Slashdot Mirror


Experimental Fees Settle Royalty War For Internet Radio

S-100 writes "SoundExchange has reached an agreement for royalty rates with a consortium of Internet radio broadcasters. The parties are ecstatic that the issue is finally resolved, and that the new rates are below the previous 'death to Internet radio' levels that had previously been imposed by the CARB. According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased. One unheard-from group is less likely to be pleased: small Internet radio broadcasters. Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."

270 comments

  1. Social corruption by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rich take advantage of the less rich:

    "Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."

    1. Re:Social corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you would owe $25,000 in royalties. Minimum payment per year.

    2. Re:Social corruption by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      ...using the coercive power of government.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Social corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with Capitalism. The Market hasn't spoken, this is about copyright and royalties which is nothing but Government protection of works. Not saying copyright is a bad thing inherently (it is in a bad state if you ask me) but this is nothing but a barrier to entry into the internet radio business. This keeps out the small guy who isn't doing this for money (probably doing it at a loss out of his or her own pocket) and since it's compulsory someone running an internet radio station with just unsigned or independent music will still have to open their wallet to $25,000 a year. This is just a ploy by old media to keep broadcasting in their hands. It won't matter much to the more dedicated of the amateur broadcaster as they can most probably move their operation out of the United States.

    4. Re:Social corruption by i_b_don · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a third option that doesn't seem at all bad. The smaller independent radio stations can form a co-op where each station pays their own independent fees but together they will do more than $25k per year. That way everyone wins.

      Yes this sucks, but I don't think it is really as limiting as the doomsayers believe.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    5. Re:Social corruption by Throtex · · Score: 1

      Nothing's stopping you from contracting with the individual artists/rights holders for some other amount.

      This is capitalism *at its finest*. There is a giant barrier in the way to individually negotiate and enforce thousands of separate contracts, one per song a station might play. Instead, a fixed rate solves the problem.

      Why don't people get this? The alternative to compulsory fees isn't *gratis*, it's "go figure out how to contract with a thousand separate entities to let you play their music."

    6. Re:Social corruption by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Its the creation of a monopoly marketplace that excludes private citizens. American capitalism revolts me in its obsession with money above culture, its no better than all the other criminal states like Iran, China and Burma.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    7. Re:Social corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. How are the rates being set. Why does SoundExchange get the power to arbitrarily tack on extra fees for internet radio while keeping terrestrial and satellite radio relatively low? Is it because the old boys are all running those shows and that you don't need a corporate charter to run an internet radio station. As for the individual copyright royalty thing. There should be some sort of clearly unbiased entity that acts as a clearing house for this sort of thing. It's not really a free market when SoundExchange can collect royalties for ALL music and just keep that money on the side for the artists who haven't quite gotten around to taking their cut yet. This is another one of the RIAA's bullshit claims that they own the concept of music and when internet radio becomes too much of a threat they will start this doomsday royalty bullshit again. I'm also pretty sure that if the RIAA members have the time, energy, and effort to go about suing everyone for copyright infringement they could work out some sort of way to broker royalties, even if it was broadbased by record label.

    8. Re:Social corruption by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      $25,000 per year.

      Just think - at the going rate of $1.92 million for 24 mp3s, this will entitle the radio station to play approximately 0.3 of an mp3 per year.

    9. Re:Social corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please permit a slight correction: Copyright is about protection of the __owners__ of works, not the works themselves. In this instance, that means primarily the major-label recording cartel, whose contracted artists signed over the rights to their work.

  2. NO by brilanon · · Score: 1

    Is this the end of [link to small station removed]?!

    1. Re:NO by orngjce223 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More like the question: Is this the end of Live365? Because I like this one particular community-run station (not naming names here to avoid inviting a lawsuit) that runs on there, and requiring $25,000 will be the death of it unless we can unearth enough money to save it.

      --
      Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
    2. Re:NO by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Live365 was covered under last years agreement that capped fees at $50K/year for per station fees AFAIK so that would be an umbrella cost carried by Live365 and then you would be responsible for the per performance royalties.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Crap Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't show any text.

  4. Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pirate radio.

  5. What about public domain music? by kalpol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just theoretically, what if a station played only music in the public domain? Would they have to cough up the minimum payment? I'm curious whether the fee is for playing music over the internet, or for playing copyrighted music over the internet.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:What about public domain music? by wikki · · Score: 3, Informative

      This would only apply to record labels or artists covered by SoundExchange.

      Basically it's part of the RIAA so you have the Big 4. Sony EMI, Universal, and Warner.

      There may be some others.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange#Business_structure_and_oversight

    2. Re:What about public domain music? by Kalriath · · Score: 0

      SoundExchange collects royalties for all music. Not just its members. so yes, you'd still have to cough up. It's a bit of a scam really.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:What about public domain music? by tepples · · Score: 1

      SoundExchange collects royalties for all music. Not just its members. so yes, you'd still have to cough up.

      And if you don't cough up for your station that plays only Free music, what grounds will SoundExchange or anyone else have to sue you?

    4. Re:What about public domain music? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Public Domain would have royalties of $0.00 so there would be nothing to cough up.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:What about public domain music? by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't need grounds. They can bankrupt you just by filing the suit and dragging out the proceedings.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    6. Re:What about public domain music? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      What about an artist who released things under a CC or similar license terms that you met, you used that, then the artist gets signed and releases the same song under a different label? Sure, you still should be able to use the CC licensed one, but you have no proof and good luck fighting the RIAA in court. It sure could cause a ton of pain in the short term.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:What about public domain music? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What about an artist who released things under a CC or similar license terms that you met, you used that, then the artist gets signed and releases the same song under a different label? Sure, you still should be able to use the CC licensed one, but you have no proof

      Wayback Machine by Archive.org might still have a page with the title, artist, and a CC license notice.

    8. Re:What about public domain music? by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually SoundExchange is THE collection agency for streamed royalties in the US, even indie artists have to collect through them unless they negotiate other contracts which is very difficult to do as it involves lawyers and lots of paperwork to opt out of SoundExchange and they would still collect royalties through SoundExchange for any webcasters they didn't have direct agreements with.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:What about public domain music? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't need grounds. They can bankrupt you just by filing the suit and dragging out the proceedings.

      They could do that against somebody who doesn't even run an Internet radio station. Heck, record labels have sued a network printer for copyright infringement. I'd still like to know how broadcasting Creative Commons licensed recordings of public domain musical works exposes me to more risk of being the victim of vexatious litigation than propagating any other Creative Commons licensed work.

    10. Re:What about public domain music? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      But there would be still no proof that you were playing the CC licensed one rather then the Warner licensed one because they are the same product. Its similar to having two identical books one published in January and one published in February and determining which is which when nothing has changed in the books themselves and they are mixed together in a large box.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    11. Re:What about public domain music? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the other trade industries don't build on suing individuals? I mean, you could really tick off the publishers/authors guild and they would sue you, but I haven't seen them going through P2P records and suing people for downloading books when not for profit. The various entertainment software people don't really care too much if your an individual pirating stuff. Etc. Movies are sort of a non-issue because of the huge paper trail. From where I am sitting I can plug in a microphone and record a song and with enough editing it could sound similar to a really terrible RIAA artist (I'm no good singer). On the other hand, I can't make a real movie that could be confused with a current or (recent-ish) older film. It simply requires a lot more people and a lot more specialized equipment.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:What about public domain music? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the other trade industries don't build on suing individuals?

      Capitol v. Thomas identified specific works whose copyrights were willfully infringed. If I can control the playlist and document each work's license at least as well as Wikimedia Commons controls its own, my attorney could get the case thrown out at the "do you own the copyright in this recording?" step.

    13. Re:What about public domain music? by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      You can always license music individually with the rights owner, via for example Creative Commons, or go public domain where you can. What this deal covers is the "compulsory" license, which rights holders are obliged to accept if you want their music under those terms.

    14. Re:What about public domain music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does the Mafia need grounds to sue?

    15. Re:What about public domain music? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if you personally held the copyright to every single piece of audio played on your station. The RIAA will still insist you pay up (or at least file reams of paperwork that no small station can afford to file)

    16. Re:What about public domain music? by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is probably the most important (and most likely to be overlooked) point in the whole issue. Artists cannot opt-out. Even artists who have never heard of SoundExchange and have never received a check *from* them are generating revenue *for* them.

      This might just be a good issue around which to construct a test case for the judicial system. With good legal counsel close at hand, create a station which exclusively plays content that is offered under a suitably free license (http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/, http://www.danosongs.com/, insert your better suggestion ___ here), or where your station has a separate agreement with the artist, or where the artist is not receiving royalties from SoundExchange (and perhaps thinks he/she should be on the basis that SE has collected them from broadcasters).

      Publicize, grow, attract attention belligerently.

      SoundExchange *seems* to claim to represent all of these scenarios under the "no opting out" doctrine. There is no music "outside of their catalog" as they have no catalog, just an "all your music are belong to us" clause.

      In the first two cases, open licenses and individual agreements *should* trump SE's doctrine. If so, then it's time to set about creating a clearinghouse method for mass producing "individual" agreements.

      In the third case, SE is ripping off artists in a sense, and shouldn't be able to get away with it. Many small indie artists haven't a clue about SE or how to get royalties from them. Yet SE *keeps* royalties for artists who don't know how to claim them. Existing under a "no opt out" charter is reason enough that the onus should be on SE to notify artists & rightsholders of royalties they have coming.

    17. Re:What about public domain music? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that existing under a "no opt out" charter is grounds to have your charter revoked, under order that you rewrite it without that part, or it's completely forfeit.

      Unfortunately (and fortunately for some) I'm not important.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:What about public domain music? by afidel · · Score: 1

      According to USC 17.112.e.5
      License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between 1 or more copyright owners of sound recordings and 1 or more transmitting organizations entitled to obtain a statutory license under this subsection shall be given effect in lieu of any decision by the Librarian of Congress or determination by the Copyright Royalty Judges.

      This should be perfectly doable, but from what I have read and heard it's almost impossible. Part of the problem is all of the different parts of copyright that may be affected, such as writer, background singer, etc. This doesn't affect a completely original work written and performed by one person who hold all copyrights but that is a fairly unusual situation, so it's simply easier to go by the statutory breakdown specified under mandatory licensing.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    19. Re:What about public domain music? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Warning: A moderator appears to be modding any comment that doesn't directly cite the article as offtopic.

      So I've noticed. Possibly the same shit(s)-for-brains who think(s) that "redundant" means "stupid/wrong" and so entertain(s) us by marking the first post in a thread (*not* one that says 'First Post!', either) that way.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re:What about public domain music? by EricJ2190 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, what if I start an internet radio station, and only play compositions written and performed by myself? Do they have any claim on my money?

    21. Re:What about public domain music? by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jamendo maybe? http://www.jamendo.com/en/ IIRC, Jamendo is offered as a plugin for Rhythmbox in GNOME, free to stream and download, donations go direct to artists, all CC licensed works. All they need are listeners...

    22. Re:What about public domain music? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what happens if I set up a website streaming my own music.

    23. Re:What about public domain music? by johnsie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I run a radio station for unsigned artists. These rules don't apply to me because I have a private arrangement with the artists. The days of commercial music are coming to an end because it's too expensive and now the little guys will be getting more airtime. I think it's good for musicians, but not so good for money hunters.

    24. Re:What about public domain music? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually that is not entirely true. Artists are free to enter into an agreement with a "broadcaster" independent of SoundExchange. The law only prevents artists from suing for copyright infringement those "broadcasters" who have paid the SoundExchange license fee.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re:What about public domain music? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I have a new "no opt out" policy where anyone who uses the word 'the' owes me 50 cents. Starting now. This applies to the word in written context as well as spoken, and to the equivalent article used in other languages, as long as it's done in the US.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    26. Re:What about public domain music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's very convenient. I have a patent for the process of receiving 50 cents as a royalty. I can license this process to you for 60 cents per use.

    27. Re:What about public domain music? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Actually SoundExchange is THE collection agency for streamed royalties in the US, even indie artists have to collect through them unless they negotiate other contracts which is very difficult to do as it involves lawyers and lots of paperwork to opt out of SoundExchange and they would still collect royalties through SoundExchange for any webcasters they didn't have direct agreements with.

      So why don't Indie artists interested in more reasonable royalties for internet streaming start up a new co-op which can act as a clearing house for licensing their works?

    28. Re:What about public domain music? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Except... that they'll never sue you.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    29. Re:What about public domain music? by rpresser · · Score: 1

      They don't have any claim on YOUR money, since you're the copyright holder. BUT if another radio station starts exclusively playing your music and can't prove it has a contract with you, that radio station owes THEM money and they owe YOU money (but good luck collecting).

    30. Re:What about public domain music? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Cost and complexity. Copyright (especially audio) is a majorly complicated field. Unless all the artists in the clearing house were solo acts that wrote their own music and never used samples or backing performers it's really amazingly complicated.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    31. Re:What about public domain music? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They charge statutory minimum royalties I believe.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  6. Podcasts by Starlon · · Score: 1

    The article seems to be dead. Is this merely music related, or does this include podcasts featuring only news? This is the first I've heard of this.

    --
    Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    1. Re:Podcasts by Starlon · · Score: 1

      Nevermind. The article finally loaded. It's music related.

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
  7. What are they paying now? by wikki · · Score: 1

    What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now? $2100 per month doesn't seem like a terrible amount. I guess if you are a super small station you are going to be in trouble. What about SomaFM?

    1. Re:What are they paying now? by Neoncow · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I understand, that's just for the right to not be sued for broadcasting the music. Broadcasters still have to pay to buy the music, for bandwidth to stream the music, hardware to do that, people to select music, build websites themselves, manage online communities, manage advertising relationships, etc.

      AND that's the minimum. So if you have zero listeners, you have to pay $25 000 per year just to start.

    2. Re:What are they paying now? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now?

      Small webcasters can still use the old fee system. The old fess that was exterminating small webcasters and threatening to bankrupt large webcasters, was a certain fee per song per listener, with a $500 minimum. Under that old system a tiny college radio webcaster could only average of TWO listeners at a time at the $500 fee, and having to pay about $250 per year extra for each concurrent listener above 2. A webcaster like Pandora.com with their huger listener base was going to be hit for probably over $20 million per year.

      Under the new option a major webcaster like Pandora is going to pay less than half that - about $10 million per year - but the minimum buy in for that pricing system is $25,000. The $10 million rate for a "big" webcaster like Pandora is harsh but survivable if they start limiting or billing their heaviest listeners. Small webcasters could get by pretty well if they could combine the old-option $500 minimum with the new-option billing system, but the $25,000 minimum was explicitly put in place to prohibit that. Small webcasters still gets exterminated by the $250 per year per average-listener royalty rate. Imagine in your local normal-radio broadcaster had to pay $250 per year per listener - most radio stations would be obliterated if they got hit with these staggering bills. The royalty rate for normal radio stations is not $250 per listener.... it is $zero. Only webradio has to pay these music royalties.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the USA maybe. I have a suspicion other countries might have a different notion of how that might work out...

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Informative

      I, for one, welcome our new allofinternetradio.ru overlords.

    2. Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by afidel · · Score: 0

      Most of the developed world is worse which is why pandora and others aren't available outside the US. Other countries either have higher rates or don't have standardized rights so you have to negotiate per piece which is obviously untenable.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is the internet we are talking about after all; even if all US-based internet radio stations were to fold tomorrow, that would still leave countless thousands of other stations based around the world, many of which play the same US music, still broadcasting and beyond the reach of the RIAA, SoundExchange etc.
      So it's not like this is the end for small internet radio stations, although it does sound like bad news for American based ones.

    4. Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by durin · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the EU is also in the pockets of Big Media (tm)

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    5. Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station? by johnsie · · Score: 1

      Who told you that? Many other countries are alot more liberal with music copyright, including the whole of the EU, Russia and China. People in those countries can work with unsigned artists without being bothered.

  9. Strange agreement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Following the link I see that the agreement consists of... an add for a printer.

  10. Is this just in the US? by 1mck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this only pertain to the US, or is it all over the world?

    1. Re:Is this just in the US? by Delgul · · Score: 1

      Of *course* not. Just broadcast from say eh...every other country in the world and you will be left alone (for the moment)

  11. Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pandora is starting to sound a lot like regular ClearChannel FM. Funny how that happens.

    1. Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      How so? My stations are playing the same kind of music they've always played. In fact, they seem to have picked up some new artists lately, which is nice.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, you mean YOUR Pandora stations sound like terrestrial radio? Right? Because none of my stations sound like anything I can get near me lacking any good college stations. My first couple stations are:

      Django Reinhardt Radio
      Electro Station #1 (Orbital, Orb, Wink)
      Gaelic Storm Radio
      etc
      Or are you talking about their attitude? They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Or are you talking about their attitude? They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.

      Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased

      Lets see, he is cheering on this that will save Pandora and perhaps a few more stations but crush the rest. It reminds me of a certain operating system vendor....

      Thats not to mention their reduction in skips, inclusion of audio ads, etc.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by afidel · · Score: 1

      inclusion of audio ads, you mean *shock* they want to make money for their efforts and expenditures!? SiriusXM charges the same $3/month to stream at lower quality and that is the ADDON cost to an already fairly expensive service. Oh and you don't get to customize your listening experience with SiriusXM either.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately? by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...So you are defending a crappy product with a crappier product? Well, Windows ME didn't make my computer burst into flames whenever I loaded it on a computer, so it must be a great OS! Seriously, SiriusXM has few stations and no less DJ chatter/radio spam then terrestrial radio, and honestly, if I was paying for the service (the only time I ever used it was when I got a like 3 month trial with a car) I would rather it be much more like an iPod or CD, music non-stop. But again, just because a product is better then a terrible product, doesn't mean that the product is good.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  12. $25,000 barrier to entry by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by Apathist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are we all so busy blaming Pandora for this?

      IIRC, they were just trying to save themselves from getting annihilated by these preposterous fees... and now we're giving them a hard time because they didn't save every other tiny internet radio station all at once?

      Seems to me that we won the battle, but not the war (yet). So let's celebrate that instead of flagellating those fighting on our side, yeah?

    2. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.

      1. This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]
      2. And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation. How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because USC 17.112 explicitly makes an exception to anti-trust law to allow the negotiation of a statutory rate structure for compulsory licensing of phonorecordings for digital distribution, this was thought of by the lawyers way back in the mid 1990's when the whole exception that allows internet radio to operate at all was started.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.

      1. This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]
      2. And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation. How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?

      That's easy.

      Because many of the same people who were instrumental in putting this in place and that stand to gain from it also just happen to be the ones that would also be instrumental in deciding if it's fair or not.

      Wagers on their decision?

      Strat

       

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because USC 17.112 explicitly makes an exception to anti-trust law to allow the negotiation of a statutory rate structure for compulsory licensing of phonorecordings for digital distribution,

      Lets try and make a list of industries that have anti-trust exemptions.
      (google the name + anti-trust exemption to verify)
      1. Sports
      2. Unions
      3. Music/Movies
      4. Freight Rail
      5. Freight Ocean Liners
      6. Insurance
      7. ??

      After some googling, I discovered there's an entire book on the subject.
      Maybe making an exhaustive list isn't the best idea after all.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by Draek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm curious, why do you consider Pandora to be on *our* side? I haven't followed this situation closely, but it seems to me they've only done their best to stay afloat and nothing else. That's to be expected from any business, but it isn't something to be praised either.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    7. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by strack · · Score: 1

      unions arent a industry.

    8. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why are we all so busy blaming Pandora for this?

      IIRC, they were just trying to save themselves from getting annihilated by these preposterous fees... and now we're giving them a hard time because they didn't save every other tiny internet radio station all at once?

      Seems to me that we won the battle, but not the war (yet). So let's celebrate that instead of flagellating those fighting on our side, yeah?

