Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Board Lawyer Responds On Pandora's End
mattnyc99 writes "A month ago we talked about the impending death of streaming music site Pandora thanks to a very backwards fight over royalties. PopMech follows up with an article that, besides noting how insane it is that Pandora has to pay record labels for the bad songs that users skip, also gets the (three-member) Copyright Royalty Board to try and defend itself about why the government is determining royalty rates for the music industry. Quoting: 'It was uninvited,' says Richard Strasser, senior attorney for the Copyright Royalty Board. 'I don't think anybody was jumping up and down with joy in the government that they have this responsibility, but the former systems just weren't working out.'" No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.
I have been listening to Pandora, discovering new artists, and had begun to buy music again (most of my music collection is CDs bought in the Eighties). Guess I'll just go back to listening to my 'oldies' - I can't be bothered to keep fighting the music industry to accept my money.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The reason is regular people can be broadcasters on the internet. This is not very appealing to large commercial cartels. They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware. It ain't cheap or easy to start an XM radio or regular O-T-A radio station. The commercial interests want their cut â" so they seek to drive any one out of business who is doing internet radio.
No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.
That's an easy one. Cause people use the internet to steal copyrighted material.
People can't "steal copyrighted material" from satellite and broadcast?
I think I've got a better explanation. Broadcast and satellite are channels that require very high initial investment, thus locking out small competitors. Internet radio can be set up by anyone, and thus is harder for an industry cartel to control.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
It's important to remember the RIAA members control distribution. Letting net radio operate at a discount or even the same rates as broadcast is a non-starter.
It's also important to remember that the RIAA members also own most of the radio stations. The internet is their competition for earlobes, which they could otherwise sell to advertisers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. An FCC license.
2. Commercial broadcast hardware.
Have you priced either? Very effective at excluding undesirables...
It was sarcasm.
It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.
Maybe, but one argument against mere "illogical fear" can be seen if you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, where he describes his experience in trying to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act.
The act proposed one small change to current copyright law: that after 50 years, a copyright holder would have to pay $1.00 for each ten years of it's existing copyright protection to maintain copyright protection, otherwise the work goes into the public domain. This would allow old commercially nonviable works to go into public domain after a reasonable period, yet imposes only the most trivial burden on maintaining protect for the tiny minority of works that are still commercially valuable after that period. However, the industry fought the bill tooth-and-nail and defeated it, for stated reasons you can see at the Wikipedia link which sound pretty disingenuous to me.
I tend to favor Lessig's argument, as summarized by WP:
"Proponents, however, have suggested that the real threat this poses to copyright holders is that a huge wave of previously unseen, unused, and forgotten works would spill into the public domain, free for anyone to tamper with. The PDEA would not compromise currently used copyrighted works like Mickey Mouse. Content that is being used, or even content whose owner is aware they 'own' it can be protected for a minimal fee. They suggest there is no reason to oppose it other than the fear of competition from the influx of new content."
And *that* is what I think they really fear about internet radio, not that people will steal their content, but rather *compete* with it.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
If you go to the SoundExchange website, they have a list of thousands of musicians for whom they collected revenue but have not contacted them for payment. Their right to those funds expires after a certain period of time, and SoundExchange would keep 50% in any case.
In most case musicians would prefer to have their music broadcast as widely as possible. It is possible to opt out of representation by SoundExchange, but then the guidelines are written so that they have to waive ALL rights to revenue from that track. They can also make exceptions for particular webcast sites, which is made quite difficult and challenged aggressively.
One exception is polka music, a group representing American polka music negotiated a broad agreement with SoundExchange that polka stations don't have to pay any revenues.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -