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.

Comments

Better world through litigation

[Angry White Guy]

Keep the conglomerates and lawyers tied up forever. The rest of us can be free and happy.

Re:Better world through litigation

[lplatypus]

Keep the conglomerates and lawyers tied up forever. The rest of us can be free and happy.

Unfortunately the rest of us are financially supporting the conglomerates and lawyers in their litigation (at least indirectly). So who is the free man and who is the slave?

Re:Better world through litigation

[pmz]

The rest of us can be free and happy.

So, what will you do when free and happy have both been made illegal through new legislation and your life is destroyed by exploitation of loopholes by lawyers while you were looking the other direction?

Re:Better world through litigation

[Lord Custos]

Yes...we need to protect multinational megaloconglomerate zaibatsu against the hordes of tiny individuals and their attempts at free market commerce.
I mean, if we were to allow such microbusinesses to continue, taking business away from the megalocorporations, we might become...free market capitolists or democratically free individuals...
and we know we don't want that...

No Chance

[KrispyKringle]

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.

Re:No Chance

[beta21]

Kind of like a lot of sheep charging at a very big wolf

Re:No Chance

[mt2mb4me]

how about this one....

"VII. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF Parys FOR FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:"

Re:No Chance

[curunir]

If the webcaster's alliance ever intended to find a suitable settlement, then I'd agree with you that they'd be doomed to fail. But most of them are, as you said, small setups that never really get above 3-4 listeners. They've never intended on negotiating, in good faith, an alternative to the CARP rates. Most of them weren't even webcasting until after the CARP rates were announced.

What they're really after is publicity and a way to push their own individual agendas. They were almost able to ruin the recent settlement that allowed many of the medium-sized webcasters to keep broadcasting. They failed at that, so now they're going after more publicity.

Excuse me for asking, but

[Sphere1952]

how do you determine when you are listening to somone's intellectual property and when you are listening to someone's free speech?

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Lxy]

Wait for the RIAA to mandate DRM for your brain. Then the confusion will be cleared up.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Frymaster]

how do you determine when you are listening to somone's intellectual property and when you are listening to someone's free speech?

that free speech is free as in, uh, speech... not free as in beer. you can speak freely and charge for it. there is no mutual exclusivity. that'll be two dollars, please.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[CaptBubba]

When they demand donations, it is free speech. When they demand payment, it is IP.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[gmag3]

It's the broadcaster's/webcaster's responsibility to determine this, not the listener's.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Sphere1952]

"...broadcaster's/webcaster's responsibility..."

Alright, but if I'm a small webcaster trying to promote free speech the entire burden is upon me and the people who want to be freely heard -- not upon those who want un-free speech. Since free speech generally doesn't have any money, Free speech is being priced out of the market in favor of people who can pay to do the copyright searches.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Sphere1952]

They already have -- it's now criminal to think.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[FroMan]

Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to redistribute other people's speech.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Sulihin]

This pertains to domestically copyrighted sound recordings. Your "who want to be freely heard" presumably own the copyright to their speech and can thus distribute it in any manner they desire. The RIAA only cares about stuff for which they own the copyright.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[dirk]

All speech is intellectual property. The minute you say something, it is yours, you have a copyright on it. The difference is what that person decides to do with their intellectual property. If they want to give it away for free, that can. If they want to retain the rights to t and try to sell it, they can. Free speech and intellectual property are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Bullcrap, since the RIAA still collects royalties from webcasters who play nothing but independent music.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Sphere1952]

I suppose they'd still collect royalites even from webcasters who played nothing but music slamming the RIAA.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

There's probably even a surcharge for that! :)

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[instantnoodles]

Obviously it depends on the author's consent.

You can listen to a speech for free, however I think Eminem would get pissed if you were listening to his music without any compensation.

Re:Excuse me for asking, but

[Sphere1952]

On the author's consent? How am I to determine that? Free speech is a right. Copyright is purely a federal statutory creature. When I don't know, am I to assume that someone is exercising their rights or am I to assume that they are asserting some obscure statute?

(The only way I'd be listening to his music was if someone was blaring it in my ear.)

They were trying to pudsh them offline.

[FesterDaFelcher]

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.

Re:They were trying to pudsh them offline.

[Mattcelt]

[IANA...well, whetever is relevant - lawyer, historian, whatever.]

Actually, it started out the other way around... Originally, the labels didn't want radio stations to play their songs, b/c they wanted to sell albums instead, and they thought it was a bad idea for the songs to be heard "for free". (Sound familiar, anyone?) Eventually the stations took the labels to court and got what is called "mandatory licensing" - meaning that the labels *must* allow the stations to play their music for a set price. And once the labels got used to the idea that the radio stations were *good* for sales instead of bad, the radio stations started requiring the labels to pay *them* for playing the songs (and this far outweighed what the radio stations were forced to pay the labels by the law). This is called payola, and the gov't outlawed it.

What these webcasters are suing for is not *what* the RIAA was doing, but *how* they were doing it. A U.S. senator forced the webcasters to make a deal with the RIAA, threatening to have his own staff write the agreement instead (which of course would have been disastrous) if they didn't. So a small subsection of webcasters went and made the deal with the RIAA. The problem is that webcasters right now are required to pay 2-4 times as much as a radio station for the same songs! This means death for many small webcasters who can't hope to pay the full amount - even the radio payments can be oppressive to a small radio station sometimes.

So there is a difference between *legal* and *right*. And in this case, there is sufficient evidence that the RIAA was using their political clout to artificially impede competition and market forces that they may have actually run afoul of antitrust laws. (Heck, the major members of the RIAA have already been convicted of price fixing by the DOJ!)

So now it is up to the courts to decide whether or not what they have been doing is, in fact, legal.

Re:They were trying to pudsh them offline.

[Alsee]

The way the law is currently... RIAA was just doing what it was supposed to do.

Err, no.

The law is the way it is currently BECAUSE the RIAA tried to push independent music stations offline. The RIAA has an absurd amount of political clout and they have no hesitation to abuse it.

-

Re:Oh shock and horror

[Student_Tech]

Look at one of the articles off of Goolge News, it seems as if they don't like the $0.07/song/listener, and would like to have it set at 3-5% of the revenue that is generated.

Gabriel's organization would like to see the per performance royalties eliminated. Instead, a flat percentage of commercial Webcaster revenues, somewhere between 3 and 5 percent, would be a fair fee to pay, she said.

-Information Week Article

Bill'em

[jabbadabbadoo]

"The bill, which still must pass the Senate before Webcasters will see any tangible effect, marks a surprise political victory for a loose Internet community that had never previously launched any concerted political action. "

The bill should be passed TO the senate... pun intented.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Kazir]

Correct me if I am wrong. But don't the music labels own the rights to the songs, not the RIAA? The RIAA just represents them.

Wow

[Mephie]

Congress passed new copyright rules in 1998 that created a new royalty structure, unknown in traditional radio, under which Internet radio stations would pay record labels and artists a fee for playing their music online. Lawmakers didn't specify how much this fee would be, kicking off years of battles.

Now that's quality legislation.

Re:Wow

[JaredOfEuropa]

You think you have it bad?

In Holland, you pay a fee to some music copyright management organisation for playing music on-line or on the radio... even your own music!.

You write a song, record it in your basement, and play it on-line. Yes, you are now breaking the law, until you pay royalties on your own work.

For those that think PDF and adobe sucks..

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Wait, wait, wait...

[ArmenTanzarian]

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.

Re:Wait, wait, wait...

[arth1]

The problem is that unlike normal broadcast radio, where the radio station pays per performance, with internet radio, RIAA sees that there's one stream to each user, and wants payment per performance PER USER.
With 50,000 people listening to the same MusicMatch radio song, that's suddenly a LOT of money.

