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.
Is this going to make the royalty rates for internet radio higher than standard over-the-air radio royalty rates?
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.
"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.
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?
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!
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.
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 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.
If you don't care, why did you post a comment? Anyway, I'll bite on the troll fishing line here...
It's important because those who enjoy music are getting less and less of a choice. Whether its DRM, radio industry consolidation, or music industry consolidation, it seems that if we just want to listen to music and other content using the technologies that have been invented and developed, there is something or someone getting in the way.
It's not just a flawed business model. A lot of people do it as a hobby. A lot of webstreams are "microcasts" of programming that we can't get over the airwaves because there isn't a market for it, or because the commercial broadcasters don't care about it (or isn't profitable enough). It's also about the uncompetitive edge that over-the-air broadcasters have in not having to pay SoundExchange royalties for their broadcasts, yet webcasters having to pay them because the RIAA believes listening to web streams encourages piracy (because everyone rips streams off their computer and doesn't buy a CD instead).
Most of all, its because this was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago. Personally, I was grandfathered in on Live365, and had a free, unlimited streaming account because I beta tested for them when they first started up their streaming services. All "hobby" accounts were free for several years. It wasn't until the RIAA thought that they should be paid royalties for these songs did it become a problem, for both the hobbiest and for the for-profit broadcaster.
So that's why you should care. If you don't, well, don't antagonize the rest of us with your elitist bullshit attitude. Just move on to the next article.
End rant...
How is it the will of the artists when NiN were stunned to discover that stores were charging a $10 premium on their new CD (Year Zero) simply because they're NiN? They don't get a single penny of that $10 premium.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
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.
The majority of signed musicians don't own their own music, so it wouldn't work...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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!
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'
Internet Radio is, and will continue to be, alive and well. Just not in the USA.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
The whole problem with DRM is that it does NOT stop those it's trying to. DRM is used to stop piracy (Or so they say). But the pirates and advanced users KNOW this and generally know a way around it (or are working on one). At the end of the day, it's the average user who gets hurt by DRM.
Pirates will always find ways around DRM. By restricting the average user's rights, they are only encouraging users to find other ways (general illegal) to do things they SHOULD be able to do.
I have a different problem with TV shows. I fail to understand why I should PAY to watch a FREE show on my local drive simply because I'm not on the internet. My TV show of choice shows on free TV. However because I'm on a train during that hour, My only LEGAL choice would be buy the ep. off of iTunes even though I should be able to watch it for free. And even if I recorded it at home, I can't legally copy it to my laptop. This is why I have no problem with pirated TV shows. All it does is keep a free media free. iTunes (in TV's case) is making MONEY off of a free show. That's not an alternative, that THEFT.
~ Mooga
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??
And the reasoning you have is that musicians so enjoy their work, that not only will they spend all day and night writing, recording, and touring, but they will also work full time jobs in order to barely squeak by financially, because hey, "artists never get paid properly anyway"? You've *got* to be shitting me.
I'm not a musician, but I'm animator. Though the RIAA doesn't deal with my work, it's otherwise quite similar to being a musician. I worked hard to be able to do what I do, I continue to work hard at it, I get paid for what I produce and nothing extra, and my work is stolen on a regular basis via p2p, torrents, etc. I love what I do, but if you think for one second that the above scenario is in anyway a good idea for the artist, you are very seriously misinformed.
When artists don't get paid properly, they cannot spend the amount of time they need to to make great work. Not only that, it's insulting to suggest that some artists shouldn't be paid a great deal of money when their work is in great demand. Can you imagine mastering your chosen field, going to a job interview, and being told that you'll be paid with beer money because your work is so much fun? You'd probably be about as angry at that suggestion as I am.
I don't play anymore, but I used to and I still know guys in their 40's playing, so I'll chime in. Yes. Most musicians don't play so they'll get "discovered" and rich. They love to play. They make CDs to sell at their gigs. They play their gigs for money, but not much, so they almost all work full-time jobs and get off work on Friday only to grab all their gear and run to the bar. They practice incessantly because they love it. They are artists in the true sense, who just want to play. Playing for people is good, but just getting some guys together and playing can be almost as good. Having people enjoy their art makes them happy, and they don't often think about "making it big." They enjoy what they do. They would (and sometimes do) do it for free.
Put identity in the browser.
Ask just about any musician what's the most important thing for them. Every interview I've heard has, pretty much with no hesitation, stated "That people get to hear my music".
It does not take 12 hours a day for 365 days to create a piece of music. There are tons of bands and solo artists out there that have a day job and music as a hobby. As with everyone else they'd love to be able to make a living out of what they enjoy, but it makes them happy as a hobby regardless. How many people around the world has invested more in a home theater system than they would need to do to be able to make a passable recording of a piece of music? Sure it will lack some shine, but talent will be talent and people will enjoy listening. The sound quality of an affordable "home studio" today would by far surpass anything done in the days of, for example, Elvis. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe he sold a couple of records.
Yes, a large amount of the "musicians" of today would vanish. Would "artists" like Britney Spears ever have risen to stardom without being handed songs and an image by the record company? Not a chance in hell. Does *anybody* apart from her and the studio care for even a second? I sure hope not.
Did you never draw/animate anything before someone started handing you money to do it? Did Stephen King write his first ever pages purely to earn a living off of it?
Look at amount of work the open source community produces. Now disregard anything produced by people that have been hired and are currently getting paid to maintain specific projects. Are you left with zero projects?
The RIAA brings nothing worthwhile to the constellation at all. The only thing they add is cost. It really is more akin to organized crime rackets demanding protection money than anything else I can think of. Killing them off would do everybody nothing but a service.
The oddity about the music industry, is that the period when the copy write would make the artist the most money, almost always coincides with the artist collecting the least capital from the signing label. It's not just that we're cheap, there's a great devide between the haves and the have nots, and they're screwing up a good thing so they can keep that divide as wide and unfair as possible.
C opyright_Royalty_Changes
a boutus_members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio#2007_
According to a report released in March 2007, under the newly proposed rates, annual fees for all station owners are projected to reach $2.3 billion by 2008. This figure is more than four times that for terrestrial radio broadcasters who, due to terms set forth in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are exempt from the additional royalties imposed on digital broadcasting outlets, which compensate the performers of recorded works. .
Watts are far cheaper than Megabytes, radio stations currently run over 20 minutes of ads per hour to stay profitable. The RIAA is peeing in their own pool. sooner or later, everone's gonna get out, it's not going to be pretty.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=
What really needs to happen is for everone to recognise who is an RIAA member and chastise them for it. The RIAA does everthing without recourse under a percieved cloak of anonymity. If people realized that Garth Brooks Record label is suing 12 yr olds and 80 year olds without computers with no remorse, they might have a different perspective on it.
Hah. As if downloading a bunch of shit from Pirate Bay makes it somehow culturally significant. Thousands of crappy McDonalds burgers are sold every day, but that doesn't make it *cuisine*.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.