Slashdot Mirror
A Reprieve for Internet Radio
westlake writes "In the wake of Internet Radio's Day of Silence, SoundExchange has proposed a temporary $2500 cap on advance payments 'per channel/per station.' The Digital Music Association responded immediately in its own press release that it would agree to this, but only if the term for the new arrangement were extended to 2010 — or, preferably, forever. On another front, SoundExchange seems aware in its PR that it will have to concede something more to the non-profit webcaster, if it is to avoid Congressional action."
And wasn't the contention that they were demanding these fees even from stations that exclusively "broadcast" public domain or copyleft works?
It's the end of radio, can you hear me now?
That phrase that they "didn't realise" these stations have thousands of channels just points to how ill researched these organisations are. They're putting in knee-jerk regulatory and charging regimes that just don't fit the real world. It's probably not even crossed their mind that half of them are trying to charge for listeners in countries that don't even fall under their jurisdiction.
We're going through a painful growing stage that's going to be full of 'WTF?' moments but I'd be surprised if in ten years time, the music industry landscape will be drastically different with self-publishing bands, CDs a rarity (or their replacement format) and the licencing juggernaut that we have right now being relegated to history.
The only reason I can see for the industry as it stands to exist is R&D but they do so little of that now as to be moot. If a band doesn't hit the big time on their first single/album, they're dropped, no more the nurturing of a band over several albums while they find their stride.
The HiFi brigade will naturally be less than enthused about MP3 as a primary format but that will no doubt be replaced with some sort of lossless DRM free format by then.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
This post paid in full by Live365
c++;
I'm curious if part of this back and forth is the recording industry trying to see how hard they can push on internet radio before they push too hard and it backfires. Effectively killing internet radio in the US seems like it would be pretty far beyond that point, as it would be hard for congress to look the other way on that. The temporary deal could then just be to ratchet down the tensions so they can find a more viable way to profit from or inhibit internet once it falls out of public awareness.
Or it could just be that they are incompetent with dealing with internet distribution of music. That wouldn't be unprecedented.
These stations need to start up alternate stations that make use of indies. The only reason why soundexchange/riaa is agreeing to this, because they are realizing that they killing the golden goose.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
FTA: "DiMA would agree to a $2,500 per-service cap for the entire term of the CRB ruling (through 2010), but not the partial-offer presented to us in writing, which would terminate in 2008.
Why not longer, DiMA? If I were SoundExchange, I'd be amused with this - the longer they can make 2,500 the maximum, the more erosion of actual costs (inflation) will happen. $2,500 isn't what it used to be.
Okay, fair enough, it sounds like an advert, but I was just trying to say that sites like Live365 offer great a variety of radio stations, and they are invaluable for people who like to explore different kinds of music in a legal and inexpensive manner. But I concede to the fact that I sounded like a front person for Live365, but I'm jut a fan.
Around 2000, when net radios were starting to pop up, the finnish equivalent of RIAA killed off all net radio activity in finland exactly the same way.
Now - last week - they've turned around and are excited to offer this brand new venue for artists to reach their audience!
It would be interesting to know the details of the new contract..
We should be helping the music cartels kill themselves, not trying to convince them of the stupidity of their actions. And I would rather my beloved internet radio stations go out as martyrs than forever hear them begging me for donations that will just end up going to the RIAA mobsters.
Does anyone have any information as to what part of the law empowers SoundExchange to collect royalties for artists who do not have an explicit agreement with them? Personally, this is starting to seem like the most worrying thing about the state of US copyright, given how many ties I've heard cited between SoundExchange and the music distribution companies. It seems strange that this organization is allowed to collect on other people's work, especially since I've been given to understand that SoundExchange will not pay out royalties to the artist unless the artist in turn pays for a SoundExchange membership...
Warning, I got a really disgusting NSFW picture when I clicked on the phrase "it would agree to this". I would advise that the link be deactivated.
GOATSE ALERT!!!!!
Don't click the "it would agree to this link" it has either been hacked or the picture redirected to goatse!
Warning!!!!!!
I don't like this idea of royalties. Radio (online or off) PROMOTES music, so that listeners are able to decide what they want to BUY! Music fans have a new option for hearing and sharing music, there's encrypted file sharing apps, such as GigaTribe ( http://www.gigatribe.com/ ), that let people share music without big brother looking over their shoulder.
Simply stated, the (three, five?) judge panel setting the ruling should be sacked. It is clear that they have absolutely no business setting royalty payments, as they are entirely ignroant of the underlying industry which they are ruling on. The expert for the stations stated, in effect, this exact outcome and they either didn't understand the technology enough to realize the implications, or were so biased towards one party that they chose to ignore the information. Either way, they should be replaced with members which understand the industry and the conditions present.
Of course, that won't happen. Incompetence and ignorance are not grounds for removing a judge, and from the prespective of the current administration they played the game very nicely.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Do you have a clue what this is all about? The main problem with these new rate is that all stations must pay for each song per channel PER LISTENER. All the stations are willing to pay a percentage of income just like SAT radio does, even though Traditional radio doesn't pay one red cent.
non-profit (at least the pure term) refers to stations like your local public radio.
Radio's customers are NOT the listeners. Their customers are their advertisers. Their commodity is YOU, the loyal listener. Their product is not music, music is simply one of their expenses.
Non-profit radio stations don't really have customers. At the most you could call either the listener, or the artists the customers. Listener, most likely, as you're the one who may or may not donate to them.
Non-profit radio stations, by virtue of who and what they are, (AFAIK) are legally only allowed to play music that they have permission to play. Indie bands/copyleftists who don't mind if people share their music because they know the money comes from playing live, rather than music purchases. Just ask any big name artist where the major % comes from - records or concerts.
And if you want to own a physical copy of the CD, you can usually contact the artist directly, and 100% of the profits go to them, rather than 2-3c on the $15+.
I wish I had a witty