      People are not so much blaming Pandora, as pointing out that this is not really a victory. The whole point of the outrageous fees was to limit the number of broadcasters. The music industry has maintained control because they control most people's exposure to new music (payola to radio stations). Because of the limited nature of radio waves there were a limited number of radio stations. This allowed music companies to enter into agreements with them that determined what was broadcast.
      The Internet has no such physical limitation, there was a possibility of an ever expanding number of broadcasters. In such a scenario, some broadcaster might arise who became popular before the music industry was aware of them and who broadcast music not under the music industry's control. From the music industry's perspective, this is a win. It limits the broadcasters to those who can afford this initial high licensing fee.
      I believe that it will fail to accomplish the lock in the music industry is counting on. It will actually harm the music industry in the long run because the only practical work around is to broadcast music that is CC'd or otherwise licensed to be freely broadcast.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:$25,000 barrier to entry by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Is it really that hard for you to imagine Pandora agreeing to these terms partially because it knew full well that it would further entrench its market position?

  13. A great opportunity for upstart talent... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps now is a good time for all the upstart talent out there to be heard before getting their work corrupted by the recording industry. Small broadcasters should set up their own organization to collectively promote new talent by sharing their newly found content with each other for broadcasting. All that would be needed is some sort of vetting system to ensure the work isn't already owned by someone other than the artist that created it.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, but that still could be a minefield. Lets say a small band in 2009 releases music that isn't covered by this. You play it thinking its safe or you had an agreement reached with the band or something. 2010 rolls around and they get signed on by Warner. Now, because Warner owns all their songs, you have little proof that the songs you play were released before then because its the same song. So you get sued. The problem with indie bands is they don't stay indie if they are decent enough.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indie bands should get together to set up something to broadcast their music. Heck, anybody can do this by contacting indie bands, and requesting a non-exclusive, non-expiring license to broadcast their works over internet radio so long as all of the copyright holders are still alive.

    3. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that still could be a minefield. Lets say a small band in 2009 releases music that isn't covered by this.

      Define 'release' from a legal perspective. If you just find some music on line, you are taking a risk downloading and playing it. Even if the performers post it there themselves. How are you to know that they have the rights to do so? Some legal title needs to be in place to define performers' ownership even when a recording label isn't involved.

      2010 rolls around and they get signed on by Warner. Now, because Warner owns all their songs,

      All their songs? What if this is a band than moved from one record label to another? The previous label would still have rights to their old work. Warner would only get the new stuff.

      And that's the system that would have to be set up to cover self-releasd content. Whether its the attachment of a Creative Commons type license, or putting together some sort of cooperative (performer-owned) "recording label" that would represent their rights, once this is done, and this license, or label grants rights for free Internet play, subsequent contracts with Warner coudn't reach back to this earlier content any more than they could to that owned by a smaller label.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Whether its the attachment of a Creative Commons type license, or putting together some sort of cooperative (performer-owned) "recording label" that would represent their rights, once this is done, and this license, or label grants rights for free Internet play, subsequent contracts with Warner coudn't reach back to this earlier content any more than they could to that owned by a smaller label.

      That assumes they release it on a "label" to begin with. Let's go with this scenario: I make a song, I put it on the internet without anything denoting it being licensed in any way. Then, I get signed to Warner, and they want that song. I just had that song go from "Have fun with it" status to "You're screwed if you're playing it" status without anyone knowing.

      Now, take another scenario: I release a song on CC. I change one knob on a synth slightly, rerecord, and have a contract with Warner for the song. Who the hell is gonna be able to tell the difference?

    5. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Great opportunity for upstart talent who can persuade one of the few radio stations that can afford the $25k fee to play their music.

    6. Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent... by PPH · · Score: 1

      That assumes they release it on a "label" to begin with.

      What's magic about a 'label'? Back in the old days, one needed access to recording and vinyl pressing facilities. Hence, corporations with the cash to make this happen. Today, the only funding one needs is whatever it takes to upload your work.

      I put it on the internet without anything denoting it being licensed in any way.

      You're screwed. Or more accurately, your potential audience will be. You can't even be bothered to add a note conveying the right to download your work?

      Then, I get signed to Warner, and they want that song. I just had that song go from "Have fun with it" status to "You're screwed if you're playing it" status without anyone knowing.

      Lets look at an analogous situation with an artist switching from a small, independent label to Warner? What happens to all the records distributed by the first company? Do they become contraband? I don't think so. Once released (with rights properly defined), Warner is going to have a damned tough time convincing the courts to let it scoop up all the old copies. Now, for an Internet 'release' granting the right to download, copy and further distribute, things may be a little different. Since no records or CDs are being pressed, there is no single rights holder that Warner can contact to stop production. Once a work is released in this fashion, the rights, now granted to hundreds or thousands of people are going to be pretty tough to buy back. So Warner is going to have to take this into account when they make an offer for that work. Obviously, their offer will be much lower, since they have effectively lost control of that work. In fact, they probably won't bother.

      Now, take another scenario: I release a song on CC. I change one knob on a synth slightly, rerecord, and have a contract with Warner for the song. Who the hell is gonna be able to tell the difference

      That's subjective. But it isn't a novel problem. You have a contract with Warner to produce 'new' works. A five record deal, or whatever. I'm sure their lawyers have developed the legalese to prevent musicians from re-recording the same song over and over in different keys and submitting it to sasisfy their contractual obligations. Same goes for copying other people's works. The courts have established precedents for what constitutes a new creation and what's a copy (or a sample). Granted, its not perfect, but a smart artist isn't going to attract the wrath of Warner's legal department screwing around like that.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. SomaFM? by winphreak · · Score: 1

    What about SomaFM? How will this affect their royalty issues?

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    1. Re:SomaFM? by afidel · · Score: 1

      According to the message at the top of the news page they are $30K in the red for 1H'09 with the old royalty rates so probably not so good. If it wasn't for Pandora I would probably be sending them a couple hundred like in years past but I haven't listened in over a year.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:SomaFM? by winphreak · · Score: 1

      That's what I was afraid of as well.
      I didn't start donating until the ridiculous rates from a few years ago kicked in, but here's hoping they keep going strong.

      I'm thinking it would be best to just wait until they post on their blog about how it affects them. Either it'll be a huge sigh of relief, or a kick in the pants.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    3. Re:SomaFM? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I'll second this concern.

      I emailed Rusty (the founder) and he said they have contingency plans.
      Pandora? What a joke. I can't find the breadth of music I can find on SomaFM.

      I just want exposure to all these awesome tunes. I see no reason to not distribute this sort of great content some other way.

      --
      -
  15. $25,000 is not much for small businesses by panoptical2 · · Score: 0
    Guys... It's not that hard to get a small business loan of $25,000, if you present to the bank that you have the know-how (and a business degree would help). Plus from the TFA of a related story...

    All webcasters would pay a minimum fee of $25,000 for legal access to the music they stream, but that money could be applied to what they owe in royalties, making it more of a down payment.

    In other words, this is $25,000 that they would be normally paying anyway.

    1. Re:$25,000 is not much for small businesses by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some cases you are obviously correct.

      However in the case of the smaller stations this can be a daunting if not insurmountable price.

      Consider, a station which plays primarily alternative music sources, but plays *one song* from the RIAA catalog, once, in a year. Still out $25k for that one song.

      The pricing structure is clearly designed to exclude smaller and/or less mainstream stations.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:$25,000 is not much for small businesses by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whats the point of a loan if you can't pay the interest? Oh, your an American business, sorry, carry on...After all what could possibly go wrong.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    3. Re:$25,000 is not much for small businesses by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      If you're already playing so little then how hard would it be to cut that one song, or one dozen?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  16. HA! by binarybum · · Score: 1

    I bet their Friggin' "Ecstatic"! Most of the big broadcasters will easily make double the fee over the next year in increased traffic from all the people that no longer can listen to the really good smaller radio stations.

    --
    ôó
  17. Re:What about public domain music? (Podsafe) by FiskeBoller · · Score: 1

    I thought this might be addressed by the concept of "Podsafe" music which allows for free play over web (under Creative Commons license). However, it's not clear to me that Podsafe is always a guarantee for all types of web transmission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podsafe

  18. $25K Adds Barrier of Entry to Control net Radio by Hodejo1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A big reason that traditional radio stations are in the hands of conglomerates only is because the cost of the antenna, broadcast equipment, and the scarcity of available frequency makes it extremely expensive to start a new terrestrial radio station. A Net radio station only needs a Net connection and some open source applications. The 25K means individuals are no longer able to run a free Net radio station. It will also knock out college radio stations who simultaneously stream the terrestrial broadcasts they deliver for no fee. Hobby Net radio is dead in this country. Of course, the agreement only applies to the US so overseas folk can pick up the slack...for now. A shame really and not the win Pandora calls it. It just helps the mid-sized VC-funded

    1. Re:$25K Adds Barrier of Entry to Control net Radio by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pandora is basically in the pocketbooks of the RIAA. Pandora is no longer the small "fight for your rights to listen to music as you wish" radio station, but rather the MS of internet radio. What Pandora calls a win for internet radio, is the same as Ballmer calling something a win for operating systems. They only see themselves and one competitor. Pandora wants all the small stations (and Last.FM) to die as much as Ballmer wants Linux and OS X to die.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:$25K Adds Barrier of Entry to Control net Radio by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I wish I could mod you up to 11.

  19. Are you crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nobody makes music free, son.

    SOMEONE stole it from my music empire.

    And give me back those electrons you stole from my computer!

    1. Re:Are you crazy? by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Anonymous Coward wrote in response to a suggestion that the operator of an Internet radio station that is not a day job might be able to avoid the minimum royalty by playing only Free music:

      Nobody makes music free, son.

      SOMEONE stole it from my music empire.

      Are you referring to the mathematical near-certainty that a song's hook will inevitably match that of at least one of the millions of songs in BMI and ASCAP's repertory? Or the precedent set in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music that accidentally copying the hook of a song heard a half-decade ago is just as much a copyright infringement as what happens in the warez scene? Or both?

    2. Re:Are you crazy? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to the mathematical near-certainty that a song's hook will inevitably match that of at least one of the millions of songs in BMI and ASCAP's repertory?

