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?
~
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.
..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"
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 still can't believe SoundExchange has the right to do what they're doing. While you do have a reasonable point when considering independent material which is placed on the internet specifically to be openly available to everyone, there is a distinct problem when dealing with copyrighted material. Additionally I feel that the root of your post deals with SoundExchange making money off of material that isn't specifically theirs which I do agree is a problem. I do feel however, that your post deals with the issue in the incorrect manner.
In the music industry anymore there are so many middlemen and markups that everyone is being charged way too much and it seems like the profits are going to everyone except the artist. I feel that internet radio playing music under copyright shouldn't be free, but the ad revenues should go directly back to the artists and not the scum (like SoundExchange) that are trying to make something from nothing. There are advertisers and such along the way that actually provide a valuable service which increase the overall cost, but other than that the music industry has reached the point of ridiculousness.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
No. The royalties are collected for all songs played, even those from independent labels. Independent artists have the option of registering with SoundExchange so they may receive royalties collected on their behalf, less SoundExchange's fee.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that ANY streaming audio (video too?) on the internet is subject to paying SoundExchange? What if I am streaming my own personal music? What about if a band I'm in, streams out songs (assuming unsigned band)? Can I be reading this correctly? I find it hard to believe that if I stream audio that isn't copyright protected...I have to pay anybody squat....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 grant the copyright holder of the "performance" of a song the right to collect a royalty each time that "performance" is played on an Internet webcast. It doesn't matter whether the copyright holder is a member of SoundExchange or not, the royalty is collected regardless.
An artist apparently may choose to negotiate deals with webcasters. I am not sure exactly how this works, but it would require the webcaster to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every "performance" they play. This would likely kill of most small webcasters as surely as the rates proposed by the CRB would.
I don't care why you're posting AC
OK, do you know how much over-the-air commercial radio stations pay to the RIAA for recording royalties? It *is* $0.
It seems to be a little known fact, but regular over-the-airwave radio, since its inception, has only had to pay songwriting royalties (i.e., those collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) for any songs they broadcast, but have never had to pay recording royalties ("mechanicals", in the trade). Why? Because it was always seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement: the radio station gets to sell advertising time over free use of the recordings, the copyright holders of the recording get free exposure which helps them sell records.
The whole point here is that they *do* want different rules for internet radio...that the RIAA thinks internet radio *should* pay mechanical royalties over-the-air broadcasters don't, and they've been doing this for over 12 years now, and it most definitely *has* hurt internet radio.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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.
You don't. I over-stated the rules in my earlier post, as was pointed out here An independent artist could negotiate deals with webcasters and I suppose notify SoundExchange that they do not wish royalties to be collected on their behalf (or maybe the webcaster would advise SoundExchange of which artists they have deals with, I'm not sure exactly how it works).
It would be a lot of work for independent artists who either represent themselves or are signed with small labels. Not to mention the workload for webcasters who are doing everything themselves. Again, I have no doubt that the whole point is to make it difficult for these two groups, as they pose a threat to the RIAA's business model.
Perhaps if anything good comes out of this, it would be that independent artists could band together and form collectives to negotiate fair deals with independent (non-RIAA controlled) webcasters, similar to BMI and ASCAP which are, I believe, non-profit groups made up of artists, not a shadowy front for the recording industry like SoundExchange.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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".