To make it even worse, what happens when a user doesn't like a song and switches channels? Pay twice! A radio station doesn't have to pay extra if a user skips to a different channel. But for internet radio, there's a payment for the song you listened to before, and the one you're listening to now.

What's apparent here is GREED -- RIAA isn't content with getting a similar amount as they do from broadcast radio stations, but want additional levy "because they can". The justice system in this country, headed by the Senate and Congress, is more corrupt than any banana republic official, and will gladly give big business whatever they want, as long as they get their support in return.
Don't expect any fairness here. The only concern is how much can small businesses be bled without dying.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Wait, wait, wait...

[ArmenTanzarian]

Like the original legislation, no set amount was included in the new bill, but it effectively ratified private negotiations between a small group called the Voice of Webcasters and the RIAA, which set royalty rates at a percentage of revenue instead of a flat fee per song. Larger companies such as America Online would continue paying the fee determined by the Library of Congress.

Percentage of revenue for the small guys... Reading, it's fundamental.

Re:Wait, wait, wait...

[arth1]

Like the original legislation, no set amount was included in the new bill, but it effectively ratified private negotiations between a small group called the Voice of Webcasters and the RIAA, which set royalty rates at a percentage of revenue instead of a flat fee per song. Larger companies such as America Online would continue paying the fee determined by the Library of Congress.

Percentage of revenue for the small guys... Reading, it's fundamental.

That, however, is not a viable model for many of the small webcasters who does not exclusively stream RIAA-controlled music. A sports or talk radio with an occasional music snippet, or an indie/university station with 90% independent music would be incredibly hurt if this is enforced. But perhaps that's the point? If they don't play RIAA-controlled music, their companies should die?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Wait, wait, wait...

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Judging from the fact that 100% stations that play 100% non-RIAA labeled songs still pay the royalties, I'd suggest extinction is EXACTLY what the RIAA has in mind. They want to control distribution channels, and independent, unaffiliated music is outside their control. In order to stop it from taking hold, they need to limit exposure to it, and killing the netcasters is the most effective path for that.

Re:Wait, wait, wait...

[Ptraci]

But why should the RIAA make money from music that DOESN'T belong to them?

maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Sc00ter]

Except that it's per connection.. so if you have 100 people listening you're up to $700/month. Or so I understand.

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[kfg]

Yes, what you are missing is that that is to be charged per listener, as in a live performance, rather than per play, as in radio.

KFG

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[henele]

surely without multicast, the bandwith alone costs much more than this?

FYI. using a reliable streaming/bandwidth company, 128kbps per user per month comes in at $4...

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Peterus7]

Well, if they lose this case they can just sell their souls to gator and xupiter, and then they'll be making plenty of cash, hopefully... Or not hopefully, I like my computer's stability...

What I don't get is why the RIAA wants to harm internet radio... Don't they realize that if a person listens to internet radio, they're probably a little bit less likely to use p2p? Of course they're still making listening to music without the RIAA, but trying to wage a war on two fronts; that of P2P and net radio, seems like a slightly dangerous strategy.

Maybe they should just lay off a bit and instead of trying to hurt the competition, try to make their own service... A RIAA endorsed internet radio station...

Of course, knowing them they'd make it cost ridiculous amounts of money for crap you could get for free, so maybe boycotting them is sort of a good idea.

I was thinking about how the RIAA could save their public image, and they really can't... The fluffy the RIAA bunny wouldn't work well, giving out free test answers for college exams on their website might be dangerous, and the whole 'Hilary Rosen shows her compassionate side' wouldn't work, as it would be comparable to dressing Jabba the Hutt up as santa. Methinks they're just going to keep on screwing themselves over by trying to make all this money until they eventually are bought out by Bill Gates or something to that end.

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Jason_Knx]

Also the fees are a minimum of $2000 a year.

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, as stated in news reports, these small webcasters are angry about a four-fold increase in the _minimum_ fee required of each webcaster which was originally instituted by the Library of Congress. The intial fee structure was modified by VOW and the RIAA during closed negotiations under the auspices that the VOW represented ALL webcasters. In fact, they only represent the largest of the current webcasters who can afford and need not worry about minimums due to their already established businesses. Thus, it bars small webcasters from competing with the larger ones by VOW agreeing to prohibitively high fees that it knows will reduce competition in this emerging market. This reduction in competittion helps both the RIAA and VOW, but not the rest of the world's webcasters. This is why the RIAA is being sued under the Sherman Act (antitrust). The shady agreement effectively kills the business of many small webcasters while at the same time handing the market to VOW _and_ settling on the exact terms of the RIAA ensuring their continued monopoly.

You are not only paying the per user per song fee, you also have a yearly ~$2,000 minimum to even have the right to play their music in the first place and even if no one ever listens to a single song that you are webcasting. .0007 does not seem like much, until you go through the complex equations necessary to determine how much running even a moderately successful internet radio station would cost. It gets really expensive, really fast.

I think I would have to hire an accountant simply to be sure I did all of their math correctly (under penalty of prison for copyright infringement). Their fee structure is an unbelievable behemonth as it is currently written... not to mention they clearly state that they have the right to change the fees any time at their will. Check out the RIAA's site and look at the details of the fees. I would have linked directly, but it looks like the RIAA site is down once again!

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[epiphani]

What about this "Pay a percentage of revenue" thing? If I decided to do some webcasts, I'd happily pay RIAA something like 10% of my nonexistant revenue.

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[epiphani]

in fact (afterthought), I'd probably have a negative revenue - as I've got bandwidth costs to take into account. Now that would be fun - getting RIAA to pay for 10% of my bandwidth bill so I can run a webcast.

I must have misread this 'percentage of revenue' thing. But I'd swear its there.

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Alsee]

What I don't get is why the RIAA wants to harm internet radio

The RIAA is trying to kill small webcasters who predominantly play non-RIAA music.

With regular radio there can only be just so many stations in a given area, and therefore a few formats develop and they only play a few highly comercialized songs, and the RIAA pays to make sure it is their music that gets played.

Webcasters on the other hand give independants lots of airtime. They can also easily target a multitude of narrow audiences playing a wide variety of music the RIAA would never touch.

So the RIAA has two agendas.
(1) Simple greed, they would like webradio to pay them fees that regular radio does not have to pay.
(2) Illegally maintaining their monopoly. They are fighing to kill the rise of independant musicians.

-

Re:maybe i'm missing something about the rate

[Alsee]

10% of revenue or 7% of expenses whichever is greater. They also raised the minimum fee from $500 to $2000. You pay $2000 if you webcast 1 song to one person with zero expenses and zero revenue.

Note that that is a fee that regular radio does not have to pay whasoever. You'd also have to pay the ASCAP/BMI fees that radio has to pay.

-

Quick note for those who don't read the articles..

[Rahga]

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.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[Student_Tech]

Ack, read that wrong, $0.0007/song/listener, dang people putting 0.07 cents and me misinterperting it.

Good for them

[JayBlalock]

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.

Re:Good for them

[Rahga]

Ever hear of ASCAP and BMI, or SESAC? You are right, radio doesn't have to pay the RIAA... instead they get to pay those other performance rights organizations, and trust me, they do get paid. The songwriters for everything from "Louie Louie" to "Baby Got Back" are going to continue to get royalties paid to them for quite some time....

The only difference in web streaming is that the RIAA moved themselves into a positions where webcasters must answer to the RIAA... ASCAP and others do have online licesnsing and so on, but that's not the same thing that RIAA got in on.

Re:Good for them

[thumbtack]

Webcasters pay for performance royalties, terrestial radio doesn't.

Webcasters have to pay the performance royalty based on the number of listeners, Terrestial radio doesn't pay performance royalites, period.

Both have to have ASCAP, BMI, SESAC licensing.