      "Millions" is such a small, inadequate measure of a number matched up against the infinite possibilities for composition of a song.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Are you crazy? by Joren · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward wrote in response to a suggestion that the operator of an Internet radio station that is not a day job might be able to avoid the minimum royalty by playing only Free music:

      Nobody makes music free, son.

      SOMEONE stole it from my music empire.

      And give me back those electrons you stole from my computer!

      Are you referring to the mathematical near-certainty that a song's hook will inevitably match that of at least one of the millions of songs in BMI and ASCAP's repertory? Or the precedent set in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music that accidentally copying the hook of a song heard a half-decade ago is just as much a copyright infringement as what happens in the warez scene? Or both?

      Yes, you're correct. Specifically, he's referring to the often-cited example of the hook formed by an instrument tuned to produce a "whooshing" sound effect; this has been infringed upon repeatedly by Slashdot community-based artists shamelessly ripping each other off. Of course that, too, belongs somewhere in BMI / ASCAP's repertoire, and anyone employing the "whoosh!" sound in an online performance is therefore subject to royalty collection by SoundExchange on behalf of independent Slashdot artists everywhere. This is but one commonly known example of the electrons that have been stolen from Anonymous Coward's (TM) computer and music empire.

      --
      -- Joren
    4. Re:Are you crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bird! It's a plane! It doesn't matter, it's *WHOOOOOOOOSH* OVER YOUR HEAD!

  20. Think "COOP", not "Compete" by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look at it this way. You and 99 of your friends can now have all-you-can-eat streaming music for US$250/yr + costs, as long as your costs are US$100k (royalties are 25% of costs or revenue, whichever is higher) - running it as a coop means no revenue.

    Even better, you can offer it to everyone!

    Sounds like a great way to have a large, legal, on-demand music collection.

    1. Re:Think "COOP", not "Compete" by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

      slashdot ate my less than.

      "as long as your costs are _less_than_ US$100k"

      So, your cost is US$25k + Transmission and Hosting.

    2. Re:Think "COOP", not "Compete" by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      At $250/year, I could buy and OWN all the music I want in *maybe* two years time. That's being gracious. I can't think of 25 cd's produced by the MAFIAA in the last 5 years I would shell out the cash for on the *cheap* rack. It wouldn't take very many cd's to fill out what I don't already own.

    3. Re:Think "COOP", not "Compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdot ate my less than.

      Ever hear of character entities?

    4. Re:Think "COOP", not "Compete" by KrimZon · · Score: 1

      Maybe some day in the future computer scientists with PhDs will figure out an algorithm so that if you type a less than sign into a web form, it will show up on the page to the user as a less than sign instead of disappearing.

    5. Re:Think "COOP", not "Compete" by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great way to have a large, legal, on-demand music collection.

      No, they put in a number of rules trying to force internet radio mimic traditional radio, to and prevent people from getting songs on-demand and prohibit people from being able to anticipate-and-record the songs they want. If someone requests a particular song netradio is prohibited from playing that song for at least one hour. You also cannot publish play lists in advance. You are also prohibited from playing.... I think the rule is at most three songs from one album within an hour... and I think it's like three or maybe five songs by one artist within an hour.... or something like that. There are also some funky complex of rules prohibiting net radio from encouraging or making it easy for listeners to save the music, although fortunately thus far the RIAA has failed in their demands to impose mandatory DRM for internet radio. I tried out Pandora quite some time ago, and it was an unspoken fact that the music was in MP3 format with the files stored in your system temp folder. The files would be auto-deleted in time, but you could go in there and find the correct numbered file and pull it out and just rename it to whatever.MP3. I presume that is still true, if you use Pandora and probably most other internet "radio", it is trivial to keep the music files if you know how. Pandora is prohibited from telling you that, but you can do it manually, or you can use some other utility to automatically move the music files out of the temp folder and rename them properly.

      -

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  21. Play new music, not corporate label rehash. by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not only does this new deal not cover every country (the Internet has this global presence to it) but this new deal doesn't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US. Support artists who aren't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels, support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further, and you'll find there's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed. Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new.

  22. BILLY MAYS HERE... by BillyMays · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With double standards! Remind me again why streaming is any different from broadcasting over radio waves?

    1. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Because radio waves have a limited range.

    2. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the transmitter and the frequency. You can pick up the Vatican's shortwave transmission pretty much anywhere on the planet.

    3. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I approve of this forced Slashdot meme.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  23. This is an outrage! by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Small Internet Radio Stations cannot afford the minimum $25,000 a year fee to operate.

    This is the RIAA screwing over the small business and non-profit organizations in the music business. Next I suppose they will hit up DJs for a minimum fee for $25,000 a year to play Audio CDs and MP3 files they legally own?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:This is an outrage! by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be ASCAP, not the RIAA.

      "ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works. ASCAP's licensees encompass all who want to perform copyrighted music publicly."

      http://www.ascap.com/about/

  24. Ambiguous, too by S-100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perusing the info on SoundExchange, the wording is ambiguous. In the press release, they clearly say that all "Pure Play" webcasters, small and large, are subject to the $25,000 per year minimum fee against royalties. But in another section of the web site, they list the $25,000 fee in the section for large webcasters and say nothing about a minimum fee in the following section about small broadcasters. So there's a chance that the fee may not apply to small webcasters.

    It should also be said that this "special deal" is opt-in, and not compulsory. Webcasters are still free to adopt the rate structure established earlier by the CRB, however it was those rates that caused the revolt by webcasters in the first place, since those rates are so high that a typical small station could end up owing over 100% of revenues to Sound Exchange.

    1. Re:Ambiguous, too by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The $25,000 does sound very high. I'm a bit confused as to why this is considered a good deal, because my understanding of the CRB rates was that, for 2010, they were $0.0019/song/hour with a $500 minimum. There's no mention in TFA of a per-track fee, so it sounds like this is a special deal for the really big broadcasters to let them pay a fixed lump sum, rather than work out how much to pay.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Ambiguous, too by H310iSe · · Score: 1

      This is very true, the actual source materials about this agreement are scarce right now, I'm holding out hope that there will be some exemptions for 501.c and educational institutions at least.

      BTW in 2004, the minimum was $500. 2009 - $25,000.

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    3. Re:Ambiguous, too by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The $25,000 does sound very high. I'm a bit confused as to why this is considered a good deal

      Lets run some approximate math. Lets call a song 4 minutes long. 15 songs an hour, 360 a day, over 130,000 a year. Multiply that by the royalty rate you cites and multiply that by an average two listeners at any given moment, and you've already hit the $500 minimum fee. If you average 100 listeners at a time you've already hit the $25,000 minimum. I tried Googling Pandora's user figures but the best figure I can find is a 2008 Washington Post report that they have about 1 million listeners daily. Just to make up a figure lets say each listener connects for two and a half hours... that would give then a hundred thousand listeners at any given moment. That works out to somewhere around $25 million royalty Pandora has to pay per year.

      A tiny college net-radio with an average of just two listeners is already using up the full $500 minimum fee.

      The old fees that the RIAA got the government CARP panel to set absolutely exterminate indie webradio, and would have bankrupted even a "big" internet radio corporation like Pandora. I think under the new deal Pandora will "only" have to pay about ten million dollars a year, less than half the old rate. Indie radio is locked out of the lower cost system by the $25,000 per year entrance fee.

      The small webradio players and the bigger interests like Pandora were fighting to get the old killer rates struck down. By giving the "big" players this deal the RIAA have effectively removed them from the fight. Now College radio and the other little guys are on their own, and probably don't stand a chance in hell of getting the government to overturn the impossibly royalty rates set by the CARP panel, not with the RIAA lawyers and Washington lobbyists fighting to maintain them. The RIAA wants to exterminate small indie web radio because they tend to play music from small indie labels and small indie artists, and that is a threat to the RIAA machine.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  25. worksforme by Eil · · Score: 0

    So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.

    Fine by me. The stuff I want to listen to is not under the RIAA's or ASCAP's jurisdiction anyway.

    1. Re:worksforme by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      ...Thats what you think. Until your favorite radio station plays a song that might be part of there. Then cue the money-sucking drawn out trial where your favorite station will die even if they are found not to be infringing.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:worksforme by zegota · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wrong. EVERYTHING is under SoundExchange's jurisdiction. They have legal authority to collect fees for EVERYTHING, even artists not under the RIAA umbrella.

    3. Re:worksforme by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      They don't have the right to collect fees from free/public domain music!

    4. Re:worksforme by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

      Nonsense! If I write a song, under what law could I possibly have involuntarily and unknowingly entered a contract? That is theft, and clearly impossible.

      Or are you saying Microsoft has rights to any software I write, too? That Disney has rights to any screenplays I write?

      Prove it.

    5. Re:worksforme by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. If you want to distribute some music that is not in the public domain, you need a licence to do so. You can either get this from the copyright owner, or from SoundExchange. SoundExchange is the agency responsible for administering the compulsory licensing system for Internet streaming by the Copyright Royalty Board.

      If you have an explicit license for everything that you steam then you don't need to interact with the CRB of their proxy at all. The catch is that SoundExchange is collecting royalties for everything you play if you play a single song without an explicit license. If you want to play any music from an RIAA label, you need to pay the SoundExchange fees, even if it's just one track an hour (or per year) and all of the rest of what you play is creative commons / public domain / explicitly licensed for your use.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:worksforme by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Google Compulsory Licensing. There are a few cases where this applies in the USA. For example, if you want to record a cover of another song, you can get a license for it from the CRB for a fixed rate, or you can try to negotiate a lower rate with the songwriter. If you get the compulsory license then the songwriter has to collect the royalties from the CRB. Internet radio streaming is another case of this, but in this case SoundExchange has been appointed as the CRB's representative.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:worksforme by skeeto · · Score: 1

      SoundExchange doesn't actually have a website anymore so I can't link to any direct information, but here is Wikipedia's article,

      SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses; these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf and distributed to them."

      So let's say you sing into your computer microphone your own song, so it is 100% written and performed by you, then let an Internet radio station play it. SoundExchange will collect royalties for it and there is no way to opt-out of this. That's right, it is required to pay them for something you created.

