Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court Denies Webcasters' Stay Petition
Michael Manoochehri writes "Reuters reports that a "federal appeals court has denied a petition by U.S. Internet radio stations seeking to delay a royalty rate hike due July 15 they say could kill the fledgling industry." This royalty rate hike, put forth by the US Copyright Royalty Board, will increase royalty rates for webcast music tremendously, in some cases to more per year than many webcasters bring in from revenue. Save Net Radio, a coalition of webcasters, is telling listeners that "We are appealing to the millions of Internet radio listeners out there, the webcasters they support and the artists and labels we treasure to rise up and make your voices heard again before this vibrant medium is silenced.""
Whoever has deeper pockets wins.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Does Taps require any kind of royalty fee to be payed? Perhaps web radio stations should play it all day, every day, until their final day.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
I don't think congress is going to fix this tomorrow ... so the RIAA should get what they deserve and lose all their royalties altogether.
Fuck 'em. I expect everyone has had enough of their shit.
It's just too bad that all the honest people in this new business are going to have to suffer for it.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Internet radio just isn't popular enough to gain any kind of respectable support. Sorry, that's just how it is.
"Ward said the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington puts the ball squarely in the hands of Congress, which has already received more than half million messages urging members to pass legislation to cut the royalty rate to 7.5 percent of a company's annual revenue, bringing Internet radio in line with the rate by satellite radio." Wouldn't hold your breath for that. There's a few, shall we say... urgent matters that need to be holding their attention right now.
Depends on how you define "wins".
Even if it doesn't, don't you suppose they'd try to collect royalties for it, anyhow?
Is this going to make the royalty rates for internet radio higher than standard over-the-air radio royalty rates?
If the RIAA is to be believed, the internet is single handedly responsible for killing music. As such the shuttering of many of the US based stations can only be a good thing. Now if we could only get rid of that pesky Apple and their iTunes. Yeesh. Think of the artists. Or at least the artists' children.
The begging is pathetic. You don't try to worm your way into getting a broken system to work. You fucking bypass it. If they aren't ready to do that but would rather beg their audience fuck them.
What needs to be done is putting that whining commitment (and the money they are frittering away) into something that supports the cause as they see it. Namely an alternative for licensing that promotes reasonable use (as seen by both the artist/label and radio/streamer/etc). If they aren't willing to do that then let them hurt until they see it more clearly. The RIAA and the US Copyright Royalty Board are both well funded and motivated by *their own interests*. Not the label. Not the artist. And you want to crawl in bed with them? !!!
Sorry if I'm ranting but this is just so fucking stupid.
FTR, I AM a internet broadcaster. I try to work closely with the artist because A) I support small artists which tend to be interested that you're interested B) I can't afford the royalty schemes, I can't afford the management of the license. I have a day job that lets me afford the whole project in the first place. Fact: 99% of artists want 1) to protect their property (fair enough) 2) to be heard (guess what they love? that right what they do).
Personally I think this is the best thing to happen in a long time. Let the poor morons sink. Lose millions of dollars or whatever else they fear will happen. Maybe a few with some cash (like they money they've wasted fight this..) will wise the fuck up and setup means for artists/labels to provide limited rights to broadcasters. This should have been done ages ago. Take back control.
Quack, quack.
This isnt anything new, there have been years to prepare for it and hardly anyone has done anything beyond whining about it. Drop your commerical music and go with open music, those that want the exposure will follow, sure you wont be able to compete with clearchannel but how else do you expect to change the industry. As long as the bottom end of the music business continues to prop up the existing regimes it will not change. If it means going talk radio or picking a banjo yourself it doesnt matter, what they want is silence and lack of competition.
> There's a few, shall we say... urgent matters that need to be holding their attention right now.
a merica/contact-information-for-50-politicians-who- take-campaign-money-from-the-riaa-264638.php
Let's see.
Senate's recent accomplishments:
* Voted not to Vote on the Immigration Reform Bill
* Voted not to Vote on firing Alberto "I don't recall" Gonzales
Congress' recent accomplishments:
* Passed another 'Get out of Iraq' Bill that the President has already said he'll veto.
No, they've got time to do this. Congress may have received half a million messages. I'd suggest the Webcasters get their audience to donate to a fund that will in turn donate to these politicians who accepted money from the RIAA. It would make the point beautifully. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
I subscribe to Pandora, which has really helped me find new bands and music, and they send out a message every so often about this, asking for our help. They give phone numbers for local congressmen, as well as some places to find half-canned scripts to mail in. I would like to see Pandora stick around, even if it meant I did a paid subscription (which I am willing to do, if they can move it into its own client), but I really can't see any action I could take affecting it.
This kind of issue seems too "localized" and small scale for any Congressman to give a shit about, not that know what the hell is going on in the first place. I could call or mail, only to have some intern glance over or listen to what I said, and in return give me the closest canned script that works for this situation. Then of course are those Congressman who are being paid off, and would turn a cold shoulder to it, anyway.
If I believed in market forces more, I would say that this is something that the market would take care of; sadly, the greed and conspiring of large companies coupled with the stupidity of most consumers guarantees that this would stay in effect for quite a long time without a high-level intervention. So what, exactly, could I do without a complete hopeless feeling? I'm sure common answers would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds.
