Slashdot Mirror
Net Radio Appeal On Royalties Rejected
Station writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has rejected a request to reconsider its March decision to impose an onerous royalty schedule on Internet radio broadcasters. '"None of the moving parties have [sic] made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision.' The recording industry and its royalty collection organization SoundExchange are jubilant over the ruling. '"Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet radio industry — large and small, commercial and noncommercial — so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres," said SoundExchange head Simson in a statement. Noble words, but after today's ruling — which will take effect on May 15 unless the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to hear an appeal — there probably won't be much of an Internet radio industry left for SoundExchange to work with.'"
And Internet radio was the only radio left that didn't suck.
With internet radio gone, VOIP gone, just think of all that bandwidth that will now be available for WoW!
The whole point of this ruling *IS* to kill internet radio which poses the greatest threat to the vertically-integrated, homogeneous pop music environment that is the lifeblood of the RIAA. Without alternative venues for independent artists, the major label combine gets to pick the winners in the market. (Nevermind the detriment to the market itself - this is about controlling the whole pie, not the size of the pie.)
Sometimes I find myself wishing the RIAA got everything they ever wanted, if only to see how their market collapses. Then I realize it's already happening.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Can't blame em... Unfortunately the internet is now another accepted medium of distribution. Hopefully this opens the door to innovative licensing such as cost per listener, etc.
This
Isn't the whole basis of the royalty because it is a digital duplication, an exact copy, and that is why regular radio stations don't have to pay this royalty? If this is the case why don't HD radio stations have to pay this royalty? It is a digital broadcast is it not?
So, bye, bye, Miss American pie...
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
having used internet radio as my sole source of mp3s since the early days of Kazaa, I think I might just subscribe to the stations. They're good people running good stations with good music. They deserve my money.
If you don't want to have your radio invaded by ads - subscribe today.
They clearly have no idea how much Pandora has done to sell me their product. I have actually purchased CDs I would never have known existed were it not for internet radio. They're killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
What is to prevent people from just setting up internet radio servers overseas in areas that don't enforce copyright laws?
This will only work against people and companies inside the United States; I predict that internet radio will still thrive, and the rest of the world will drive America's music tastes.
Working with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, who are of course exempt from paying royalties. What wholly-owned subsidiaries, you ask? Why, the very ones that the sustenance of this ruling has made possible.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
then read this: http://www.savethestreams.org/serendipity/pages/fa q.html
That I consider the government of the United States of America supporting a monopolistic empire on intellectual property to be a "manifest injustice".
That I consider the intimidating tactics of this monopoly, used against those least in a position to defend themselves, with continuingly underhanded, dishonest, and otherwise manipulative tactics in an attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and deceit discouraging of the "theft" of words, of tones, of whispers left upon the wind to be a "manifest injustice".
That I consider the abidance of our elected officials of this monopoly and it's tactics in the hopes of gaining funding and not risking the ill tide of public support to be a "manifest injustice".
That I consider the appointment of federal employees and board members with tangible interests in the preservation of these monopolies and their profitability to roles in which they possess a supervisory power or the ability to further these practices and profitability to be a "manifest injustice".
That I consider the stifling of creative thought and expression and the chilling effect on free speech and free research by means of litigation to be a "manifest injustice".
That I could continue to write additional entries to this list upwards of twenty pages of considerations and opinions against the stupidity of this entire situation to be a "manifest injustice".
Does anyone remember five years ago when it took Congress stepping in and getting the special royalty rates for small broadcasters? How did that go down? Are we at the last stage of the fight or can a senator step in and try and save us? I've done everything I can, written letters, told all my friends.... this is so frustrating.
Why is Internet Radio different from Radio Radio?
If the objective is to have broadcasting over the Internet, then there is no effective difference and the royalties should be identical. Saying that Internet Radio does not need to pay royalties because it is too immature a market or because it is somehow different from other radio broadcasting seems to have been rejected.
So, why should there be no royalties for Internet radio when both play the same music?
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
*Sigh*
I just realized this.
