Slashdot Mirror
Net Radio Wins Partial Reprieve
Joren writes "Just a few hours after our last discussion on this topic, Wired News is reporting that Internet radio broadcasters have won a temporary reprieve from the new rates. Apparently the details are still being worked out. 'A coalition of webcasters have worked out a deal with the recording industry that could temporarily stave off a portion of crippling net radio royalties set to take effect Sunday, according to people familiar with the negotiations ... For now, the parties involved in what's described as ongoing negotiations have agreed to waive at least temporarily the minimum charge of $6,000 per channel required under a scheme created by the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB. The deal, brokered late Thursday, is not final and could change. One person involved in the talks described the situation as a reprieve, and said that internet radio won't be saved until a workable royalty rate is set.'"
to maintain a 'temporary' reprieve?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
This is a delaying tactic until Congress is out of session. Just keep in mind that their real goal is to accomplish exactly what is feared - eliminating internet radio. While Congress is in session, there is a chance they will intervene. Wait a few weeks, the reprieve will be over, bills will go out, then it's "lights out" and Congress will be too busy pocketing contributions from the folks back home to notice.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
This "reprieve" is just an attempt by the RIAA controlled Sound Exchange to stave off legislation that would return the royalty rates to a sane number. Once the momentum for the legislation wanes, Sound Exchange can crank the fees back up without worrying that Congress will have the fortitude to try legislation again.
This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If the "axe" as we're calling it is so close, then these companies are really going to need time to adjust accordingly. Those who can't afford to play ball with the RIAA are going to start looking at their other options (if they haven't already done so!), such as memberships, commercial partnerships, etc.
I can actually see this dragging out longer. Can you imagine the amount of paperwork they're burried in?
-50 DKP for lame post!
Perhaps, alternatively, they aren't trying to shut it down, but they are trying to extract maximum profits out of it. They must know, at a certain level, that internet radio is good for them.
Instead, they are using what I have heard called the "Soviet negotiation model," in which you make an unreasonable first demand; Then it seems a lot more reasonable when you lower it a little. It works quite well, especially when you have the upperhand to begin with.
When soundexchange halves their demands, they'll look like heroes to congress and the public, and still be making a lot more money. Genius...
Now that Congress is interested, stalling until it is out of session is as much of a "reprieve" as we are going to get. The entire goal is to permanently quash alternative music distribution forms and independent labels through a two-pronged attack, this just being one of them, the right to now collect royalties on all NON-RIAA music being the other(which allows them to control access and distribution of it same as they are doing to internet radio). This while they exert more control on real radio and other traditional distribution channels eventually gives them an actual, not just virtual, control of all music period. The entire goal is to kill all non-RIAA controlled access to music. When there is no other alternative, no matter how bad their products or stupid the pricing, it will be RIAA supplied crap or silence.
SoundExchange may force internet radio as we know it off the air, but it will swiftly be replaced by a system that does not pay royalties. I am speaking of course of overseas broadcasting, and P2P radio networks.
Consumers want to hear streaming music on the internet without annoying commercials. If there exists no legal, cost-effective way to do it, then the black market will find a way. It's time for the industry to wake up and realize that alienating the consumer base does not equal more profits.
- Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
"They must know, at a certain level, that internet radio is good for them."
Really? heard a saying a numbetr of years ago, which I shall paraphrase: "Never underestimate the power of a human being to stare at reality full on and yet still ignore it". I dont' believe for one minute that the people who pull the strings for SoundExchange see the internet as anything but a threat, which they either need to eliminate or control. The reality of internet music distribution may have been explained to them ad nauseam, but that doesn't mean they will believe it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
the EFF or such could/should help set up a coalition of independent artists, one that had an exceptionally small fee to sign up ($10 or so - enough to prevent people from spamming the records, but little enough to not be prohibitive to real artists), and then any internet radio stations could play any of those songs. If small-time artists actually had a choice, then hey. If artists agreed to allow their songs to be played for free (even if just for a set amount of time), then net radio stations could register with the service (for a fee that is actually low, like $20 or so) and hey...they have the license covered.
/. actually donated to it, it would be viable).
hell, I'd almost like to start some such thing myself. Might be more effective if I just give someone else money to do it though. There's certainly enough people who want such a thing...there's a market for it (if even just 1% of the anti-RIAA chickenhawks on
And as someone who has played in clubs for years because I love playing, and has turned down a couple contracts because I didn't want that sort of life - yes, damnit, there are musicians that would give their songs away for free, or close to free. That's precisely what happened to almost all music for the history of mankind until just a few decades ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look like there is a lot of money in Internet Radio. So stations couldn't pay if they wanted to and if internet radio is effectively shutdown it would be a net loss for everyone artists, distributors, stations and listeners. So to me it looks like the only alternative is for internet radio to become very similar to FM radio (lots of ads) and fees paid.
Always be polite.
Free to you maybe, but the internet radio stations have always payed a licensing fee. The big change here is that in the past internet radio had the same basic fee structure as a traditional broadcast radio station, in which the station paid a flat rate for a blanket license to play music from the RIAA's catalog (don't remember, but I think it may have been a small per song charge). The change is that they want to go to a payment system that charges not only per song, but per listener, which will grossly inflate the fees these stations will need to pay. Never mind the technical feasibility of tracking the number of unique listeners to any given station, but simply multiplying the .8 cent fee per song by even a thousand listeners brings the cost per song to 8 dollars, and there's no way these small broadcasters can recoup that cost in advertising fees. The RIAA actually knows this, but they don't care, they want control of the whole thing, so they've set it up where only a few companies can actually afford to provide internet radio, and they're just fine with that, less chance for anyone not already under the RIAA's thumb to get any sort of air time.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
First, consider SoundExchange's (SE) position. They represent the mainstream creators (MSC). Now while there are many layers between SE and the MSC, ultimately SE does represent the MSC. Their concern with the streaming is that they consider it an easy way for listeners to capture, digitally, the audio that is being streamed. It can then easily be moved onto a digital player. Additionally, they see many of the internet radio stations making money off of their artist's work - with their content - and they want a piece of the action. You may say that the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial radio don't have to pay these fees, but that is a different model and a much different market - and what SE and the law decide for these radios doesn't really matter to the topic at hand.
So - consider that the SE decides to charge WAY TOO MUCH for the music for it's artist, forcing a lot of non-profitable or barely profitable streamers off the net. What will the consumers of that music do now? Will they just bring a radio to work? Buy an Ipod? Or maybe they will find streamers out there who play totally independant music that isn't part of SE.
So consider the upside here - if you are a MSC hater, a DRM hater, then this may breathe life into the indy bands out there by forcing MSC off of streamers and introducing those who prefer their music through the tubes to these new bands. Rather than villifying SE, maybe you should cheer them. Because - if you are REALLY sure that MSC sucks and it's being forced down people's throats and they only listen because they have no alternative, then the audiences for the streamers will grow, not shrink, when they switch over.
I think what many forget here is that while this may shut down people running internet radio from US servers and domain names, it is only a question of time for a foreign supply to take advantage of any vacuum that may result if the us pulls the plug. So rather than shutting down internet radio, this whole circus will move it abroad. The RIAA won't win, artists won't win, customers won't win and America won't win. Foreign ISPs will however win and the US will become a little less competitive on the global market. In short, the more the RIAA tightens their grip, the more will slip through to abroad where laws are different. In the long run this might just be what causes the RIAA's downfall. By crippling the American music industry they pave the way for competitors to take their place.
Because what Congress and the CRB (Copyright Royalty Board) set up was a compulsory license, which means that SoundExchange represents and collects money for ALL artists/labels, regardless.
You have to pay SoundExchange a yearly membership as an artist/label to receive money they do collect and they don't say what they do with the money they collect for artists that have no label and dont sign up for membership, apparently this is free money for their coffers.
This is a blatant attempt to quash the issue through confusion. Most people don't know about the Copyright Review Board or what a bad deal it's just created for everyone. What they are hearing is a mixed signal. What people need to hear is, "Streaming music from your computer is about to be expensive and/or illegal for the benefit of big publishers." Corporate media, even Slashdot, are blaring out "Internet Radio Royalty Hikes Delayed" as if the RIAA had force of law and this temporary reprieve had any meaning.
They might as well have that. The whole thing is so unAmerican, most have a hard time believing it when they do learn. That a group of unelected could make such a fundamental decision boggles the mind. How is it that legislation has to be passed to keep an arm of government from creating an all encompassing monster like SoundExchange?
The end game is the destruction of Internet Radio and the internet itself. They want to go back to 1911 where you and me were not part of popular culture.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Who? Sound Exchange? or congress?
What?