More aside from the point, even more sad is that it seems that I would have about the same effect on any issue with a congressman, from internet radio fees to the use of taxpayer money in regards to education. Perhaps it's a current bout of depression talking, but I can feel nothing but a sense of hopelessness for this country in the future, looking at the way things are turning now.
As we watch corporate america slowly suffocate american culture, what will history call these days? The day the music died?
Isn't that what we used back when it took longer to download an MP3 than to play it?
But seriously, the only place I'd consider using internet radio is also the only place it's not allowed: At work.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"Internet Radio will morph into P2P streaming and offshore stations. It's not going anywhere."
The second part I see although I should point out a lot of stations are already overseas. I use to listen to French and German sites. As for the first, I don't think P2P was made for the kind of streaming that stations do.
Profits from everything - that's Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton & Bush 43.
Business regulation is as necessary as well commented C++ code. Think Microsoft.
Compulsory copyright licensing ought to be tied to the profits generated by the license. They aren't.
Consider what would have happened if the piano-roll industry were able to limit Edison's wax cylinders by means of massive license fees?
This new technology has been sacrificed on the alter of old-technology profit-taking. What else do you expect from the US government with the jerks we have in power?
I've let both my Senate and House reps know that 1) I vote, contribute $$$, and 2) This issue is important to me and 3) I have influence on my voting friends on technical issues and 4) I will be very unhappy if they fail to represent my interests. Yes, this includes paper, online petitions, email, and phone calls.
While no single issue would cause me to actively campaign against an incumbent I like, I still want them to know that I'm watching what they do and will actively work against them if they don't consistently stand up for my interests. It's too bad we can't force a re-election on newly elected reps that don't deliver.
Corporations can't vote. Remind your reps of this.
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/07/breaking-news- o.html
Just saw this posted on Fark. Sound Exchange, who I'm assuming are the people set to collect all the royalties, vowed in front of Congress not to enforce this against internet radio until new rates are worked out.
What is the situation in other countries? It makes a mockery of the whole system if US webstations have to pay royalities for playing a Beatles song, but the same song played by an Australian or British webstation is exempt/has cheaper fees.
After all, when it comes down to it the stations are more or less competing against each other.
It is kinda fun watching the RIAA trying to piece together their egg of influence after it was cracked by the sledgehammer of globalisation.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
This is the will of the artists...they want more royalties. Bitch at them instead...or better yet...don't buy their overpriced CDs.
What's their collective over-all general take on this? Do they care that they won't be played much on the internet now, or what? Do they honestly think all these little stations can pay those exorbitant rates? It's certainly quite a strange situation.
Second point, won't this just mean that a lot of stations will switch to outside the US hosting?
Third point-good luck generation x and y. Now is the time to show if you have any actual political muscle or not. I'm a boomer, thinking back, last time I had anything to do with music and the radio and politics was an incident where a local college decided to censor their online little micro fm radio djs (girlfriend I had then was one of them) back during the viet nam war period. With one days notice we shut that school down, I mean a complete halt. No one went to class, buildings occupied, we just sat and said no censorship, free the station, etc. It worked, the authorities caved. I guess times change, so much is done online now that "in your face" brand last ditch activism type protesting has become passe or something.
Now I don't listen to online music streams, no huge interest, grew out of my nonstop music addiction years ago, I prefer talk radio now so this doesn't affect that, but for those who do, may I suggest you get on the stick and actually do some work beyond sending an email if this really is an important issue for you.
Congresspeople and assorted business folk just dump negative email like you would delete spam, they just don't care all that much. Real phone calls, snail mail, faxes, and personal visits get more attention, especially if you are cogent and to the point and show that you have a good grasp of the situation. Remember to keep it simple and to the point, overly emotional or complexities will get you ignored and dismissed out of hand as just a kook or something.
Back to the musicians, and their assorted parasitical business partners.. this is directed to you. Are you guys just crazy, or what? I follow this entire copyright and electronics thing a little bit, and it just seems you are bound and determined to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs without fail every single time you have a chance to prove otherwise.. You never miss, every single time, shoot yourself in the foot. Classical definition of insanity, keep doing the same thing expecting a different result..
To *you* folks I suggest getting with the technological program. this is the 21st century, not the medieval period with hand scribing by monks, get it? Digital bits are very, very, VERY fucking cheap-don't be so greedy. Think super high volume, not high net profit per digital bits copy, and you'll do a lot better overall long term.
Now, all of you punks, get off my damn lawn!
Yeah this deal sucks, but the record companies own their music. If they decide to charge a billion dollars per web playback then that's their right. Either pay what they demand or move on. You don't have the right to demand that the record companies let you play their music for free / cheap any more than I have a right to walk into McDonalds and demand they give me a cheeseburger for a nickel.
They own the music so they dictate the terms.
Although, I reckon if anything kills internet TV and radio, it will be ISP's (poorly implemented) traffic shaping systems. Ever since my ISP increased the bandwidth to 3mbit/s, but introduced traffic shaping, the performance of even low bitrate streaming media has turned to crap. It's because every packet gets inspected (apparently) which causes all kinds of lag. Speed tests show I'm getting the full download speed at most times.
"No Creative Commons style license allowed."
Yes they are. Go read this subject on slashdot. Your statement has been raised and refuted already.
Politicians have NOT killed the golden goose. They have made it safe for large business and only for them. Look, the last time this came up, I suggested that these stations play groups that are not associated with the RIAA. Apparently, the RIAA gets to collect it wether the group is signed up or not. Amazingly, the group gets to KEEP that money until the music group signs up with them. And they do not have to pay interest. That means that congress has given RIAA a monopoly. In addition, they have eliminated the competition for the broadcasters, by pricing it too much for the little guy to pay. But where are you going to go? Streams from another nation? W. is running around trying to kill them all off.
The only way that I can see this happening is if the muscian's OWN the stream site that plays them. Imagine a site that is devoted to the 90's, might get 10 groups (from the 90's) to BUY into them. 1 share each. They pay the musicians the old rate. As time progresses, they would get more groups to buy into them. I think that it is possible that the company could even allow other groups to own them or perhaps buy into them. Just 1 share. I think that is all it would take. Any lawyers out there? Tear this apart.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So, somebody's business model is flawed... Been there, seen that. Yawn.
Why am I supposed to care, again?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
would it be possible to have some sort of tracker that allows the internet radio stations to come up with their playlist and rather than streaming the songs themselves they link to a variety of people who are sharing the songs on their playlist? would maybe require new software or an update to current applications used to listen to streams.
I think many internet radio stations will just move to less retarded countries than the USA and continue broadcasting. We have Dutch commercial TV stations that are officialy based in Luxembourgh. They were founded in th mid-1980's to circumvent the stupid Dutch laws that were in place at the time. Later on the laws were changed but the TV stations are still officially in Luxembourgh. I don't see why this shouldn't happen to internet radio.
-- Cheers!
Either way, it's way too effing long, that something created around the time my great-great-grandparents were born should only come into the public domain during my lifetime.
I think you need to do some research on the issue.
This isn't just a dispute between the recording industry and some radio stations. If it were, it would be settled according to contract law and that would be the end of it.
SoundExchange has been granted a special distinction -- a monopoly, in fact -- by the government (in the form of the Copyright Office), allowing it to sell special 'blanket licenses' to broadcasters. These licenses allow a broadcaster to play whatever sort of music they want, without having to worry about getting permission from each individual artist. They are an absolute requirement in order to broadcast music, either terrestrially or digitally, unless you stick only to the very tiny minority of music that's freely licensed, or you negotiate individual licenses with each rights-holder (which is not only the artist, but could be the person with the rights to the score, the rights to the lyrics, etc., in addition to the recording itself), which is obviously impractical on anything but a trivial scale.
SoundExchange is the only place that one can go to for this, by law. Therefore, I think it's entirely reasonable for people to protest the rates that they charge, since they were granted their entire business by the Copyright Office, which is a government agency. SoundExchange is allowed to speak for all artists, and license the copyright to all artists' music, only because the Copyright Office says they can. They don't "own" the music they purport to represent; it's not "theirs." They don't own the rights to anything.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"I take it then that you clicked on this story by mistake, and then in your haste to close it you bumped the keyboard and accidentally posted instead."
Are you saying he shouldn't point out the absurdity in the slashdot position? You all certainly have no problem pointing out everyone else's faults. What's good for the goose is perfect for the gander.
ago I decide to tell the RIAA to screw off and have not bought one single album. Don't feed the beast.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
First did anyone even watch the Congressional hearin on this matter? Its up on you tube to see what what stated. Second has anyone even looked at Sound Exchanges website? They have offered for any webcaster making under 1.2 Million a year to cap the rates for small webcasters http://www.soundexchange.com/documents/07_06_29%20 Fee%20Cap%20June%2029%20release%20FINAL%20_2_.pdf
They are trying to hit the Big webcasters (Yahoo, AOL etc) with this rate increase and are trying to work with the smaller ones and Public Radio.
Do I agree with any of the increase, not really, but in the same respect, I can understand why they want to do it. I would much rather see them use the 7.5% of revenues like they do with satellite. Add on that any webcaster can make individual agreements with any label/artist that will allow then to play their songs without touching Sound Exchange.
Why are the smaller artists who don't want internet radio to be shut down going to the big stations at least if not the smaller ones and promoting this fact?
The one sided look at it all really make me disappointed in a community that has a lot of intelligent people on it.
*puts on flame retardant underwear* Go head, flame away, Oh and yes I do DJ for an internet Radio Station that is extremely small (average of about 35 listeners) So I have been watching all of this very closely.
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
I listened to internet "radio" in the beginning just because I could but the novelty soon wore off. I guess there are still people who think it is the dogs bollocks however. I skimmed over the savenetradio.org site and noticed a trend. The bands that are saying net radio has helped them are the bands that don't get played on real radio and most don't have record labels. The listeners who I see whining about this the most are the ones that say they've discovered all of these indie bands through it. So why don't the net radio guys and these independent unsigned bands get together and come up with their own terms for royalties? They could even go a step further and form their own recording industry association and work on creating record labels run by people who actually get it.
