Slashdot Mirror
Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It
Pontifex minimus writes "Music royalty collection group SoundExchange has offered an olive branch to small webcasters. They are willing to delay the exorbitant new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board until 2010 for small webcasters in hopes that they can keep Congress from passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Larger outfits, like Live365 and Pandora would not be affected and would have to pay the new rates. '"Although the rates revised by the CRB are fair and based on the value of music in the marketplace, there's a sense in the music community and in Congress that small webcasters need more time to develop their businesses," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange.' SaveNetRadio rejected SoundExchange's offer, saying that it 'throws large webcasters under the bus.'"
Like that is going to happen?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
When will they learn?
Oh wait, they won't.
Better join RIAA now.
they know it is really bad for internet radio and this is nothing more than a smoke screen- to convince some people that they are actually trying to be fair which is absolute nonsense. if they wanted to be fair they wouldnt have done this to internet radio or started this garbage against "radio" radio either. now lets hope that they actually destroy themselves in the attempt.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"Pound sand up your ass"?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
"Nice Internet radio station ya got here. Maybe we'll take a smaller cut from youse ... to start with. Right, Rocko?"
[Insert pithy quote here]
This is probably a stupid suggestion for many reasons but:
What if, in order to release a single, studios (et al) had to give up broadcast rights to that song. Anyone who obtains a legitimate copy of the song can broadcast it whenever and however he/she likes, be that internet, radio or birthday party. The label/artist/whomever still controls all rights to sell/distribute the song, and the rest of the songs on the album that aren't marked as singles.
I know this clashes with the "make money from every angle" that the industry wants, but it seems like a reasonable trade (to me).
Or I would suggest simply boycotting these idiotic record industry people. But of course, the little guys need to put food on the table for their families, so this makes this non workable.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
look out. hot topic. :-?
Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
I mean there is music that is independent from corporations, is there a restriction to this music, like a tax or something that anyone has to pay to transmit either on the air or on line?, also what about music made in other countries that is not bought by American corporations?, this should be the way to do radio, just skip the music that is owned by the conglomerates and go to the source, the artists. Most bands are lame anyway, and even thought i do like some dj's and some hiphop i would give it up. I had hoped to put my own internet radio station but since i started hearing all this issues it made me wait and see what comes out of it, then i thought about air waves radio (ala pirate), but that is pretty hairy, so i think the way to go is find good free music and use that, with the consent of the artists i imagine.
So, if band X is played on an internet radio station, will the royalties from that performance actually GO to that band? Or vanish into the black hole of "soundexchange", with a pittance going to the actual creator of the song?
Where does the RIAA think the money is going to come from. Its not like web radio is making money hand over fist. Even the best web radio stations are struggling to survive under the current conditions, much less their future ridiculous rates.
How does SoundExchange force people to pay royalties?
There was an article some time ago that ALL internet radio stations, regardless of content, had to pay SE on a per-song basis. I really don't understand how they have the power or the right to do something like that?
For example if I setup a radio station that played only freely-available, royalty-less music. How does SE get away with charging me money to play said music? Is the RIAA that powerful that they can manage to dictate legislation that way? have i missed something obvious?
What I would be curious to know is, if I wrote a computer program that generated random music (lets ignore the technical feasibility of that and assume its possible) and make a radio station that played that (and only that) could SE force me to pay them royalties? If that is the case, how is that even in the most bizarre parallel universe either fair or just?
Perhaps even a simpler argument was if i were an artist and ran an internet radio station solely playing my own music, can SE force me to pay them royalties? It just seems really stupid to me...
they shouldn't be paying a penny more than the terrestrial stations, which has always been a simple composition mechanical.
soundexchange's first round of performance royalties in june '02 killed some 40,000 bedroom broadcasters overnight.
2010's next round will simply finish off the rest.
- js.
was SaveNetRadio the voice of small internet radio stations worldwide?
Why do the number of crooks in the US always seem to out number the honest people?
Even worse, this article doesn't mention if the retroactive rates still apply to the original date, making the delay pointless. So who knows, the delay may be a trick.
Sound Exchange will also forbid free and lower cost competition, regardless of artist and publisher intention. They will collect their little fees from everyone, in violation of Creative Commons terms. Those who want their royalties will have to join them, which makes it look like they have the artist's endorsement. Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees. In other words, the RIAA monopoly on music distribution will be extended into the future against the will of artists and the public. There is no technical justification for this, it's pure corruption.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No free alternatives are allowed. It is obvious that people would flock away from these fees if they could, so they won't be given the chance. This will be enforced the same way the current ban on terrestrial broadcast is enforced. Because internet broadcasts are not carried over a limited publicly owned spectrum, there is no technical justification for this system, it's purely anti-competitive - designed to perpetuate the RIAA member companies into the future when they would naturally die off.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't understand or try to understand the current business model of music royalty system, but as I see it, the current business model (or at least the logic) around music industry is arse backward to me.
Shouldn't the music industry and artist PAY the over-the-air/internet radio station?
current:
1. make music
2. charge broadcasters for pay-per-play royalty
3. free marketing and advertising through broadcasters
4. sell music license to listeners
5. profit
So in an essence, music industry is making profit over already sold product license from listeners, because broadcasters, in order to stay in business, has to pass the recurring royalty cost through subscription model and pass the cost to listeners.
As an analogy, an artist makes a painting, charges an art gallery for diplaying his picture, gets free marketing and advertising from gallery, sells copy of the picture (not the original) to art buyers. But most of all, the artist expects the gallery to keep paying the royalty to the artist for promoting his/her work. At the same time, gallery is passing the royalty cost (to recoup the royalty tax) to the art buyers. All while the buyer is not even getting the original work, but only copy, and only buyers can look at it with the artist approved Display Right Management (aka DRM) in their own home!
Huh? How is this viable business model especially when we are dealing with 99 cent commodity?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
This is a case of scorpion and frog. You know, the scorpion needed to cross the river. He asks the frog to carry him. Frog says no, 'cause you'll kill me. Scorpion says 'why would I do that? I'd drown. Let's be friends. Frog gets halfway across, scorpion stings him. As they both die, frog asks why. Scorpion says 'because I'm a scorpion, this is what I do'.
The global music media corporations know that all the fighting new technology and RIAA extortion is not in their best interest. But they can't help it. It's what they do. They're on auto-pilot self-destruct. They're smart guys, they know this. They just can't do anything about it.
Their entire perspective is based on the not-unrealistic assumption that they are the focal point of the best music in the world. The best groups, the most talented artists have and will continue to come to them in order to distribute the recordings. They don't believe that anyone interested in a musical career would not come to them, on their terms. That's the key to their entire 'take it or leave it' approach. Because they honestly believe that no one will leave it.
What may happen is a transformation of media from a centralized distribution to a scattered and disorganized collection of xenophobic subcultures who aren't interested in sharing their music or media works. Should this happen, the media corporations most likely won't notice it. They sell primarily to young people and the percentage of people who are young is rapidly growing. So their market is growing. The fact that their sales of CDs are stagnant is truly amazing. Most likely, it's not true.
I encourage people to gradually disassociate themselves from the products of the global media corporations. Yes, it is true that you will miss great music. You will suffer the occasional social embarrassment of not knowing (actually not knowing, not pretending to not know) who the latest stars are. I'm not going to claim that it's worth it or a self-righteous thing to do. I'm just suggesting, all the celebrity media, let it slide away. There are other things more important. Concentrate on them instead.
Seriously - they want to charge Radio stations for royalties? great, let them. They want to price Internet radio into oblivion? Great, let them. Radio, whatever the transmission medium, is advertisement. Both for the ads in between the music, as well as for the music itself. The knock-on effect effect of these moves will be disastrous for the music industry in the longer term. They will get what they deserve - music sales will be further down, and the RIAA crpwd will be looking for a new job. Like, how to charge people for the air they breathe
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Perhaps this is all common sense to everyone else, but I am just now seeing the business angle of this issue. I am a layman on this subject, so please regard all of the following as purely conjecture:
Free/donation based internet stations play the same music advertising driven stations play, but without the annoyance of commercial interruption.
