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.'"
You *can* both be an artist and not a studio pawn. So it's still possible to have music on Internet radio, just not RIAA music.
I imagine many independents would jump at the chance to stand out now.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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".
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.
Radio Caroline here we come!
http://www.peercast.org/features.php
Anonymous broadcasting - clients do not tell each other if they are the source or just listening
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?
I have mused myself with an idea, that there would be identifier tag in every sample (44100/second etc) that is created, and each time a sample goes through an output device (hardware or software) it would be noted. Information would be sent to some central server, and this information used to distribute royalties to the members of this system. In this way you could be for example able to freely sample anything, and when you use that sample information about its creator would be automatically retained within your own creation as meta data. One song might include dozens of artists, and when someone samples from it, his song might include a few times more... When such a creation passes through an internet radio server for example, all the participants would get their share in proportion to the amount of samples / original creator. This system could also be expanded to visual creations, if the medium is intelligent enough. The problem is that all the devices and software would need to be modified, and the funding source is bit of a mystery...
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!!
Man, I'd just about kill to be able to find a link to this study I read, once.
The jist of it was this: the researchers divided people into two groups and gave each group the same set of songs. Each group was asked to rate the songs on some subjective scale. While the control group only got the list of songs, the experimental group got the list of songs plus an average rating of some kind (I don't remember if the rating was real or just made up numbers) indicating popularity.
The findings? In the experimental group, popular songs were rated significantly more highly than in the control group. The conclusion was that people considered the songs to be of higher quality if they thought that other people considered them of higher quality.
So don't be so quick to think that people can't be persuaded by the crowd. Next time the disc jockey on the local radio station claims that this is the "newest, hottest song from band X", maybe you should wonder if they're hot because people want to hear it, or if they're hot because the RIAA says so. Pretty soon, though, it will just be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it will be hot.
No. It's possible to have music on internet radio IF you as a webcaster have negotiated directly with the copyright owner for every piece of music you play. Otherwise, you're paying a license to SoundExchange, period. They administer the statutory license.
Wait...*I* am in an indie blues band, and we have no agreements with Soundexchange, the RIAA, any label, or anyone else. We give our CDs away all the time, and we're happy to let anyone broadcast us at no charge. Are you telling me these asshats want to try to charge internet radio stations in *my* name for playing *my* original music that I freely give to them to play unless I make some legal arrangements with Soundexchange!?!? How can they usurp *my* rights to let anyone I want play *my* music?
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds like Soundexchange collects by default, that it's necessary to 'opt-out' somehow. If that's the case, I'm gonna find a nice free country to move to where I can give my music to whomever I choose for free if I like. I wonder what the weather is like in Beijing...
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
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.
Your suggestion that "A record by Ms Spears just requires her to squawk into a mic in a quiet room for a bit and the geek with the autotuner to put in an all-nighter." supports your argument that classical music somehow costs more money to produce than, well, every other type of recorded music shows your complete ignorance on the topic. As a professional recording engineer and producer with two decades of experience who has worked with not only popular artists like J Lo but also with relatively unknown folk artists playing hammered dulcimer and celtic harp, I would like to clarify that your idea of the where recording budgets are spent is beyond ridiculous. Your blanket statement that if it was recorded by an orchestra instead of a smaller ensemble of any sort it must be "a superior product" pretty much proves your bias as well.
I don't think I need to explain myself further as there are numerous pages on the web to fully explain how a recording budget is spent, but I thought it important to explain to anyone who might read your post that your assertions are not only silly but false as well.
The problem I have with this is that classical music does get public subsidies, and those pay, at the very least, for the musicians to practice, train, and acquire reputations that make the sales of their reproduced music possible. In many cases, the subsidies buy recording gear, pay the light and heat bills for the halls during the recording process, and otherwise figure more directly into actually producing CDs. We* are funding parts of the production process.
*(meaning everyone, in the US, who lives in a local venue where classical music ticket sales are not subject to the entertainment tax but it is applied to other musical performances tickets, or those where it recieves a share of the local taxes as a subsidy, or where it gets federal grants - those there conditions together describe almost all classical performers, with a few possible exceptions such as the NBC orchestra).
There are supposed to be checks and balances, just as there are for government subsidized public TV programming. What we've seen there though, is the government does a favor for a friend in the industry. Even if taxes pay to develop a show such as Sesame Street or Barney, when the government auctions off merchandising rights and such, they go for absurdly low sums to insiders who make most of the money, instead of a deal where the taxpayers actually stand a chance of getting their investment back. While some local and state governments have been a bit more responsible with classical music, there are definite insider deals there as well.
So, as you put it, it's not so bad. It could be more equitable, more efficient, and generally better though.
Who is John Cabal?
Kind of reminds me of the primary element in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers".
In a review of economic and military knowledge of the great empires 1500-2000, the author found that an overly restrictive society forced innovation outside of its borders and thus was left behind in the annals of history.
Sucks to see it in action. The auto-industry(unions), the airline industry(unions), and now the ??AA(union of truly evil bastards) are attempting to close down our society and force innovation abroad. Oh well, it had to end sometime...