I am a big fan of RadioParadise.com. I have purchased a total of 15 CDs over the past year or so. All 15 (I kid you not) were by artists introduced to me by RP.
In my case: No RP, no CDs. Especially now, you greedy pricks.
So - if an internet radio plays a track from unsigned, independent bandm, a band that has explicitly given permission for its music to be played freely, does it STILL have to pay royalties to the copyright mafia ?
What's the [sic] for? That's normally used to indicate an uncorrected grammatical or spelling error, but there aren't any to correct here.
I hope you will too (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)
weeeellll... this is the internets... it works a bit differently.
Our radio-radio would have to be _physically_ located in US of A to be heard.
Our series-of-tubes-radio don't have to. So fuck it we move to Antigua.
Retarded law-makers will yet have to grasp the idea....
Now back to our top 20 playlist.
I'm glad you're speaking for me. I would consider having to say all of what you just said a "manifest injustice".
As a former musician, songwriter, and label owner, I relied on getting paid through performance, mechanical, synchronization, and transcription royalties. It was a regular, dependable revenue stream.
But I've gotten so dependent on internet audio streams like Soma-FM's Indie Pop Rocks. Sometimes, it was the only thing keeping me going when I was working my dead end IT job. I'd have the shortcut to the 128kb stream on my desktop and it was the first thing I'd hit, even before checking my e-mail.
When I heard a song I really liked, I'd write down the name on a notepad, check the artist's site to see if an mp3 was available and if not I'd get it from iTMS. Just like radio, internet streams drive sales.
I had thought that ASCAP and BMI (the performing rights organizations that collect and disburse performance royalties) based royalty rates based on a radio or television station's potential audience, but it seems more complex than that, seeing as the Library of Congress is setting basic rates.
Tomorrow, I intend to research this issue and write my congressman (Rep. Delahunt) and senators (Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy) and ask them to look into this issue. I urge everyone who is a constituent of a senator on the telecommunications subcommittee to do the same:
Conrad Burns, MT, Chairman
Ted Stevens, AK (don't mention those "tubes", okay?)
Trent Lott, MS
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Olympia J. Snowe, ME
Sam Brownback, KS
Gordon Smith, OR
Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL
John Ensign, NV
George Allen, VA
John Sununu, NH
Ernest Hollings, SC, Ranking
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
John D. Rockefeller, WV
John F. Kerry, MA
John Breaux, LA
Byron Dorgan, ND
Ron Wyden, OR
Barbara Boxer, CA
Bill Nelson, FL
Maria Cantwell, WA
E-mail and faxes will probably be better received than snail mail, given the fact that mail to government offices gets delayed while it gets irradiated to ameliorate biological threats.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Copyright owners and webcasters can still negotiate rates (See 17 U.S.C. Sec. 114(f)(3)). The decision that the Copyright Review Board refused to rehear merely establishes the terms and conditions that enable webcasters to license copyrighted works without seeking permission from the copyright owners. If Congress had not enabled the establishment of these compulsory license rates, then webcasters would not be able to broadcast any works without seeking permission from copyright owners because Congress had introduced a digital performance right in the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
Copyright owners presumably are interested in maximizing their revenues, while webcasters probably would like to minimize their costs. Thus, both groups still have a incentives to negotiate. The compulsory licensing rates will not kill internet radio: they simply provide terms and conditions of last resort for copyright owners and webcasters who cannot otherwise reach an agreement.
I guess the official Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee web site is out of date. It was only after I posted this that I realized that Sen. Burns (R-MT) lost to John Tester and George "Macaca" Allen (R-VA) lost to James Webb.
Pretty fucking Web 0.9 if you ask me.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
As I see it, the government of the United States of America is allowing a monopolistic empire on intellectual property to "shoot themselves in the foot".
Seriously, tons of people listen to Internet radio. They don't want to stop listening to music. They don't want to pay major bucks just to leave music streaming all day. They don't want to listen to two minutes of ads between every song. The only other option is to listen to independent artists.
If the RIAA wants to prevent people from hearing their music, who are we to stop them?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
One thing that really surprised me after reading these comments first and then the article, is that stations can't just move to independent music. From TFA:
5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?