      Supposedly if you register with them they might give you a cut, but only after they take out an "administrative fee".

      Yeah, it's total bullshit. It really is stealing. That's how fucked up copyright is in the US.

    8. Re:worksforme by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in the US, there is no clear legal mechanism for releasing a work into the public domain, so your comment probably only applies to very, very old recordings.

      As for free, if you mean Free Culture music then that's not true: they still get to collect royalties for those as well.

    9. Re:worksforme by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      As I understand the issues, that's a problem for the artists, not the broadcasters. SoundExchange can collect royalties and issue statutory licenses for any artist, whether or not the artist registers to receive royalties from them, but broadcasters are free to ignore SoundExchange if they so choose. Such broadcasters must negotiate with the copyright holders on their own for the necessary licenses to operate legally.

      For example, it shouldn't be necessary to deal with SoundExchange if you only play Creative Commons music, as you already have a license and don't require the higher-cost statutory licenses they're offering.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:worksforme by shantipole · · Score: 1

      I request a royalty waiver from the artists and non-RIAA affiliated labels I play on the podcast (and soon streaming radio station) in exchange for promotion and a offering a method for listeners of purchasing their music through either CD Baby, iTunes or Amazon. Many artists have told me they make more from their CD Baby sales than through any royalty payments that they never seem to get anyways.

    11. Re:worksforme by djMouton · · Score: 1

      I can testify as a 100% independent, Cakewalk-in-the-bedroom, self-releasing musician that I submitted a form at soundexchange.com back in 2008 and was kind of shocked when they later sent me a (very small) "Webcast Royalty Statement". Despite the copious OpenMusic / Creative Commons language on my website and CDs.

      They're everywhere, man.

    12. Re:worksforme by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Google Compulsory Licensing

      And it's not in beta anymore, so be afraid!

  26. Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by tepples · · Score: 1

    But there would be still no proof that you were playing the CC licensed one rather then the Warner licensed one because they are the same product.

    In the software world, that's called "dual licensing". As I understand most licenses for free software or free cultural works, individual copies aren't offered under the license; the work is offered under the license, and once it is so offered, such a license can't be revoked. For all the jury knows, I could have copied the work from any redistributor under a CC license. I'd like to see how you think a WMG lawyer would defeat reliance on a CC license.

    1. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to see how you think a WMG lawyer would defeat reliance on a CC license.

      Simply by taking them to court you can crush a lot of small stations. When given the option of A) shutting down and WMG will waive the fee B) paying some sort of large (but not huge) fee like $5000 or C) being sued for $50000+. Most stations, especially those ran by individuals in their spare time would simply choose to shut down. The fee could cause a sharp increase in operating costs so the "ad free" station suddenly has more ads then terrestrial radio. If they go to court, they might keep operating for some time, but eventually the court costs could drain their operating costs budget to where they can't afford it. Even if the internet radio people win, they still lose.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I expect that the FSF, and/or other like-minded associations would be willing to buck up and support the first few stations to get sued that way...

      Thankfully, Copyright law has a 'loser pays' rule which means that, once you show that you there's a CC licensed version of your song, it's up to the RIAA lawyers to prove (on the balance of the probabilites, with a tie being in your favor) that you were playing a non-CC version of that song.

      If they fail to do so (and they're likely to fail if they're suing on false pretenses), then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    3. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they fail to do so (and they're likely to fail if they're suing on false pretenses), then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.

      And if I de of old age before they actually give up trying its a Pyrrhic victory. Just look at SCO vs IBM... if IBM were an individual person instead of the massive corporation it is, SCO would have one simply by wearing them down into insolvency.

    4. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The courts are much less receptive to delaying tactics when a large company is suing an individual. If you can show that the song was licensed under CC at some point, it is unlikely that the appellate courts would accept appeals.
      The only problem with this approach is the necessity of keeping careful records of CC (or other free) licensing for every version of every song that you play.
      It actually presents an interesting idea, can a songwriter license a song so that all recordings of it are also CC'd?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      No. A songwriter can license a work such that all recordings are either available under a CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA license, or are infringing. However, that does not buy you much. You cannot force the infringing copy to be relicensed (although one could force it to cease being distributed, and the performer may prefer relicensing to that). If you play that infringing copy on the radio, you owe royalties to the performer (assuming the work was licensed as such) even though the work is infringing.

      Further, all of the above ignores the idiotic Compulsory Licensing, which as I understand it, would allow a performance to be neither CC licensed, nor infringing, providing they pay a third party a large sum, which will be held for you, but which you cannot access without signing a draconian contract, which will rid you of may of your rights to the work.

      The sad fact is that US Copyright Law for music is highly corrupted, with multiple special exceptions that do not apply in the case of virtually any other kind of work.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    6. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      All the Compulsory Licensing means is that you cannot refuse to license your work to someone who pays SoundExchange. It doesn't mean that you can't provide them with a license that allows them to play/broadcast your work without paying SoundExchange.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Alsee · · Score: 1

      if IBM were an individual person instead of the massive corporation it is, SCO would have one simply by wearing them down into insolvency.

      You mean the case where massive corporation IBM is wearing SCO down into insolvency?

      Sorry, that tickled my seriously twisted sense of humor.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You mean the case where massive corporation IBM is wearing SCO down into insolvency?

      Not quite. IBM's suit against SCO has been played to win, not played to wear SCO into insolvency through endless proceedings and delaying tactics. At this point insolvency is the likely endgame for SCO, but I genuinely don't think that was IBMs strategy.

      They've never done anything to really deliberately drag the case out or to maximize its expense.

      That seemed to be SCO's game from the start.

    9. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Obviously you can use whatever license you want on your work. The problem is that if they don't like the license, they can bypass it just by paying.

      The actual statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html

      Anybody who pays has the right to create a recording of the song and sell it. In the alternative they may buy a license to sell an existing copy of the work.

      However, I was mistaken. The Compulsory license precludes any possibility of copyright protection on the new recording (as a derivative), despite the fact that the work would otherwise have that protection. That would apparently give the copyright holder full rights to the new recording, although obviously non-exclusive with respect to production and sale of the new recording.

      Therefore, the original copyright holder can license the new recording under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA.

      This does leave the issue of somebody who creates a new recording of the song, but failed to obtain a compulsory license, and refuses to offer the work under the CC license. AIUI, they would have copyright protections on the recording, but due to being a derivative, cannot produce and sell copies without a license from the original copyright holder.

      But lets say they ignored that, and just infringed the copyright of the original copyright holder.
      the result of this would be a copy of the work that cannot be used under a CC license since a copyright holder refuses to place the work under that license. In fact it can't be distributed at all without infringement. I don't believe even a compulsory license could make it distributable, since the phonorecord had been fixed without permission of a copyright holder and without utilizing the compulsory license.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    10. Re:Please show that CC licenses can be revoked by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Yes yes :) The issue leading into your post was the problem of massive corporations unjustly win in court just by litigation costs wiping out the little guy, and then your post pointed to SCO being worn down into insolvency... and you post pretty explicitly placed the "blame" for that on the fact that IBM is a massive corporation rather than an individual... if someone are unaware of the special circumstances of the SCO case or if you play devils advocate.... all of the logic and the entire picture is perfectly painted to cast SCO in the victim role, losing only because of the size of big bad megacorp IBM. Which is hysterical. It's essentially correct, except for the victim/villain roles being bizarro flipped.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  27. Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by alexfeig · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been listening to pandora since it came out - I'm a huge fan. I got this email yesterday... pretty interesting. Apparently I like their free service *too* much:

    I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack.

    I'm writing with some important news. Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining.

    First, I want to let you know that we've reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007. After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates â" thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill. We are deeply thankful.

    While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web. Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone. Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.

    We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you. We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you:

    Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month. This isn't a subscription. You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month. You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download.



    Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One. Pandora One costs $36 per year. In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: http://www.pandora.com/pandora_one.

    If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when youâ(TM)re not listening. Weâ(TM)ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and weâ(TM)ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours youâ(TM)ve already used each month.

    Weâ(TM)ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), Iâ(TM)d welcome your feedback and suggestions. The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.

    1. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      about 10% of our users who are our heaviest listeners

      I wonder how many of those are "the whole office"? I know a few offices I've been to where Pandora replaced the workplace radio. There must be a reason we were daily reminded that "The station you listen to all day, every day at work is WRQX". Those listeners belong to Pandora at the moment, but I don't think anyone's going to be paying for the privilege.

    2. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's not even legal to start, the compulsory licensing for digital distribution does *not* cover public performance in a place of business. There's a reason Musak is so popular, there are really complicated sections of the copyright statutes covering that are of performance. Basically ASCAP and BMI both want to get their due for the public performance of copyrighted works.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post this e-mail myself.

      I find it curious that just $1 can cover the difference between listening 40 hours a month to listening three or four times that amount (which I used to do, though now I spend more time on Hulu). I plan to take advantage of it, but I have to wonder just what the margins are.

    4. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      the compulsory licensing for digital distribution does *not* cover public performance in a place of business

      Yeah, I was wondering about that even as I wrote it... is it a public performance if it's only for employees, though? My chiropractor's office would clearly be a public performance, since patients come through there in the normal course of business, just like restaurant patrons. But what about, I dunno, the employee lounge of a gym? And do the rules differ for streaming radio vs. terrestrial radio, or do ASCAP/BMI not draw a distinction?

      My thought was that if we're being told "the station you listen to at work is..." then the radio station wants us to listen at work. Of course, the radio station and the songwriters might disagree on that point. I took a whole semester on licensing rules, but I've blocked out the trauma.

    5. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by afidel · · Score: 1

      ASCAP/BMI do not distinguish between modes of acquiring the performance, they only care about the fact that it is a public performance. The radio station may want you to listen but they do not represent the rights holders. Finally there is a difference between listening to the radio at your desk and music piped in through the building speakers or used in a voicemail/on hold system. Think of it like Shareware that prohibits commercial use without a license, if you are using it in a business setting then you need to license it appropriately.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      That actually sounds amazing to me - $0.99 if you listen more than (roughly) 1 1/4 hours every single day in a given month; otherwise, free. Unless you're philosophically opposed to paying anything, it's hard to imagine a better deal. Makes me want to check it out.

    7. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Given that $1/month is one third the price of $36/year, I wonder how they will get Pandora One subscribers. That almost sounds as appealing as a "Buy one, get another at double the price!" deal.

    8. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The law defines "private performance" to be friends, family, and broadly including your social circle. Business associates and coworkers would generally fall within your social circle for parties and other socializing, but performance in any business establishment - including internal offices or an employee lounge or gym - is definitely commercial in nature.

      Stores or other businesses that play music have to pay a special licensing fee. Hell, bars with TVs have complex rules and have to pay fees. I'm not sure, but a bar with a single TV below a certain size *might* be exempt from fees under certain strict limitations, but something like a sports bar with multiple large screen TVs has to pay a much bigger fee.

      What you've been doing is technically against copyright law, but if I were working in your office I'd suggest someone just pay the $36/year Pandora subscription and not worry about that technicality, assuming it's some small office. If you're in some megacorp piping the music throughout the building then it would wise to go through proper channels and fees.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Given that $1/month is one third the price of $36/year, I wonder how they will get Pandora One subscribers.

      The free (or $1/month) version is 128kbps and has ads. The $36 service is ad-free with higher quality 192kbps music.

      They mention a few other "benefits", but they are all pretty trivial and I don't think they really count as they are nothing you couldn't do simply by customizing things on your own computer anyway.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Unless you're philosophically opposed to paying anything, it's hard to imagine a better deal.

      I agree it's a great deal, but I just want to point out that the difference between "free" and "$0.99" is a lot bigger than ninety nine cents. The hassle of stopping to actually pay one dollar over the internet generally "costs" a lot more than the dollar itself.

      This is why micropayments on the internet constantly fail. I, and millions of other people, think nothing of pulling out a credit card to buy some $50 or $200 or more item over the net, but it just isn't worthwhile to screw around with credit cards or even more complex methods for something small. The physical and psychological difference between "free" and "one cent" on the internet is probably like $10 or more to most people.

      Free Pandora is great, and the ad-free and higher quality $36 service is a good deal if you really use it a lot, but screwing around with one dollar credit card payments twelve times a year is a very awkward arrangement.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim) by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      You're right that paying something is a lot more hassle than paying nothing. But I doubt you'd have to enter your payment information more than once. Automatic micropayments to the same company are a lot easier than whipping out your card every time you visit a new web site.

  28. Who cares about smaller internet radio stations? by wasmoke · · Score: 1

    To be honest, the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area. With internet radio, Y no longer matters, and for many stations like Pandora and Last.fm neither does X, as they offer many different genres. Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station? What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?
    These aren't rhetorical questions- If anyone prefers a smaller station to a larger I'd like to know why.

  29. Solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We need to come up with a way to do "pirate" internet radio....

    Some way to stream anonymously...P2P style, but untraceable? A freenet type thing for pirate internet radio, and that way, ANYONE could broadcast. Not a way really to make money, but, if someone wants to play DJ. You could set up nym email accounts, and communicate with your public, and still avoid identification.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Solution... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of DCC. Fire up your IRC client. Transfer files directly from one computer to the other. I can't think of any reason a stream can't be sent over that connection - to Linux, EVERYTHING is a file. Just set up your mixer to stream to the correct file, and it should work beautifully. I've no idea how many computers can be DCC'd to at the same time - One? a hundred?

      My question, though, is why? I have almost all the music I want to listen to on my hard drives. I can set up a play list, or just play the entire collection randomly, so why do I want to do internet radio? Especially with my slow DSL connection.

      Oh, wait. I forgot. People with fast connections want that streaming just because they can, right?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Solution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Of course this isn't the end of the internet radio. Just host a server in the EU and you're good to go.

      Don't you just loooooove the internet? =D

      --
      Here be signatures
    3. Re:Solution... by Yogiz · · Score: 1

      Run you radio station on I2P.

    4. Re:Solution... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      People listen to radio because the world doesn't exist just on their hard drives. Even IF you had all the music that has ever existed you still won't have all the *new* music that will exist, and you would have no way of expanding your musical tastes (or, at the very least, sampling new stuff).

      More to the point, people listen to INTERNET radio because it's convenient and offers better services than over-the-air radio, such as Pandora, that tailor the music stream according to your tastes. Moreover, Pandora, for example, doesn't play just mainstream stuff, so I would have never found bands like Liquid Tension Experiment or Marty Friendman's album Music for Speeding (to give just a few examples) if it weren't for Pandora. I also would never be able to listen to a continuous stream of D&B if Shoutcast didn't exist.

      And the best part? It's all free (for now). And mostly commercial-free too. In fact, you don't need a fancy connection to stream music over the internet -- I streamed Pandora over the EDGE network on my way to work this morning (a 60-mile, 1.5 hour commute), and it had only two hiccups in the very beginning!

      If you can find similar services without using the internet, I'm all ears...

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
  30. Jamendo...anyone? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Creative Commons music for the people who tire of Pandora...

    http://www.jamendo.com/en/

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  31. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."

    Perhaps -- On the other hand, people who make music available without royalty (thus staying outside of the CARB system) -- such as Creative Commons licenses, or even non-CC licenses which simply explicitly allow On-Air radio stations that aren't part of CARB to play them -- might find themselves with a boon as they will then be the only music that small radio stations will be able to play.

    If I was a small (or even not-so-small) musician that wanted my music to get play, I'd probably release my music on a license that allowed people who haven't signed up for CARB to play my music royalty free, but had standard fees for stations that had paid the CARB $25K minimum (I mean, why give up royalties that have already been allocated to me?).

    That way, smaller stations can play my music, and the larger stations (that really make money) can give me my fair share of CARB royalties if/when I get big enough to attract the attention of the larger stations.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  32. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, except it hasn't happened yet and there's already been plenty of reasons to not listen to mainstream label music.

    The main reason probably being that 99% of indie music really really sucks, and people don't want to have to look for that 1%.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  33. 'the royalty crisis is over!' by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Oh really? I guess since Pandora came out stinking like a rose, it must be true. I mean, it's not like anybody else matters or anything...I wonder where Clear Channel is..."Consortium"? Somebody misspelled cartel... fuckers... Long live "pirate" radio...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  34. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know if you've noticed, but 99% of commercial music sucks, too. It just has better marketing.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  35. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    ...people don't want to have to look for that 1%.

    Don't have to. I just run it through the "good music" filter in iTunes. That's what computers are for.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  36. Two words...Media PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just some food for thought...but alot of people are already paying for music. I know I am...My Dish Network service comes with 'most' of the Sirius channels. I have a small ~$200 media PC setup to stream TV2 for both video and audio. It has a small web interface that i built that lets me switch channels on the dish box. I have three streams...one for highBW video/audio (512Kbps), one for low res video/audio (128Kbps), and one for audio only (96Kbps). With this $200 box, I stream out all the TV/Radio that i am already paying for for use on my laptop/blackberry..and um yes...work (music only...I promise :D)

    So why am i talking about a media PC on this thread?

    People who actualy use these 'free' internet radio site are probably paying for the music they love already(cable/dish/etc...). For the price of a low end ipod and some time...anyone can take that power away from the record commpanies. SlingBox is another example...but the PC (Actualy...i hate calling them PCs lately because of the stupid MS comercials...so lets say...Penguin...New phrase "It's a Penguin"...that would be a good comercial...lol...anyways i digress) is more versital.

    People talk about how they 'hate' the record companies...my advice...there are ways of fighting back without lawyers or HUGE money involved....Help me lead the revolution 1 Media PC at a time.

    Adam - (PS. I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward)

    1. Re:Two words...Media PC by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Adam - (PS. I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward)

      No offense, Adam, but if you're unable to figure out how to create a slashdot user ID, then maybe we're better off without you :)

      My suggestion is to set up a dummy email account at a free service, create your slashdot user with that email ID, then change your email address to your main in your profile. Likely for some reason you never got the email the first time you tried to set it up, and now slashdot prevents a new account from being created with the same email address.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  37. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by SUB7IME · · Score: 1

    The lyrics suck, and the sounds are often atrocious, but the beats are unfailingly catchy. Indie bands tend to eschew that.

  38. Re:Who cares about smaller internet radio stations by Thalaric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I you were a starting entrepreneur who wanted to become one of those large internet radio stations some day your view might be different. Artificially high barriers of entry into an industry are rarely beneficial to society. From a purely economic standpoint, competition is generally a good thing.

  39. I see a solution... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Why not broadcast the music and the "DJ" separately? The DJ says, "Here's a song you'll like" and sends a JSON packet to your browser, telling it to (a) listen to it on Pandora or Last.fm or something, and (b) switch back to the DJ when the song is done.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    1. Re:I see a solution... by yincrash · · Score: 1

      What is this a solution for exactly?

    2. Re:I see a solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that co-op idea will work (isn't the $25k for each radio stream?) but this, I like

    3. Re:I see a solution... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      What is this a solution for exactly?

      The DJ (or more likely the DJ's employer) can avoid the $25K/yr streaming music fee. It instead gets borne by the (presumable larger) streaming service (who presumably has ways of recouping the costs of people listening to their streams).

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  40. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It takes more than a beat to make good music.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  41. Re:Who cares about smaller internet radio stations by iksbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area

    The point of traditional radio stations is to cover costs (and preferably make a profit) with revenue from advertisers by distributing their material to the populace. The populace generally isn't interested in listening to advertisements all day long, so the radio stations must provide material the populace is interested in, with advertisements thrown in periodically. Range "Y" is an artifact of radio broadcasting and power limitations imposed by the FCC to allow wider use of radio spectrum. I agree that the internet's nearly infinite supply of spectrum eliminates the need for any kind of range limitations. Genre "X" limitations are similarly a radio spectrum issue and need not exist on the internet.

    Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station? What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?

    Try turning that around: "What can the large one offer that the smaller one cannot if they are both free?" Really, I would expect a larger entity to develop into a far more bureaucratic system, making it slow to respond to listener's changing interests and requests. Further, large entities are somewhat resilient to legal action and more difficult to reconstruct, making them more easily controlled by external parties such as large copyright holders. Such legal action on a small entity would likely crush it, but a new one could quickly sprout up in the hole left by the original. Going back to the original question: "What can the small one offer that the larger cannot i they are both free?" Simply put, adaptability and resistance against external corruption. These qualities do not mesh well with the music industry's legacy business model, thus the attempt to eliminate them with a $25,000 minimum charge. I would be interested to see what kind of logical knots they try to tie in their attempts to defend this minimum.

  42. Anonymous Coward-Fuck You By the Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a small public radio-streaming- station volunteer DJ I would like to say that I resent extremely being made into a shill for
    Amazon and ITunes and Spinitron which now through federal mandate has the right to collect playlists ( and sell the data )
    as well as to direct inquiries to 'for profit' music sales sites. Pirate radio was and is the only way to go. We are a local station and
    'streaming' ( except for vanity ) is of dubious value. Screw these people. I don't expect to be taken seriously on this issue,
    the lure of the internet is too strong. too sad too bad. It should be about the music and the music alone. Uncle Willy

  43. Re:Trade Industries by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    This is sounding like we have to create the Kurt Godel Day to get out of this.

    Anyone know who the lead trade groups are for pictures?
    "Hi. My friend Logan sent me his pr0n and a "enhancement support" file. When decrypted by NSA backdoor methods, bitmapped by Bruce Schneier's birthday, XOR'ed by the original pr0n and then "evaluated by a special program" well, the result JUST MIGHT sound like music."

    So does Sound Exchange really want to trade in Pr0n?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  44. Re:Who cares about smaller internet radio stations by S-100 · · Score: 1

    Just because there may be a few large stations that play the kind of music that you are interested in, it doesn't mean that everyone would be satisfied with the available selections. Would you make the same argument about movies or books? Sure, if you're main interest in radio is top 20 hits, you don't have to search for smaller stations (an no smaller stations would bother with such a generic playlist). But for many, the hunt for the ideal music station is part of the fun. Terrestrial radio is a vast wasteland of narrow genres and pre-packaged Clear Channel swill. And many don't want to see the same thing happen to Internet radio.

  45. I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you host offshore they have no jurisdiction.....just a thought

  46. Still dangerous by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    > then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.

    Theoretically, that might be true, but don't forget that the court still reviews the documentation of costs incurred and has full liberty to award less than the amount claimed.

  47. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by greg1104 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's broader than that--90% of everything is crud

  48. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by V!NCENT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Music is rythm, not melody. And as a Techo lover I have to disagree with your statements.

    --
    Here be signatures
  49. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    It also helps that people like it better.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  50. Stream from Canada (or other country) loophole? by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Could a college radio station set up a streaming server in another country to avoid these fees?

    Station has a connection to Canadian server, and all streaming to listeners is done from Canada, or some other country with minimal copyright restrictions.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  51. No. 10 !! No. 10 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, houseboy !! Put the silverware back !!

  52. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    True, all you need to do is pump up the volume pump up the volume pump up the volume.

  53. Internet radio needs to step up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run one of those small streams, it's a niche music genre, playing only public domain music just isn't an option because most of the stuff I play was recorded in the early 60's by musicians who are long gone. It's not as if you can simply replace the likes of Frank Sinatra!

    That said, I've not found a single source for :15 psa's, brief messages that urge people to take action. I have found 2 minute psa's.. but they're long, complicated, don't really compell you to do anything and worst of all, the length of them will cause people to drop the connection. I want 15 second, funny PSA's that call people to action.

    If we small webcasters could just get together some how and produce small, funny 15 second PSA's summarizing the problems and what listeners should do, we could send a message to congress that internet radio is viable, important and most important, don't p*ss off webcasters lest your political career go up in smoke.

    The infamous "day of silence" was one thing, but it didn't really convey what a listener was supposed to do, all it did was cause them to look for another stream to listen to.

    We need to realize what we have and take advantage of it, we are the media and if we (collectively) wanted to, we could harm any politician that takes the side of the RIAA.

    So.. why don't we?

    1. Re:Internet radio needs to step up! by myspace-cn · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's right...

      "We need to realize what we have and take advantage of it, we are the media and if we (collectively) wanted to, we could harm any politician that takes the side of the RIAA."

      Like uh, you mean the vice president Biden?

      lemme see if I can remember about Biden and RIAA or BIDEN and DRM... Oh that's right, he's a piece of shit on it all, just like Holt is on electronic voting machines.

      Fascism. Plain and Simple. But hey, it's only the small stations. I am just a web user... that's right keep justifying this fascist shit in your minds. When your finally living in a shanty town and the armed cops are telling you to move every 24 hours keep justifying this nanny state bullshit fascist crap.

      Don't vote for a D or R ever again! (with the exception of Kucinich and Paul) And protest until all electronic voting machines are outlawed

  54. what about rant radio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are in canada. is this anything like socan?

  55. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by sam0vi · · Score: 1

    I have also come to think, does this only apply to the US? I would think so, so there's nothing to worry about for the rest of the world. (Sometimes somebody needs to remark the US-centric news that are not tagged so)

    --
    When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
  56. The answer to SE is .se by myspace-cn · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Run the streaming station in Sweden.

    The fucking United States has gone completely fascist. A couple more years and you won't even be able to find a small band in your own fucking hometown.

    I helped develop a Streaming Radio back when it was an early thing. I left after completing my part of the code. I watched them go through hell of shit with all this nonsense over the years. It would really be easier to just do a show on public access. From a tech point, there isn't much to streaming shit. We had edit files on home boxes then transfer (stream) them to a remote FBSD box that had hella bandwidth. A little interfacing to read back what the fuck was playing and add a forum, some graphics boom your up.

    Then I hear some shit about they want a detailed list of what was played. heh. Then more, then more then more. Obviously this game has reached it's last stages of fascism for the USA.

    It could be argued this would go against the 1st amendment. Especially when we are talking about streaming unsigned bands only. But our congress is owned by corporations. ergo fascism.

    What's next?

    I predict.

    Streaming Video tax?
    Blog Tax?
    RSS feed tax?
    Soda tax?
    Thieving fucking bankster tax?
    More cigarette tax?
    Water tax?
    Air tax?

    But, maybe just maybe the American people will turn off the fucking TV get off their ass and protest in the streets until the fuckwads are in jail and the constitution is restored.

    Really there's not much left now. Our government is hiding it from you seeing the big picture.

    But if you leave that TV on, you'll just the stupid fucking sheep who will vote for a D or an R yet again. That is if your stupid fucking vote even comes out of the electronic voting machine.

    I can't fucking believe I SERVED THIS COUNTRY!!!

    1. Re:The answer to SE is .se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you tell them! The US is a very difficult place for anyone to do business because of patents, red tape and stupid charges. They call it the land of the free, but really it's the land of restrictions.

  57. Will keep going until shutdown. by VertigoMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a DJ on a small shoutcast station I can tell you that we have no plans to stop broadcasting. We have a maximum capacity of 250 listeners, though I think we average around 70. Yep, we are going to stay on the air until they force us to shutdown. We might be small enough to fly under the radar for some time. I think that might be the case with a lot of the small home based stations.

    1. Re:Will keep going until shutdown. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you have no personal responsibility for station expenses. Ask a lawyer if any million-buck fees will be absorbed by bankruptcy, or if you might be personally liable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  58. Social corruption, only if you let them. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement? I fail to see how an agreement between certain parties in this mess affects other parties who are not signatory to the agreement. That doesn't make any sense.

    1. Re:Social corruption, only if you let them. by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement?

      Congress created copyright law, and by law a copyright holder can sue you in court for copyright infringement, and the courts will enforce it and if necessary bring in gun-toting police to enforce the authority of the court.

      But then it gets more complicated. Congress passed a new law specifically to deal with "internet radio" webcasting. This law set up something called CARP - the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel - an the law authorized this panel to listen to industry lobbyists and set "reasonable" copyright payment rates for webcasters. The panel was directed to set the rates according to what willing-buyers and willing-sellers would agree to pay on their own under normal free market conditions. The payment rates set by this panel have the force of law.

      What then happened is that the RIAA represents a multi-billion dollar industry with huge influence in Washington and with an army of lawyers and with an army of lobbyists and with effective monopoly power to dictate manipulative contract terms. The RIAA then made a deal with Yahoo (and maybe one or two others others) to license Yahoo to webcast the RIAA's copyrighted music. The RIAA manipulated this deal to inflate the apparent royalty rate. The RIAA then submitted this inflated rate to CARP, as evidence of the "natural free market price that willing-buyers and willing-sellers would reach on their own", and the RIAA used all their industry power and Washington influence to influence the CARP process. Webcasting - being brand new and mostly small upstarts and things like college radio - their interests had little or no representation before the CARP panel, and of course they got STOMPED. CARP set impossibly high royalty rates webcasters had to pay. It set impossibly high rates that would exterminate both small and large webcasting. Rates that effectively prohibited any sort of internet radio.

      Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to pay, bills far larger than than any money they had and larger than any gross-revenues coming in from webcasting. College radio and similar small and indie webcasters would get smacked with huge retroactive bills and shut down, and larger webcasters would literally have to file for bankruptcy. Webcasters large and small all screamed that the CARP set unfair and impossibly high rates, and they increasingly got their act together as an "interest group" to challenge the CARP ruling, and it appears they were going to be successful in having to reversed.

      The RIAA then made a NEW deal with large webcasters. A deal that eliminated the impossibly high per-song-per-listener fee, and allowed them to pay according to a completely different and lower cost payment system While this was a "private contract", according to the CARP system other webcasters would also have the right to opt-in to those terms if they wanted to. The terms of this contract set a vastly higher minimum fee specifically to lock out smaller webcasters. The original CARP system had a $500 minimum payment for college radio and other indie webcasters (with per-song-per-listener fees going up from there), the new deal set a $25,000 dollar yearly minimum fee.