As an example when you hear Britneys Pears on the radio while driving, the songwriter gets paid (about 8.5 cents as I recall) no matter how many listeners are tuned in. When Britneys Pears is played on a webcaster, the song writer still gets theirs, but in addition Britney and her label get a royalty based on the number of listeners..Hence if you can afford the equipment, its cheaper to broadcast rather than webcast. (at least licensing wise)

Re:Good for them

[JayBlalock]

Ok, but there is the theoretical way the system works, and the REALITY of how the system works. And while broadcast stations may technically be paying fees, in reality they aren't - they're more than made up for by what's being paid to them. Which is part of the reason that this is an anti-trust issue - the various recording groups have tilted the scales so far in favor of broadcast radio that, should the webcasting fees ever become cemented, it will destroy the industry completely.

Re:Good for them

[Wah]

When Britneys Pears is played on a webcaster, the song writer still gets theirs, but in addition Britney and her label get a royalty based on the number of listeners..Hence if you can afford the equipment, its cheaper to broadcast rather than webcast.

The anti-competitive part comes in when you wonder what would happen if a webcaster was able to gain an audience size similar to that of say, Z100 in NYC. Seeing as how there are a limited number of possible frequencies on which to broadcast (rather than bitcast) the market in being regulated in a manner that makes it impossible for the mediums to compete head-to-head (as the naturally limited one (broadcast frequency) is not constrained by audience size, and the unlimited one (IP based) is constrained by audience size, having to increase revenue to break even with more listeners, a problem that clear channel does not have).

Re:Good for them

[proj_2501]

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of how payola works nowadays.

Radio stations do not receive direct payments from record labels. In fact, record labels do not technically give ANYTHING to radio stations.

Here's what happens:
(1) Record label X is releasing a new album from Artist Y.
(2) Record label X thinks that Artist Y will sell quite a few units with the proper promotion. Thus, X gets in gear.
(3) What happens now is that X gets in touch with a promotional distributor such as Lift. This distributor takes some money to borrow promotional material from X to give to radio stations. These materials (cds, records, carts, etc. etc.) are technically ALWAYS property of the record label. No radio station has gotten anything for free. The label pays through the nose because there is no way to get your music heard on pop radio stations without one of these distributors unless you get really lucky. (I don't know how that happened, or why none of these distributors has been bought up by a big label yet, maybe it's an SEC thing) I'm not sure if radio stations get $ from these distributors for playing stuff, but that would probably be blatantly illegal and thus discouraged.
(4) Of course, the label might send stuff to the radio station on their own, but that doesn't guarantee it getting played if it sucks anyway (not on my show at least)

Another way to pay off the radio station directly is to give them some tickets to give away. The DJ, obviously, gets in for free.

Re:Correct Information

[glgraca]

Oops, 3 people who cant do maths with
moderation powers!

In my book .07 cents is 0.0007 dollars.

+3 Informative?

[Surak]

Informative? $0.0007 == 0.07 cents. D'oh!

Terrestrial Radio

[ekephart]

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.

Too much money..

[BrookHarty]

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?

Re:Too much money..

[nege]

I agree, where are they...I dont know. Many of my favorites went down when the fees started...I hate the RIAA. I will continue to pirate my music because we are at a complete impass. I refuse to work with them, and they refuse to work with me.

Re:Too much money..

[Echo5ive]

Digital Gunfire. Not techno, though -- more electronic and EBM. But it's my favorite stream.

Re:Too much money..

[mamer-retrogamer]

Radio 1190, college/indie radio station with 24-hour webcast, based in Boulder, Colorado.

Re:Too much money..

[pulse2600]

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?


You just made a very good point...there aren't any "good alternatives". Even the unknown musicians I listen to are signed to big labels like Sony and Atlantic. You know why most "good" artists don't sign with independent labels or get played on independent radio stations? Because indies don't have the huge corporate marketing engine behind them to make their artists world famous and filthy rich! Once an artist wants to make money off their work, the work is no longer about the art, it is about business. Making a record is not about creating a work of art, it is about a bunch of zeros on your paycheck, having five different beach houses, 10 luxury cars in the driveway, and having your mug all over TV and magazines. The most reliable way to get that is to go with a big label and the RIAA. It's sad, but true. If you believe anything else, you're fooling yourself.

Re:Too much money..

[ward]

I'm a partner in a new venture designed to offer exactly what you're wanting. Peak Bias is a company dedicated to promoting new and original talent via the internet, including audio streams of unsigned artists.

We're not quite there yet, but we're well on our way. Just a few more customers and the stream can go live.

Re:Too much money..

[Zebbers]

art and business arent mutually exclusive. A band like RATM makes a shitload of money...but...it is a huge vehicle to get their message across. A message that wouldnt reach the masses if they were indie.

Is it pure art? no. The music biz is about entertainment...but you can take pride and put your blood sweat and tears into your work. Getting paid to do something doesnt negate the intrinsic value of what you created.

If I offer Michaelangelo 500 bucks to paint the cieling of my apartment...does it cease to be art? Even if I tell him WHAT to paint, is it not still art? :):)

Re:Too much money..

[ehiris]

"I listen to Techno, and the best streams are UK Based. Wheres the alternatives?"

There will be no good answer to this question because nobody listens to Techno. :)

Re:Too much money..

[HiThere]

Well, that's the promise anyway. And I suppose that you won't really get rich any other way. But you just aren't counting what happens to all those that the particular label the sign with decides to...ignore is too kind a word.

Most musicians are better of as independants, even from a commercial sense. Just like most people are better off not playing the lottery. But you only hear about those who win. So when do you think that buying lottery tickets is a good investment?

Re:Too much money..

[rmohr02]

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.

That's because FM radio is one big guy.

Re:Too much money..

[jtcm]

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 highly reccomend SomaFM. Both free-as-in-beer and commercial-free; they play very chill, ambient technoish music day & night. I can listen to it all day at work and it just fades into the background, blocking out distractions. SomaFM definitely puts me in the coding "zone".

At one point in time, the RIAA forced them off the air via CARP. I get the impression it's just some guy with some bandwidth and some music, and I'm thankful he found the money to resume broadcasting. Although I'm still a broke college kid, I do plan to donate to this internet radio station when I eventually get me one of 'dem lucrative job-type-thingys. I encourage everyone to donate whatever they can.

Peace,
jtcm

Re:Too much money..

[geekee]

If a station can't afford to pay 7% to 10% of it's revenue to companies that give them something worth playing in the 1st place, they don't deserve to be in business. This is far less than the cut Apple give the RIAA for songs they sell. Why should the RIAA give webcasters a free ride?

Maybe I'm not seeing something here but..

[Channard]

I mean, sorry to be un-idealistic here, but web-broadcasters thinking they could play commercial music without paying for it was naive at best. Let's face it, we're living in a capitalist society here and the free and easy image of the internet was never going to last .

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.

Re:Maybe I'm not seeing something here but..

[Obyron]

RTFC (Complaint). They're not alleging that they shouldn't have to pay to broadcast the songs. They're alleging that the rate they're forced to pay is exclusionary and was established through bad-faith negotiation in the original RIAA/Yahoo! agreement to set a benchmark for a future CARP proceeding. They're further alleging that VOW, de facto arbiter of webcasters, likewise negotiated in bad faith to obtain an even worse rate for them. They're saying that the rates charged by the RIAA for distribution are exclusionary.

Come on people, think about this. These are the same people that charge 18 dollars for a lousy hunk of plastic. "Exclusionary Distribution Rates" is something we're all very familiar with from the RIAA.

Re:Maybe I'm not seeing something here but..

[QuackQuack]

The problem is independant webcasters threaten the music industry's control over music. Right now, the industry mostly controls what gets played on radio and what doesn't through their whole payola setup.

With Radio there are huge barriers to entry. With netcasters there isn't, so you can see a proliferation of independant-minded netcasters who play what they want, and aren't necessarily interested in taking money from so-called "indies", in exchange for getting certain songs played.