This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music.
I guess that means that this is about more than just the RIAA controlling the industry - its about putting them out of business. Of course, me being an Australian, I understand that they can't really do that because there are many other countries where it costs a bit more to buy yourself a politician.
And just for the record, one of my favorite stations is located in Switzerland anyway.
Correct grammar in original! The Editorial Staff of /. wanted to make sure you knew.
Complain to the government. Write your congressmen and your senators, state and national, and let them know what this means. Then tell your non-geek friends and let them get pissed off too.
Sometimes its hard to believe that companies can get away with things like this, but when it comes to technology most of the country doesn't care enough to come to places like slashdot. Today I was talking to a friend about the evils of DRM, and I mentioned the Sony Rootkit incident and she had never heard of it (and she's not just someone off the street, she's an administrator at a website development/hosting company). If most of the country doesn't know about an issue, its easier to get away with it.
Pandora has a link in their blog to a petition thats been set up, so tell your friends, pass around the link, and use the information on the site to contact your own representatives.
tedivm
This country has turned into a piece of shit. Thanks, Republicans.
--
make install -not war
I've come to the conclusion that there is little I can do to stop the overwhelming tide of corporate interests or otherwise greedy minded individuals who control the world. That is, until even the sheeple of the world get annoyed. I figure that'll be about the time they interfere with american idol in some way or another. Or Grey's Anatomy. Until then, those of us with good intent are going to be continued to get kicked to the curb any time a large corporation with deep pockets want something.
They say real life is nothing like school. They are wrong on one point: The bully still wins. Standing up to the bully gets you little more than a bloody nose and some sympathy.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Shut down internet radio = make less money, as those people are now paying you zero
Shut down internet radio = people download more songs in copyright infringing manner rather than listen to a net radio stream
Not Free SF Reader
The adoption of broadband internet in The Rest of The World (tm) continues to out pace the USA as websites formaly hosted in the US move offshore.
You shall know him by his Sig
DAMMIT... I'm PISSED!!!
I wrote several times to my congress critters, but that was a waste of my time, apparently.
I've been involved in radio as a music programmer (i.e. a "dj"), since 1979, and I have two local radio shows, and when I'm at home, I listen to internet radio for "new to me", music.
It's an amazing resource, which broadens my musical palette, and allows me to bring my listeners (in my rural county) unusual, and under heard music that they ordinarily wouldn't be exposed to, and that... leads to more CD sales, it's good for business.
So this is BAD NEWS for internet radio, the stations that I program on, and the public in general, since after it all settles out, the only players left will be the corporate shills, attempting to force their brand of swill into our ears.
I'll NEVER purchase a major label release again, this corporate greediness bullshit has gone on long enough, it's really time for a positive change.
Besides... the indies have much fresher artists anyhow.
Long live the indie labels.
Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but there is a very simple online petition that you can participate in (yeah, I know, petitions don't work, but this actually sends letters to your reps). Spread it around. Tell your friends on MySpace, or Facebook, or what have you.
This will most likely lead to the internet radio pushing only those artists that are NOT part of the RIAA. Overtime, RIAA WILL die. That means that a future generation will enjoy a freer time where artists will be much better paid.
>
The hard part will be for ppl like me who listen at work to older music. I prefer work from the 80's and 90's. So, I will be screwed when those stations will either die, offer just paid music, or switch to different format. But in time, I will adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Another generation, born from fire.
The community always evolves around impractical legislation. I don't listen to much music, so I might be a bit off reality here. Perhaps, the next trend would be multiple personal streaming stations catering to small audience each (fair use in every sense) with a unified search engine to develop a buddy list of those with your tastes?
To boost anonymity tech to keep the pigs at bay.
What?
The point is that if the RIAA gets its way, there won't be any Internet stations to subscribe to, save for those playing the same crap that dominates terrestrial radio.
With all the small players out of the way, the recording cartel will strike "sweetheart" contracts with a few major concerns like AOL and Clear Channel, for lesser royalties but with agreements to play what the major labels want them to.
is here. Radio Paradise and SomaFM are pretty much all that gets played in our house and in my car, via iPod. This really sucks.
The shift of online radio sation owners from playing commercial music to indipendent music artists. Now would be a time to create an organization which helps indipendent music artists or commercial music artist who own the copyright their music connect/network with online radio stations.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Quite right, and an excellent opportunity for those who care about independent music and musicians to show their support by playing the stuff you won't hear on corporate radio. This is why I remain optimistic about Internet radio; it will change for those who can't afford/won't pay the rates for RIAA tracks. These ridiculously high rates could end up serving the interests of unsigned musicians in a way that the RIAA only talks about. This also means good things for those who want to play more non-music programming as the new rate schedule will open up time in their schedule. When the new fee schedule kicks in, smaller broadcasters will have a tough programming decisions to make.
Digital Citizen
Don't just make gloss platitudes. If that's what you believe point to the services you feel are waiting to provide this new home. Sure, what your saying could be true but I'm sick of the assumption saying makes it so.
Quack, quack.
I hear a lot of comments along the lines of A) use creative commons B) go off shore c) direct negotiations with artists.
I run a radio program. Both (depending on how many artists you'd like to feature or how often you'd like to update that) are unrealistic.
Assuming independent artist *do* want to be heard (and I'd contend that they do) I think all that's missing to make this a powerful vehicle is any real organization behind it.
Want to bad mouth the RIAA? Create something fucking better. I'd bet with enough exposure a lot of small/mid-sized artists and record labels would love to provide cohesive, clear (protective) rights for some kind of limited/promotional broadcasting.
When I started my radio program I immediately began contacting artists, managers and labels directly. They didn't want to provide carte blanche permission. This is an industry and artists/(managers)/labels get taken advantage of. But they were more then eager to provide limited broadcast rights with proper guidelines that could easily be generalized pretty much across the board.
If we like being lead by the balls by an organization we don't feel is treating us with respect, perfect that's *exactly* what we've got. But if you're fucking tired of this? Show them or stop whining.
Quack, quack.
Going offshore is not feasible for the casual radio station. And to the extent that that is the majority of internet radio (which is part of the appeal - it has been corporatized to death yet), any way you slice it we lose a huge number of american radio stations this way. And you're right to point out that that isn't everybody, or even most everybody, but I'd be stunned if this wasn't death for 10-20% of western internet radio. Again, that's obviosuly not all of it, but, for instance, black people constitute less that amount of America demographically, and we'd certainly notice if there weren't any black people any more. America does have _some_ culture to offer, and this is still a Very Bad Thing.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
What do you think this is, a democracy? Unless you have the initials "CEO" after your name, no congressman will care what you think.
Given internet radio can still function if stations negotiate directly
with the copyright holders (which of course is a whole lot of micro-negotiating) -- a better
solution might be for independent record labels to just include in THEIR contracts with
royalties companies that Internet Radio is "OK by them", and state that they don't want
to collect the same royalties from stations under a certain size.
It seems to me that Indie labels could (and should) give a big thumbs up to Internet radio
and craft their own royalties exceptions.
SomaFM's stations are actually vital to their respective scenes. Its up to the small labels
and artists to stand up and take action now. If Internet radio fails, it will be the artists
fault too.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
My name's not Tim, but allow me to prove you wrong. ;)
http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
http://somafm.com/blogs/rusty/2007/04/cant-you-ju
The important part of this post is this quote, from Gary Greenstein, former general counsel for SoundExchange:
This is why we can't wait for things to just "sort themselves out." If you think Internet radio is important, please act. Don't just sit there, only to later complain when the only broadcast you can find is the Hot 100.
So what's needed is a *different* agency, to collectively negotiate rights for non-SoundExchange artists.
It occurs to me that an outfit like CDBaby, already set up to pay artists for CDs sold, might serve quite well as a royalties broker for independent artists and songwriters (remember there are two parts to that side of the equation).
Once the base rate has been set (and it could be instantly defined as "just like it was before the new rules") it would be a matter of getting the word out, letting artists trickle in on their own, and creating a central database of music covered by the new "indie royalties agreement". The new royalties agency would take a cut (doubtless much smaller than what the current regime takes -- is it 80%?? anyone know for sure?), and distribute the artists' portions in the same way as they currently distribute artists' portions of CDs sold.
In fact, this could extend to any outfit that's set up for it -- the only hard requirement is that everyone must use the same central database, so all the internet radio stations can know positively, in one step and without having to chase anyone around, what music is covered by the indie-royalties-agreement and therefore free of the usorious new cartel rates.
I did find it interesting that even Clear Channel is on our side -- they're probably the ONLY radio voice loud enough to be heard in Congress. Goes to show that even as entrenched in realspace radio as they are, even Clear Channel recognises that the internet is the future of radio broadcasting -- particularly as station equipment ages out and they find it vastly cheaper to replace transmitters and towers with MP3s and bandwidth.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Most labels own the rights to their artists' music, which cuts down on the work you'd have to do significantly. Even where that isn't the case, it would seem like the existing venues for publishing music (magnatune, mindawn, jamendo, emusic, etc) could offer each artist the option to allow broadcasting.
Or, as others have said, nothing is stopping us from simply creating some massive library of music, which artists upload to and sign the appropriate contracts, to allow their stuff broadcast free over the Internet.
Let's not forget that most indie bands would LOVE to be famous via Internet radio, and would HATE to see it killed off by the greed of a few executives who they have no relation to at all.
So yes, Internet Radio will live, it will just become exclusively indie.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's why the really delicious dog meat those Chinese are eating really makes you salivate, eh?
You (probably) don't really know whether you like the taste of dog meat, or not, do you? It's because the culture of the society in which you live prevents you from having the experience of tasting it. And it also has programmed (at least in most Americans) an automatic response of disgust at the very thought of eating dog meat.
If cultural influences do not affect preferences, how do you explain that almost 100% of Americans wouldn't eat dog meat if given the opportunity, and many (wealthy) Chinese do eat dog meat? This isn't related to the fact that most Americans don't like traditional Indian music? Or even to the fact that my parents don't like the same music that I like?
RIAA, et. al., are trying to do the same, to control what people are exposed to. So people won't understand what they are missing, or even reject it outright if exposed to it after their "RIAA programming" is in place....
I listen to www.di.fm all the time, I love their radio, and I am actually afraid what will happen now.
It's so nice getting to listen to the music you like without having to bother about downloading / converting music etc, and I've been a premium member at di.fm for quite some time.
My initial thought is though, can't they move the internet radio servers out of the US, to countries with a bit more sensible laws?
This isn't pirating (you may technically be able to save the streams but it's not trivial and most non-technical people wouldn't bother), this isn't stealing revenue, this isn't hurting anyone... if anything, it should be helping the sale of music. There must be more people than me who have listened to a tune on internet radio and then went and bought it because it was really good.
For all you people in the US, go to DI.FM and do what it says there... help internet radio!!
Even if you're right (and you're not; see other posters), we shouldn't give up on America, and we shouldn't give up on China.
Because, if nothing else, it'll mean others may simply follow, as they've done before. America still does have some muscle in the international world.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
A competitor to the RIAA in music? Excellent!
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Yeah, that's pretty much the point of the new royalty plan. You honestly think they want the sheep to have a choice?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Internet radio had such promise, but the medium is getting destroyed just as it started to get off the ground. The recording industry seems to be quite adept at trying to stop anything that would please their customers but damage their industry. Rather then trying to adapt it just tries to kill anything that it perceives as a threat.
Which sort of begs the question "Why do we need the recording industry around anyways?"
About the only thing they do that can be seen as a necessity these days is promotion, and traditional methods of getting bands on your label heard and seen are quickly becoming irrelevant. They pump millions getting their bands airtime on terrestrial radio, a medium that is increasingly pointless (due, in part, to the terrible stuff the record companies are trying to push) They spend huge amounts of money on producing music videos that will never be seen.
At yet none of these things are a necessity for a band to make it. The Internet is a fantastic replacement for these old fashioned practices.