Free/Donation based stations usually have the goal of generating just enough revenue to cover their expenses, while advertising driven stations hope to generate a profit for their investors.
Since the rates paid by stations currently is a percentage of their annual income, it is more advantageous to the artists and music companies if the existing internet radio stations have the goal of generating more revenue. It is not advantageous for free/donation based stations to exist, because their profit structure ultimately means less revenue for the record labels.
I think this is why the rates have been restructured. A popular free station doesn't generate a lot of revenue, but it has a lot of listeners. These are listeners who aren't listening to advertiser driven radio, radio that ultimately generates more revenue for the record companies.
I believe the goal of the rate-restructure is to put free/donation based radio out of business. By charging per-person they take the low revenue advantage from free/donation radio, and penalize them for being popular. This forces internet radio to be profitable to survive, which means free/donation profit structures cannot exist.
I am sad to say this, but I am not sure this could ever resolve in a way to be in favor of the listener. Eclectic, commercial free radio that listeners enjoy is just not profitable to the music industry. It also sucks away potential profits from commercial driven radio which ultimately means less revenue for the industry.
There is probably no tangible way to show that independent internet radio helps to generate more industry profit just by existing. I think we have to solve the underlying economic problem before we can ultimately win.
- Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
Excellent reading of the situation.
Before I started my own darkwave radio station (plug!) via shoutcast, I ran my station off live365. They made it easy, offered a pretty decent rate, and for the price I paid they handled the royalty issues, I had a fairly certain guaranteed uptime, and playlist management was easy. In return all I had to do was make sure all my songs were precisely and accurately ID3 encoded -- so that live365 could host ads and links for the artists I was spinning.
Sounds great for everyone, you ask me...I get to play music I love, people get to hear music they may never hear outside the drunken haze of a goth club, and the artists get free exposure, along with links and ads to their music if you wanted to buy it.
I know this model works because I was (and am) a live365 subscriber for years, and have bought at least two dozen albums based solely on the music I heard on particular stations, music to which I would not otherwise have been exposed. In fact, rips of those albums are a large part of what I spin today on my own station.
And as for that, today, with mirrorshades radio, I have artists sending me music asking to get put into rotation, and listeners, writing to tell me how great this track or that was and that they just grabbed it off iTunes. I know at least one guy who went to the VNV Nation concert here in Atlanta after hearing them on my station -- he'd never heard them before, and what's that mean for VNV Nation? A ticket sale they wouldn't have otherwise had, not to mention whatever swag he probably bought while he was there.
Artists get increased exposure and sales. Listeners get music and choice. I (and my fellow broadcasters) get to play to whatever niche market we choose. Everyone gains, and no one loses, except for the RIAA, hawking their antiquated and outmoded business model.
I've said it before but I'll say it again -- there ain't no Benjamens in the net radio trade. We broadcast for love of the music and artists enjoy the exposure. I was lucky enough to get free hosting for my stream, allowing me a great deal of versatility, but many small broadcasters turn to live365 and similar hosts for cheap, reliable broadcasts, for which they pay their dues and offer free advertising in exchange.
If the majority of people who use live365 as their broadcast platform could afford the rates that soundexchange is demanding, they wouldn't be on live365 to begin with -- they'd have their own dedicated servers with no ads and listeners limited only by bandwidth. As is so often the case, the Big Guys are beating up on the only segment of the population that can't defend themselves.
Stop treading on us, and let the music play.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Didn't you know America is founded (Stolen from the native American) by crooks, thieves, and religious zealots.
No good deed goes unpunished.
The problem is they stuck in the eighties. Back then The music industry caused suck a stink over "pirate" radio stations that the feds would just round up any unlicensed broadcasters and toss them in the clink.