I always hear people say that the recording industry needs to change. I don't think it does. I think it needs to be replaced. In the early days of radio artists would make a recording and take them to radio stations to get airplay. This is exactly what the indie artists are doing today with net radio. According to Arbitron ratings, between 50 and 70 million people listen to net radio each month. These numbers are about the same as the size of the US population in urban areas in those early days (69 million in 1930). The RIAA didn't pop up until the early 1950's and at this point the US population was around 150 million, 95% of households had radios, and this was the time where people were going nuts and buying records. When I see the numbers net radio supposedly has today I really think there is probably an opportunity here. Indie artists, online music retailers who sell indie music, podcasters (netcasters for those living in Leoville), and net radio should be able to make something happen. I think the problem is people are looking for something to happen over night and that isn't going to happen. So, even though I am not part of that group of 70 million, I think those 70 million who are obviously listening to this stuff for a reason and not listening to their local Clear Channel or Cox affiliate should probably be a little excited about what this gives them. This is a chance for the RIAA to fail. They're cutting off a new and growing medium and this is your chance to claim it and write the rules and maybe someday dictate to the RIAA and the major labels what it will take for them to be able to play with you.
'Same speed C but faster'
Rest in peace, Internet Radio -- I knew ye well.
I honestly weep for the future.
Heucuva
I'm not in any 3 of those categories, so why should I care?
The next argument is that the smallest medium - Internet radio - pays the most royalties; and under the new CRB royalty scheme the smallest webcasters will pay the highest relative royalties in amounts shockingly disproportionate to their revenue. While I can certainly see where their coming from (to be honest, it looks the whole point of the ruling is to kill internet radio), it reads as "WHY NOT ME" talk. Why shouldn't ALL mediums have to pay?
About half-way through the page, they make a good argument that somebody on either side of the debate can agree with:
If this was the true intent, I think this is important because it guarantees there will be competition. People realized how crappy FM radio got when Clear Channel bought all the stations. It wasn't that long ago that stations started going independent again - so remind people of that! Competition means better selection!Furthermore, I have no idea where technology will take us. Its evolving so quickly now that everything could very well be wireless and connected in 10 years. I'm going to be angry that if in 10 years, the selection of internet radio stations is terrible and the cost to enter the market is insane because of a bad decision that was made in 2007.
Finally, we need to recognize that the Copyright Royalty Board is going to get away with murder. I didn't realize this until I did some further research on this, but do you know how many people the CRB is composed of? Three. Three judges are going to decide the future of internet radio that will affect millions of people. What an awful system! I saw we put pressure on the CRB (James Scott Sledge (Chief Copyright Royalty Judge), Stanley Wisniewski, and William J. Roberts.) and congress to make this a more fair system. Three people having that much power is not a fair game.
Has anyone else noticed that copyright laws, patent laws, labor unions, the EPA, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the FCC seem to be the motivating reasons for industries to shift operations to places AWAY from U.S. over-regulation?
It may sound stupid, but regulating an industry to the degree that the aforementioned racketeers and causes have, gives PLENTY of incentive to get the hell out of the United States.
Here it is:
Copyright Laws: Good for generating income from hard work, but the broad definition and over-enforcement discourage business and creativity. Currently, any work can be copyrighted.
Trademark Laws: Abuse by companies has led to "trademarking" just about every word, including words, terms, and descriptions that are not even REMOTELY relevant to the product or name being trademarked for the sole purpose of generating income. This has allowed anybody who has enough money to cover the trademark fee and an IQ of 1 or higher to "trademark" things simply to generate money. It is the 'Perfect Job': People can make money simply by saying they own a word, regardless of the motivations. Currently, any word, term, description, color, sound, picture, symbol, domain name, name, title, compound/substance, idea, concept, belief, religion, and even gene can be trademarked by anyone, for any reason, simply because they can cover the filing fee.
Patent Laws: Also good for generating income through innovation, but the ease of patenting just about ANYTHING under the Sun and the vagueness of patents allow a single patent to cover just about anything. The definitions of 'Invention' and 'Innovation' have been so stretched and convoluted that you can now patent things you didn't even invent.
Labor Unions: Labor Unions have gone from benevolent organizations that actually did look out for the safety of the workers, citizens, and public, to political organizations that are out simply to generate profit from their member that they call 'Brothers', but actually treat like Union due-generating sheep.
For example, the current standoff between Waste Management and the Teamsters is about one thing: The right to fire unsafe workers. I'm not talking about firing people for giving the finger. I'm talking about firing someone who can flip an 830,000lb Caterpillar D9 bulldozer, or rolling an 80,000lb tractor-trailer while speeding. Currently, the penalties for those offenses are a 10 day suspension. Workers who have continuously demonstrated the lack of responsibility of operating heavy equipment take the company to court after being removed from positions where they formerly operated such equipment. Waste Management has effectively said they are done playing these games, but the Teamsters call it unfair. What? Removing someone who is reckless with a D9 dozer or tractor-trailer, and moving them to another position, is unfair? Is intimidating workers who refuse to support you unfair too? (Yes, that DOES happen.). Waste Management has even thrown increased benefits and pay raises at them, but the Teamsters care only about one thing: Union dues. It's simple: Regardless of the benefits are, or the pay a worker gets, if they get fired for being dangerous, the Union won't get money from them. And to think that the Unions formed out of the desperate need for SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS. It's ALWAYS about money.Companies are sick of getting the brunt of the Union's unchecked abuse.