So the industry can't control what they play, so the danger is they could gain significant audience and start creating major stars on their own without the industry (gasp!). This would be the end for the music industry as we know it since artists will no longer have to sign their life away to the industry fatcats to become stars.

Obviously royalties are due, but they are deliberatly set unfairly (on a per audience member basis) compared to broadcast radio, to put most of the netcasters out of business,

Re:Maybe I'm not seeing something here but..

[poot_rootbeer]

web-broadcasters thinking they could play commercial music without paying for it was naive at best.

Offtopic and entirely irrelevant to the issue before the court.

Putting aside the question of what you meant by "commercial music", the small webcasters ARE willing to pay to license content from the copyright holders. Their complaint is that the compulsory licensing fees are too high, and were set that way intentionally to keep the little guy out of the market.

Additionally, the organization responsible for collection webcasting licensing fees is entirely beholden to the RIAA -- as a webcaster you'd have to deal with them whether or not you played any music owned by RIAA-member labels. It's like the BSA's tactics against alleged floppy-copiers--the onus lands on you to prove you AREN'T out of compliance.

Re:Maybe I'm not seeing something here but..

[Alsee]

web-broadcasters thinking they could play commercial music without paying for it was naive at best.

Try reading the article and/or the complaint.

Webcasters are being forced to pay fees that ordinary radio stations do not have to pay at all. Those fees are several times higher than what ordinary radio has to pay. And they are also subject to discriminatory fee structures and oppressive non-monetary requirements.

The RIAA got some of those requirements in place essentially through extortion/bribery of the "VOW Supporters". First the RIAA got absurd rates imposed under the CARP process - rates that would bankrupt the "VOW supporters" - then the RIAA used the threat of bankruptcy AND slashed the rate for VOW by about 87% (if they willingly slashed by a factor of 7 then the rates were obviously oppressive to start with) - the RIAA did this to get OTHER oppressive terms they wanted - and according to the absurd terms of the LAW these terms are binding upon ALL webcasters.

If said web broadcasters really do object, the best way to hurt the RIAA is by not using their music

Try reading the article and/or the complaint.

The complaint of said webcasters is that the RIAA is illegally preventing them from doing exactly what you suggest, and the RIAA is doing that BECAUSE it would hurt the RIAA. The RIAA has over 90% of the market and illegally attempting to maintain that monopoly position by crushing the market for indy music.

You are are using "let capitalism work" argument where it does not apply. This is NOT a case where webscaters can avoid the problem by not buying from the RIAA. The RIAA has manipulated the LAW to kill competition even if the webcasters never play a single RIAA song. Many of these webcasters ONLY want to play indy music, and the RIAA has abused the system to make that essentially impossible.

-

Re:Correct Information

[J-B0nd]

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.

Re:Correct Information

[Jaguar777]

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 :)

$200 a year?

[Jonny Royale]

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

Re:$200 a year?

[GarthSweet]

Try a calculator my friend:

24 hrs/day
x 60 min/hr
/ 3 min/song
x 365 days/year
x 0.07 cents/song
==========
= $12,264.00

That's not even figuring on the fact that it's 7 cents for every time a song is played per user.

Re:$200 a year?

[Catbeller]

.07 cents. Not 7 cents. 7/100 of a cent.

Re:$200 a year?

[pod]

Lets revise these numbers slightly, shall we? We need to account for a few things here:

1. It's $0.0007/song/user, that's 7th of a cent.
2. No one listens to a station 24x365. The way subscription services work is that you estimate/calculate your average per user usage; people who listen less subsidize those who listen lots. It's how it works everywhere. Lets say, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's probably complete overkill.
3. Where the fuck do you find 3 minute songs? My music collection works out to almost 6 minutes, discarding tracks over 20 minutes, but I would say 4-5 minutes is more average than 3.

So.

4 hours/day * (60 min/hour / 4 min/song) * 260 weekdays * $0.0007 = $10.08/user/year. It's still a lot, that's roughly 10% of your revenue just for licencing, assuming a $100/year ($8/month) subscription.

Re:$200 a year?

[qtp]

So why aren't radio stations paying this?

Because the fee is per song per listener. If you only have one listener, then your assumption is correct, but if your webcast suddenly becomes popular, you're screwed without major corporate backing.

Rights????

[joelwest]

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.

Re:Rights????

[Scrameustache]

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.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEW!!!!!

And I think that might be illegal!

I hate the RIAA as well, but....

[TheLinuxSRC]

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

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Anonymous Coward]

The grossly unfair aspect of the law is that radio stations don't pay a cent for playing songs over the air. The law is not about bringing in more revenue for RIAA members - it was obvious at the time that the result would be to eliminate small, hobby-type webcasting. I think the intention was much the same - to destroy an emerging competitor to commercial radio.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oh shock and horror

[yerricde]

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?

Remember Anti-Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Remember Anti-Trust

[Catbeller]

The Sherman Act is dead with this Congress and President.

They had Microsoft dead to rights and convicted, and even with a friendly neo-con court to mitigate the judgement, the Justice department let them go. Just... let them go, with a wink and a smile.

Anti-monolpoly law is dead for this generation, and possibly for all time.

Re:Remember Anti-Trust

[blitziod]

RIAA is actually an oligopoly. It is a group of large companies acting together in a way that prevents entry into the marketplace.

Re:Remember Anti-Trust

[raresilk]

I am a lawyer with some antitrust experience, though it's not my speciality, and I agree with the Coward. This complaint is not a slap-dash garage job. It has a basis in existing law and a decent chance of going forward as a suit. In fact, I have wondered for several years (and sometimes out loud on Slashdot) why creative lawyers have not put antitrust theories to better use in the RIAA context. (Unfortunately, for at least the next couple of years, I'm chained to a firm where I cannot do such work.)

I also want to address the most prevalent piece of misinformation throughout this discussion - whiny trolls going "why shouldn't webcasters pay royalties? other radio broadcasters have to pay them. no fair." NO, THEY DON'T. AIRWAVE BROADCASTERS DO NOT PAY THE RIAA A CENT. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite: RIAA's members shower radio stations with millions of dollars in backroom payoffs to get them to play mass-produced crap that is cost-free for them to put out, because it's made by kids dumb enough to sign contracts that give the studio every cent they make. And now that virtually all of the broadcast radio stations are owned by one or two companies, they've got fewer payoff checks to write.

Obviously, indie webcasters are the biggest threat imaginable to this monopolist's paradise that makes Bill Gates look like a candy-ass. Unlike airwave bandwidth, which is "auctioned" for huge sums at closed proceedings, and protected by the Feds from unauthorized indie broadcasting, anyone with a decent bandwidth DSL and a server can stream an internet broadcast. And the RIAA has absolutely no leverage to keep these broadcasters from introducing their listeners to the artists they actually think are good, rather than the kiddie-schlock that is making RIAA members the most money.

So is this lawsuit merely paranoid in insisting that the RIAA is trying to shut down internet radio? If you believe that, I've got a booby-trapped CD that won't play in your computer to sell you.

Re:Remember Anti-Trust

[raresilk]

I think you may be confused. This is a private action brought by the Webcaster's Alliance, not a government action like the Microsoft antitrust suit. Hence, the Bush administration cannot let them go for a "wink and a smile." Only the Webcaster's Alliance can "let them go." An increase in private antitrust actions of this nature is, in my view, an inevitable result of the current administration's unwillingness to enforce the law.

What you are not seeing...

[Hell O'World]

... 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...

A quick summary for those who don't want to click

[Teknogeek]

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.

Whether they succeed or not...

[kingLatency]

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.

Music plagiarism?

[yerricde]

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?

Re:Michael

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess where the Offtopic mods are coming from. Hint, the name starts with M and ends with ichael.

Oh, No! $0.0007 per song!

[nxs212]

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.

Re:Oh, No! $0.0007 per song!

