Slashdot Mirror
A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates
quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.
Isn't the whole point to kill off 90% of internet radio?
~
I think I know a good amount most net radio stations should be paying... $0
I still can't believe SoundExchange has the right to do what they're doing.
They've already got the net radio groups between a rock and a hard place. They haven't started collecting yet but they're pushing for DRM and baiting with reduced rates for small broadcasters.
It is all about control, not about net income. So killing 90% of the web radio stations is better than a higher income because it is easier to control a few radio stations and because those pesky small independent stations will be the first to go down.
When that has been dealt with the income issue will be revisited. Raising income is a lot easier when your monopoly is still intact, maintain the monopoly and the income will come anyway. Currently it is the monopoly that is being defended and any plan which does not include maintaining the monopoly is a bad idea, even when it increases revenue.
They want to kill Net Radio
Technoli
..I almost hope they succeed in killing off "legit" Internet Radio. The Internet could really use a nice dose of the good old Pirate Radio culture.
We already know that the reason for the extremely high rates are because the RIAA really wants this simply to have DRM used on the streaming stations. That was already proved in recent negotiations over the rates. Since the RIAA's lobbying efforts in having the FCC mandate DRM onto the medium failed, they are now trying to do the same thing by forcing licensing fees that are extremely high on the stations.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
If the proposal is, indeed, a "fairer" way to charge stations I don't see any indication that the RIAA would be interested in accepting the notion. "Fair" or "reasonable" doesn't seem to be part of how they operate.
please, none of this understanding the details or technological change or economic nuance...
if we have a problem: sue sombody!
problem solved, end of story
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The summary of the article reminds me of this priceless Idiocracy quote:
"Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2izZYZVhEA
I rest my case.
I don't think this is idea of giving the RIAA other fairer options is going to work. I don't beleive for one second that the RIAA has not looked through all their options- including fair ones, liberal ones and harsh ones and resolved upon this- giving them a strongly worded letter trying to persuade them wont work, they know this isn't fiar. Basically, they want pay per listen because theats what they'd like to do selling their music and is just another step in that direction.
I wandered across a pretty spiffy net radio site.. Ill spare the site from slashdottedness.. and thought to myself, well, theyll be gone soon. They offer low quality free streaming and high quality paid streaming around 15 bucks a year. I decided to see what the EULA said and found it was all based (at least company-wise) in France. If I recall correctly (which is a stretch) I recall France being very liberal with online music and formats and whatnot. I would think more net radio would just wander to more hospitable countries since its not the US internet but in fact World Wide.
Then of course its up to filtering, which I wouldnt put past our government.
The rates should not be per-performance, but per-minute. So if the station plays a given song, it will pay based on the length of the song times the number of listeners. This matches well with advertising being a consistent amount for a given amount of time, so it should track with the revenue that the webcaster would be seeing.
I do agree with the argument that the webcasters should be providing more detailed information on what is being played. That would give more accurate distribution back to the artists (well, if they actually were to do so; I suspect they only want the data for marketing reasons).
Can't a web radio station continue to operate without paying royalties as long as they stick to independent labels? What is the history of indie labels enforcing radio royalties and such?
I say let them raise the rates and then spread the word that internet stations just need to avoid all labels in the RIAA to avoid getting slammed.
What I don't understand is why all the net radio stations don't purchase hosting outside of the U.S. and tell soundexchange to shove it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Mr. Gathard's thesis is based on the assumption that the executives of the major recording companies give a flying mule turd what the public thinks of them. All they wish to do is extract money from all of us in such a way as to support their own standard of living.
When the answer is simple (complex). You either rely on the whims and foresight of another (bad business strategy) or you chose your own route. The RIAA holds its control over the net radio market by a hair. Simply because no-ones really challenged them, on their own ground.
Begging is going to get you very little, but working directly with the very labels and artists in an organized fashion and you'll be able to by-pass the RIAA in this regard (largely) altogether. Setup a foundation to be a industry friendly clearing-house to handle limited blanket licensing in terms the industry finds acceptable. Most labels want protection (from piracy and misuse) but also want exposure. With a little will (and funding) I think there would only be a few majors that would hold out. The same ones that want the market to be smaller in the first place. Which really would be a win-win. RIAA exclusive labels/artists could limit their exposure and practice the same kinds of influence they've become accustomed to. Smaller or more open labels and artists could continue to gain exposure and change the very markets the RIAA is trying to limit.
