Study Says $2.3B in Net Radio Royalties by '08

An anonymous reader writes "According to a newly published report, the music industry will have a nice pile of cash to collect from net radio owners in 2008 — a staggering $2.3 billion to be exact. The report is based on current performance royalties paid by terrestrial radio vs. internet radio, and taking into account projected growth in listenership. Meanwhile, the corporate Clear Channels pay just $550 Million for broadcasting the same songs we've all heard before. Hardly a fair deal."

Comments

Re:screw them

[jacquesm]

let's just say not having a single point of failure was a design feature because I didn't
feel like becoming the focus of an attempt to shut down the 'network'. Also because it is
not technically intended to do that (just like a hammer is not technically intended to be
a weapon) I think there is some wiggle room.

But this advanced 'sneakernet' feature (which works just fine across the net as well, you
basically only need to have two media exchanges near each other during the initial install,
after that the traffic is fairly limited) is very useful. Just bring a media exchange along
to a lan party and it takes care of itself.

Or you equip one with a wifi card and slap a 'media exchange point' sticker on a lamppost
outside or something like that.

I'm sure people will be 'creative' with what they can do with it.

The real power of it will only come in to force when a number of islands of media echanges
link up through a common user. That's when it'll start to cook.

Re:Yea, I don't think so...

[cpt kangarooski]

You, on the other hand, seem to justify illegal behavior.

There's nothing wrong in that. The present configuration of laws that we have is by no means perfect. Some things that are legal should be illegal; some things that are illegal should be legal. While we ought to respect the law, where the law is in great conflict with what it ideally should be, and with people's norms of behavior, and lacks any or enough moral support, then that law is unworthy of respect. It ought to be changed, but it's of relatively little consequence if it is broken. For such a law, the only real downside to breaking it is that that might engender disrespect for legitimate laws.

I don't think that the whole of copyright is illegitimate, but I think it's fair to say that portions of it as we currently have it probably are. While I'd prefer to fix it, and I am concerned that lawlessness as to those portions will have negative effects as to other portions, I don't get bent out of shape about people ignoring those laws.

but immoral too.

No. There is no moral component to copyright law; it's purely utilitarian. But if there were a moral component to it, it would actually be on the side of the pirates.

Acquiring it in a way different from the owner's wishes (I deliberately avoid getting side-tracked into debate over whether this is "stealing") is dishonest.

I disagree, particularly given that 1) it's often possible to act lawfully and against their wishes (e.g. the record industry hates it when people deal in used records) and 2) being honest is not the same thing as being law-abiding.

If you don't like the way the music is sold, the honest choices are:

You forgot one: 3) Change the laws so that music that is sold is sold in the way you want, whether the music industry is pleased at that or not. This is what I pursue, as it's a lot better than the options you provide, i.e. giving in or giving up.

Push Money

[mazphil57]

Meanwhile, the corporate Clear Channels pay just $550 Million for broadcasting the same songs

Ordinary radio stations are expected to play [only] the songs they've received incentive pay or broadcasting discounts to promote. For example, if a performer is giving a concert soon nearby, airplay will be purchased of that performer's songs to drive ticket sales.

There is software that "listens" to the radio station and verifies that the songs and commercials they've been paid to play a certain number of times are actually being played that many times. Usually it is fully automated, but occasionally a human with headphones is needed when the software isn't sure (kind of like voice recognition software).

I interviewed at a company that provided this software in 1995 (it ran under DOS).

Outsourcing

[Quzak]

It just shows that its time once again for Americas FAVORITE game show!!!!!!

OUTSOURCE

Simply outsource the radio broadcasting service/equipment to someplace where location != United States.

Re:Yea, I don't think so...

[cpt kangarooski]

Certainly not. And here is why. Even the vilest pirates claim, they only steal from the RIAA/MPAA -- not the original authors: musicians, artists, whoever.

What do their claims have to do with the underlying morality of it? Besides, the vilest of pirates don't bother to claim anything. They're in it for the money and don't care about making claims, whether those claims are fig leaves or not. The pirates you're thinking of operate on a more casual level and post on places like Slashdot.

Pirating from **AA is also wrong -- claiming otherwise is equivalent to claiming, that the products of those original authors' -- which they (pre)sell to the record companies -- have no value.

On the contrary. If a work were valueless, then no one would ever bother to pirate it. The only thing worse than having people pirate your work is not having people pirate your work. If people pirate your work, then at least your work is popular with someone, leaving only the practical question of getting them to pay. If they aren't even pirating your work, then your work is a hopeless flop that cannot attract an audience even when it is available for free. You can't fix that easily, often not at all.

So I have no problem with assuming that the works have value. But again, this has nothing to do with morality. There is no moral argument that says that just because Alice produces something of value that Bob cannot enjoy it for free. An example: Alice and Bob are neighbors. Alice makes substantial improvements to her house. She paints it, beautifies it, and plants and maintains a stunning garden that draws complements from all around. Her work, which comes at a considerable cost to herself, results in the property value of her house going up. It also results in the property value of her neighbors' houses going up, simply due to their proximity to her house. Bob then sells his house, gaining more than he would have if Alice had not done what she did. Thus, what Alice did resulting in Bob profiting. But I think that we can all agree that Alice cannot make a moral argument (or a legal one, though morals and laws aren't the same at all) that she deserves a penny of what Bob got.

Copyright laws are utilitarian. They are meant to result in the greatest public benefit. They do not have a moral component whatsoever. And this means that breaking those laws, while it might be contrary to the public weal, and thus might be justifiably illegal, is not immoral.

Certainly, if you believe otherwise, then you must have a funny sense of morality. Why do you think that it is moral for terrestrial radio stations to broadcast music without having to pay the performer, while it is immoral if Internet radio stations do the same? Why do you think that it is moral for people who purchase a book printed in the US to resell it, but immoral for people who purchase a book printed outside the US to do the same, even assuming that the copyright owner is the same in both cases? And most of all, why does your morality perfectly track the culmination of almost three centuries of copyright law? Is that just an amazing coincidence or what?

Copyright law is no different than zoning laws that prohibit someone from putting up a chain link fence in their front yard, but which allows them to put up a picket fence instead. Nor is it different from many of the finer details of the tax code, or the guts of agency rules governing the inner workings of utilities. These laws are created because they're convenient or useful or practical in some way. Not because there is a moral compulsion at work.

Ergo, you are hurting the original authors, that we all love and pledge to respect.

That's a hell of an assumption. I don't love authors, nor do I respect them, particularly. What I feel about authors is that I want to exploit them as best as I can. That is, in fact, central to the idea of copyright law: to exploit authors. I'll take you through it.

The purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science.

Re:Yea, I don't think so...

[cpt kangarooski]

You lost me right there at the denying to creators the power over their creations -- and the property rights.

Hm?

First, what I'm advocating is a reformed, lesser copyright. I do think that copyright is a good idea, I just don't think we've implemented it well.

Second, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Copyright has never been about giving creators power over their work merely because they created it; even today, copyright doesn't do that. (For example, the law currently denies architects any power over photographs of their buildings) Also, I have no idea what property rights you're talking about. Creative works aren't property, copyrights arguably could be, and copies are. Nothing I've said or proposed would have any effect on the status of any of those.

I think that the main issue here isn't merely that we disagree, it's that you don't know anything about copyright and so can't really participate in a meaningful discussion about copyright. This isn't an insult or an attempt to support my position, either. I am happy to discuss copyright policy, and happy to face opponents, and willing to adopt good ideas that others have had, even if they make a shamble of my previous position. But this isn't really possible when one side doesn't know anything about it other than hearsay and what they have made-up in their heads. You should really sit down with a scholarly work on the subject and learn about it. Sadly, the Internet is not a terribly good resource for this.