Its the endless litigation for well-founded disciplinary actions, and other actions, that has companies moving overseas. Companies, big AND small are fed up with the shenanigans and games that the Unions play. YES, there ARE instances where the Unions DO have a legitimate bone to pick, as is the case with teachers, but in general, they have abused their power to the point where companies are saying "Screw this. We tired of playing games, so we'll take our business elsewhere." Some businesses have exploited this, like Nike, but largely, it is the recent exploitations and a
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The major record label's business models are all based on controlling the bottleneck -- when record-making equipment was expensive, they used that; now, they control the promotion.
The internet; in this case, internet radio, represents a promotional channel outside their control. Especially the smaller stations, how can they get them under a "paid promotion" contract? All of them? Hence the minumum fees of 500$
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
Just like the crackdown on mix tapes, I fail to see the reasoning behind something like this. Internet radio is good for the music industry. It helps to promote current artists as well as new artists. Internet radio is nothing more then a technological extension of regular AM/FM radio. Are copyright owners entitled to payment for those copyrights? Of course. However, if the music industry exists, like most businesses, to make money, then why set the price that, according to webcasters, will destroy their industry? Somewhere in here, there is a straight truth. Did they not do research to determine what the average webcast station makes a year in revenue? Is the internet radio industry exaggerating? I tend to side with the webcasters on this one though. This is not the first time things like this have been reported. I remember a previous article on slashdot about two days ago that told a story about a bar owner who was told he needed to pay a royalty fee because the monday night football song was being played on a bar owned TV right before...monday night football. Rather then pay the fee, the owner simply mutes the volume ever monday night when the song plays, and unmutes it when the game starts. As time goes on, we as consumers have less and less freedom when it comes to our entertainment. DRM is in almost everything now, from CD's to video games, even Tivo. So much thought has been put into anti-piracy protection, has anyone thought about what consumers really want? TBH, piracy is not what is killing music sales, the music industry is what is killing music sales. To get a legal piece of music that I want to hear, I have only a few options. Pay $14 for a CD that might have 3 or 4 songs out of 12 that I like and will listen to. Or I can go online and download an MP3. Easy as pie? Sure, unless.. you are using iTunes, then, you will also need an iPod or an Apple approved cell phone. Unless, you are using napster, then you will need a napster approved phone or mp3 player. Unless, you are using p2p or allofmp3.com, in which case you risk being sued by the RIAA. Unless, I buy a DRM free mp3 from iTunes, which costs 30 cents more and has my account information and email address embedded inside of it. Can I just get an MP3 that I can play on my computer, in my car, or on my stereo with no DRM, no hidden information, no rootkits, and no extra hardware? Just an MP3, that I can play anywhere, anytime I want. Is that too much to ask?
...as we kneel humbly before you, grant us the knowledge, tell us what exactly it is that seperates you from us 'mindless masses'? Is it the fact that you pirate music instead of fund the RIAA/MPAA? What a valiant fight, oh Great One! You are truely a being of a higher plane, above society at large and the wretched mass of humanity. Perhaps one day you will find some people who are worthy enough to become your students, that you might teach them to pass on your great knowledge when you take your place in even higher planes, besides the Gods themselves!
National legislation is pretty much meaningless. If anything, it hurts the nation. What will happen? This will sink the US casters, so listeners will shift towards other countries. As long as they understand what is broadcast, they will listen.
This isn't AOMP3, though. It's not just money this time. Radio is a powerful information and manipulation tool. The US government might soon realize that it's easier to keep local webcasters "in line" than one in, say, Genericstan. And they might have diverging political views, too...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
First of all i listened pandora day in day out. When this crap happened pandora cut it's foreign listeners off.
First. What fu** up company passes legislation that cuts off the international advertising of it's products? RIAA members deserve to bankrupt because of this (and all the other things they have done).
2. From a nationalistic view, I actually like this. Passing this crap, USA radio is going to loose it's international listeners. This gives time to local (e.g. my country) internet radio to get an upper hand. Furthermore passing this crap gives an example to avoid to all the other countries. "Give to much to RIAA members and you'll eclipse local internet radio". Thanks RIAA you are giving all the rest of us an example to avoid.
Yeah... they really are that crazy.
RIAA killed the radio star...?
OSS is obsolete for listening to music. You should be using ALSA by now.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
If it seems like I'm piling on, it's because I am....
6 26649 you give us this gem:
7 39205:
/. than actually take action - how else do you think the M/RIAA have lasted this long?
6 49515
5 73269
Above, RyoShin laments: "I'm sure common answers would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds."
However, in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229605&cid=18
"At $30, I would gladly buy the game again to get the various Wii abilities, the PS2 extras (and more)" -Granted, that was in response to the Great Debate of our time: the PS3/Xbox360/Wii wars....
