Day of Silence On the Internet

A number of readers sent in stories about Net radio going dark for a day. Not all of it, but according to the Globe and Mail at least 45 stations representing thousands of channels. The stations are protesting a ruling establishing royalty rates that will put most of them out of business on July 15. "The ruling... is expected to cost large webcasters such as Yahoo and Real Networks millions of dollars, drive smaller websites like Pandora.com and Live365.com out of business and leave a large chunk of the 72 million Net radio listeners in the dark." SaveNetRadio has a page where US residents can locate their senators and representatives to call them today.

Comments

I too...

[niceone]

...am having a day of silence on the net.

It's not going so well so far... argg... must... stop... posting...

How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[elrous0]

I am a geek, net-literate guy who is TOTALLY lost on this whole issue. I've tried following it, and it's as confusing and muddy as the "net neutrality" issue. Even the debates about it I've seen have been obtuse and confusing.

Is this the result of a ruling, a law, or a company decision? Who exactly has to pay and who doesn't? What do they have to pay? Why do they have to pay it? To whom do they pay it, and why them? Where they paying before? Is it a matter of amount or are they challenging having to pay at all?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Kindgott]

Ok here we go:

The Copyright Royalties Board recently (March 2, 2007) enacted new regulations which increase the "royalties" owed by internet broadcasters; instead of paying .007 cents per song streamed, the new rates go up to .019 centes by 2010. These rate changes are also retroactive to something like the beginning of this year. Also, there is apparently a $500 per channel minimum, in case your station is too small to generate enough revenue.

From what I understand, the "per song streamed" is calculated not by just how many songs you broadcast, but also how many listeners you had for each particular song. So if 10 people listened to a 30 Seconds From Mars track, it would count as 10 songs, not 1.

Who gets the money? SoundExchange. Under such protest, the generously offered webcasters the gracious offer of being able to pay the reduced rates for a little longer than originally scheduled. How nice of them!

Basically it boils down to the fact that terrestrial broadcasters pay no royalties whatsoever to the recording companies, but the recording industry wants to extort as much money as they can from the internet music business. Which, in turn, will most likely drive most internet radio out of the game.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Slushie31]

IANA*, but here's my understanding of the matter. In March, the Copyright Royalty Board set new royalty rates for Internet radio broadcasters. The rate increase has been delayed once, but is currently to go into effect on July 15. There are three parts to this:

1. A fee is levied to a broadcaster, per song per listener. The fee also increases every year (as far as I understand, there was a fee previously, but it is being increased).
2. The fee is retroactive to January 2006, due immediately when the rate increases go into effect.
3. There is a minimum fee of $500 per year.

Because of these changes (which are not applicable to terrestrial or satellite radio broadcasters), many webcasters will be forced to shut down on July 15 because they will not have the revenue to pay the new fees (ie. they will go bankrupt).

Instead, the Internet Radio Equality Act proposes a lower royalty fee (0.33 cents per hour per listener) or a revenue sharing agreement.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[XaXXon]

The important part of all this is the REVENUE SHARING part. Most of the Internet radio stations make no money. Take 15% (or whatever) of my revenue. It's still 0. The revenue sharing option is (if nothing changes) going away. This is what kills all the smaller stations. I'm sure some stations actually make money and want to do the other options (which increased dramatically), but I really think it's the revenue sharing part that was going to kill most of the stations.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[doombringerltx]

I heard that SoundExchange is part of the RIAA and if the person who holds the rights to the music wants to collect their share they must join the RIAA. Is this true?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[niceone]

Basically it boils down to the fact that terrestrial broadcasters pay no royalties whatsoever to the recording companies, but the recording industry wants to extort as much money as they can from the internet music business.

One thing I don't understand is why the terrestrial broadcasters don't pay royalties in the US. AFAIK then do in most other counties. They certainly do in the UK. Anyone know?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[edwdig]

Because of these changes (which are not applicable to terrestrial or satellite radio broadcasters),

Keep in mind that both XM and Sirius have contracts with the RIAA that requires them to pay a percentage of subscription fees. So no, they're not paying the same fee, but they do pay a significant fee.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[kcurtis]

Because it has long long been considered to be more profitable for broadcasters to play the songs for free with the thought that listeners would buy the music, attend concerts, get a t-shirt, etc.

So much so that there have been many, many "payola" scandals, including in the past year, where the broadcasters are paid kickbacks (through tickets, cash, gifts) to play particular songs and artists.

The fact that this system would probably work out for the music industry when it comes to internet music is being ignored -- as has long been noted here on slashdot.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[palewook]

3. There is a minimum fee of $500 per year. Actually there is a minimum fee per channel to collect the fees per year. So if you go to Pandora and listen to 1 song all year, it costs them 500.33 for that. Its bizarro rates. No other format that broadcasts music is being charged the new rates. If you have a terrestrial radio station, you are exempt from the net rates also. Even if you decide to broadcast on the net. Etc. CBS lined up for their free legislation pie when it bought last.fm which isn't US based.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the result of a ruling, a law, or a company decision? A senate committee made the ruling from pressure from the RIAA.

Who exactly has to pay and who doesn't? This applies only to "internet radio."

What do they have to pay? Why do they have to pay it? To whom do they pay it, and why them? Where they paying before? Is it a matter of amount or are they challenging having to pay at all? They were already paying, and they have to pay it to the RIAA as copyright licensing fees, the copyright holders. The fees they have to pay are 300% of the prior amount, and are retroactive for 18 months. Also, a $500 minimum fee is applied to each "station." This means that if an internet radio company, like Pandora, allows you to have 1 customized station (in reality they allow you to have dozens) that each user costs $500. That means, 2 million users cost 1 billion dollars. In every way, shape and form, the point of the fees is to kill internet radio by making the expenses outstrip reasonable revenue.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[purpledinoz]

I have a feeling that the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) that represent terrestrial radio is partially behind this. Recently, they've seen competition increase significantly with MP3 players like the iPod, satellite radio, and Internet radio. The NAB is already trying to limit their competition by lobbying against the merger of the satellite radio companies, Sirius and XM, which are both taking massive losses. I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind an attempt to kill Internet radio.

I don't know about you guys, but I've completely stopped listening to regular radio. To me, regular radio has degenerated into commercials and the same 10 songs in repeat. Now I listen to my iPod on my commute to work. I'm very sure that many people are doing the same.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Kindgott]

Terrestrial stations pay the publishers and composters of the music they play, but are not required to pay the record label or the artists.

The basic reasoning behind this is that it is a mutually beneficial situation where airplay increases record sales for the label and tour attendance for the artists.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[CastrTroy]

However it's so easy to set up an internet radio station that anybody could do it. This creates thousands of more stations all with different owners. It's one thing for the RIAA to pay off ClearChannel to get their songs played on every second terrestrial radio station. It's another thing entirely to try to work out deals with thousands of independent online radio stations, many of which are probably against the RIAA, and would use any attempt to make a deal as a way to show just how evil they are.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[TheRaven64]

I can almost see the recording industry's logic here. Play time on terrestrial radio is a scarce resource, and so it's in their interests to get as much of it as they can, without charging. Play time on internet radio is not, since anyone can set up a new internet radio station, so it makes some sense to handle them differently.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[nine-times]

Basically it boils down to the fact that terrestrial broadcasters pay no royalties whatsoever to the recording companies, but the recording industry wants to extort as much money as they can from the internet music business. Which, in turn, will most likely drive most internet radio out of the game.

Well (stating the obvious) I think the record companies are a bit torn and have a love-hate relationship with the internet. On the one hand, they love the idea of cutting distribution costs and creating new channels for advertising and distribution. On the other hand, the internet creates a decentralized means of marketing and distribution that they can't necessarily control or profit from. The internet threatens to make them less powerful and even perhaps obsolete.

Because of all this, they tend to want to invest in the Internet, but also they want to tear it apart and prevent people from using it. Normal broadcasters are different. They're mostly owned by a few big companies with tight business ties to the record industry. Regular broadcasters can be controlled and manipulated by their business interests, but internet broadcasters are able to be more independent. Driving Internet radio out of the game and forcing listeners back to normal radio is purposeful. Make it more expensive to run an Internet broadcast, and then only big media companies will be able to afford to run them. Control goes back to big media.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[gordgekko]

That didn't stop Bill Clinton from retroactively raising taxes back to January 1, 1993 -- an amazing feat given that he wasn't president until three weeks after that date.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[rolfwind]

Ultimately, they are all competing for the same resource - people's attention and that leads to money.

As such, it's in the RIAA's best interests to shut down avenues which would introduce people to musicians outside their control. This is what it is all about.

And the government is helping them maintain their monopoly.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[32Na]

IANA*, but here's my understanding of the matter...

Totally off topic, but if YANA*, does that make you a nihilist?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[squiggleslash]

Not sure if it is or not, but it is perfectly possible for copyright holders to bypass SoundExchange and negotiate (lower) royalty rates directly with the Internet Radio stations.

And that, friends, is ultimately the solution. If Internet Radio stations would just drop music that hasn't been made available to them at reasonable, practical, rates then (a) they'll continue to survive and (b) SoundExchange will need to review its rates or face oblivion. The only way it would benefit SoundExchange and its members to continue to charge high rates is if they don't want their music played on Internet Radio stations at all.

The real question here is why the various groups representing Internet Radio aren't doing this.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Derek Pomery]

However the cost per listener for terrestrial radio is far lower.
Running a net station means reaching fewer people and paying more per listener.
Having more net stations helps ensure a roughly equivalent user base to terrestrial.
I like the "hard to apply payola" theory.

They probably just want less choices on the internet.
I'm sure getting royalties that they don't deserve:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870
doesn't hurt either.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[mi]

Internet "radio" stations were enticing listeners with content (music, largely), which the content's owners did not license for such use.

Slashdot, being what it is, is always happy to "stick it" to the owners of anything worth stealing, so there is a lot of sympathy towards these businesses.

Watch this thread deteriorate into the "piracy is not exactly stealing, therefore there is nothing wrong with it" obfuscation and muddying.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[elrous0]

And I can't believe you would have the gall to use the word "literate" in that post.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[smellsofbikes]

I still listen to radio: two little college stations that, between them, have played three songs I've heard on mainstream radio, and that's after two years of listening. (Thomas Dolby's "Airwaves", Kate Bush's "Running Up That Hill", and the Pixies, "Where Is My Mind", for the record. Neither radio station will accept requests for "Where Is My Mind" because both say, and I quote, "We play that ALL THE TIME: we've aired that six times in the last eight years!") As a result, I've found out about 30 dozen, conservatively estimating, new bands I would never have heard on Clear Channel. Rock on.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[thebdj]

Basically, SoundExchange collects royalties for everyone, RIAA member or not and no matter what license is used for the song release. So even Creative Commons works get royalties collected. Now, I do not believe they are an RIAA member, but there is a rep from each of the Big 4 on the SEx (I love it already.) board. You have to pay fees to collect your royalties from them, but you can apparently come up with your own deals to bypass them; however, you are still required to inform them I believe.