Quack, quack.
Greedeo killed the Net Radio Star!
SoundExchange is an independent, nonprofit performance rights organization that is designated by the U.S. Copyright Office to collect and distribute digital performance royalties for featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners (usually a record label) when their sound recordings are performed on digital cable and satellite television music, internet and satellite radio (such as XM and Sirius). SoundExchange currently represents over 3,000 record labels and over 20,000 artists. Its members include both signed and unsigned recording artists; small, medium and large independent record companies; and major label groups and artist-owned labels. http://www.soundexchange.com/
I am looking studying to be a recording engineer. I want to strive to be fair with my artist.
First of all I would never, ever, advocate this.
However, as a talking point:
Consider if the ripping of CDs was not done, as it currently is, in a small casual fashion. What if the entire Internet community made a concerted, extensive, and prolonged effort to copy and post CD tracks?
Not just the few thousand or so which currently do it, but millions?
Do you think that would get anyones attention?
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Not the radio listening audience, the audience for the open letter.
The author isn't trying to persuade the RIAA to be fair, that's impossible. That's why he wrote an open letter; a letter to the public ostensibly addressed to, but not really intended for, the RIAA.
The music business and its RIAA front will not change their agenda. They've given Congress their marching orders, accompanied by bales of money. Politicians understand that voters often vote for the candidate with the largest budget for ads. And it's not just the direct campaign contributions, it's that most of the music business is owned by media companies, the companies that own the TV and radio stations, newspapers, and even web sites that politicians advertize with. Why do you suppose that newspapers NEVER challenge the RIAA spin on any story?
The letter is intended for the public, and voters in particular. Politicans need cover before standing up to the RIAA. When voters write and call, that helps counter the RIAA fundraising. Float a fair and reasonable proposal, and shift the burden to the RIAA of explaining the RIAA plan.
Write or call your elected officials. Many would like to do the right thing. Give them hope that doing the right thing won't end their careers.
It would seem the main upshot of Mr. Gathard's arguemnt is a higher amount of total royalties collected; thus more money for RIAA and Sound Exchange. This is intended to make it apealing to them.
I, for one, am against fucking the RIAA. Considering how many other people they themselves have fucked, it's more than probable that they've caught more than a few nasty somethings along the way...
Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
My music is traditional (pre-1950) jazz, sometimes called Dixieland. Most of the CD's in my collection were purchased directly from the bands during live performances or came from labels that are not RIAA members. Money paid to RIAA's royalty collecting entity does not go to those bands or labels unless they join the entity at substantial cost, most likely exceeding the value of joining.
Very little of the money paid to RIAA that is supposed to go to artists and songwriters actually gets to traditional jazz artists and songwriters (or their estates).
Traditional jazz is so far off the music industry radar screen that the satellite radio channels (that I get to listen to sometimes when I fly) do not have traditional jazz channels. The closest they come is big band. None of what they play is from currently playing bands that you can see today in live performance; it is all archived from the 1930's and 40's, when some bands had jazz musicians in their bands and gave them solos.
Before any proposal like this gets considered, there needs to be an alternative royalty entity established for non-RIAA music that ensures the money goes where it belongs.
I listen to this station a lot (Radio Kansas). They have several local programs that can't be heard anywhere else. It's wonderful programming but the funding comes from community support (i.e.: contributions). As stated on their online streaming service:
The problem is that this type of music isn't what the majority wants (even though people in general should take more interest in the Arts). Half the time, what the majority wants isn't of any real value anyways. For a non-profit to be put into a position where they would have to consider data-mining, it would seem that they are forced into a position where they won't be able to afford it. The other tragedy is that it doesn't just affect the music that they broadcast, it's the news as well. Due to all of this action, it is forcing the entire radio stream to be taken off the internet which limits the scope of where NPR news can be broadcasted. You can go to the NPR website but regardless it does limit the scope of viewers who would be potential supporters and contributors to the originating station. The radio stations had a system that worked well with the RIAA before. Why does the RIAA have to complicate everything when they just need to keep it simple?
You can still use your radio and surf for other local stations comparable to the content you are used to but living in Miami, Orlando, Wichita, Kansas City and Denver I had a hard enough time finding a decent station that carries similar programming. There is one exception and that is if you are a regular listener of any Clear Channel stations. At least they can guarantee the same crap anywhere you go.