[SoTuA]

Perfect. Now, suppose an average song is 3 minutes long. Let's say that's 480 songs a day. Still not much, huh? Well, the catch is, it is (or seems to be) a price BY CONNECTION. As in, 10 people tune in my webcast, that's 0.7 cents. Do this on a daily basis, and you can easily get to a thousand dollars a month, wich mom-n-pop webcasters can't afford.

Re:Oh, No! $0.0007 per song!

[clacasse]

Doesn't anyone profread slashdot posts anymore? The statement is correct. Do the math.

Re:Oh, No! $0.0007 per song!

[nxs212]

Hehe, implied but not stated :) I read the lawsuit/complaint and they only mentioned per performance part. I guess when you hold a concert at Giants stadium, you actually perform 10,000 times. Or at least that's what RIAA chooses to believe.
Does this per performance rule apply to normal broadcasters? How do they know how many people actually listen?

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Dr. Zowie]

Actualy, no, you are entitled to play the songs to the general public. The whole point of CARP is to mitigate the restrictions inherent in monopoly control. Remember, copyright is an artificial monopoly that is ostensibly intended to encourage creativity. The problem is that, perversely, copyright discourages dissemination of valuable ideas if the owner of those ideas loses interest in exploiting them, or perversely refuses to license them. The CARP is a kludge designed to fix that problem, by forcing content providers to license their content to anyone at a reasonable rate.

trademark /. pessemism.

[Thinkit3]

Of course you want them to win, right? But you must offer the pessemistic prediction. You must alternate between cynicism and pessemism.

Re:trademark /. pessemism.

[KrispyKringle]

You're making a lot of baseless assumptions, Thinkit3.

I want them to win if their case is valid. I dislike the RIAA, but the real problem in this general area of law is stupid court rulings, so I wouldn't wish them to win if they have no case. It is entirely possible--especially if they really did demand free rights to pirate RIAA material--that this is just a stupid stunt. I don't know enough about the case to be able to say.

The prediction is accurate, I believe, based on what information I have available. They are a ragtag bunch, mostly one man operations. How much money could they possibly throw at this? The RIAA has deep legal resources and is not afraid of waging legal wars of attrition.

Do you have some deeper comment? Or do you just not like Slashdot. Hey, it has its moments, I'll agree. But when I get bored with it, I just don't read it.

Re:trademark /. pessemism.

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

That wasn't pessimism, that was realism. If you want the pessimism - even if, by some monumentally slim chance, they do actually win, the RIAA will just shove a few well-stuffed brown envelopes into their bought congrescritter's pockets and buy themselves a new way to squish the webcasters.

And that's only mild pessimism. You aren't ready for the real stuff.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[Izago909]

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?

Re:Oh shock and horror

[focitrixilous P]

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.

Re:Michael

[Dot.Com.CEO]

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?

Multiply that

[yerricde]

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.

Re:Multiply that

[nxs212]

Nowhere does it mention PER CONNECTION charge. Even the complaint says that it's per PERFORMANCE. (at least in Yahoo's case) I don't see how multicasting is considered a point to point connection. Maybe in RIAA's eyes? Assuming it's per peformance, and assuming the cost is 7 cents per song, those 480 songs per day will only cost you $33.60 dollars. Now if you were running a real internet-based radio station, you wouldn't have any problems selling ads to cover these fees. Your bandwidth will cost you WAY more than that. Unless you are stealing that too, like the songs you downloaded from Kazaa and now are playing on the net w/o paying any royalties to anyone.
I do agree that RIAA is evil. I think artists should band together and come up with a better solution for collecting and distributing fees from broadcasters.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[MrBlint]

Actually the DMCA grants a compulsory license to broadcast. The issue is over how much it should cost.

Re:Correct Information

[cdrudge]

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?

Re:Oh shock and horror

[tomstdenis]

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

The only winners

[EvilNutSack]

... 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?

There IS no "RIAA-safe" model!

[Adolatra]

bypassing the RIAA would be the solution.

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.

Re:There IS no "RIAA-safe" model!

[Seeka]

This sounds to me like a fancy word for "conflict of interest."

How can the RIAA, a privately owned corporation, be the sole recipient for funds that are designated through public domain?

In other words, the RIAA is a private company. The government is putting the RIAA in power over licensing fees over EVERYONE. I can see easily how the RIAA might have an argument that they can control the royalties on music controlled by their organization, but to control ALL music, doesn't anyone see the problem with this?

Re:There IS no "RIAA-safe" model!

[pmz]

royalties

People should call a tax a tax. It's like those FCC "fees" on my phone bill. If a fee/royalty/charge/payment/whatever came into existance due to legislation, then it no less than a tax (and no less evil).

Re:There IS no "RIAA-safe" model!

[pmz]

Capitalism has been under fire for years with the reinvention/redefinition of monopolies and my favourite monopolistic behavior by industries (consequence of lobbying???). It has seriously degraded human rights and quality of life in industrialized countries.

Actually, it can be argued that the problems in industrialized countries are not due to capitalism but by the willingness of the governments to be bloated and corrupted by corporate special interests. There should be very high barriers in place between corporate interests and government interests, but, unfortunately, it seems that those barriers get taken down due to those very same conflicts of interest. Corporations are not people, and they should be represented only by the voters working for them and not by special executive visits to the White House.

This isn't a fault of capitalism but a fault of greedy short-sighted people in a highly bureaucratic and unaccountable government. In short, the appropriate word, here, is "corruption."

Only a dramatic down-sizing of government over many years would allow accountability to be restored and the checks and balances in the economy to get re-established.

Re:There IS no "RIAA-safe" model!

[DonGar]

That's not QUITE true. There are legally enforced licenses that all copyright holders are required to grant at fixed prices. These organizations collect those fees.

One nasty kicker. These fees are NOT paid to the artist whose work you displayed. They are distributed based on a formula based on what's "popular" now, so that nobody has to do so much record keeping. You only play Techno, but Britney is still the one to get paid.

If you make a deal directly with the copyright holdres, you can tell RIAA/SoundExchange, etc to go to hell. If you only play music from your own band, (or from your own label, if you happen to be Sony), this is feasible.

The problem is that it's really, really, really hard to make a seperate deal with all of the copyright owners that you would like to be able to play. Imagine every radio station individually making deals, individually with every band.

Then imagine trying to keep track of all the different requirements that different bands might ask for.

Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[poopie]

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.

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[yerricde]

It's completely conceivable that we could have "GPL" bands and movie studios releasing GOOD STUFF onto P2P network.

Really? What steps can a band that uses a copyleft license take to make sure that the songs its members write are in fact original?

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[Azureflare]

I disagree with you're assumption that open-source advocates are pirates. Look, just because we have high ideals of what software should be, doesn't mean we disobey the law. The fact is, these small webcasters can do whatever the hell they want in the court of law. That's the whole point of the justice system. They may get completely shot down for an idiotic case, or they might win. Laws can be rewritten, corporations thwarted. It may be difficult, but change IS possible. It's up to the judge. Do you expect the world to never change?

Also, just because you're an open-source advocate, does NOT mean you use P2P. In fact, I don't use P2P because (1) it's a huge timesink, and I have better uses for my time (2) it hogs my network (in fact, I've banned it's use on all the computers on my home network, since all that's downloaded tends to be pr0n) and I have better uses for my network bandwidth, and (3) I can get higher quality by purchasing products that I need.

In fact, it appears to me you are assuming all open-source advocates are 13-year-olds who also like to pirate all their windows software and new games. Well, I say that assumption is wrong.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this court case, because if the webcasters are able to win (As unlikely as that is), then the RIAA will most likely have to make room for the smaller players. Personally, I don't listen to webcast streams anymore; the quality tends to be shoddy, the music isn't on my computer, and I can't pause it and come back to the same song later. It might make the RIAA a bit more lenient though. However you look at it, taking away college students' life savings for going along with the herd is just the wrong way to do ethical business.