Now here is my question. If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works? Something about this systems seems a bit screwed up.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[purpledinoz]

You bring up a good point. There are still some independent radio stations that don't stick to the mainstream, such as college radio stations. I'm going to look for my local college radio station and preset that in my car. Unfortunately, they usually have weaker signals...

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[DaveWick79]

Terrestrial radio stations are not exempt from the the net rates. A number of local stations in my area which broadcast a live stream on the net are looking at much much higher royalty payments unless this silly ruling gets changed. Even though they are losing money on it, because the ruling requires the payments regardless of whether the station is making any profit.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Skapare]

What if I write, perform, and record my own music? Can I make that available to the internet radio stations on my own more favorable terms (assuming it might be good enough for them to like, which is probably stretching a rubber band to the moon). Or do I have to use this Copyright Royalties Board rule? Do artists have to use the CRB or is that just a general choice made by the corporations that so many artists have signed their soul over to?

What about having internet radio playing indie music instead?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[smellsofbikes]

The one I listen to the most -- radio1190.org, I believe they webcast -- has like 5000 watts of power to the transmitter during the day (compared to 50,000-100,000W on the commercial ones around here) and because of some weird regulation, they drop down to 100W, yes one hundred, after dark. And it's AM so it's all crackly. But that's okay: it sounds a little like old vinyl and it's the weirdest stuff.

For the record, groups I've found because of them, that I recommend: Sigur Ros, Mogwai, Electralane, Rasputina, Slim Cessna's Auto Club, 16Horsepower, Arab Strap, Belle & Sebastian, Black Heart Procession, God Speed You Black Emperor, Boards Of Canada, Beauty's Confusion, Death In Vegas, Jane Jensen, Xenofobix, Karsh Kale, Underworld, among many others. Plus, they were playing Modest Mouse 7 years ago. Ditto Gogol Bordello. They were playing Arcade Fire two weeks after their first album came out.

You have to sift through a lot of junk -- which is one of the useful things that eg Clear Channel does -- but on the other hand, you find a bunch of stuff that you, personally, think is just wonderful, that many other people wouldn't, which is why the big stations don't play it. They're least-common-denominator, and piddly little 5000W stations can play two hours of '70's funk or have a whole show just doing trip-hop and succeed.

Which, by the way, is why I think there's widespread corporate opposition to internet radio: it fragments the user base because everyone is off listening to the stuff they REALLY LOVE rather than the broad-market swill, but there isn't enough money in any of those little tiny markets to fuel up the advertising juggernaut that corporations love so much.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be them, or it could be the recording industry.

I see this as just an extension of their war against file sharing. They've never cared about piracy from the standpoint of people getting their content for free. That's just their public justification for their actions. What they've cared about all along is maintaining their monopoly on the distribution of music. P2P goes around that monopoly and allows unsigned artists to distribute their content to listeners without buying into the losing proposition of signing a recording contract.

Internet radio also goes around this distribution mechanism and allows artists to reach their fans without being a signed by a label. Internet radio is perhaps an even better means of this than P2P is since the burden of finding artists shifts from the listener to the broadcaster. Listeners simply choose the station that best represents their tastes. And because broadcasters aren't limited to people living in any one place like traditional radio is, they can cater to more eclectic tastes and still find enough listeners to do well.

The RIAA knows how to control terrestrial radio. Even without official payola, they've managed to ensure that almost every station with an official FCC license broadcasts the stuff they want broadcast. Traditional radio is free advertising for them. Internet radio cannot be similarly controlled. And that's why they want it shut down.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Achromatic1978]

If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works? Something about this systems seems a bit screwed up.

That's the payoff that comes from being able to afford lobbying. This money, which isn't yours, gets channeled to you and unless someone pays a fee to you to be able to collect their money from you, you get to keep it. Win win! You can finance more lobbying, off of the backs of people who may disagree with your entire viewpoint, hence one possible reason why they're indy.

Gotta love how it all works, huh?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[palewook]

read the carp, it broke the rates apart into different classes. terrestrial wont be paying the same rates as net only broadcasters.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Simon Garlick]

Is this the result of a ruling, a law, or a company decision? Who exactly has to pay and who doesn't? What do they have to pay? Why do they have to pay it? To whom do they pay it, and why them? Where they paying before? Is it a matter of amount or are they challenging having to pay at all?

Apparently this is something to do with laws in the USA, so the issue neither affects me nor interests me.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[ashmon]

Are they streaming their feeds on the net? A url would be great. I love the Pixies, and anyone who plays them that much would have to be a good station.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[mrbooze]

So you're saying Internet Radio will be able to survive by not offering any of the popular music that most people want to listen to?

Now, me, I don't like the majority of what's popular, so this works for me, but Pandora isn't going to put food on their table by serving people like me. They need to serve the billion people who love top 40 and "Jack" radio and whatever the heck else the teeming masses are attached to.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[mrbooze]

Whoa, the executive branch has the power to levy taxes now????

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[snarlydwarf]

Really? Then how come, say, KEXP, a non-profit public radio station, says that they would have to spend "six figures" more in licensing costs effective July 15th.

This affects even non-profits with existing terrestrial broadcast licenses.

Again, this is why NPR is a major player in this: the "breaks" given to non-profits are insufficient, and will still cost them millions. There are breaks for simulcast.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[arashi no garou]

I don't know about you guys, but I've completely stopped listening to regular radio. To me, regular radio has degenerated into commercials and the same 10 songs in repeat. Now I listen to my iPod on my commute to work. I'm very sure that many people are doing the same.

Same here, except I listen to Ogg files on my Samsung player. I also still listen to NPR as there is now a local NPR broadcaster along with the one out of Atlanta that I can pick up once I get close to work. I did have Sirius satellite service, and I still do have the radio itself, but right now I don't listen enough to keep my subscription current. That being said, I did find a bunch of great indie bands (Shiny Toy Guns, Clear Static, etc) thanks to satellite. I may turn it back on one day in the future, but right now I'm waiting out the merger to see which way it goes.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[malkavian]

That's the model for Terrestrial Broadcast, where you have a limited geographical catchment.
Internet Radio.. Well, I'm sure that there's a few million pretty eclectically oriented people out there that'll match your music tastes exactly.. Maybe just a few tens of thousands in the world.. But that's enough to keep a small radio station going.

Who knows, that could slowly grow to be the next "Popular Music" in time. Every popular 'Formula' expires in time. Then it's up for grabs who engineers the next one.

Given enough groups of 'eclectic', small stations that serve a few tens of thousands, there's a good chance that one of those will hit the next 'magic formula' that could well knock the current record labels on their behinds. Stuck on the outside of the next "Rock and Roll" as the younger business model steam rollers them into history.
And being as they're broadcasting on the net.. They can reach the world, not just a hundred miles or so from their broadcasting station.

Personally, I'm all for a small station that fits my needs.. I no longer listen to the 'big boys' as they just don't cater to what I like.. It'd be refreshing to hear new, good stuff rather than listen to my existing collection over and over again..

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[digitig]

So you're saying Internet Radio will be able to survive by not offering any of the popular music that most people want to listen to? If I want to hear the music everybody is playing, I don't need internet radio. Even if I choose to use internet radio I can tune in to one of the major stations. As far as I can see this rate hike is all but irrelevant to people who want to listen to the mainstream and (at least some of) the stations that serve them. Most of the music I like to listen to I can only find on the net, and because it's minority interest the majors are not interested and most artists negotiate their own deals. The rate hike isn't the end of internet radio, but I can imagine it polarising more between the populist and the obsure.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Xantharus]

I dug around because I could not get a straight answer on who actually has to pay this licensing fee. And after digging through various government documents, it appears that this fee is only needed to be paid if you do not have another license to play the music. So basically, in exchange for being able to broadcast any song that you want over the internet (including RIAA owned songs/artists), you must abide by these (possibly crazy) fees.

If web radio truly wants to be independent, they should use this as an opportunity to break away from the shackles of the RIAA. They can/should make agreements with local bands or truly independent labels for web broadcast. This way they can broadcast and give exposure to independent artists, while at the same time avoiding the extreme licensing fees from the mandatory license. I would expect that these rights would come relatively cheaply as most local groups would love the chance to get some free/cheap exposure and drive up their concerts and album sales (which is what I have heard from the slash-mob is what the radio should be used for).

By forcing this through, RIAA may have just ceded webradio to independent artists. Those who are with it enough to be listening to web radio and care about this day of silence should be open enough to be willing to trade away listening to Britney on the web for music of actual quality.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[tsq]

The only problem is that these new fees are retroactive to the beginning of 2006. Even if internet radio stations were to drop all music associated with these new royalty fees, most would probably still be forced to shut down because they'd be unable to pay (a second time) for music they've already broadcast.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works?

Its called compulsory licensing. It is basically a uniform license that the copyright holders are forced (by law) to grant to anyone. But it is just an option to license the music. If you work out some other license with the copyright holder then you don't need to use the compulsory license.

The net radio broadcasters could, in theory, short circut this whole rate hike thing by negotiating directly with the copyright holders. Though in this case, the compulsory licensing people and the copyright holders are mostly one in the same.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Azathfeld]

You can do that, but under these rules the internet stations are still required to pay SoundExchange royalties for any os your music that gets streamed to their listeners. Your opinion of the process doesn't have any bearing; it's a matter of SEx getting a share of all of the data movement that internet radio generates.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[theJML]

This money, which isn't yours, gets channeled to you and unless someone pays a fee to you to be able to collect their money from you, you get to keep it.

So... person A ends up with all the money and then charges person B a fee to get the money? Wow, someone should alert the Nigerian Finance Minister, I think we've found a way for him to channel all those extra funds!

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[flappinbooger]

Hey, on your list I've heard of Sigur Ros before. IIRC they are Icelandic? Very interesting sound!

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[PhoenixOr]

How do you prove a radio station, internet or otherwise, played some song or another? You could record them, but with how many stations there are, isn't that a LOT of recording?