As consumers, we can do our best to purchase independant, non RIAA member labels. For artists, it would be nice to see them stray more and more from signing with major labels and going with one that understands this new market and how to work it.
The Internet is generally stupid
For commercial and for larger non-commercial webcasters the judges set a pay-per-play rate of:
$.0008 per play for 2006
$.0011 per play for 2007
$.0014 per play for 2008
$.0018 per play for 2009
$.0019 per play for 2010
Per Play means the following:
Any time ONE listener hears ONE song (or any portion of a song), that's a "performance." If ONE listener hears ten songs, that's TEN performances. If 1000 listeners hear ten songs, that's 10,000 performances.
So what will the internet radio stations have to pay?
Here's a calculation:
$0.0008 X 10,000 listeners X 16 songs/hr. = $128. It'll cost our imaginary webcaster $128 to play one hour of music for 10,000 people.
At the end of the day, that's $3,072 ($128 X 24 hrs./day) -- for just a single day! After a week goes by, it's $21,504 ($3,072 X 7 days/wk.).
And for all of 2006, this webcaster with a steady average audience of 10,000 listeners would owe $1,121,280!! (the $3,072 X 365 days/yr.)
That takes care of 2006. For 2007, the rate increases 37.5%! So, with no audience growth, the cost of streaming music for the year would increase to $1,541,760.
And the royalty rate goes up another 28% in 2008, and another 28% in 2009, topping out at a $.0019 per performance rate in 2010 (resulting in a royalty obligation of $2,663,040 for that same audience averaging 10,000 listeners) for that year.
Information taken from www.savethestreams.org.
I honestly think all net radio stations should move their servers elsewhere. If they move to a server outside of the United States, could they safely flip the Copyright Advisory Board off? I also think independent artists that want to allow internet radio to use their music with no royalties attached should have some sort of identifying marker indicating this. Now, here's my question: Should the copyright advisory board attempt to collect on behalf of independent artists, would they make themselves open to a potential lawsuit? I'm thinking, perhaps if artists can make this new collection method as difficult to administer as possible by the Copyright Advisory Board, perhaps it will flounder.
>5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music? >This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY >copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license >covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to >this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to >make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music. Speaking as an independent musician, this is grounds for a lawsuit. If they attempt to collect royalties on my behalf without my express permission, I will sue the holy hell out of them. They do NOT represent me. I do not WANT them representing me. I encourage other independent musicians to threaten the same.
The RIAA and the US Gubberment have gone too far. I'm never buying a cd again, until the madness stops.
Seems like this creates a great opportunity for non-US based Internet radio stations.
Allofmp3.com has caused a great deal of handwringing among RIAA and friends.
Despite threats of closedown, such a scenario seems decreasingly likely as Putin blows ever louder raspberries at Bush and friends.
So...this just seems to create a great opportunity to stream radio from non-US sites.
Just like everything else that the RIAA tries to shut down they will just relocate somewhere they can freely distribute the music. It's sad that people who are willing and have been paying royalties now must pay 4x what everyone else is paying to play the same music. How can that be legal? I hope they win in the appeal process. I also hope the moron judge who decided this get the boot.
our leash holders at riaa member companies are looking forward to suck the internet radio dry, while continuing to screw artists over over royalties - so that together we can ensure that our place as the leeches of the creative industries will continue unabashed.
Read radical news here
According to TFA, the CRB is holding hearings on... the CRB.
so.. when's the last time any company, for profit or non-profit, ruled against themselves?
this sounds like an issue ripe for legislation.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Well, no I won't.
I really, really hope di.fm can move their servers and do the paperwork in some other country. Most of the music is European anyway, isn't it? It's what I've been been listening to for the last six years and there is no way I CAN GO BACK to four folks drumming and strumming anymore.
Is that what government wanted? That I'll have a credit card charge in EUROS, PESOS or whatever for my music? Good work, geniuses. You've managed to offshore even the intangible.
Are there any good systems out there for P2P radio? If not, anybody want to set up a project?