That was successful and in the music industry's mind all these internet radio stations are just a new version of pirate radio.
The only flaw in their thinking is that while before they were hijacking the airwaves and breaking the FCC's laws, Now they are not breaking any laws and aren't hijacking anything.
They are so stuck in the mentality that anything they haven't sanctioned is illegal that this internet stuff MUST be against the law.
IOU one (1) signature
- Where does this money go to?
- In how far is this reasonable to artists broadcasting their own works?
I am starting to believe all these companies (mostly ran/supported/requested) by the RIAA/MPAA/... are there only to stiffle creativity and to push their products down my throat. Someone please correct me or are there really people trying to tell other artists to join or "something bad might happen with your creativity" ? Maybe ignorance is bliss.--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I am not a US citizen or resident, so I don't have the option of calling my senator or representative. So instead, I have started sending emails to artists whose music I have purchased as a direct result of having heard it on internet radio from the US.
I don't buy music every day, but I do buy some, and almost all of it because I heard it on the internet and I liked it (...and then managed to find it for sale online without DRM, but that's a separate issue).
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of small/independent musicians aren't even aware that these issues are being decided in their name, and they are the one's who would have the most to lose (IMHO).
So yes, the world/internet does not stop at the US border, but I like somafm.
plus, as the song says: First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin...
Rather than using the "throwing X under the bus" analogy, I prefer this one:
It's like going to a flea market, kicking everyone in the balls, and then buying a few moldy baseball cards from that one guy in the corner so you can claim you're a legitimate patron.
If a radio station plays nothing but indie bands that ask them to play music, and the bands are willing to show they want nothing to do with this central royalty collecting body, and this can be illustrated as such in court, would they still have to pay royalties to the RIAA?
If no, the RIAA's new little money maker dies a quick death.
If yes, the RIAA's new little money maker is proven to be extortion and the law is either quickly changed or removed.
And in the end, the RIAA just makes the internet radio crowd go for indie music anyway, killing their advertising and profits.
Just because someone offers you a deal doesn't mean it's fair. This is the RIAA's style. Look at all the people they sue for absurd amounts, many of whom are innocent, and then offer them a "deal" to pay some large sum to make them go away. "Almost extortion" is the name I would give it. This is no better. I feel like they are saying "we realize we don't deserve any of this, so what we are going to do is ask for a completely ridiculous amount, then offer a second, smaller (but equally unjustified) "deal" to show our generosity".
If the guy in the ski mask takes only $50 out of your wallet and leaves you with the rest of the wallet, you were still mugged. There is no such thing as a "generous mugger". If you were not entitled to anything and only took a small amount when you might have taken more, you are still stealing.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Not all "small webcasters" are businesses. Some of us actually do things for the love of music.
http://zenapolae.com/
Pon arena en tu culo (informal)
Por favor, ponga arena en su culo (formal)
Obviously, you'd use the former...
instead of femurs.
It's still extortion. I hope it works. (I'm a podcaster. Podsafe music forever! Fuck the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI. Who needs them?)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Either go out of business, or quadruple the advertising time.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I am under the impression that if successfull, the RIAA will force most radio stations to be hosted offshore, following the Pirate Bay model.
There is a fairly good $500 minimum rate for small non-commercial webcasters, which actually seems fairly reasonable to me. It covers near ~140,000 listening hours a year, which would give 1000 users 10 hours of listening per month. Another breakdown would be 140 listeners at 20 hours a week. Or, you have on average 384 listening hours per day. As a former college radio DJ and a current online radio addict, these numbers are fairly good, and definitely a great starting place, providing a somewhat reasonable flat rate capable of covering quite a large number of online webcasters.
Does anyone know what payment royalties current webcasters must pay? For the all the crybabying and hubabaloo I've seen very little in terms of comparison. Please link me some rules!
Of course, the real fucked up situation is the fact that we have to pay SoundExchange, the biggest scam organization on the planet. They were spun off from everyones favorite RIAA in 2000 as an independent entity responsible for collecting and distributing broadcast dues. But these fuckers will never give a dog damned dime to My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult, no matter how many times I play their discography. The money we pay them doesnt do jack shit for the authors and artists we play. I'd like to see their profit margins and executive salaries, so I can complete the trifecta and cackle myself to death. These guys are the worst of the worst, and should be aborted like a bad mistake. The fact that we pay mafioso organizations like this at all is just criminal. Frankly I'd much rather track down every artists I play and give them $5.
I can't stop laughing and cheering as I continue to watch American culture self-implode under the weight of its own arrogance and greed. Almost every decade, American has reinvented itself in a major way (the '70s, the '80s, and the '90s all had their own movements that cut across film, music, television, and even the slower-moving world of books). This decade I've been waiting for the 'Big New American Thing' and here it is, it's DRM. Watching the slow suffocation that comes from not realising that you owe your audience everything and they actually owe you nothing. I want this. I celebrate it. I've been hoping it accelerates and my hopes just always seem to be one-upped by reality. Sayonara people! The era of American cultural hegemony is coming to a close, and I'm havin' a party!
No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else.
So, is that why there's already a nominal fee radio stations must pay composers? It seems this right of yours has already been circumvented and is about to be circumvented yet again. It's difficult to understand because it makes no sense.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wow! Thanks for including the plug. I've browsed shoutcast before but never found anything as focused as yours. I usually just give in and listen to an 80's station, which is sure to include plenty of crap I can't stand.
So thanks again!
The periodica reinvention of American Culture is a form of evolution. And I think that is a good thing. DRM is a cancer. What have you got against American Culture? No more food fr you.
You may disagree with my opinion, but I assure you that I am dead serious about it. Is everybody who doesn't like your culture a troll? If you must know I find it for the most part empty and insanely materialistic, and I would be surprised if you don't feel exactly the same way. BTW the periodic reinvention *is* a good thing, but it's obviously taking a turn for the worse, because your entertainment industry is now reinventing itself as the Death Star.
Our country has it's share of problems. The country however is made up of a stream of people, being born, living, and dying. People also come and go from other places. As I grew old enough to recognize what was going on around me, I made my own conclusions, and decided to live a less materialistic life. I am a Buddhist, and I strive every day for spritual understanding. I own very little beyond the urn containing my late wife.
My problem with you is that you "Laugh and Cheer" at the misfortune of others, without contributing to the solution. That is why I requested your posting be marked troll. It was mean, petty, and childish. You don't have to like our culture. The reason I think you are a troll is because you haven't provided any insight regarding the article, just spouted off.
Well my comment is certainly about the steady unmitigated march of DRM in America, so it is certainly on-topic. Last I checked the definition of a troll was not 'anyone with an opinion about a problem who doesn't contribute to the solution'. Exceedingly narrow, that one. And yeah, I absolutely do revel in the impending collapse of your cultural *hegemony* (note I didn't say the collapse of your actual culture) -- perhaps you don't realise just how oppressive that hegemony can be? It's very difficult to get the attention of your own countrymen when they have been advertised into oblivion by the American entertainment machine. The Great Suicide of DRM works in everybody else's favour on two fronts: it associates American entertainment with draconian restrictions, which is a serious image problem; and it actually hampers and chills the free exchange of ideas when one of those ideas originates in your litigious land -- heck it even chills the free exchange when BOTH ideas originate in the USA. Attenuation of the evolutonary field: it will inevitably take its toll. And the great part of it is, America is doing it to itself as a result of exactly the same materialism that empties its main cultural exports of any consequence. Poetic justice, well deserved. Definitely worth a few chuckles and cheers, and a party. Questions: Do Buddhists believe in a sense of humour? What about irony? Any zen in that? This has been a long time coming.
I have a fine Buddhist sense of humor, but your remarks didn't seem to appeal to it.
Well, there's no accounting for taste. Take care, dude, from the "troll".