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[jombeewoof]

... the FCC sanctions the wholesale looting of public property by media tycoons for their personal enrichment... and they're part of the fucking government. Who else but the government would or could loot public property for their personal enrichment. This is not news, this is standard operating procedure.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone who runs a record label, i have no interest in signing my artists up to soundexchange. our artists feel the same way. the day we find our songs in PLAYS, will be the day we test the legal case of a non-profit collecting money on behalf of us (read: fraud).

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[ak3ldama]

Because it has long long been considered to be more profitable for broadcasters to play the songs for free with the thought that listeners would buy the music, attend concerts, get a t-shirt, etc.
Great comment, and this was definitely true in the past. The only place this may have changed is the fringe, I have bought almost all of my music from the last year from listening to internet radio. Through Chronix radio, and Chronix metal I have discovered bands that I would've never heard otherwise. This is especially true in less poplated areas. For larger cities (thus the main audience) this is not as big of a deal, but how many radio stations play bands like: Otep, Overkill, Testament, Trivium, Lamb of God, Machine Head, Gojira, Atreyu.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I never have, and never will, buy the 'go to a concert, buy a tshirt instead' argument. You may not have stated it explicitly, but it is implicitly present.

There are a non-trivial number of musicians that have no interest in those pursuits, and this argument essentially invalidates the worth of their musical product to begin with. Hell, if tshirts sell that well, why not become a tshirt designer instead? With no music, there's no supporting merchandise.

Additionally, I would wager that less than 5% of a typical person's musical intake will be at a concert. We all have iPods; it's no secret that music is more personalized and local now than ever before - touring / physical resources are finite, whereas digital distribution is nearly infinite. If someone writes a great song, I would like to think that the reward is greater than their means to physically recoup that reward.

Just my two cents, but for those of us that slave away for days/weeks/months on music without a means to tour nor merchandise, I find it a little insulting that I should implicitly deserve less than someone who does, when the real focus should be on the music. The last thing I want to do after finishing a song or album is think 'What graphic T will best sell my music?'

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[jez9999]

there is apparently a $500 per channel minimum, in case your station is too small to generate enough revenue.

I'm confused. All the stuff I listen to from ShoutCast have no ads at all. Some don't even have a website. How exactly do they generate revenue? It seems like it's a few people donating the time and equipment for the station out of goodwill.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Skapare]

So basically you are saying that in a private transaction between two parties that does not involve anything owned by anyone else, some third party gets to butt in and take money for nothing they have contributed.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[smellsofbikes]

Yeah, they're Icelandic, and they tour with a couple other Icelandic groups. If you ever get a chance, go. That might be the best concert I've ever seen. When I got to see The Bel-Aires, The Velvet Underground, and The Pixies at Red Rocks, that was stupendous, but Sigur Ros was just amazing, too, and they didn't have a spectacular venue. One of the things that they do is they play things with bows -- they don't pluck guitars, they bow them. Also tables, music stands, saws, and anything else, and they manage to extract the most amazing sounds from them. They're truly amazing musicians, and I'm trying to learn Icelandic in part because of them.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[smellsofbikes]

consider what I said: they'd played the Pixies six times, in eight years. I grant you that's more than most mainstream stuff, but that's still pretty sparse. I think that somafm.com plays the pixies on their indie pop rocks feed, however, and you have a chance of hearing them once a week, rather than once a year. And yes, I *love* the Pixies. One of the best shows I ever saw was last year when they toured. (I saw them three times, but only one really stood out.)

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[blueskies]

Are you saying that if i stream music that i own the copyright to that i have to pay royalties to SoundExchange?

If not, then it seems one could work out licensing to stream other people's music.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[alva_edison]

First off, the post you are ranting about is a direct reply to the question "Why don't terrestrial broadcasters pay royalties?" The answer was that the assumption is the record labels are making money elsewhere and using radio as free advertising.

Second, in his post, he listed t-shirts as one of the many different revenue streams for the record industry. The argument you say is implicit was't even made (he wasn't talking about the artist's profits in any way, he was talking about the label's profits).

You may be erfectly correct in your statements; I don't know. I'm just pointing out that you jumped down someone's throat who wasn't even doing what you accused them of.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[enjerth]

Can you give me a name of one of your artists? I feel like calling in a request.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[AnyNoMouse]

From what I understand, SoundExchange only becomes involved if you wish to play a song without permission from the rights holder. It's a compulsory licensing fee, which means the artist doesn't get any say in it, what-so-ever.

If you negotiate terms with the rights holder yourself, then you don't need a compulsory license and SoundExchange deosn't get any money.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[Spudds]

As a musician in a local metal band (shameless plug), I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your post.

Local acts that do not intend on being "studio musicians" have two things on their mind:
1) Get exposure
2) Sell merchandise/cds/tickets
Of course, both of those feed into each other for the ultimate goal of getting signed.

Exposure allows us to pack clubs and sell shirts and cds so that we can continue to pack clubs and sell more shirts and cds, create our new albums (recording music cost THE BAND money people!!), etc.

I, and I'm sure I speak for everyone in my band, would be absolutely ecstatic if the radio stations in my area, or really anywhere, would start playing our tunes on air for absolutely no payment to us.

Now, of course, I'm not saying we finish a tune and immediately start thinking of "now what kind of merchandise can we shovel down the throats of our fans?", we're not Gene Simmons [that guy turned being a "sellout" into a freaking art form], but making money off of ticket sales and merchandise to keep the band going far outweighs trying to make money off of extorting money from internet radio companies.

I think most artists agree that they'd rather have broadcasters pay nothing to play their music, as that only makes it more difficult for them to expose and promote good artists.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[amRadioHed]

Have you seen Slim Cessna play live yet? I keep missing that sonofabitch whenever he comes around but I keep hearing it's a fantastic show!

Lots of other good stuff on your list there. I don't understand why more radio stations don't play GY!BE ;-)

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[thoughtlover]

Well, at least they won't be charged for that one day of silence. :-\

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[thebdj]

In the case of streaming your own music, you have no royalties to collect and technically have signed an agreement with yourself to distribute the music. Now, to stream other artists (and presumably other labels), you would either a) have to use the SEx arrangement and risk some evil STD (sound-transmitted disease *I couldn't resist.*) or b) have to sign agreements with each individual label or artist for different (presumably lower) rates then you would if you just used SEx. The problem with option 'b' is that it can become an administrative nightmare.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[smellsofbikes]

I have. He used to live in this area and I've run into him in the audience at several other concerts: he's a nice guy and nowhere near as frighteningly intense as the 16Horsepower/Woven Hand guy (I sort of class them together since they're both Christian freak-folk-rockers.) Next time he plays in your area, see it if you can.

GY!BE is just too weird, I guess? Plus they never tour and a lot of their songs are WAY too long for radioplay. My gf has seen them a couple of times and says it's an incredible show. I've gotten to see Silver Mount Zion, which is related (somehow) to GY!BE and they were excellent.

Re:How about a day of EXPLANATION?!?!

[ashmon]

I think I should have put <tongue in cheek> in there somewhere. I got what you said. I was trying to say (poorly, obviously) that any station that actually plays the Pixies and also considers playing a Pixies song 6 times in 8 years as heavy rotation must have a HUGE rotation list and would be a great place to find some new music. If not for internet radio, I'd have never heard of the best singer/songwriter in the world, Elliott Smith,[0] as well as a lot of other bands who are among my favorites [1]. So I was humbly asking if this station you speak of has an internet feed I could check out.

So do they?

--------

*0 Or, rather, re-heard of. I saw Good Will Hunting and him all over dressed at the Academy Awards, but, regretably, I never got around to finding out who the songwriter was until much later. I still get a little teary-eyed thinking that I could have seen him live on several occasions had I followed that initial intuition that I had when I saw him on the Oscars. Sadly, he killed himself a few years ago, a few months before I started listening to him.

*1 Stars, Modest Mouse, Arcade Fire, Travis, Badly Drawn Boy, Built to Spill, Deathcab for Cutie, Metric, the Postal Service, Silversun Pickups, Arctic Monkeys, The Stone Roses, etc.

I know.

[Threni]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/23/19 8224

Perhaps Slashdot can hold its own protest and only publish dupes on that day?

Re:I know.

[morgan_greywolf]

Perhaps Slashdot can hold its own protest and only publish dupes on that day? I think they already did that...more than once.

This sucks.

[rmadmin]

Ya know, this sucks so bad that I had to torrent some music at work to listen to since I didn't have my streams. :(

Re:This sucks.

[Uthic]

What are you complaining about, a torrent gets you what you want waaaay faster than some tiny little stream. Flooding is a worry though.

Re:This sucks.

[megaditto]

Or how about trying to listen to non-RIAA music? There are plenty of third party recordings that are made available for free or almost for free to anyone directly by artists, performers, even some record companies. Lots of classical pieces performed by the universities' choirs and orchestras are put out there for free

While I sympathize with you, you don't exactly have the rights to listen to music for free unless the copyright holder gives it to you. If you don't like it, you can get back at them by not paying attention to their crap, and actually supporting their competitors.

Re:This sucks.

[Otter]

And ... did you write to your congressman and senators?

if everyone who steals music would put five minutes of effort into keeping legal streams viable, there's no way the royalty ruling is going to go through.

Re:This sucks.

[everphilski]

What I'm listening to now on Pandora... [pandora.com]

You mean, what you are not listening to on Pandora! :)

Re:This sucks.

[Slow Smurf]

Shame you won't be able to stream them, as any station would be bankrupt. So yeah, torrents ARE the only option soon, even if it isn't RIAA music.

Re:This sucks.

[asilentthing]

Last.fm (albeit a UK company) had a great post on their http://blog.last.fm/blog [last.fm] as to why they are not supporting this, even though many of their users are in the UK.

Basically, the users of these services are suffering today all due to this. And the stations are shifting blame to legislation (as always - and probably justifiably so). I agree it's a drag that these charges are doubling in such a short time -- but at the same time, this has been a reality outside of the US for years.

I agree that the SoundExchange deal is pretty ridiculous. I think it should all go through BMI/SESAC/ASCAP like normal radio royalty distribution - since it makes sense, and right bands get their (not quite) fair share. Anyone heard why this isn't the case?

Re:This sucks.

[RobertM1968]

Non RIAA music is subject to the same royalties via Internet Radio. There is the problem. Your choice (when it comes to Internet Radio) is thus, listen to nothing, since the RIAA/SoundXchange collects the money (that the artists may - or may not see) - all while killing off any Internet Radio station without the money to pay these exhorbitant fees - leaving who? RIAA's affiliates/members? That's my guess.