I mean, is there any way whatsoever we can let them get away with this? A small, sleek P2P app that can be run off a CD or even a floppy that gives a nice selection of anonymously created radio stations paying no royalties whatsoever would be a proper response to their vain attempts to shut down internet radio.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
I realize I'm late to the party, and probably won't get modded one way or the other.
emusic could be that broker. They already offer a catalogue of, what, 2 million songs from tons of independent labels? That would be more than enough to supply a number of internet radio stations.
Hopefully, the CEO of emusic has his wits about him and decides to do this.
This space left intentionally blank.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly served a subpoena to appear before a federal court regarding the alleged infringement of Plaintiff's (Sony BMG et al) copyrighted work "Cry Out in Terror" (c) 1952. I fear something terrible has happened."
A coalition of small Webcasters, in cooperation with several digital music services including Live365 and SWCast Network, yesterday morning announced their intent to form a U.S. trade association.
The official news release even made it to the front page of Billboard Publicity Wire.
Let's hope that it's not to late to effect some change in this whole ordeal. There is still the possibility of an appeal by NPR, DiMA, et al, but I'm placing my bets on Congressional intervention. It's our best hope at this juncture.
We are recording artists. Among us, we have quite a number of gold and platinum records and almost too many awards to count. Some of us have been recording for nearly 50 years. Many of us are recording today, but you wouldn't know it from AM or FM radio. At best, you might hear one or two of our old songs every once in a while on some Oldies station. You never hear our new stuff. So we LOVE Internet radio. There are Internet stations that play our older stuff, which is great. Even better, there are Internet stations that play our new songs, and people who have heard them tell us we sound better than ever. Those stations are often run by fans who love the music as much as we do. They aren't in it to make money; they want to share what they love, and they are even willing to pay royalties out of their own pocket to webcast our music. Now, many of those Internet stations that we love are in danger of being turned off forever. In March, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) of the Library of Congress announced a set of new royalty rates for Internet radio stations. Instead of giving these stations an option to pay a percentage of what they made from advertising, or setting up a single amount for non-commercial and hobbyist stations to pay, the CRB established high rates that will drive all but the biggest stations off the 'Net. We think that what's going to be left will sound like regular AM and FM radio. That means you won't be hearing us much on the Internet (which means, anywhere at all) unless these rates are changed. SoundExchange, the organization that collects those royalties and pays them out to us, is saying it thinks there are too many Internet stations, and that maybe the ones that can't make money should be "weeded out" for the good of the artists. We don't understand how having fewer stations playing music can be good for artists. The more stations there are, the more music, and more artists, will be heard. That's just logical. It's also what really is good for the artists. The idea of "weeding out" stations that don't make enough money to pay the royalties is just ridiculous. A station that has to sell advertising to make enough to pay the royalties is going to have to increase its audience so that it can charge more for commercials. That means it's going to have play music thousands of people will tune into more of the time. That means it will sound like regular radio. Another regular radio channel not only won't do us any good, it will do us harm. Don't get us wrong. We like to be paid for our music. Internet stations should pay a reasonable fee for playing our music. Big commercial stations should pay what a big commercial station can afford, small commercial stations should pay what they can afford, and college, non-commercial, and hobbyist stations should pay a reasonable fee, too. That's a fair solution: They get to play our music. We get heard, and we get paid. Those stations keep broadcasting, which means they keep paying the fees, and we keep getting paid. That sounds like everyone wins. These fees should all go through SoundExchange, too, because if they do, we get our share. That's the law. Under the new system, the label can take the Internet license fees directly, and they don't have to pay the artists anything. Our experience is that if they don't have to pay us, they won't. We already have heard about some radio services negotiating directly with the labels, and that isn't good news for artists. SoundExchange has quoted some artists who are defending the high royalty rates, but we suspect those artists don't know the whole story. In 2002, the Library of Congress announced royalty rates that threatened to kill Internet radio before it began. It literally took an act of Congress to replace those rates with something more reasonable and logical. The result was a structure that allowed Internet radio to grow and prosper, and that got many of us paid the first royalty checks we'd seen in a long, long time. So it is time you let your voice be heard. Call,
Ok, here's what I envision.
