Slashdot Mirror
Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the Internet Radio Equality Act is failing fast in the House, with negotiations breaking down over fair pricing for internet radio broadcasters. 'A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position ... SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.'" All very cushy for SoundExchange. Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.
Look, this issue is not going to go away unless either all musicans promise to go only through RIAA approved labels or the internet is killed. This is the time to take them on. Basically, musicians need to recognize that they have the opportunity to break free of the bonds that hold them. How? By getting paid directly by forming their own set of none-riaa labels. This monster price will force the network companies to no longer broadcast groups that support RIAA. That will of course cut the netplay to those groups/labels. Once they realize that this is hurting themselves, they will push for much lower prices. Hopefully, the network broadcasters AND their listeners will chose to let RIAA supported labels die.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
FTA:
"Whether or not SoundExchange's lobbying efforts prove to be illegal, its presence as an advocate in this debate undercuts its role as neutral administrator of royalty fees set and approved by the Copyright Royalty Board."
The summary makes a *statement* that SoundExchange committed an illegal act. The article is less adamant concluding the SoundExchange should 'do the right thing'.
Huh?
Okay, this is slahsdot and summaries are not always concise about the cited article, but I would feel that given a case of braking the law, the Law, be that the US Attorneys General, a member of congress, or some other representative of the Law would take action. I personally feel that what is happening to online music is disgusting and agree that artists over time need to use the internet to get closer to their fans and potential audiences. That will not happen if bodies that control the money are not held accountable when they stray from the law.
Did they? Did they not?
It would seem, since no one is being taken to court on an illegal act, that they did not. That it were a civil issue why are music stations not suing for redress. Herer's a thought, if Wired thinks SoundExchange is breaking the law, report them to the law. Is that not what we do if we see a crime taking place? A lady is breaking into a car as I watch. I go over and ask, is this your car? "Um, I do own a car and this is a nice car" is the reply. I am suspicious so I what?
Write an article on how wrong it is to steal cars citing this lady as prime suspect...
or
report her ass to the law and let them figure it out.
For crying out loud...maybe journalism cannot file the report and instead they use the power of the pen to bring the issue to light. But if NO ONE takes action, either report on that (and ask why) or walk into a DA's office and demand that they be investigated.
(sigh)...I think I may make my sig "I hear the fiddle in the distance, and it is getting closer".
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Create a "label" company that the artists get stock in. Then have the streamcasters that are using the OSS, none RIAA stuff give up 1 share of their stock to said company. As such, the "label" company has the right to allow their music to be played since it is part of their company. I have seen several ppl here say that would not work, but I think that it will. In particular, since when do the feds require payments to self from a company that is owned by self? I believe that the only reason why money flows is for tax reasons, not copyright issues. The trick is to get the artists and streamcasters together.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So if I happened to have an internet radio station that does not make any money, then 10% is 0, correct?, now, what if am an artist and I broadcast my own music on this station, do I have to pay this people to transmit my own work?, that sounds like MAFIAA tactics to me.
just about everybody says that. The funny thing is that America is bigger than EU, and most Americans have traveled through the states. Yet in EU, most citizens have NOT traveled beyond their own border (which equal to a small or medium size state here.), and a number have never left their own city. The same is true of just about every other country in the world. Overall, you will find that ppl do not travel because they do not have to, and/or do not have a desire to. The saddest part is when I hear ppl think that all the states are the same just because we speak the same language (which we do not). Nearly all westerners look at the east coast as being just as foreign as any country in EU. In fact, I have an easier time understanding a limey then I do somebody from the bronx, most places of new jersey, and even boston (pak it he == park it here). And the difference between Colorado and California is similar. Now, go to countries where they have not cultural issues, but are on different languages(which is the majority of the large countries; EU, India, China). How much do you learn about each other? Very little unless you make an effort to do so.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This makes no sense. For this post, I won't actually fight against copyright. Let us all agree that copyright exists, and that there are current penalties for violating it.
First of all, Congress has NO power to set prices for any reason -- none. No government should ever set price caps or minimums. Doing so creates high prices and restricted inventories (or none at all). Let the market set pricing.
If the license-owners of music want to charge a given rate, let them. Those who can pay the rate will, those who can't will either move to different content, or pirate said content.
Here's where it gets exciting: piracy. With the huge number of people who want to transmit online, and the huge amount of countries and provinces to transmit from, it could be more expensive for the license-owners to go after someone streaming to 40 people than they'd get from the outcome. The amount of bandwidth on the web is virtually unlimited versus radio, and the reach is virtually unlimited. This means a virtually unlimited supply of music -- regardless of demand, the price will fall. If the license-owners think they can charge more than the market is willing to pay, they won't last long. The days of the power of copyright are quickly sliding through their fingers, into the open hands and mouths of those who want to spend their time providing a service that others want.
That service is NOT necessarily music, but a specific combination of music (and maybe commentary). It is THIS part of the service that the end users will pay for (either directly, or through advertising sponsorship). One specific song is NOT the important part, in fact it is the least important part. There are virtually unlimited songs to choose from, even in a given genre. There are NOT unlimited people who are talented in packaging these songs together into a format that someone else wants, and spend the same time marketing to the audience at large. The income is generated for the new labor created -- as the market should work. Old labor in the form of an easily copy-able song should fall to nearly zero. The bands who are played on these stations should be excited to get free marketing to promote their future concerts, personal appearances, or other live labor expenditures that they can sell in real time to their fans. Their labors, in real time, are worth way more than a pre-recorded, easily copied song worth zero or close to zero due to oversupply.
Get the tyrants in Congress out. These people have no understanding of the specific powers provided to them, by the People, through the Constitution. Congress does not have unlimited power.
... only play music that is more than five years old. If the music industry wants newer material... (the records they want to sell) played on the radio then charge them the standard ad rate. I have bought 50 CDs in the last two months that I would never have bought if I hadn't heard them on the radio. I don't think the mainstream commercial record industry can exist without radio play.
Well, Slashdot is full of praise for organizations, that are similarly corrupt — such as Pirate Bay, for example. The difference? Pirate Bay are (alleged to be) breaking laws, that Slashdotters feel, should not exist.
I think, my first post on the subject made a good argument, why there should be no such thing as "illegal lobbying" — because the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances" is directly derived not only from "the spirit", but also from the letter of the very First Ammendment...
So, if the Ammendment can be construed to enshrine the right to, for example, sell pornography or to speak anonymously (both rather indirect derivations from the spirit of the Ammendment), any laws banning lobbying are flat-out un-Constitutional.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Actually, no ... The Pirate Bay is breaking no laws it its country of origin, so that's really a bad example. Granted, they've moved their servers elsewhere and replicated them because they don't trust their lawmakers to have a backbone. Still, the fact that The Pirate Bay torques off the self-appointed copyright cops in the USA or anywhere else is irrelevant to any discussion on copyright. Furthermore, I've yet to read a single Slashdot comment seriously advocating the abolition of copyright, but what we do want to see is some balance returned to the system. Your lobbyist friends have caused some serious harm to United States copyright law by their illicit activities. Given the quantity of bad law resulting from their efforts (hell, it was shown that MPAA lawyers drafted the DMCA!) you can't excuse what they've been doing as being either within the spirit or the letter of the Constitution. It's abusive, amoral and wrong.
... that crosses the line between "redress of grievances" to "undue influence" and "corruption" and that is illegal.
Furthermore, there are a lot of ways to look at lobbying. Petitioning for redress of grievances was never intended to apply to corporate entities, since at the time the Constitution was written corporations didn't have the rights of individuals. At least, that's my understanding, presumably someone with a legal background will correct me. Regardless, you can make your case that no lobbying should be considered "illegal", but the reality is that something has to be done because lobbying (illegal or otherwise) has resulted in serious imbalance between the rights of individuals vs. the rights of corporations in this country. Do you really believe that your Congressman will listen to your personal feelings on any issue? Of course not: the best they'll do is get a feeling for what their constituents want, and if that doesn't conflict with what their corporate sponsors want, you might get a good law.
My belief is that lobbying should be illegal, period. You want to write your Congressman and convince him of the merits of your position? Great, go for it. You want to wine him, and dine him, and give him free hookers and expensive vacations? Want to write him checks? Sorry
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That's a buffer in the wrong direction. My point is that the main use of a p2p system would be that the main server doesn't need to transmit the latest streaming content to everyone.
That would imply that it only transmits data to some people. They need to transmit the data to other people, but there's no incentive for them to do so, because the other party would be unlikely to have data which the first party would want.
The only way there would be an incentive to share would be if you gave some people immediate data and some people data for.. say.. 30s from now. But, unless you have an extremely active swarm, you'd need a very large buffer (measured in time) to give data enough chance to propagate before everyone needs it.
It would also be even harder than it currently is in order to get people close to synchronized in terms of their playback position.
Then, you're going to want the system to be reasonably resistant to client disconnects. Certainly to a few clients, and, if you're trying to put "near" (either by network or geographical proximity) clients together, you're going to want to be resistant to if an entire block (say, a campus with a number of listeners) drops. If you have a persistent graph of who streams to who, you're going to need more time to readjust it; if you compute which pieces go where on a continuous basis (per BitTorrent) you'll also need more time, since there will be less predictability.
Once you get into a buffer window the size of a song, you no longer have Internet radio, you have "automated downloading of songs".