"They're... what plants crave?"
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Clearchannel's Internet radio will have DRM, so it will be eligible for SoundExtortion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hchange's DRM-discount program.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
From: senator_obama@obama.senate.gov
Date: Aug 11, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
To: f@1c0bird@gmail.com
Thank you for conveying your strong feelings about the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) and their contributions to
political candidates.
First, as a candidate for president I do not accept contributions
from any federal lobbyists or political action committees. Thus, I
have not accepted any contribution from the RIAA for this campaign.
Second, I fully understand your point that the RIAA's copyright
initiatives are designed to protect the recording companies rather
than songwriters and artists. That is because RIAA is a trade
association that represents the recording industry. Its members
consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record
labels and distributors.
Two issues are at stake here: the negative effect of piracy on the
recording industry, including both companies and artists; and the
methods RIAA is employing to combat copyright infringement. As you
note, the RIAA is involved in a series of controversial copyright
infringement legal actions on behalf of its members. I, too, have
heard that innocent parties have been swept up by this aggressive
legal strategy, and I have spoken with RIAA officials about this
concern. They contend that their method of investigation involves
merely logging on to a file-sharing network, as any other user does,
and that the very nature of the file-sharing system allows anyone to
see who is illegally trading copyrighted works. This controversy
merits further investigation.
Intellectual property is an important export for the U.S. Making an
effort to protect these creative works - including copyrighted music -
is important to the thousands of people employed in the entertainment
business, such as songwriters and artists, and to the country's
economy generally. Our challenge is to address this issue in a manner
that is fair to all parties.
Again, thank you for writing. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
In other words, "I might have accepted some bribes, but it's in my best interests not to answer the question, since I'm obviously not going to intervene and stop the RIAA madness".
I heard you on my wireless network back in Ought Two
Lying awake intent at browsing in on you.
If it was dial-up it didn't stop you coming through.
Ooh-ah oh
RIAA killed the internet radio stars
RIAA killed the internet radio stars
etc.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
And, strangely enough, the Mafia.
I don't know if anyone else here has noticed, but I had been listening to Podcasts of some music programs from broadcast radio-- as they essentially allowed me to time-shift programs that I otherwise would miss. Once SoundExchange extortion appeared, these podcast posts on the radio station websites dried up.
However, while I'm disappointed I can't listen to those radio programs anymore, I'm thinking this could ultimately end up being a boon to free independent music streams that aren't connected to broadcast radio stations-- they could end up having an edge over "classic" broadcast music if they can find a way over the hurdle of verifying the rights to transmit that independent music. They end up in a position to be able to transmit independent music at no cost while the traditional channels have cough up the SoundExchange mafiaa, which IMHO may not be all that bad of a thing...
Probably if I was still in my twenties. Something like this would either take massive amounts of work (read: loads of free time and thankless dedication) or lots of capital (which is the direction I think it would need to go, to sell it and provide a level of confidence to an industry that relies on lawyers and contracts).
Not that I'm trying to be discouraging. It may well be easier then all that or maybe you've worked out a great way to make it happen (or maybe you're just dedicated enough). I already work too much (welcome web 2.0) and in my free time I run an arts and music site (among other things).
But if you get things going or working up a good boiler-plate license I'd love to hear about it and I'd be glad to work with the artists and labels I already have contact with to see if they'd get on board.
I'll scratch around a little, but there was a mid-sized label that had released a license to allow promotion of their artists. They provided a well thought out PDF that covered things like limitations, streaming (versus playlists, which can easily be bounced to disk using any number of tools). It was my first introduction to rights protection from a labels point of view (a little too much legalese for the artists which is part of why I think you need to package and "sell" the idea, which costs money typically).
Anyway, if I don't hear from you I'll try to periodically check that URL. If you weren't in school your best route would be to try to setup a 501(c)3 (or the equivalent on your side of the pond) and seek funding. Live365 and Real are the companies that should be spearheading an initiative like this. The big broadcasters who have more to gain and claim more to lose. Their indifference (moaning and whining aside) I find perplexing, even a little annoying. Like their putting on a show, but to what end? I'm guessing nothing much better then what the RIAA is up to.
Quack, quack.