All those independent artists who sell on CDBaby, etc. already have copyright agreements with those distributors. The artist payment and sales infrastructures also exist.
Why don't these outlets become (in addition) a way for artists to license their works for Internet play? Artists could also list prices (including free) for internet radio play. All that would be needed is the backend and display pieces and internet radio stations to play by the law.
Artists would be responsible for putting in this info when uploading, internet radio stations could programmatically d/l this or browse it to find new artists to play as well as decide who to play based on the stated rates. It could either be an extra free service of the site or they could take a cut. I would assume that since this drives sales a middle ground could be reached here (even for those artists who wish their songs to be played for free on internet radio).
Sure, this would only work for independent artists, but isn't that a good thing in the long run?
I guess I think that the existing independent infrastructure can be extended to cover some of the issues both the artists have (how do I get my stuff heard?) as well as the radio stations (how do i find stuff to play that doesn't bankrupt me?). This solution answers both questions.
The only remaining question is on the part of the aggregators (what's in it for me?) and I would posit the increased sales of the albums and generated goodwill might be enough. Although a small cut of those artists who choose to license their works for $$ is probably not too much to ask either.
So, when do we see aggregators step up for this? Probably soon after this law starts to be actually enforced.
Hopefully, such a scheme will continue to drive forward an ecology of independent artists. It's one more piece to a totally RIAA free world. This setback could turn into a positive force that does exactly the opposite that the major labels wish. Unintended consequences and all.
Not being able to buy the CDs (poverty, bills to pay, etc.), I used to rely on youtube for most my music... they viacom came and took it away, and after much thought, I decided to go P2P. After a while, I ritually poked my eye out and got a cool patch. Now with internet radio gone, I might just have to amputate my leg and get a cool hook and surrender to life on the high seas, where no rules restrict your freedom. ARRRRH!
I always felt guilty for not sending a few dollars to radioparadise.com,
quite possibly the best broadcast music experience of my life (
except loudfactory which is long gone)
Time's up.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Yes, and on that topic, any suggested non-US radio sites? :-)
:-(
I saw Lounge Radio above that I will no doubt check out soon, but I'm really at a loss here as I've been so attached to Radio Paradise and in some extent SomaFM before.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The Copyright Royalty Board consists of:
James S. Sledge
Stanley C. Wisniewski
William J. Roberts
Picture and bios here
http://www.loc.gov/crb/background/crb-judges.html
And they invite you to send them comments!
http://www.loc.gov/crb/contact/
It's damn near impossible to acquire a LPFM license.
only knows that I've been trying to put together a community radio station for my town for nearly three years -- three years of banging my head against the brick wall that is the FCC.
Just as I get our new project (a hybrid online community news/entertainment magazine & commerce website) up and going we're faced with this one.
I'm just about at the point of viewing this as being all about silencing voices of dissent. Nothing more.
#SickNotWeak
Screw the CRB! For Pete's sake, this Copyright Royalty Board was formed by appointment by the Library of Congress. Excuse me, I was never asked if I support their mission. Frankly, I don't vote for any politician who supports entities which exist simply to side with industry lobbyists. Why the heck are our elected officials protecting the income of has-beens like Capitol, RCA, and every other label who's lost market share in an industry that simply does not need them anymore? And why are so many Americans so damn stupid? In 2004, 62,040,606 voters sided with Bush & Republican values. Morons. Protectionists. Greedy bastards. This country is sure starting to suck. I say walk into the next CRB hearing and bitch-slap each one of them, then drag them into the street along with Bush's right wing Justices and kick them tirelessly. Man, I've just had it with every 7-figure executive stuffing his pockets and somehow managing to 'legally' shaft the middle- and lower-class population.
So, who cares if Internet Radio disappears in the US?
We will just listen to radios from other countries.
I realize I'm reposting information already provided, but with all the "op-ed" posts, I want to make sure that people are aware of possible solutions, since the majority of us agree on the topic, rather than only discussion.
? alertid=9631541
Write your state reps:
http://capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/
Find more info:
www.savethestreams.org
Thanks
Begone!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating