Tans. I own 10 of them.
Electronic music covers FAR FAR FAR more (definitely more than you can imagine apparently) than the stunningly homogenious DI offerings. It really doesn't matter which DI channel you're on, unless it's the cheesy 'plain trance' one. It's not just 'techno' and 'rave music' you know.
Once licencing is mandatory and there are clear rules in place, no Internet radio will be free, because they all have either income, or expenses.
I have a proposal by which RIAA can be hurt if people follow the boycott calls. It is unrealistic to expect people to boycott music. Instead, why not boycott (some of) the movies made by their members or movies which use RIAA members for their music score? It works like this - not all movies will be boycotted. A coordinator (slashdot perhaps?) lists down the name of a movie at random and emails are sent out to boycott it. Say, a movie is made with a huge budget and we pick on it and give out a boycott call AFTER it has been made, it will send them a clear message. IF (very unlikely as it requires mass following) it succeeds, it will instill fear into the movie makers since the victims are RANDOMLY chosen! Besides, a blanket call for boycott is bound to fail. What do you guys say? :-)
I don't think that most radio stations can't afford the 0.07 cents per song. The problem, which nobody here seems to have addressed, is that there is a yearly minimum in the thousands of dollars, which most stations cannot afford -- certainly not for the past 4 years!
aQazaQa
DON'T BROADCAST RIAA-OWNED MUSIC. SIMPLE AS THAT.
Set up a few video game radio stations or the like. Especially using classic game music. Something like that.
If you don't broadcast their music, then they can't legally charge you for it. Especially if part of the music you broadcast is your copyrighted material.
hey, shut up faggot.
Webcaster Alliance paypal link
There is a Paypal donate icon on the WA home page.
LONG LIVE INTERNET RADIO!