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.
Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.
Huh. Congress making deals with a known criminal organization. Who would have even thought that was possible?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
People listening to internet radio will not simply stop to do that and turn back to old fashion radio if internet radio is being made impossible in the US. Rather, they'll tune in to other stations abroad. With internet radio, this is hardly a problem.
The difference is that this makes it quite a bit harder for Congress (or any organisation within the US) to take influence in the broadcast and avoid or at least monitor less desired broadcasts to happen. I mean, think of the propaganda ability of a net based radio that plays what its listeners want to hear. All you have to do is call your spin news and broadcast it once an hour, and between those news, just broadcast the latest and greatest hits.
Now imagine this radio station somewhere in the middle east.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not that simple. If SoundExchange is violating the law, it is probably a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Law enforcement doesn't do anything and is not responsible for enforcing civil law, only criminal law.
If they are violating civil law, well, as for why music stations aren't suing...well, people with a legitimate legal beef don't always sue. There are plenty of reasons why they don't.
Look at this way: Microsoft violated the law with its Windows licensing scheme, right? I mean, a federal circuit court judge even said so, right? So why didn't the OEMs, who were harmed by this illegal licensing scheme, sue Microsoft? Mostly economic reasons. They didn't want to fight Microsoft's army of lawyers, sure, but they also didn't want Microsoft to cut them off from Windows and Office licenses.
I suspect there are similar reasons why music stations aren't suing SoundExchange.
My blog
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.
First, the EU is bigger population-wise than the US, or even the US + Canada.
Having lived in multiple parts of both, I can say that living in New England in the US most closely resembles living in a roughly single language version of Northern Europe. Architecture and cultural changes abound in relatively short distances. Once you move west out of NE and New York, it largely and quickly becomes large homogeneous areas. Communication in some can be difficult. I recall one time in Tennessee having to order by number because the counter help (definitely all locals, and quite possibly from the same small gene pool) could not speak in anything approaching an understandable dialect (similar to Cockney vs Scots, or Dutch vs Flemish).
I can also say that many of my co-workers in 2 places in Europe had never gone more than 15 miles from their birthplace. However, in all fairness, that 15 miles covered more than 3 major cities and multiple smaller towns, sometimes with great differences between them.
In Europe, you will also get a set of primary TV channels from all the surrounding countries, a really nice feature. Why US cable/satellite providers don't supply BBC, German, Spanish, and French direct feeds I'll never really understand, other than it interferes with the MAFIAA control over what is seen in the US.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I wasn't aware that regulating media licensing fees was one of the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.