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[mugnyte]

True enough, but just because something "has always been" doesn't mean its going to stay the same. The fact of the matter point towards one thing: Human Nature is like water, it takes the path of least resistance. If music *can* be acquired for free with little risk of consequences, that path will be flooded. From highway speeding to parking meters, people take calculated risks.

The shift I'm talking about though is that digital information has essentially become trivial to copy. Combined with the fact that almost everything can be moved into and out of this medium, we stuck at a crossroads:

We can retrofit implement a check & balance system to impose consequences on "wrong" behavior. This is the DMCA stick with the RIAA's spyglass on you. The "punish the few harshly" is a takeoff from the old IRS theme of making audits their own punishment. Avoid the punishment meant avoiding the audit. So, people pay their taxes. However, the deductions fall into the "calculated risk" category for most people. The devil will be that this system always has a little abuse to play with.

Today, we have private trading outside of P2P, which will grow. Remember the swap meets at the old computer shows. I would trade C64 games back and forth until everyone there was saturated with the same library. Didn't take long. This happens now in any technically-savvy gathering for music. So fighting P2P is useless.

OR

We can rebuild the model to take advantage of the new system. Getting specific, content creators need to be paid based how popular their creation is. For investment, distribution (even digitally), storage, catelogging and other meta-activities, an umbrella company would form somehow. It would also look out for its own income channels, but accepting the nature of the new system. So something akin to the RIAA will always need to exist.

However, it can think long and hard about what's going on and collaborate on a exploiting the new technology. Let's start with some axioms:

Once on the internet, information is free for personal use. It cannot be resold commercially, but distributed for free with no limits. Take it or leave it, this is the truth today

Creators need to make a living wage and it should roughly scale to the "popularity" of their output. Popularity would be hard to measure everywhere, but metrics need to be formed somehow

The only solution I can think of is that a top-down tax be formed that imposes a bandwidth-style fee on all ISPs. Then this escrow pool builds. By sampling certain channels - and this would be technically challenging, a weighed listed it built of who's content is moved most. Then the pool is paid to the creators based on these ratios. Determining the true content, true movement seems very hard to get right, I think.

However, all types of digital information could be passed through these scanners.. Not unlike the FBI own snooper idea, with much of the same privacy problems. Sampling need not be at 100% and could spend some time checking unknown patterns against a growing database of known encryption schemes for content. It wouldn't need to be real time, just fast enough to make some sort of rolyalty pay period effect.

This idea may not work, but it's the only one I can think of. Others?

mug

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[poopie]

Give me a break, That's like saying, "It's okay for people to steal from the supermarket because they're hungry -- what do you expect them to do - work for food?"

We're no longer hunter-gatherers, in most evolving countries famine and disease don't kill off the population. Despite what us dot-com-starbucks-drinkin-wireless-pda-mp3-playing -technobabblers think, life is still pretty darned easy. People who produce something have the right to be compensated.

In the US, being poor means that you get fat from fast food and that you need to drink American beer instead of imported beer. I can hear a nation of unemployed couch potatoes whining about "how am I going to design my webpage/blog if I can't steal content? What music am I going to listen to if I can't get it for free from KaZaa? What movies am I going to watch from my couch while I design my website?"

Waa!

I argue that the world has never had so much entertainment, music, art, food, information resources, etc. and that 90% of the creators of above items have never received so little compensation... and we're complaining that everything's not free?!?

The internet is starting to feel like a giant virtual riot in the streets where everyone starts breaking windows and stealing TV's just because they don't want to miss out on the action.

Okay, so looking at things from the GPL perspective, we're enabling people to "inherit" the work of others. "My philanthropy is donating code to project X so that the future generations can benefit" is a noble cause, but don't mistake your cause with other people's rights.

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[aricusmaximus]

Being responsible is not always compatible with fun. But stealing someone's hard-thought intellectual property is not fair either. Why do you think it's reasonable to hoard 100's of gigs of other people's hard work?

Your all or nothing "it's free or else we can't afford it" argument is bogus - there's some point of payment that's fair - perhaps $0.01 or $0.02 cents per picture? $0.02 to $0.05 per play of a song, up to 10 plays and then it's free? It may not be easy to figure out, but an equitable level of payment *does* exist - one that doesn't unduly burden the user, but does fairly honor and reward the creator.

No one does something for nothing. If you're doing open-source software, you're getting something from it, even if it's not direct $$$. Maybe it's for prestige from your peers, maybe it's so that you can get recognized and get an actual paying programming job. The point is that (consciously or unconsciously), you expect reward for your efforts.

The same goes for artistic endeavors. If I put in 1000's of hours into making something worthwhile, I deserve reward from it, including $$$. Exactly how much is up for debate - but my work is not free.

It may be impossible to track smells and tastes, saying tunes and pictures cannot be tracked is pure manure. The technology exists and is being refined for tracking and digital rights management. Be honest -- you know who made your favorite song -- so when's the last time you wrote a check and thank-you note to your favorite band?

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[mattite]

>> 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 ?"

You're preaching to the wrong crowd. We just like to make fun of the RIAA et. al., not steal their 'music.' If you are familiar with the mess with SCO, then you know that the OS community respects IP. Of course, I don't speak for everyone, but you don't either.

>> Do you know that you're not allowed to have a picture of Bart Simpson on your website?

Well, maybe you should inform these people.

>> ... if you don't want to support MPAA and RIAA, then *WE* need to provide an alternative ...

I can play "Chopsticks".

>> otherwise we need to play by their rules or petition to have the rules changed.

I've got a stick of chewing gum. I think I'll go buy a senator.

Re:Intellectual property vs The Big Web Grab

[Alsee]

law on the internet has been difficult to enforce doesn't mean that people's rights stopped being important.

No, this is abou the RIAA abusing their monopoly and their absurd level of policical clout to get NEW rights, just becuase it's on the internet.

Internet radio should be under the EXACT SAME RULES as other radio. That isn't a particularly radical or unreasonable position, is it? That is not an attempt to strip anyone of their rights, is it?

But that position equals a total defeat for the RIAA on this issue. Assuming that you agree that it is not unreasonable to hold all radiocasters to THE SAME RULES AND FEES, and that that equals total defeat for the RIAA position, perhaps you should consider that the RIAA position may not in fact be a reasonable position? Perhaps you should actually read the complaint against the RIAA? The RIAA has a 90% monopoly. The RIAA has been found to have abused that molopoly multiple times in the past. The complaint alledges that the RIAA is again abusing their monopoly in an attempt to kill off non-RIAA music.

-

Be professional

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

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.

Re:Be professional

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Well, he DID try to contact the CEO.

What a pathetic little turd.

Re:Techno sucks

[recursiv]

where'd you get that? eminem?

you know, there are styles of electronic music other than rave.

*sigh* not that you care.

improper conversion

[avi33]

point zero seven cents is the same as point zero zero zero dollars

Re:Oh shock and horror

[3terrabyte]

Nobody said a webcaster has to play RIAA music.

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.

What the article DOESN'T say

[MacWiz]

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.

Re:What the article DOESN'T say

[Sphere1952]

Thank you very much. There's a lot more going on than just the RIAA's stinking dealings, but you've explained the RIAA stench quite well.

In general, the people in power are using their newly invented IP as a method of smothering Freedom and keeping the rest of us down.

Re:Techno sucks

[BrookHarty]

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.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Klaruz]

Ahh yes, the RIAA member companies own the copyrights, but the playback rights belong to the songwriters. Those are collected via ASCAP/BMI and don't go to the labels. Here's how it worked in the past:

Analog stations paid ASCAP/BMI
Digital stations paid ASCAP/BMI

Now here's how it works:

Analog stations pay ASCAP/BMI (and get payola, that's another story...)
Digital stations pay ASCAP/BMI AND the RIAA (because when you listen to a digital station, it's like them giving you a copy of the song, so the station has to pay for every user's piracy, no, really, that was the RIAA's argument to get the law passed)

Sound fair? Nope. If an analog station had to pay the royalty rates they want digital stations to pay they would go out of business. Running a digital station costs just about as much as running an analog station of the same size (bandwidth/severs vs towers/amps/huge fcc license fees), so why should special rules be made for internet broadcasters? Because there are more of them than the RIAA can control with payola, and this is a threat to them.