Re:This sucks.

[westlake]

Lots of classical pieces performed by the universities' choirs and orchestras are put out there for free.

Free distribution doesn't mean that bandwidth is free or that performance rights are negligible.

Reading an eighteenth century text aloud will give you some hint of the problems you run into when you naively try to perform a classical work using sheet music in the public domain.

Re:This sucks.

[jZnat]

If you're skilled enough to be playing a lot of classical music from the 18th century, I'm sure you can read the same sheet music used back then (provided we're still talking about the same G-clef/F-clef system of notation).

Re:ahem

[HomelessInLaJolla]

from the silence-speaks-louder-than-tracks dept. Nothing to hear here, move along.

Non-American listeners?

[Yvan256]

Is there anything we can do if we live outside of the USA? Will our voice/concerns even matter? We want to help in any way we can if it's all at possible.

Thanks.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[tedshultz]

Is there anything we can do if we live outside of the USA? Will our voice/concerns even matter? We want to help in any way we can if it's all at possible. It's just about as easy to influence US politics if you live in the US or not, just give money to groups you support. Because the US is such a large world power (for better or worse), I'm surprised that more foreign groups are not more active in US politics.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not Point our American Cousins at Stations outside the USA who broadcast on the Net?

  To start the ball rolling...

    www.planetrock.com (UK) Playing some Genesis as I write this. (June is Genesis Month)
    www.bbc.co.uk/radio and select your station

If the USA conglomerates are so determined to cut their own throat then so be it. These companies do need to understand that the internet allows us to listen to broadcasters from all over the world. Shutting down US based stations just means more audience for broadcasters in other possibly more enlightened countries.

I'm sad because I do sometimes tune into a few Bay Area Stations. Probably for not much longer.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[PitaBred]

"Please enter your Postcode Due to licensing changes, we're only allowed to offer our radio stream to those in the UK. You seem to be outside the UK, so you need to enter a valid UK postcode below:"

Still illegal. Thanks for trying, though!

Re:Non-American listeners?

[Keith_Beef]

"Please enter your Postcode Due to licensing changes, we're only allowed to offer our radio stream to those in the UK. You seem to be outside the UK, so you need to enter a valid UK postcode below:"

Still illegal. Thanks for trying, though!

Go to Google's map of the UK and choose where you live. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=U K&ie=UTF8&ll=53.080827,-3.032227&spn=5.095991,21.1 37695&z=6&om=1

Then go to the Royal Mail and look up your post code. http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/postcodefinder

Beef.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[vertinox]

Is there anything we can do if we live outside of the USA? Will our voice/concerns even matter? We want to help in any way we can if it's all at possible.

Well you can start by listening to radio stations outside of the USA.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[PitaBred]

I'm not saying that I can't work around it. Just like we could still technically net-cast without paying the license fees to the RIAA et al. But it's still illegal, which is the problem.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[TiredOfCrap]

I received this yesterday:

"Dear Dr. XXXX:

This letter acknowledges receipt of your communication about internet radio.

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) recently announced new statutory royalty rates for certain digital transmissions of sound recordings for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Implementation of these new rates marks the expiration of a previous royalty rate agreement specifically designed to benefit "small" web casters.

I support an artist's right to be paid what they deserve for their song, book, picture, artwork, television show or movie. However, the CRB's action to move royalty payments from a percentage of revenue to a flat per song fee will threaten the further existence of internet radio. By moving to a flat fee system internet radio stations will only be allowed to play either a limited number of songs or strictly use unsigned or up and coming musicians. For a small internet radio station to survive they will need a significant increase in revenue to be able to play the variety of songs current available on-line.

I firmly believe that the way consumers view and listen to music is drastically changing. We are in an age where people can download, watch and listen to almost any show, movie or song when they want. The internet allows people to experience new music and shows and gives individuals a forum to express and share their hobbies, their work experiences and what music they enjoy. At a minimum the same rules that apply to FM/AM radio should apply to online radio stations. Finally, there is a Congressional effort led by Representative Jay Inslee to overturn the CRB's decision. I will monitor that effort closely.

Thank you for sharing your views on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have any questions or comments. To receive additional information about issues that are facing Congress, Maryland, and the Nation that may affect you and your community, please visit my website at www.dutch.house.gov and sign up for my periodic e-mail newsletter.

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Member of Congress"

Re:Non-American listeners?

[Grishnakh]

Sure: sit back and smile while listening to your internet radio stations. Unless your government has sworn fealty to the US Government, you don't fall under our stupid laws, so you can continue running your own internet radio stations all you want, and laughing at us Americans for being so stupid.

Of course, you might have a slight problem with all the American listeners suddenly listening to non-US internet radio stations, and the ensuing bandwidth problems.

Re:Non-American listeners?

[lazybeam]

I listen to DI.FM from a local mirror in Brisbane, Australia. Does me listening count as a broadcast, considering i'm not in the US and my connection doesn't get anywhere near the US? How would they even track the usage in this case? I went to listen this morning (Wednesday 27/06/07 at 9:30AM GMT+1000) and got no music!

No effect

[DogDude]

And to think that Yahoo's music service (Launch) is working just as well as always, today. I had no idea that there was any kind of boycott going on. I have Launchcast streaming all day, every day. Too bad Yahoo wasn't involved.

Re:No effect

[Quastor]

Launchcast is down today. Well, the free version at least. There's no way they would go silent for their paying customers.

Re:No effect

[Max von H.]

And to think that Yahoo's music service (Launch) is working just as well as always, today. I had no idea that there was any kind of boycott going on. I have Launchcast streaming all day, every day. Too bad Yahoo wasn't involved.

Then how come I get the following message if I try to listen to any stream?

" LAUNCHcast Is Off the Air - It's a Day of Silence
LAUNCHcast Radio and other webcasters are silent today, from
12 midnight EST to 11:59 pm EST. A recent COPYRIGHT ROYALTY decision will impose punishing fees that could shut down most online radio.
You can do something about it. Go to www.savenetradio.org to find out more, and call your congressional representative before JULY 15th.

Today is only one day of silence -- but if you don't speak up, this could be the only sound we'll hear from online radio. "

Looks like involvement to me...

Re:No effect

[CastrTroy]

Why not? Won't they be the ones that are really affected in the end? People who are paying for the streams are the ones who are most likely to be annoyed if the service goes down. If I'm using some free service, and it gets shut down, it kind of sucks, but I wasn't paying for it anyway. If I'm paying for a service, I'm kind of expecting that it will stick around, and would be quite mad if it got shut down by some stupid laws.

Re:No effect

[DogDude]

Must be the free users, only.

Well, that's good then. Glad people will see it. I'm also glad that they didn't interrupt my subscription service. Yahoo handled that well.

Re:No effect

[porcupine8]

If you're paying for the service, they can probably afford to pay the royalties, or could charge a bit more. Although, would you be willing to pay a subscription fee that works out to 19c/song? The free stuff, though, would be gone instantly. Yahoo probably figures they'll piss more people off by not giving them what they paid for for a day than they will convince people to take action.

Re:No effect

[Judg3]

It's not 19 cents per song, it's .019 cents per song

Just a day?

[gilesjuk]

Why not forever until the right people get the message?

I dont really use online radio, but if I did I wouldn't miss it for a day.

Re:Just a day?

[palewook]

forever is coming to some stations on july 16th.

News Coverage

[JBHarris]

What gets me really worked up is that this really isn't that big of a deal to most people. They don't even notice it. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people listen to net radio, but they don't have any idea that it is going to stop. I totally expected to hear about this on the news this morning, but I couldn't seem to find anything about it between the Wrestler and the War in Error (sic).

Is there any way we could contact our regular Radio & Local News stations and raise awareness of this issue?

Brad

Re:News Coverage

[another_fanboy]

Is there any way we could contact our regular Radio & Local News stations and raise awareness of this issue?
The local stations may not care or may even be supportive of the bans seeing as internet radio competes with them.

Re:News Coverage

[geekoid]

72 million people, not "hundreds of thousands".

While technically correct* it is misleading.

"Technically correct is the best kind of correct." -- Number 1

Re:News Coverage

[StarvingSE]

Not true. A lot of terrestrial radio stations also broadcast a stream over the internet. This allows them to increase their broadcast range worldwide for next to nothing. This also means extra revenue for broadcasting ads on the webstream than they do on the terrestrial signal (the ones I listen to only have ads on the webstream that would have a nationwide appeal, such as McDonald's).

I know all of the radio stations I listen to have both the regular terrestrial and internet streams going. All of the DJ's have also been voicing their concerns regarding this legislation on the air. Seeing as Clear Channel is allowing them to speak out against the legislation on the air, it seems to me that terrestrial broadcasters value being able to stream their stations on the net.

Re:News Coverage

[compro01]

Not true. A lot of terrestrial radio stations also broadcast a stream over the Internet

and, AFAICT, they are exempt from these new rules. they get to stay with the same rules as they currently have with terrestrial radio, so they get to have their current market and keep the new market all to themselves.

then again, i could be wrong, so someone please correct me if i am.

Re:News Coverage

[snarlydwarf]

I believe you are wrong: this is why NPR is part of the campaign. Hundreds of Public Radio stations across the country will be paying these fees... or go silent online.

Re:ahem

[utopianfiat]

If a post is modded redundant in the woods...

We need more days like this...

[MyLongNickName]

... because my porn is downloading so much faster today!

No, and the reason is . . .

[mmell]

there's the USA, and then there's the Rest of the world.

You're not in the first class. You don't count.

The problem is that the radio servers which will be affected by raised royalty rates are largely located within the US; thus, their operation is subject to US law (and individual State laws, depending upon which state the servers physically reside in and which state the company running the servers lists as its main office).

Wait, I know - you non-US types can set up radio servers outside the United States, (somewhat) avoiding the pitfalls of US law. YMMV.

Play independent music

[jmyers]

A boycott is usually a dumb move that proves little. If they really want to make a difference they should seek out and play music by artists that are not requiring royalty payments.

Re:Play independent music

[GWLlosa]

Won't work. The issue is that SoundExchange, which is the 'collections agency', has gotten the right to collect money "on behalf of" ALL artists, even those not registered with it. So even playing small-name garage-bands has the exact same price. The payments being foisted on the net radio companies have nothing to do with the actual artists at all.