And from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244753&cid=19
"I'm a year away from finishing my Bachelor's in Science (CS, of course). In this time, I have had access to a rather nice internship process, and gained lots of relevant experience through two jobs." -I'm not knocking your post (actually, it's strong), just the fact that you have 3 jobs in IT, yet can't afford a token donation to the EFF??? Of course it's easier to post on
Ahhh, educated too! From: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229833&cid=18
"I'm also a student (from Iowa) in Michigan, and plan to graduate at the end of this year or beginning of next year. When I do, I'm getting the hell out of here and not looking back. Even if my college offered me a free Masters run, I would be hesitant to pick it up." -hesitate on the free Masters? You, or THEM?
This one ain't so strong, from: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238923&cid=19
"I had comcast twice in the same area (I move around a lot). The second time I had them, I didn't pay very good attention to my finances, and accidentally paid for an extra month" -(speaks for itself)
God I love me some internet!
So you have to ask the question "why?"
Soundexchange and the RIAA both know that this will kill off 99% of net radio, so why are they doing it? IMHO the reason is that they want to keep independent bands in check. if indies had a good place to be heard and become known without going through their slimy hands then that's scary thing for them. If you can limit the amount of stations that play music then you can limit everyone's choices to a few classically popular bands that are already signed to the big labels.
That's the same behavior you get from radio broadcasting now a days. Time is valuable and so you can only play the bands that are "popular". if you can't aim at a niche audience then you have to be broad and boring. I'm sure the through of democratizing our listening habits scares the crap out of the big labels. This is just a means of using ancient laws to prop up the current paradigm that much longer.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Yes, this will only have two effects:
short term : it'll improve the quality of internet radio by cutting out the Americans
long term : it'll force the technology to develop better & extra-legally
Future internet radio station will only broadcast mixing instructions & torrent files. Your player will download & cache upcomming music on your system. Of course this cache may be gigabytes in size. And you'll easily replay & save previous songs. You might even automatte the saving of old songs, i.e. save any song I skip. In fact you won't even need to change the channel to avoid bad soungs, you'll just sip into the future, the DJ can always put out more music than time allows. And this new technology will reduce the cost to radio operators.
Also any technology prefering synchronous to asynchronous bandwidth is better for the internet.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
As long as you have the judiciary and legislative branches covering your @sses.
It's a win/win for those at the top since RIAA/MPAA/lobbyists==Campaign$$.
In the meantime, let them eat cake.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
So is everyone else in this country...why else would they buy crap goods at WalMart and Target?
I consider free entertainment my right as an American who has to subsidize hate groups and scumbag corporations with his taxes.
Oh, if they catch me I'll pay my fine and it'll hurt. No vacation this year kids! But you know what? The Risk is just fine...
Blar.
Apparently, so does Reuters. There's no such thing as a U.S. District Court of Appeals. In the Federal court system, district courts are trial courts, never appellate courts.
What Reuters meant to say (in TFA) is that the ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This is an appellate court that has a small geographic jurisdiction (only D.C. proper, not even NoVA or surrounding areas) but has a huge jurisdictional and political impact anyway. This appellate court hears appeals from many Federal agencies; since those agencies, in turn, have nationwide jurisdiction, rulings from this court have broader power than other Federal Courts of Appeals. Also, the D.C. Circuit is highly influential, as are its judges; it's considered something of a "feeder" Circuit to the Supreme Court.
Slashdot editors and story submitters, if you're going to submit a story about the law, PLEASE check it for accuracy. A ruling for a Federal agency in the D.C. Circuit is significantly more important nation-wide than a ruling in almost any other circuit.
while some startup station may be able to "broadcast from overseas", but any college or community station is still screwed. there are some college stations these days that do not even broadcast on FM due to budget reasons. they are all done.
Talk radio is Ok right?, like the linux radio programs made in the US, I hope that is not going to be harm with this stupid laws. Maybe no more music between words but everything else is not RIAA sanctioned correct?.
but he's able to just issue a fatwah and everybody's ears get chopped off.
"RIAA meet Mullah Omar" or "Cupidity meet Stupidity"
I'll just listen to my podcasts, full of podsafe music and watch them all screw each other to death.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
And that's just tough for us.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"It's all about control."
So is you earning a living. You control what you do, and dictate terms to those who would hire you. And as long as you have a relationship, you'll continue to dictate terms. So don't act all naive. Everyone wants control of what's theirs, be it movies, music, games, books, or simply their talent.
"The internet; in this case, internet radio, represents a promotional channel outside their control. Especially the smaller stations, how can they get them under a "paid promotion" contract? All of them? Hence the minimum fees of 500$"
Except as already been pointed out, those smaller stations can license their content from independent sources.
"Yeah well, every third person I meet claims that they're a "musician." So some slackers might have to get actual jobs and actually work for a living. I do not care. I look forward to the day Avril Lavigne takes my order for a cheeseburger. Musicians and artists tend to have an extremely high self-opinion in terms of what they think they contribute to "culture." John Coltrane contributed to culture. The world would not be significantly different, however, if the last ten years in top 40 music had never happened."
Uh, huh. Well actions speak louder than slashopinions and the public doesn't agree with you.
Fuck the RIAA and any big middleman organizations, you don't need them anymore. Promote independent musicians. It's called the intarwebz, use it!
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
"Umm, no... membership to SoundExchange is free and open to all **sound recording copyright owners (SRCOs) and featured recording artists." [soundexchange.com] Honestly, where the hell is this misinformation coming from? I keep seeing it parotted over and over, but the truth lies a mere Google search away. Are people just that fucking lazy?"
I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question. Yes it's part laziness, both on the posters part, and their hope that no one will fact-check them. But it's also a poor attempt at getting this (IMHO) useless karma. Say what the audience wants to hear? Free karma. Playing to people's prejudices has never been more rewarding.
Each piece of software under the GPL is individually licensed by each copyright owner to each distributor. However, you simply download the license. Nothing would stop the coalition from creating a website where artists can submit AIF/WAV files of there music with a fee structure (free, per-play, annual license), and allowing Internet radio stations from electronically signing the agreement.
Individually license doesn't mean the legal department of the guy broadcasting in his dorm room needs to negotiate with legal from the garage band. It simply means that you can either "pay the Cartel" fee OR license the music. If the cartel fee is too high, instead of that, do a license system.
We all get form letters. However, if they are on target AND slightly customized, you develop a strong affinity for the Congressman. I remember reading a story in a political book about a guy running for Senate was campaigning in a diner or something similar. One of his constituents, and elderly woman, said that years ago when he was new in the House of Reps, she wrote to him for help, and got a lovely response detailing his efforts back (it was a form letter) in that area. She said to him that she'd vote for him in any election.
When I wrote my Congressman about something I find a travesty, the paperwork to get freaking Sinus medication, I got back her standard form letter about helping make health care more affordable... No loyalty from me there, as someone whose aids can't read a letter (typed up, but custom) and send a useful response doesn't seem like someone that can be counted on when issues come up.
In college, I wrote my rep about something I saw on Slashdot... it was about a guy sued for putting the building code online claiming that the statute for building codes was owned by the private company (trade org) that submitted it. You could look up other laws, but not this one. I sent a letter and included a copy of the news article that broke. I got a CALL from one of his aides, asked what this was about (given the article wasn't from my state), and said that the Rep would look into it. I have no idea whether he would or not, but I'm MUCH more likely to vote for him if he seeks higher office (I'm no longer in his district), because they addressed my concerns.
Good constituent relations can supposedly make a difference of 3%-5% in an election. Given that close elections are 5%, a Congressman who maintains good relationships with his constituents, addresses their letters, and helps them with government problems is basically untouchable on reelection. It separates the pros from the amateurs.
The worse part of the post you responded too, "it was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago." When the West was opening up, large chunks of land more or less went to whoever showed up and claimed it. When the "New World" was discovered, the explorers simply claimed the land and planted a flag... they later had to defend it as rival claims showed up.
However, I cannot go into a random place in the US and claim it now. Those property rights are assigned. It may not be "fair" that people have it for being first (like the guys that bought domain names for a song that are now worth a fortune), but to have property rights, someone has to own it, fair or not. In the "wild west" phase, people claim shit, stuff is free, etc., but it only lasts so long.
I used to get free stuff (physical objects) all the time during the wild west phase of the Internet... people were spending a fortune staking claims on the Internet, with no idea what would work. Most failed, but some people made a fortune. However, I don't sit around griping that those days are over.
And before people complain about it, contrast the development of the US west with robust property rights and its rapid development to areas of Israel. Israel adopted Ottoman law on property rights, which placed most of the land under state control. Everything is planned there, hence all the illegal construction (on both sides of the green line, by Jews and Arabs) because nobody owns anything. Your ability to get a house is your ability to know someone in the right department of the government, not simply the ability to buy land and place a building on it.
BTW, don't you feel slighted that when you were a kid, riding was "free" (paid for my parents, but to you free) and now you have to pay for it. Shouldn't you be entitled because it was free at first?
Its ok i have my mp3s i can stream in my own network. No mater how much I may want one i will never buy a cd ever again new or used.
How can an internet service started in 1993 be described as fledgling?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
So how long before they charge you for singing in the shower?
I can see it now, I'm walking down the street and listening to my IPOD and singing to the current tune, some Joe Nobody will stop and have to pay me a dime because I'm singing it out loud and he's hearing it inadvertantly.
Just a crazy thought.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
I get an inappropriate sense of glee when I tell clients that they can't do this or that or they have to spend x^2 dollars to make something obvious happen because of DRM issues.
It's not inappropriate at all!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The current FCC, sure. They are so embedded with industry, they have crabs.
The court? Who knows from judge to judge these days.
Congress? Well, they don't represent the people anymore. And I firmly believe the Democrats are _at_least_ as in tune with media industry lobbyists as Republicans. But clearcut what must be thousands of pioneers in a business so half a dozen mega-corporations can take over the listenership that doesn't move overseas? Pretty radical. It will have to be remembered in the retrospect of history as a benchmark of the Bush years like stem cells or the senior citizen drug plan. And unlike stem cells where a veto was assured, Congress owns this one.
DI.FM, a streaming portal for internet sales, has _been_ my music for over six years and they are threatening to shut down. I can only hope they reincorporate overseas. Subscribe premium in POUNDS or EUROS if that is what Congress wants.
But by coincidence I attended a panel at a sci fi convention last week on podcasting and, being older perhaps, I had no idea of the vitality of that medium. So either way, overseas streaming or podcasts, the RIAA can still blow me. The lasting result is just that the RIAA talked greedy and ignorant Congressmen into screwing up an American industry.
And don't forget that "Singing in the Rain" is copyrighted. So if you like singing in the rain, prepare to hire a lawyer.
Also, check your electric bill next time. There is a sub-tax included to cover the mental humming of music caused by actually listening to music through any electrical device.
The final kicker -- part of that gasoline bill goes to pay for listeners who listen to CDs/tapes/iPod in their car rather than to the terrestrial or satellite radio that pays for the music.
Hopefully no one from the RIAA reads /. cause otherwise those might someday be true.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
I like this decision actually. Now that Internet radio stations cannot afford to play the big label music, I expect to see a slew of new independent artists and small labels allowing the Internet stations to play their music for free (or very cheap). Thus a whole new crop of musicians (who the world might not have otherwise heard of) will be getting airplay and become popular. Then we have a chance at bringing in that wonderful new era of fresh, creative music that everyone always talks about.
Of course, when these new artists and labels start making money, the big labels will take notice and want a piece of the action. So the big labels will allow Internet stations to play for free or cheap and we'll have all the same mass produced crap that we have today...
Marnex Products
The SoundExchange doesn't make it impractical it makes it necessary. SoundExchange exercises blanket rights on behalf of the rights holder unless the rights hold explicitly grants rights that would supersede these rights (ie provides a broadcast agreement or exemption of their own).
So while SE is still the big dumb 400lb gorilla in the room they are only able to act on behalf of holders that haven't chosen terms for themselves. Which is why bitching about this is so stupid. Setup a clearing house making it easy for record labels, artists, etc to provide limited rights easily (think terms that protect the property while granting specific broadcast rights and maybe an industry style logo that can be used as a badge on websites making it clear that this artist has chose to allow these kinds of promotion).
Micro managing like I've done only works on a very small scale (but it allows me to side-step ascap and se). But there are a lot of bigger players out there and the shear number of bands and labels looking for increased exposure leave me seriously scratching my head. It just doesn't add up.
Quack, quack.
Per a knowledgeable explanation someone posted last time this went around, royalties are collected by SoundExchange, UNLESS the artist/composer has an explicit agreement to the contrary *with each and every broadcaster* for *each and every song*. Since that's not practical (who's going to chase down thousands of artists, most of whom move around like spring flies?), we really only have SoundExchange in the royalty-collecting business. And since most artists don't even know about it, most never collect their royalties.
But (and I've suggested this before) what if some other outfit started offering a similar blanket royalty contract, where broadcasters would only need to deal with this one entity. CDBaby is already set up to pay indie artists for CD sales; it wouldn't be that much more difficult to set up a royalty contract that these same indie artists could take advantage of. Voila, SoundExchange is out of the loop, and broadcasters still don't have to chase down and get individual contracts from thousands of artists. And even if CDBaby kept half of what they collect (just as they do with CD sales) the artists would still come out well ahead of what they get from SoundExchange.
And as a side benefit, it would encourage artists to move away from the RIAA labels and business model.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Severe Tire Damage broadcasting on the old mbone isn't "internet radio", any more than daVinci's sketches were an airline industry.
Her first album was a live recording from a convention. She took pre-orders (at, IIRC, a discounted price) on the album until she had enough money gathered up to do a run of CDs, distributed the pre-ordered CDs to the people who got them, and sold the rest at her going rate.
That (as I understand it) was the seed money for the next project, a studio album. Her blog chronicles the recording process in a very widely assorted range of home studio type situations (and it's worth a read if you're into wacky hijinks). She took pre-orders on that as well, and the combination of the money from the previous stuff and the 250 pre-orders (with optional above-and-beyond sponsorship donation) produced the current CD. The rest of the run of CDs are being sold at the non-pre-order price.
I don't know what she plans to do with the music itself when she runs out of printed CDs. (She's already plotting her next album, and taking votes from her fanbase about what songs will be included in it.) It would be nice if she released it to the wild freely, though I'm guessing she might be more likely to make it available as an inexpensive paid download to at least help pay for bandwidth. It would be awesome if she could actually make a living at this and devote a larger portion of her time to it.
You seem to be insinuating that I'm loaded at the moment and should donate to the EFF. Frankly, donating to the EFF doesn't sound like a bad idea; fuck, I'm going to go donate $20 now. But I am in no way loaded- I would be broke with maxed out credit cards right now if my landlord wasn't understanding and let me hold back half my rent payment until I receive my next paycheck.
> I have written both my senators and my congressman about this issue. Looking at that link you posted it
1 .html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html
> turns out that my congressman and one senator take money from the RIAA. I was going to call them as save
> internet radio suggests, makes wonder if I should even bother. But it does give me one more things to say.
It's not a Democracy unless you speak up. If more people did this, real people, not just lobbyists and corporations, the world would be a better place. Now at least his office will know somewhere out there is a contrary opinion. I doubt the RIAA bothers to tell the other side, which Orson Scott Card summarized so nicely here: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-