People whine and complain about the RIAA all the time, the only real way we have to shut them down is with the mindshare of the people. If you want the mindshare of the people, we need independent internet radio to ween society off the RIAA.

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[KrispyKringle]

That's the gist of it, though you shouldn't encourage not-reading the articles.

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.

Broadcast Into the world wide Web,

[Yo Grark]

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.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[SlamMan]

Does this remind anyone of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"? If I own the license to something, and don't want anyone to do something with it, I don't have to let them. Thats the point of ownership.

Fee Waivers/Statutory Licensing...

[msimm]

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.

Crossed the line?

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

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.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Lumpy]

How you got modeed informative I have no idea.

you have zero clue as to how it works.

as a broadcaster you pay ASCAP and/or BMI fees to play music from their libraries... if you do both you can play anything that is out there for the most part...

RIAA added an extra fee on top of what everyone is paying ONLY on webcasters.

The fee is bullcrap and anyone supporting it is either a brainless idiot or a RIAA employee... oh wait they are the same thing.

Obviousally you know nothing about the issue. the issue is about EXTORTION applied to a group of broadcasters who are already paying for the right to play the music.

Re:Correct Information

[avi33]

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.

ALL ABOUT CONTROL

[asscroft]

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.

Re:Michael

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

So how is this offtopic if I'm responding to Michael's comment on THIS STORY?

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Dashing Leech]

Not quite. If you don't want anyone to do something with it, you keep it to yourself. If you publically express it, there are certain obligations that go along with that*. Your thoughts or ideas might spark other thoughts and ideas (e.g, derivative works, improvements to inventions, etc.). It is in the public's best interest to allow such things to occur in the name of innovation and progress. Publically expressing yourself and then forbidding others from expressing their derivative (or modified) works just stiffles such progress or innovation and frustrates the public.

*This is not entirely a legal argument, although there are some legal obligations. But it is my understanding of what IP was supposed to be about, and IMHO how it should be.

How'd they do that?

[PeterChenoweth]

As many /.'ers know, in 2002 the Library of Congress decided on .07 cents per song (retroactive to '98).

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...

Re:How'd they do that?

[Ath]

The Supreme Court has always held that the ex-post facto restriction in the US Constition applies only to criminal laws, not civil.

I would donate to the cause, but

[Ichijo]

...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?

IP is contrived

[IshanCaspian]

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.

typos in complaint

[Anonymous Custard]

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)

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Jaysyn]

But it's *not* the point of copyright.

Jaysyn

How do you know?!

[gd23ka]

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?

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Catbeller]

Copyright. Is. Not. Property. It. Is. Not. Ownership.

Copyright is the control of the license to copy. Period.

It is not, not not NOT ownership of songs. No one owns a song. Songs do not exist in physical space. You cannot own them anymore than you can own a dream.

A song, like a dream, really exists in the mind. Attempts to own patterns in the mind are obscene.

Jefferson and the others were correct. Ideas are the property of all -- with the caveat that the originator may license copies of a idea, for a LIMITED period of time, to encourage creative people. But they never intended products of the mind to be PROPERTY.

And: the law of copyright was a compromise. Limited time, then release it to the public. The IP "owners" now have broken their side of the bargain by effectively eliminating an expiration date, thanks to the idiotically literal Supreme Court justices.

They broke their side of a two hundred+ year old bargain. They want to turn all the works of man after 1920 or so into their private property, to be bought, sold, and hoarded, forever. As far as I am concerned, the contract is void between the public and the record, movie, and book publishers, and they were the ones who voided it with their own greed and memetic manipulation. They sowed the wind. Let them reap the whirlwind.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[tomstdenis]

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

spill it... don't keep me in suspense

[The Tyro]

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?

Re:Oh shock and horror

[Izago909]

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.

Hopefully we'll find out soon

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Text of an email I sent to Speakeasy:

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-o rder dept.*

> *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.*

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[proj_2501]

Wrong. Radio broadcasters pay a fee for every song that is played over the air. The killer for web broadcasting is that the license fees are per song PER LISTENER, shoving not only higher fees onto smaller radio stations, but also more recordkeeping requirements.

Quote from the article

[chia_monkey]

"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...

Re:A quick summary for those who don't want to cli

[dirk]

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.

Its clear how they can do that.

[Mike Hawk]

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.

Re:Techno sucks

[recursiv]

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.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[jonniesmokes]

More or less I agree.

The problem is that analog stations pay 6-12 cents per song (more for classical or long works) - regardless of the number of users. Here's a link to BMI's rates. But the RIAA wants internet radio people to pay .07 cents / song / user. For 1000 listeners - 0.70 cents per song. For 10000 listeners (about the size of a popular FM station )- $7.00 per song.

I used to copy songs off analog radio all the time - I think a lot of people did. The argument that you're giving people a copy of the song on digital radio but not analog is silly. The price should be the same. The reason it isn't is because the RIAA (or whoever is backing them) doesn't want independent internet radio. They probably want a monopoly on that. Maybe Clear Channel is backing them. Maybe BMI wants to make their own internet radio. Just speculation.

Regardless. Internet radio shouldn't have to pay anymore than regular radio.

Ween

[poptones]

If you want to "ween" society off the music of the RIAA, you would logically start with showing them how good alternatives are. Alternatives, in this case, NOT on RIAA label members.

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."

Re:Ween

[rhavyn]

They have to pay these fees to the RIAA whether or not they play music from RIAA labels.

The Answer

[cybercuzco]

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.

Re:The Answer

[Sphere1952]

"...Its "free" speech if its not written down beforehand, i.e its not IP if its extemporaneous..."

Hmmm... I don't think so. If you were correct then the Anarchist's Cookbook wouldn't be free speech.

Re:The Answer

[cybercuzco]

I'm talking about people speaking. Obviouusly if somone doesnt enforce copyright on something like the anarchists cookbook, then its free. Whoever originally wrote the anarchists cookbook (or parts of it) own copyright on that part or whole. If they chose not to enforce it, then fine, but its still copyrightable material. Extemporaneeous speech is not copyrightable, speeches that are written down beforehand are.

Re:The Answer

[Sphere1952]

Going back to my original question. How do I determine if I'm listening to someone's intellectual property or their free speech? I don't see how you've answered the question at all.

I'm asking the question in general, although webcasting presents an interesting variation on my problem. If someone puts out a piece of music (or whatever) how am I supposed to tell if they are expecting some sort of recompense, or if they are doing it in order to speak to me without regard to compensation?

Let's say that I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3. How am I to know whether the person who recorded descramble wanted to retain copyright control or wanted to reach me with a political message? (The descramble.mp3 I am talking about is by Joesph Wecker, and it is him singing DeCSS.) The same question fits in the case of webcasters. Ought a webcaster be expected to pay the RIAA if it plays descramble? How is this to be determined? What if Joesph simply refuses to discuss the matter and won't tell us whether he wants to protect his copyright or wants to express his political opinion?

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[Sylver Dragon]

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.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[tomstdenis]

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

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

It's easier to control the actions of one large entity than many small ones.

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[curunir]

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.

Question

[Experiment 626]

Traditional analog radio stations have some established royalty rates that they pay to ASCAP/BMI for writing the song, but nothing to the label because the radio play makes them promoters of the music.

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.

Re:Question

[rjthomas61]

To KDLynch/AC,

You seem to be able to speak authoritatively about broadcasting issues. Since so many slashdot articles deal with this topic, I wish you would post under a username so your posts would be easy to find. Unfortunately, most AC posts get lost in the noise.