Re:Play independent music

[RaigetheFury]

Actually it raises awareness. I didn't even know today was a boycott day until all my favorite stations I have saved played the same message when I connected. I went to the site, found the appropriate contact information and tossed an email. Sure I admit that they probably won't read my email but they will notice that 1 because it will be part of hundreds if not thousands. Lets say 1 in 10 people listening today took the 2 minutes it took me to email them. That's 7.5million people. That's a lot of email any way you look at it.

Re:Play independent music

[MacsSuck]

what is the email? I want to send one too

Re:Play independent music

[Attila Dimedici]

This is true, unless they sign a contract with said garage bands to play the garage bands music. SoundExchange is collecting on behalf of all artists who have not made alternate arrangements with a particular "broadcaster". Personally, I think that if this goes through it will be the death knell of the music industry. If this goes as planned, those who want to broadcast music over the Internet will have to sign agreements with bands outside of the current structure. If you are signing broadcast deals with Internet Radio stations and you can distribute your music over the Internet, what do you need EMI, Sony, or the rest of the RIAA gang for anyway?

Re:Play independent music

[CastrTroy]

How is this even legal? If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money. How do they define a song anyway. If I start up my own internet radio station, and it has no music, then I probably shouldn't have to pay them. However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them? What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show? What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free? Does this count as an internet radio station?

Re:Play independent music

[geekoid]

Dude, we live in an era where if you open a bar, you have to pay a fee 'just in case' someone decides to sing a song.
No. Shit.

It's going to keep on unless some people who own large chains decide to run a very public, very ugly and very costly campaign to stop it.
I have no doubt that if the crap like this goes on was know by a broad group of Americans, it would stop. Yes the cynic would say it wouldn't matter, but history proves otherwise.

Re:Play independent music

[TheRaven64]

Surely the solution is to set up a competitor (for want of a better word) to SoundExchange. It will sign a single agreement on behalf of any band that signs with it allowing the existing rates to continue. Any station that only plays music from bands signed with the SoundExchange competitor will be exempt from the new fees (if they play a single song not covered by this or other contracts, then they have problems). Get the indie labels on board, and the whole problem goes away.

Re:Play independent music

[future assassin]

Its as stupid as me paying recordable cd levies in Canada for the pleasure of storing my own copyrighted photos. Yes Celine Dion gets money from me when ever I back up my photos. WTF??

Re:Play independent music

[CastrTroy]

That's why I back up my photos to DVD. DVDRs are actually cheaper in Canada specifically because of this stupid levy. I don't even know anybody who stores pirated music on CD anymore. Most people just leave it on their hard drive, and then transfer from there to their MP3 player. I haven't bought CDRs in years.

Re:Play independent music

[bky1701]

IANAL, but could things like CC and GPL, even EULAs, be considered contacts in this case?

Re:Play independent music

[rm999]

This is the first boycott I have EVER been behind. Read up on the issue, and you will understand why this boycott actually makes sense. Basically, a lot of small business owners are being bullied to death by larger cororations.

Re:Play independent music

[Abcd1234]

How is this even legal?

It's called a compulsory license, and it's a pretty well-understood legal structure. Interestingly, this is what makes allofmp3.com legal in Russia. The terms are just different.

The goal is to make it easier for broadcasters to secure rights to the material they're broadcasting, as they can choose to make use of the compulsory license, rather than negotiating a deal with each artist individually. This is, of course, assuming the fees are fair. And note, this doesn't preclude broadcasters from securing rights from the artists themselves... it's just a pain in the ass.

If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money

a) The bands are "affiliated" with them because the government chose SoundExchange as the arbiter of the royalties. Complain to the CRB if you don't like that.

b) The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC.

However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them?

If the song is under valid copyright, yes, unless you've secured rights from the copyright holder directly.

What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?

Presumably you've already secured rights.

What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free?

Well, you own the copyright in that case, don't you? So you're free to do what you wish with the material.

In the end, compulsory licensing, as a concept is a very very good idea. Assuming reasonable royalties, it reduces overall costs for broadcasters, since they only end up dealing with a single entity.

The problem comes in when the CRB and SoundExchange agree to modify the rates in a fashion which is clearly discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty clear that SE is acting in the interests of the entrenched music oligopoly. And the CRB has apparently chosen to kowtow to those same interests.

Re:Play independent music

[Skapare]

So if an indie band makes arrangements with an internet radio broadcaster to allow that broadcaster to play their music under some terms (which conceivably could be anywhere from free to the previous fee arrangements), that's all good and legal? Of course I can see the difficulty in this in each party having to make so many deals. Maybe one option is for the indie bands to release their music online for broadcasters to download under a (new?) GML (GNU Music License).

I for one (and I am sure I am in a crowd) will be glad to see the corporate music business collapse and die.

Re:Play independent music

[mr_matticus]

This is what everyone keeps claiming, but who exactly is forcing anyone to pay Sound Exchange? Do they have some sort of kill switch? If they're trying to collect royalties for non-members on music which has been duly licensed for use on internet radio, who cares what Sound Exchange demands? They can sue, but it's a pretty open-and-shut case.

Just don't pay the bastards. What is the problem? Unless Sound Exchange is the supplier of content to be streamed, I don't see how their demands have any teeth.

Re:Play independent music

[Dynedain]

If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money

a) The bands are "affiliated" with them because the government chose SoundExchange as the arbiter of the royalties. Complain to the CRB if you don't like that.

b) The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC.

Actually, I just spoke with my bandmate, an IP lawyer, who also happens to be the producer. We are frequently played on both Live365 and Yahoo's Launch. We've been in the top 30 for our genre multiple times, and apparently we regularly have had over 30,000 'plays' in a month. He has this information because he has contacts in Yahoo Launch and Live365.

Here's the kicker. Even though we're registered will all the appropriate trade organizations as both the music group, the production entity, and the record label, we haven't seen a cent from SoundExchange (even under the old rate structure). In fact, after calling them several times, SoundExchange doesn't even know we exist. So what are they doing with the data that Yahoo Launch and Live365 are giving them? Obviously with the number of plays we're having, we aren't just slipping under the radar.

We aren't RIAA members, but SoundExchange is collecting royalties on our 'behalf' and then disavows any knowledge of us. Pile on top the huge increase in 'administrative fees' and royalty rates, and it sounds very suspiciously like an abuse of their position.

My bandmate is pretty ambivalent at this point, especially considering we've never seen any kind of royalties from internet radio play. Even previous to the changes in the royalty rates, there should have been some kind of payment. All our earnings have been from CD and MP3 sales. Personally, I'm of the opinion that internet radio should be treated the same as terrestrial broadcast radio, meaning that it's treated as promotional. But then again, the band isn't of a for-profit nature.

It's a tough fence to straddle. Independent artists currently get little to no compensation for radio play (internet or otherwise) except for 'free' promotion. On the other hand, independent internet radio broadcasters will be screwed by the new royalty rates. Even the 'big guys' are barely profitable in this new industry, and terrestrial radio only slightly more.

Re:Play independent music

[westlake]

If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money.

Mouse over to SoundExchange.com.

You'll find membership applications, FAQs, forms to download, and a search engine. Enter the name of your band and find out what they owe you.

The point of having a statutory license and a single administrator is that broadcasters can play damn near anything without ever being drawn into disputes over licensing and royalties.

This is a good thing for the independent artist, music outside the mainstream.

What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?

Good god. Google returns 300,000 matches for the phrase "royalty free audio intros."

Re:Play independent music

[Lijemo]

"And note, this doesn't preclude broadcasters from securing rights from the artists themselves... it's just a pain in the ass...The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC."

So what's needed is some healthy competition. A second clearing house that artists and record labels can sigh up with, and internet radio can negotiate with this second clearinghouse instead. If the artist/label wishes, the second clearing house can also broker the removing of their copyright from SoundExchange as well. Given the exorbitant fees SoundExchange is charging, (they aren't trying to make a profit on Internet Radio but rather destroy it), this second clearing house could probably beat their rates by a lot, while still paying the artists a fair fee AND making a fair profit.

They could even bootstrap by checking people registered at Creative Commons-- I'm sure some of those licenses would allow such a thing? It's win-win-win for artist, listener, and second clearing house: the only "losers" are RIAA and SoundExchage-- and that's their own fault for lacking the vision to do this themselves, since they certainly had the first opportunity.

I don't have the industry knowledge/contacts to start this thing myself, but surely someone else out there does? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler? Beuler?

Re:Play independent music

[Skapare]

My understanding of compulsory licensing is that any broadcaster, or any other entity wanting to obtain a license, for various purposes, can choose to either go to the copyright holder directly or their agent, -or-, go to the compulsory licensing entity (SoundExchange in the case of broadcasting ... there are others for other purposes, such as The Harry Fox Agency for mechanical reproduction licensing).

How this impacts the broadcaster is that they have a choice. They can go to SoundExchange and get a license at the designated rate (the rate that is skyrocketing upwards). Or they can go directly to the copyright owner and make whatever deal they want if the copyright owner is willing, at any agreeable rate. This ensures the broadcaster that there is at least one way to get licensing, even if it is expensive. But if the copyright owner is willing, they could get a cheaper rate directly, or different terms.

How this impacts the copyright owner is that their music can be licensed out through SoundExchange, even if they didn't want to go through SoundExchange. They can then go to SoundExchange and get their share of the booty. The copyright owner can also make a deal separately with any broadcaster to license under different rates and terms. Obviously the broadcaster would choose to go to SoundExchange unless the direct deal is better (including figuring the costs of working out the deal).

If my understanding of this is correct, independent bands can make their music available to broadcasters directly. Because there would be so much work involved in setting up such deals because of so many broadcasters and so many bands, it won't be practical to do on any scale unless the bands either make a blanket no-fee license for all, or go through a common agent of their own choosing that can make package deals (e.g. broadcasters can get a package of bands licensed to play, and bands can get a package of broadcasters paying for their licensing).

The designated compulsory agent doesn't have to be a part of the deal at all. They are there, however, in case the broadcaster isn't able to make a deal because the copyright owner wouldn't work with them. It's basically a mechanism available for broadcasters to be able to get a license for sure (under terms that are now becoming basically favorable only to the big corporate broadcasters). So small multi-channel internet broadcasters have a choice between a lousy compulsory license they can't afford, or doing direct deals that will be too expensive to manage unless and alternate agency is set up.

If an alternate agency is set up, such as for independent bands, that agency does NOT have any compulsory authority. That means they cannot make a license available on a compulsory basis; they are limited to only licensing music of copyright owners they actually represent.

So, IMHO, internet broadcasters can still play music at rates less than what SoundExchange demands. They just have to cut their own deals with every copyright owner or their agents (there could easily come to be more than one, possibly quite many) instead of choosing the compulsory route.

I would like...

[hkgroove]

The stations should just become number stations for the day.

Re:I would like...

[Penguinshit]

repeating the HD-DVD processing key...

One day?

[BHearsum]

How is shutting down for one day going to do ANYTHING?

Re:One day?

[darkhitman]

It gets all the listeners to actually notice that this is going to happen. Maybe some of them will call their senators, perhaps enough to get the bill they want passed. Doubtful, since the RIAA can lobby via the power of bribery--er,uh... campaign donations?

Re:One day?

[everphilski]

Yeah, just like all the people who stop buying gas one day of the year cause the gasmakers to realize that the American people won't take high gas prices anymore!

Oh wait, it accomplishes nothing ...

Re:One day?

[CastrTroy]

The American people don't have high gas prices. If you want high gas prices, just look north, to Canada, or even better, to Europe.

Re:One day?

[Dunbal]

it got posted on slashdot, didn't it?

Re:One day?

[Vancorps]

Except that this day of silence is to draw attention to the issue, much like the read people stop buying gas for a day. Has nothing or at least, very little to do with making them lower their prices. This will make a lot of people aware that the net radio stations are being extorted, a few of those people will be driven to do something about it that otherwise were unaware. If even a thousand people write to their congress critters about the issue, considering 72 million listeners that seems like a reasonable figure then there may be some legislative support stepping in to fight this obvious abuse of power.

If Pandora has to pay a minimum of $500 per channel and I have roughly 22 channels on my account alone right now then they are basically paying $11,000 just so I can listen to music. Could they pass that on to me? Sure but I would stop using the service and a truly great service dies. I keep Pandora even on my cell phone because I love it so much. The pricing is out of reach because it's modeled after traditional broadcasting services which realistically don't apply to net radio with it's unlimited personalization options.

In short, the pricing is absurd and most people don't even know what's happening.

Re:One day?

[Dutch Gun]

I love that argument...

"Doctor, I broke my arm. Can you help me?"
"Pfft! See Mr. Faldworth over there? He's dying of cancer! What are you complaining about?"

Re:One day?

[Abcd1234]

WTF are you talking about? That's a *completely* different situation. On the one hand, we have consumers protesting against an entrenched oligopoly who'll barely feel the effects of a boycott. On the other, we have an industry under attack, trying to raise consumer awareness so that said consumers they might contact their legislators and hopefully build up enough grassroots support to generate legislative relief.

Re:One day?

[The_mad_linguist]

If by prices you mean taxes, then yes.

KUOW is joining in

[WillAffleckUW]

As you can see at KUOW, they are also participating, as I believe RainyDawg and KNHC in Seattle are as well.

Re:KUOW is joining in

[Kris_B_04]

Actually, on the NPR site
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=11382930

"National Public Radio, on behalf of its member stations, have also asked the Circuit Court in Washington, D.C., for an emergency stay of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision".

Re:KUOW is joining in

[WillAffleckUW]

They mentioned it on the air.

In fact, they also have major coverage of it, something like an hour devoted to the subject, plus mentions for about 5 minutes every hour before that, talking about the issue.

Re:KUOW is joining in

[booleanoperator]

Radio Margaritaville shut down their web streams as well. http://radiomargaritaville.com/ Though their Sirius station stayed on. I called my congressman today, did you call yours? if not, call them tomorrow.

Arrrrrr

[bobcat7677]

WE need some pirate radio mates!

Personally I don't listen to net radio. So far haven't listened to a station yet that didn't have such poor audio quality that my ears were left feeling raped. But in principle it seems the gov'ment is overstepping its mandate big time here which is always bad. So power to the pirates and may anarchy rein till we get a new less corrupt government.

It will just go underground..

[denis-The-menace]

US NetCasters will either move to a country without those laws
OR
use an SSL tunnel to a server in a country without those laws.

I wonder what they do to Net radio stations with "ALL TALK" or ALL News" format?

Damned stupid over-bribed politicians.

Re:It will just go underground..

[hendridm]

OR
use an SSL tunnel to a server in a country without those laws.

I'm confused. How will this stop them from copyright liability? They'd still be broadcasting the music from a business on U.S. soil without license, no? They'd be better off to move, if feasible. I don't know if creating a subsidiary in another country (with hosting) while still remaining in the U.S. would help them avoid trouble. I doubt it would matter as long as there is someone to sue still on U.S. soil.

Re:It will just go underground..

[cybermage]

s/politicians/bureaucrats/

You can find them here.

Re:It will just go underground..

[westlake]

US NetCasters will either move to a country without those laws OR use an SSL tunnel to a server in a country without those laws.

The more complex and questionable the solution is for the broadcaster and the listener the less likely it is to generate the kind of numbers the rights agencies give a damn about.

The Geek is an odd duck. He doesn't trust his own government.

But he will trust an anonymous host 8,000 miles distant to protect him from civil and criminal prosecution in the states.

Re:It will just go underground..

[jez9999]

OVER-bribed politicians?

Does that mean that it's ok to bribe them to an extent?

Re:It will just go underground..

[denis-The-menace]

What is the difference between a bribe and a "campaign contribution"?

NONE.

Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[Kadin2048]

Okay, here's what I understand of it.

In the beginning. Prior to 1995, you could 'perform' music in public, via digital broadcasting, without paying any royalties on it. I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what you used to have to pay royalties for (Wikipedia says there was "no performance right" for artists, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, I remember performance-rights cases prior to '95; I think it was just a digital thing), but anyway, in 1995 Congress passed a law granting rightsholders control over the digital 'performance' of their works. The upshot of this was that anyone distributing music digitally now had to pay 'performance' royalties for it.

Obviously, trying to pay royalties directly to the owner of each piece of music that you might play on a radio station would be problematic. It would require negotiating a license with each rightsholder, for each work, for every station. The paperwork and negotiations would be crippling. So a provision was made for so-called 'statutory licenses,' basically blanket licenses that you buy from an organization who takes the proceeds and divides them up among artists. (Blanket broadcast licenses like this aren't a new thing, but this extended them to digital broadcasting.) In return, you can play whatever you want, without worrying about negotiating individual contracts. The cost and rate structure of these licenses is set, theoretically, by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Enter SoundExchange. The RIAA [1] has a division/subsidiary/department-of-evil called "SoundExchange", which is designated, by the U.S. Copyright Office, as the sole supplier of "statutory licenses" for digital music. So if you wanted to run an internet radio station or other digital broadcast, and weren't going to stick to just playing independent artists who have relinquished some of their rights to public performance, you needed to go to SoundExchange and buy a license. While philosophically objectionable to many (including many artists!) because of the metrics they use to distribute the fees, SoundExchange had licensing terms that weren't horrific, including some that were based on a percentage-of-revenue (I've heard 10-13% quoted). So if you were running a small-time internet radio station, the fees wouldn't break the bank. This has been the status quo for a while now.

The Rubber Stamp. The current controversy started a while back, when SoundExchange proposed, and the Copyright Office approved, a dramatic rate hike. Among other things, the new rates eliminated the percent-of-revenue model, replacing it instead with a per-song-per-listener model, combined with a minimum per-channel fee, and a bunch of other onerous terms (including making the fees retroactive to some point in the past, which would instantly force any station without large cash reserves out of existence). The bottom line was that under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills. The effect as far as I can tell, would be to make Internet radio much like terrestrial broadcast radio: dominated by a few corporate-backed players (e.g., Last.fm), with a small number of channels playing basically the same thing. The new rates, if nothing happens to forestall them, go into effect around the middle of next month.

[1] Okay, allegedly it's "independent" now. Riiight...

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[CastrTroy]

Here's my question. If it's problematic for the radio station to work out deals with every owner of every song, then how does SoundExchange do it? Oh, wait, they don't. They have ties to all the RIAA music, but not all music, and yet they still insist that you pay the royalties, even if you don't play any music that's covered by their licensing fees. So if I set up a station and play classical music including Bach, Mozart, and a bunch of other guys who have been dead for a long time, the I still have to pay them. Sounds like extortion to me. Is there actually any way of getting out paying these fees if you don't actually play any music that they cover?

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[LilBlackDemon]

Believe it or not, this is part of a larger effort to collect royalties from all radio. Terrestrial radio is next. That little tidbit comes from NPR about 3 weeks ago.

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[Abcd1234]

If it's problematic for the radio station to work out deals with every owner of every song, then how does SoundExchange do it?

By being appointed by the Copyright Royalty Board as the group who manages the levies. ie, they're selected by the government.

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[protolith]

"classical music including Bach, Mozart, and a bunch of other guys who have been dead for a long time"

Does the performer of music written by old dead dudes get a royalty?
I am just curious if Symphony orchestras get any credit for a quality performance of a classical piece of music or are they just really really good cover bands?

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[westlake]

I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what you used to have to pay royalties for (Wikipedia says there was "no performance right" for artists, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, I remember performance-rights cases prior to '95

Performance rights have been a central issue for ASCAP since its founding in 1914:

Early on, Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough." THE ERA OF THE PLAYER PIANO (THE EARLY 1900S)

under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills.

I'm not entirely convinced that a webcaster with the bandwidth to deliver hundreds - thousands - of high-quality streams world-wide qualifies as "small."

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[Kadin2048]

If it's problematic for the radio station to work out deals with every owner of every song, then how does SoundExchange do it?

They were handed a big, fat monopoly by the government.

So if I set up a station and play classical music including Bach, Mozart, and a bunch of other guys who have been dead for a long time, the I still have to pay them.

Yep. And probably even more offensively (because, let's face it, Beethoven doesn't give a shit either way), if you play music by a band that's not a member of the RIAA's little club, they don't get one thin dime of SoundExchange's revenues. So, for example, let's say you set up a really cool internet radio station that plays a lot of alternative stuff. In order to keep yourself lawsuit-free, you get a SoundExchange license. Regardless of what you play, most of your license fees are going to go to the teeny-bopper, top-40 artists. (I believe SoundExchange pays out revenues based on "popularity" data that's compiled from terrestrial radio airplay statistics; so basically it takes in money from everyone and spits it back out to the ClearChannel Top 40.) Pretty slick way to keep the gravy train rolling, eh?

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[Kadin2048]

The question is, what's a "performance." The RIAA, et al, want it defined as broadly as possible, so that they can collect royalties from every transfer of a copyrighted work from person to person. Prior to 1995, transferring music over the Internet wasn't necessarily a 'performance' subject to royalties. It was treated just like regular radio, where no royalties are necessary. The decision to make digital broadcasting subject to royalties, separating it from conventional broadcasting, was not accidental. (See Section 106 of the Copyright Act; they single out 'digital broadcasting' specifically, putting it in with CD sales, and not with regular broadcasting.) If you remember back to 1995, the reasons for this are obvious: the music lobby was terrified of anything digital, and was fighting it tooth and nail. This legislation was bought and paid for by the RIAA and the other record companies.

Anyway, as to your other point, streaming a few hundred channels of music really isn't that hard. You need a lot of bandwidth, sure, at least at peak times, but if you do it right it's a reasonable cost and can be carefully balanced against revenue sources. Lots of one-man websites do it every day. (It's not like you need a lot of personnel to run an internet radio channel, you essentially just need to make up the playlist -- many of them don't have live DJs or anything.) The key difference between the terrestrial broadcasting market and the Internet one is the barriers to entry -- anyone with a few thousand dollars in capital could set up an Internet 'radio' station and start attracting listeners -- do well and you can be producing many channels, each with only a few listeners (remember -- it doesn't take any more bandwidth, really, for each listener to have a different stream); starting a new terrestrial radio station costs millions, and that's if you can buy the spectrum at all (and obviously you can forget about customized radio on using traditional technology -- the spectrum is too crowded and expensive).

The effect -- in my opinion, the sole purpose -- of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act is to make the cost of entering the Internet broadcasting market just as prohibitive as the terrestrial one.

Re:Here's the short, short version AFAICT

[jez9999]

Here's my question. You say that niche stations will be forced to die. Why don't they relocate offshort to a country with less retarded legislation, like, say.... ANY other country? OK, some owners may really love living in the US (although God knows why, nowadays), but they could have their server offshore, and SSH to it. Illegal but the feds are unlikely to find out. Or, just rely on those who ARE willing to physically leave the country, or indeed those who were never broadcating from the US in the first place.

The point is, isn't it a bit over the top to say that all these stations will 'die'? Some will, but you're OK as long as you're in the US. All that will happen is that the US government had just shot dead another golden goose. They're running out of em, but other countries still have many nice healthy geese.

Re:Play live music?

[denis-The-menace]

-What about live music?
-What if the artist says on "air" that he/she expect no compensation for their live performance?
-What if it's a parody?
I could go on, but how anal is this law?

Close to the business.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a friend of a terrestial FM station's president. He also streams his content, for free. Him and I were discussing this issue just last week.

He can afford paying the royalties, if he must. The smaller shops will pay about the same.

Here are the issues as he pointed out.

1. He is going to have to pay 10x what he would have in the past.

2. The artists don't even know the cut they are going to get.
2a. The artists are beginning to catch on. /AC for a reason.

Re:This really is a non-issue.

[geekoid]

"...all they have to do is move to another country"
oh, is that all.

You missed the point, please try again..then stop.

Re:This really is a non-issue.

[Rachel Lucid]

My local college radio station (WREK) will also be affected by these new regs, not just pirate radio.

Why? Because WREK streams to the internet as well as using its website to host archives of the past week's music. Missed the Hour of Slack or dozed off during your favorite techno show? No problem, it's waiting for you! It's not even different from the terrestrial radio; just packaged a little nicer for your PC.

How does forcing collegiate radio to pay excessive royalty rates help ANYBODY but these SoundExchange folks? All this is going to do is stifle new investments into the system...

Re:Play live music?

[palewook]

any digital performance on the web, contract or not with any riaa company, is subject to the fees.

move outside the US

[Secret Rabbit]

Why can't these companies move somewhere outside the US? It's not like US law is applicable elsewhere in the world.

Re:No taxation without representation.

[hkfczrqj]

You don't get a say until you start paying taxes.... So what can we do as non-immigrant, non-permanent, legal, F1 visa-holding, tax-paying residents of the US? That is, besides voting with my wallet (which is not useful in this case)?

In Soviet Russia

[geekoid]

Radio silences YOU!

I know I know, I can't believe I just posted that, I also can't believe it's not butter.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[neonmonk]

That was totally awesome and I don't know why.

Wrong!

[JamesRose]

The guy who has been illegally extradited from the UK to the USA (illegal because America kills people, and no country can extradite to a country that murders people in order to claim revenge for crimes as put in law by the Geneva convection which the UK is meant to adhere to) for hacking an American site whilst he was in the UK and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the USA (he could have been prosecuted by the UK police) and is now going to serve up to (cant remember exactly) 70 years in prison, he may disagree with you.

Re:Wrong!

[Secret Rabbit]

Committing a crime against a US company/gov that is illegal in the country of origin as well, is radically different than performing legal actions in another country that is /not/ directed against the US when it is illegal in the US.

Thanks for the sophistry though.

Re:Wrong!

[Kijori]

illegal because America kills people, and no country can extradite to a country that murders people in order to claim revenge for crimes as put in law by the Geneva convection which the UK is meant to adhere to I think you're a little confused on this. The UK cannot - and does not - extradite people to face the death penalty. If they are being extradited to the US, the State must offer assurances that the individual will not face the death penalty. This isn't a blanket ban on extradition to the US. I don't think it's in any Geneva convention, either, it's provided for by the EU charter on Human Rights.

Do you think...

[nadamucho]

Pandora could offload its site to The Pirate Bay???

Pandora's Bay.com

There sure is!

[DogDude]

Is there any way we could contact our regular Radio & Local News stations and raise awareness of this issue?

Yeah. Contact your local radio stations

Well, I took down my Web page ...

[Potor]

... and replaced it with a page linking to Google News's coverage of the day.

Re:This really is a non-issue.

[StarvingSE]

I also don't understand how this is going to affect the smaller stations. Most of the smaller internet-only stations I know/listen to either play indie music, or are talk stations. Wouldn't they be unaffected by any sort of royalties to begin with. If you want to listen to the RIAA crap, turn on your terrestrial radio. I always thought the point of internet radio was that amateur jocks could play the music and programs that the large stations don't.

Re:This really is a non-issue.

[Khisanth Magus]

You need to actually read what is happening before opening your mouth, figuratively speaking of course. "Better to keep your mount shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt" as they say. SoundExchange is collecting royalties "on behalf of" ALL artists, not just those associated with the RIAA, unless they have a specified agreement elsewhere.

Re:This really is a non-issue.

[Abcd1234]

'fraid not. SoundExchange can take money from any/all stations who play material for which the station hasn't negotiated a separate contract directly with the artists. The idea is that the artists can then retrieve their share directly from SoundExchange. This is referred to as a compulsory licensing scheme, and is intended to make the lives of broadcasters *easier*, since they don't have to go to each an every artists to negotiate a deal. The problems arise when the levies are used to club groups into submission through the use of disproportionately high, targeted fees (in this case, internet broadcasters being subject to a per-song-, rather than percentage-of-revenue-based scheme).

The people, united...

[PopeRatzo]

In solidarity, I won't download any illegal music torrents for 24 hours. I'll keep my uploads going, though.

Re:The people, united...

[gkhan1]

You, sir, are truly an inspiration for the people! Where can I get in touch with Time? I want to nominate PopeRatzo for Man of the Year!

Re:The people, united...

[msormune]

Well done! This is exactly the attitude that will keep p2p networks open and running forevar!

Re:Play live music?

[jmyers]

How about all the myspace music pages where artists post their own songs? Does myspace have to pay, do the individual artists have to pay to post their own songs? This is just a huge can of worms.

Hopefully..

[tuskennathan]

this will drive more people to pirate music!!! Good job US goverment!!

Not entirely silent...

[-kertrats-]

I left a Pandora window open overnight and it's still playing today. Is that cheating?

Re:Not entirely silent...

[jensen404]

I'm using the Google cache version of Pandora. Wish I had thought of that while I was at work...

Shoutcast?

[tanker333]

What effect will this legislation have on shoutcast? That is the main internet radio that I listen to.

Re:Shoutcast?

[grilled-cheese]

Yes, if your station is properly licenced those costs will skyrocket. If you arn't licenced then shame on you.

RIAA loves it!

[Snaller]

Its one day all the evil websites won't be stealing money from the starving artists!

Busy signal

[SpiritGod21]

I got through to two of my three representatives listed on SaveNetRadio.org. The first in the list had a busy signal, so maybe he's getting flooded with calls *crosses his fingers*

The two offices I did get a hold of stated that the representatives had not taken a stance on the issue yet, but that they would be happy to pass my message along. To be honest, this is the first time I've called. Feels like a meager effort, but at least I did something. Just wish I could do more... like vote on the issue myself.

Re:Busy signal

[dnahelix1]

Good luck getting through to the senator. They've got a much bigger bill that you should be calling on that they're going to be voting on again on Thursday.

Re:Busy signal

[SpiritGod21]

Can you fill me in on what it is? I'm rather out of the loop on current events and politics these days.

Re:Busy signal

[dnahelix1]

This is way off-topic and I'm sure everyone has their own opinion, but there is a massive piece of legislature in the senate now for 'immigration reform'. Basically, a huge bill that is being shoved down American's throats (any poll shows that people neither want this bill, nor do they want amnesty) to add new laws that will give amnesty to the estimated 12-30 million illegal immigrants in the country now. Today, the senate voted for cloture on the bill and on Thursday they will vote to proceed to vote (basically, end debate and then vote). IMO, it's a horrible, horrible bill (like you couldn't tell from what I wrote). Either way, senator's offices have been swamped with calls from voters to tell them their opinion. 300 pages of amendments to a 300 page bill that they haven't even gotten yet and they vote on it on Thursday. So, yes.

Another shining example

[kristopher_d]

"which is designated, by the U.S. Copyright Office, as the sole supplier of" There's the issue. "designated" by some assholes in DC "as the sole supplier" = government mandated monopoly. Also, I'm damned certain this particular bit of regulation could be turned over fairly easily as ex post facto legislation which is expressly forbidden by our constitution. The want to keep squeezing tighter, fuck 'em, more will slip through their grasp.

Re:Another shining example

[westlake]

There's the issue. "designated" by some assholes in DC "as the sole supplier" = government mandated monopoly. Also, I'm damned certain this particular bit of regulation could be turned over fairly easily as ex post facto legislation which is expressly forbidden by our constitution

Since 1798 the ban on "ex post facto" laws has been interpreted to mean criminalization of prior conduct only. It is not a part of our civil law.

SoundExchange was given the exclusive right to collect and distribute royalties under the statutory license. It's the simplest solution for both the artist and broadcaster.

Congress People (Mine? Hrmph)

[njhunter]

So, I called my people in Congress. Levin hasn't taken a position and wouldn't say when he would (I'll take that as "no"). Stabenow put me on voicemail and promised to call back (funny, "no" again). Dingell, ah there's the funny part. I talk to the aide, he hasn't heard about the bill. I tell him H.R.2060 and he's able to look it up. Then says they are not familiar with the bill. I ask when it'll be voted on and the aide says the bill is still in committee. I ask, "how can I find out who is on the committee?" His reply, "Dingell is chair of the committee." Sounds like the bill is doomed.

Re:Congress People (Mine? Hrmph)

[Epi-man]

Dingell, ah there's the funny part. I talk to the aide, he hasn't heard about the bill. I tell him H.R.2060 and he's able to look it up. Then says they are not familiar with the bill. I ask when it'll be voted on and the aide says the bill is still in committee. I ask, "how can I find out who is on the committee?" His reply, "Dingell is chair of the committee."

Sounds like his nickname of Dingleberry still fits.

Silence...

[beatbox32]

Silence... something about silence makes me sick...

Interesting Strategy

[Adambomb]

I've noticed that every time we see an article about this issue we always get a plethora of people stating to the effect of "pfft, theres still the rest of the world out there to host servers on". Given that this is the case, and the recording industry is most likely aware of this fact, isnt it likely that this is what they would WANT?

It seems to me that they do not care about sustaining the revenues from these small operators, merely getting them hit out of the market completely. Not because they think its logical and valid but because these small stations allow for a lot more EXPOSURE to different musics. The Recording industry seems to be heart-set on controlling the united states listener market, indoctrinating them into their current "top 40 for your genre of choice" way of thinking. By keeping the royalties as a per-channel issue, the more styles people try to put out there, they have a direct incentive not to diversify. This allows the usual gang (CC, etc) to keep control of what music people are being exposed to.

How often to people buy cd's of bands they dont know? and if they manage to kill Fair-Use by the end of the day, they'll have it enforceably illegal to share with friends (in a MAFIAA perfect world).

Then all thats left is to mass produce more of the same crap, ensure its all the target market is exposed to, and guaranteeing revenue without need for unimportant points like "taste" or "quality". Seems to me the RIAA is slowly giving up on affecting the world and are instead trying to create a fortress out of the USA.

No.

[MochaMan]

Errr. Perhaps you can explain yourself.

US law has very limited application outside the US, whether the US government likes it or not. See Jon Johansen as an example of a failed attempt to do so. Other examples are the fact that Canadians can legally download copyrighted works from P2P file sharing networks for their own private use, something that would be illegal in the US.

Another example of a failed attempt to apply US law outside the US is the Helms-Burton Act wherein non-US companies were forbidden to trade with Cuba. The EU promptly passed a law binding in all its member countries declaring the act unenforceable within the EU. The UK passed similar measures. Canada passed the Foreign Extra-territorial Measures Act, forbidding Canadians or Canadian companies from complying with "extra-territorial measures of the United States"; it further requires under penalty of fine that any attempt to enforce such a measure in Canada be reported to the Attorney General of Canada. Further, a measure was passed stating that any loss/damages suffered by Canadians, even those residing in the US, could be recovered under Canadian law. Mexico passed a similar law.

One of the few times US law is applicable outside the US, is when it's applied to US citizens. A US citizen who commits murder in another country may end up (under certain circumstances) being extradited back to the US to face charges under the US justice system. But even in some such cases US law turns out to be, for all practical purposes, unenforceable -- see the Cuban Pyjama Crisis, wherein Wal-Mart Canada, although it is a Canadian subsidiary of a US-headquartered firm ended up putting Cuban goods back on its shelves

Why my station chose not to participate.

[grilled-cheese]

I'm a constant listener to [not going to shameless plug].net. It's a small radio station out of Denton, TX using shoutcast to get it's music out there. The group that runs the station caters to a small clientel of about 150 internationally at any moment anime/jrock/jpop listeners. Also they take great strides to make sure all the music they play is correctly licenced and plays accoring to US law. Unfortunatly there is also a significant number of pirate stations who do not take the proper steps to legalize their music.

If [not going to shameless plug].net were to participate in the silence, all it would do is push the listeners to other pirated stations (promoting what the RIAA wants to stop). Instead, they added one more ad that talks about the effort today.

If the laws do change and start gouging the stations [not going to shameless plug].net is going to be forced to shutdown. The station can barely keep up it's $375 a month costs licencing costs now, even with donations, premier service, and advertisements.

Re:Why my station chose not to participate.

[SilentStrike]

I doubt that pushing their users to pirated stations is all that will happen. I called my senators and my representative today because Pandora went silent. This is the first (and hopefully not the last) time that I contacted the politicians representing me in the government. If Pandora just put an ad instead posting a plea on their front page and turning off the music, I may not have called.

Re: Ex-post facto

[westlake]

Ex-post facto regulations are illegal under the Constitution...

From the Cornell Law School Wex:

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

The distinction between civil and criminal in ex post facto cases was made in Calder v.Bull, 1798.

You can argue The Case Against Civil Ex Post Facto Laws, but the Supreme Court is not in the habit of overturning 200 years of settled law.

I'm still confused...

[msimm]

If there's money involved and big players (funding) that will be incurring millions of dollars in expense (to say nothing of the medium sized players) why aren't they putting money up instead of the mouth? Create an alternative license and NP organization to manage it. Put a few 100 thousand dollars collectively into lobbying the rights holders directly. We can play cat and mouse with ASCAP/RIAA et al indefinitely, or we can bypass them.

Up to now the problem has been organizing (which takes both time and money) and the hippie stigma (see Creative Commons). I don't see why artists can't protect their rights while allowing limited rights that may be beneficial. Not to sound rude, but divide and conquer.

FTR I am a small broadcaster.

Re:pandora.com

[Mia'cova]

Get a "mail" machine. I have one machine used as a gateway to the others. It essentially runs outlook, IM, and web. I terminal into all the other machines I do actual work on from there. Pandora/winamp/whatever run fine since there aren't any hogs on that machine. The added bonus is that I can copy/paste between dev/test/repro machines etc. File sharing is configured at a domain level so I don't have to worry about configuring that. It works well. The answer is ALWAYS more hardware!! :)

Is Peercast the answer?

[computersareevil]

Peercast May be the solution. It allows P2P music streaming, and it's hard to find the source. More importantly, the source only has "one" listener, and it can be hard to tell how many total listeners there are.

Re:No taxation without representation.

[westlake]

So what can we do as non-immigrant, non-permanent, legal, F1 visa-holding, tax-paying residents of the US? That is, besides voting with my wallet (which is not useful in this case)?

You could try supporting local public radio. College radio. Subscribing to a service like Live365. Voting with your wallet can be of help to them.

Re:Play live music?

[westlake]

What about live music?
What if the artist says on "air" that he/she expect no compensation for their live performance?-What if it's a parody? I could go on, but how anal is this law?

The broadcaster doesn't want to deal with "What if?" He wants to cut a single royalty check and let SoundExchange worry about "What if?"

Very Funny, Corporatist-Government Economics FUS

[OldHawk777]

Again nothing new, industrial age economics which support corporate welfare is good for plutocratic corporatist/politicians and FUS citizens. This will provide a catastrophic legal penalty/fine for internet-radio, the SOS for telcos over the last 20 years, IPR for the last 30 years .... The purpose of Corporatist-Government Economics is to provide welfare funding for US/other corporations with customer-hostage holding, price gouging legacy oil infrastructure, heist-priced healthcare, credit-card and loan pillaging of lower income communities .... Well anyway it is a very peaceful nonviolent totalitarian terrorism for US ... we love it ... or we would always vote the incumbent out of office permanently.

The new royalties, as best I understand, are based on the number of times a music/product is broadcast to any customer.
IOW, sort of like: AM/FM/XM... one broadcast to many customers (1*100=100), but internet radio a broadcast/multicast... occurs for each destination IP address (100*100=10,000); So, if my analogy is correct at what ever proportion, then internet radio could not possibly afford the royalties and they are out-of-business.

Unless, internet radio limits their broadcast to open-content and old (no IPR) music and other open-biz concepts, and start looking and booking open-music artist in new creative venues and concerts. Well then maybe eventually the legacy music companies that pirate and pillage music from young and new artist would eventually go out-of-biz. We Can Hope!

...Or you could be like me...

[r_jensen11]

and listen to radio stations that are stationed outside of the US. Lately I've been searching through lists of French radio stations, although I'm sure I'll check out more from England, Germany, and Italy sometime in the next few weeks.

My Congressman's Response

[unix guy]

Quoting from the letter I received from Representative Mike McIntyre from North Carolina.

" Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important, and I am pleased to tell you that I am a cosponsor of this bill.

As you know, on March 2, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) dramatically raised the performance royalty rates for webcasters. The CRB eliminated the percentage of revenue fee that many small webcasters used to determine their performance royalty. The move from a percentage of revenue to a per-song rate hits small webcasters the hardest. Royalty rates would increase over 300% for the largest webcasters and as much as 1200% for the smallest webcasters. This kind of rate hike would mean the end of many Internet radio stations that would not be able to stay in business under the crushing new royalty rates. Therefore, I have cosponsored H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act. This bill would render the CRB ruling ineffective and would reinstate the percentage of revenue royalty payments. This bill has referred to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Judiciary.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. I will continue to be a strong voice for you in Washington.

Sincerely,

Mike McIntyre
Member of Congress"

This actually did make the newspapers

[zahl2]

As I was on the train this morning, three of the newspapers I came across had articles on it.

Silence?

[bandmassa]

Look, this is a US ruling, affecting US netcasters. US law doesn't apply in Australia or the UK (yet, anyway), so while I support the netcasters affected, and support their stand, net "radio" will not go silent. In fact, this may just briefly reverse the torrent of cultural steamrollering the rest of the world gets. You yanks may just get to hear a different cultural view to your own ;-)

Re:Moving out of the Country

[nosferatu1001]

If the US company is dissolved however, wouldnt there be no way for SoundExchange to collect?

$500.33? What?

[RiffRafff]

According to Wikipedia, "There is a minimum annual fee of $500 per channel or station, payable in advance, against the above per-play fees." Emphasis mine. I believe "against" in this case implies additional fees only after passing the $500 mark (159,140 hours per month, which is roughly 220 listeners 24/7).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Royalty_Boa rd#License_fee_rates