Multiicast?

[El]

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?

Re:Oh shock and horror

[antibryce]

. 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.

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.

Satellite Radio and Digital Cable

[NormalVisual]

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.

Playing lotto

[poptones]

...is a good investment when you have the winning ticket. Odds are, you're not going to buy a winning ticket. The question really is how many BAD investments are you willing to make? Billionaires don't get to be Billionaires by making thousands of bad investments, and Millionaires don't stay that way for long either.

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.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[Izago909]

SomaFM is more than one channel. Some do play more popular artists, but not all of them.

did you read my post?

[Thinkit3]

Just as I said, alternate between pessemism and cynicism. Get them both in when you can. You think you're original? Yawn.

Copies distributed from Terrestrial Radio?

[mikelu]

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.

Hmmmm...interesting idea.
*big red stamp* [PATENT PENDING] *end big red stamp* :P

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.

Re:A quick summary for those who don't want to cli

[AaronStJ]

They're also asking for a jury trial. IANAL (duh), so I don't know if that's a good or bad idea.

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.

Apples and Oranges

[SomeOtherGuy]

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.

I have another question.

[Sphere1952]

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.)

Built in regulation

[SomeOtherGuy]

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.

Re:Built in regulation

[evilviper]

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.

The same way everyone thought the RIAA would be okay because people didn't have enough bandwidth to effectively share songs... The same way the MPAA thought they would be safe too.

There are a few things to note:
1) Bandwidth is getting cheaper all the time.
2) Newer technologies cut the rquired bandwidth (eg Vorbis, MPEG-4, etc)
3) Peer-2-Peer can almost infinitly multiply your bandwidth for free.
4) They can't exert control over webcasters, as they can over on-air broadcasters.

I think #4 is most important. Since they can't hold anything over webcasters, they max sure to kill them off before they start. The last thing RIAA wants is stations regularly broadcasting entire CDs, legally, in a high-quality way that can be easily copied.

Re:Built in regulation

[SomeOtherGuy]

"The last thing RIAA wants is stations regularly broadcasting entire CDs, legally, in a high-quality way that can be easily copied"

Following a set of semi-resonable (however stupid)rules like not playing the same song in a 3 hour timeframe -- or the same artist back to back is a lot easier to manage and accept "punishment" for -- than it is to blindly pay the kind of big time cash it would take to broadcast as a hobby.

If they would come out and set resonable limits for similar to Quality at or over 96K & Listenership at or over 100 slots has to pay something. And then the real "hobbyist/not for profit" broadcasters below those levels are going to be left alone....I could live with that.

Re:Built in regulation

[evilviper]

like not playing the same song in a 3 hour timeframe

So, you mean I can broadcast any entire CD, every 3 hours? Sounds good to me, doesn't sound good to the RIAA.

or the same artist back to back is a lot easier to manage

It doesn't have to be back-to-back. We could interleave about a dozen CDs, and about 12 hours later, you have all the CDs on your hard drive. Thanks to ID3 tags, each file would be labeled with song, track, album, artist, etc.

If they would come out and set resonable limits for similar to Quality at or over 96K

Well, the problem with setting quality limits, is that the bar continues to move. 128k is poor in MP3, but it sounds absolutely great for Vorbis. Even 96k would be more than enough to produce very-near CD-quality, VBR Vorbis streams.

& Listenership at or over 100 slots has to pay something.

That would be hard to enforce. I can set a limit of 99 listeners, but have several different machines, on different networks, streaming about the same things. Perhaps in different orders, at different times, etc.

I do agree with you, though, that there should be simple minimum regulations, under which you don't have to pay much of anything, but there are good reasons that the RIAA doesn't want that. One of which is complete control, which they will not give-up for anything. The MPAA is the same way.

College radio

[autechre]

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. :)

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[Rahga]

SoundExchange is an entity created within RIAA.... Remember?

Re:Michael

[Keith Russell]

It wouldn't be the first time michael's modded down tons of comments.

Funny how the editor of Your Rights Online is so quick to suppress dissent.

Re:The rights holder gets paid not song writers

[Rahga]

Of course, but it's been a long time and many lawsuits ago since various record companies used to attempt forcing songwriters to give up all of those rights.

Re:Oh shock and horror

[antibryce]

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.

Re:Grow up!

[mcpkaaos]

A customer writing to a CEO for customer service is about on par with a 4 year old kid writing to Santa Claus for a toy fire truck. The only real difference is that the kid doesn't take every opportunity to whine about it when the letter isn't answered. Unless, of course, that kid was michael as a boy. ;)

Re:Quick note for those who don't read the article

[curunir]

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.

YOURE ONE OF THEM!

[HyperColor Underware]

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!

Re:YOURE ONE OF THEM!

[Keith Russell]

And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! For the record, I'm just another Speakeasy customer, albeit one without a bully pulpit.

Re:Wrong

[Klaruz]

You have to pay soundexchange regardless. It's law. Soundexchange is supposed to distribute to the labels. Guess what the chances of your 3 band indie label getting some cash is? The way around it is to get written agreements with the labels to bypass it. I want to see every webcaster get agreements in writing from 2000 indie labels. Of course, the indie labels could start Indy Labels Association of America, but then they wouldn't be very indy.

Feel free to read the DMCA and the webcasting related settlements if you don't believe me. Here's a link with some people who run stations talking about this:

http://lists.microshaft.org/pipermail/dmca_discuss /2002-August/003160.html

Wrong AGAIN

[poptones]

You have to pay soundexchange regardless. It's law

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.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[MacWiz]

Copyright is designed as an artificial and limited monopoly for the "artists and creators." It says nothing about the publishers and those who contracturally wrest control from them.

Re:A quick summary for those who don't want to cli

[Alsee]

COMPLAINT

42. The CARP ... 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".

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.

-

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Alsee]

Sigh.

Try actually reading the story and the legal complaint against the RIAA. The RIAA is commiting anti-trust violations to obstruct non-RIAA music.

You suggestion to 'just go play non-RIAA music' is like pouring water on a drowning man.

-

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[SlamMan]

Funny, I'd have sworn that was the same Jefferson who was in favor of Patents. To be fair, thats more what I had in mind when I was arguing about copyright. If I invent something, say, a new type of metal stronger and lighter and cheaper than steel, which we'll call SlamMan Metal, I can sell, or not sell, that metal to whomever I choose. I can also license it to a third party, who does not have the right to further give it away or license it further at my option. Why? Because its MINE.

Re:Lables?

[hesiod]

> 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.

Proposal on EFFECTIVELY hurting RIAA

[h1b_indian]

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? :-)

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[Alsee]

If I invent something... I can also license it to a third party, who does not have the right to further give it away or license it further at my option.

Right.

Why? Because its MINE.

Wrong. You can own a particular peice of metal, but you cannot own the idea of an entire catagory. You cannot own information. It is not a peice of property.

You can licence a patent/copyright because the government has chosen to grant you a limited monolopy on it. You have absolutely no inherent right to patent/copyright protection.

Done properly patents and copyrights can be good and useful. Patents and copyrights are created and granted for a REASON. They not based on any inherent right of the patent holder / copyight holder. Patents/copyrights exist for the benefit of the public through the promotion of science and arts. Any claims of "MINE!" or "my rights!" have absolutely no weight. The use of the word "property" is just silly.

Anyone who thinks this is an anti-copyright and/or anti-patent position is mistaken and needs to read more carefully.

-

Paypal link

[detroitindustrial]

Webcaster Alliance paypal link
There is a Paypal donate icon on the WA home page.

Re:Yah, that's gonna happen

[SlamMan]

Actually, I can, the was the current patent laws are. If you don't like the laws, there's are fair argument, but its not an excuse for not seeing things as they are.