      So the RIAA has effectively split the webcaster interest group that were fighting to get the CARP rates reversed. The RIAA gave the large webcasters a deal they could survive with, and effectively eliminated the "big muscle" on the webcaster side fighting the original CARP rates. College radio and other indie webcasters lose the little corporate support and legal support and Washington lobby influence they had. The small webcasters are unlikely to be able to effectively oppose the CARP ruling on their own, and will likely be exterminated.

      So small webcasters are *not* bound by this particular agreement, but they are still bound by the CARP panel fees backed by the force of Congressional law. In fact small webcaster

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Social corruption, only if you let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Complicated

    3. Re:Social corruption, only if you let them. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to pay

      So they change the law, and then go after people for committing a "crime" for behavior that wasn't illegal before the law was changed? Now, that sounds goddamn unConstitutional to me.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Social corruption, only if you let them. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Thanks, this is perhaps the best explanation of the situation I have seen. It even explains their motives instead of simply saying "they're evil".

      I went to add you as a friend, but it seems you're already added as one. I'm not surprised :)

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  59. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by V!NCENT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fsck yes!

    Mind the giant lasers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7Q4E66O7A

    --
    Here be signatures
  60. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by makomk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IIRC, in order to be able to actually obtain the royalties paid to SoundExchange for playing your music, you have sign a contract agreeing not to undercut them by licensing your music for radio play any other way. (Yes, this is evil - especially as SoundExchange is the statutory licensing organisation, so even if you don't sign up the radio stations can pay money to them to play your songs.)

  61. Reason: Payola! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet the only reason it got cheaper now, is because those "big" radios finally bought into Payola.

    For $25,000 they now can play everything they want, as long as it's what the RIAA tells them to play.

    Luckily, I and my Internet radios never cared, and never will!

    Some of them are even illegal by government rules (like the idiotic UK laws), which makes them real analog "pirate" radios too!

    But I either listen to them or to my mp3s. I could never go back to that pop shit that is "normal" radio stations. My musical knowledge of rare bands of the UK, Russia, Japan, UK, France, etc, grew massively since I listen to Internet radio. To me it's the second most important killer feature of the Internet. Right after porn!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  62. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    That's because a large amount of commercial music these days is just covering someone else's work, or sampling it. They didn't actually make the good part themselves.

  63. Music isn't as infinite as you might think by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Millions" is such a small, inadequate measure of a number matched up against the infinite possibilities for composition of a song.

    Possibilities in music aren't as infinite as you might think. There are only a few notes in the scale, and there are only a few notes in a song's hook. Remember that the standard is "substantial similarity", not "exact copying of the entire work". This should explain better.

    1. Re:Music isn't as infinite as you might think by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      Possibilities in music aren't as infinite as you might think. There are only a few notes in the scale, and there are only a few notes in a song's hook.

      Yes. And also, out of all possible melodies, most will sound "wrong" (and/or be impossible to sing). Music theory is the study of what makes music sound "right" or "good" - the rules are not absolute, but describe the sounds that people have naturally preferred. And while there have been lots of experimenters who made atonal music, or songs that are in two different keys simultaneously, or music that consists of noise, almost nobody likes that sort of thing.

      Consequently, there are many fewer "good-sounding" melodies than the math would suggest.

  64. $500, not $25,000, apparently by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Slashdot Error: The minimum is $500, not $25,000, as the Slashdot story says. In all these years, the company that owns Slashdot has not learned the basic elements of editing.

    I assumed, in my grandparent comment, that the Slashdot story was correct, and was shocked at the amount.

    This government PDF file seems to say $500, also: Final Determination Of Rates And Terms, Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA (PDF) Quote: "(b) Minimum fee. Each Commercial Webcaster and Noncommercial Webcaster will pay an annual, nonrefundable minimum fee of $500 for each calendar year or part of a calendar year of the license period during which they are Licensees pursuant to licenses under 17 U.S.C. 114."

    1. Re:$500, not $25,000, apparently by Quantumstate · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you had read the summary you might have worked out that the story is about a new agreement on fees. This means that your wikipedia article on what the fees have previously been is completely irrelevant. If you had then RTFA you would find that the summary is correct.

    2. Re:$500, not $25,000, apparently by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the actual agreement, the government document to which I linked, you will see that the Wikipedia article is correct. I can find no mention of anything different than $500.

    3. Re:$500, not $25,000, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The document you cited was agreed on in 2005. This is NOT the agreement discussed in the /. article. Check the dates on your document, it is effective from 01/01/06-12/31/10.

  65. Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    They plan on using the power of government to enforce the agreement.

    However, the Slashdot story seems to be in error. The amount should be $500, not $25,000, apparently.

    1. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's not an answer. Are you saying that the FCC or somebody would enforce it? The FCC has no authority over the Internet. Who is supposed to enforce this, and more importantly, what gives them the authority to do so???

      People complain about losing their rights and liberties, but all too often they do not ask these simple questions.

      If you have the answers, I would be interested in knowing them. But I give it about 50/50 that you do not.

    2. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      No...lawyers will...by forcing those who do not sign the agreements into bankruptcy due to overwhelming legal fees defending copyright infringement suits brought against them because they have not been given the RIGHT to play the music by signing the aforementioned agreements....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    3. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Informative

      From Wikipedia:

      The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 together granted a performance right for sound recordings. As a result, copyright law now requires that users of music pay the copyright owner of the sound recording for the public performance of that music via certain kinds of digital transmissions.

      From the Library of Congress, Section 3f2: ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104dVWooD:e844: )

      `(2) In the absence of license agreements negotiated under paragraph (1), during the 60-day period commencing 6 months after publication of the notice specified in paragraph (1), and upon the filing of a petition in accordance with section 803(a)(1), the Librarian of Congress shall, pursuant to chapter 8, convene a copyright arbitration royalty panel to determine and publish in the Federal Register a schedule of rates and terms which, subject to paragraph (3), shall be binding on all copyright owners of sound recordings and entities performing sound recordings . In addition to the objectives set forth in section 801(b)(1), in establishing such rates and terms, the copyright arbitration royalty panel may consider the rates and terms for comparable types of digital audio transmission services and comparable circumstances under voluntary license agreements negotiated as provided in paragraph (1). The Librarian of Congress shall also establish requirements by which copyright owners may receive reasonable notice of the use of their sound recordings under this section, and under which records of such use shall be kept and made available by entities performing sound recordings.

      Emphasis mine.

    4. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by H310iSe · · Score: 1

      I've spent a few hours reading up on this and everything I've seen says $25k minimum. However, the actual source information is extremely limited (sound exchange website is so bad) and the details are a bit confusing so I'm hoping something will come up (501.c orgs?) but right now every single piece of reliable info says $25k minimum which is the death of all small webcasters.

      All the news articles saying this is a victory are a) representing the views of larger webcasters and b) contrasting it to what could have happened if the 2007 library of congress royalty rates held

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    5. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Alsee · · Score: 1, Informative

      Slashdot story seems to be in error. The amount should be $500, not $25,000

      There was a 2007 agreement setting the minimum at $500, and at the moment the Wikipedia article is reporting that OLD figure.

      The linked story is on a NEW agreement, and it states the NEW minimum is $25,000.

      The RIAA came to an agreement with the handful of largest webcasters to set government rules to exterminate the pesky small webcasters who have the annoying habit of playing a lot of non-RIAA indie music.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The LA Times has more info.

      It appears this new agreement functions as an additional option. Anyone using this new deal have a $25,000 minimum payment, but webcasters can still stay with the old deal with the $500 minimum.

      The reason for the new deal is that under the old deal webcasters had to pay a certain fee per song times the number of listeners, and that the figure was so high it would have exterminated both small and large webcasters.

      So small webcasters do not have to pay this $25,000 minimum, they can stick with the old crushingly high per-song-per-listener figures. All of the webcasters were united in bringing a legal challenge against those impossibly high royalty rates, rates that would exterminate small webcasters and bankrupt large webcasters. This deal permits large webcasters to survive under a completely different and much better payment system, while locking small webcasters out of the lower cost deal with the $25,000 entrance fee.

      By giving the large webcasters - and only large webcasters - a special deal with reasonable rates, the RIAA in now likely to be able to keep the old impossibly high royalty rates in place to kill off small webcasters. Without the "big muscle" of the large webcasters on their side opposing those impossibly high rates, small webcasters are unlikely to be able to afford lobbyists to represent their interests in Washington and before the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel or in court.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So.. damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do you want your screwing from one giant dildo or a thousand small ones??

      Methinks a central repository of zero-royalty agreements is in order, so that any indie station can instantly learn which music they can and cannot play, and so an agreement doesn't have to be signed for each and every piece played.

      Something like this
      http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf
      except worded to apply to all stations.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:Error: $500, not $25,000, apparently by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much. Both of the replies so far were interesting.

      Your first reference still doesn't bind any particular party to a monetary amount. But the second can. Apparently, then, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel has the authority to bind services to certain amounts. But I wonder if that is actually the avenue they are taking. It seems not.

      I brought this up originally to point out how our government lately has taken to ignoring its own laws. It is not a happy trend.

  66. Pandora can suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.

    I am deeply, deeply sorry, but Pandora can go fuck themselves

  67. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

    Corruption is great isn't it.

  68. Keeping my boombox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hoping the radio I listen to will just bleep out the songs online so then when a storm is breaking I know whether or not a tornado is hitting me.

    Only if I had bought a HD radio! Now I'm stuck listening to analog, oh nooooes. At least I can still sling it over my shoulder and jive down the street...with a long extension cord since they don't make D batteries anymore.

  69. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the publisher, who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music, will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others. Instead, you'll just stay unknown.

  70. SoundExchange is a non-profit by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know a break down of where the money goes that they are collecting?

    1. Re:SoundExchange is a non-profit by H310iSe · · Score: 1

      It makes me smile in a sad way that sound exchange is nonprofit.

      50% goes to the artists and 50% to the copyright holder (usually the record company), I read somewhere.

      Sound exchange is run by an 18 member board, 1/2 represent artists and 1/2 industry.

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    2. Re:SoundExchange is a non-profit by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Really the more important question. Anyone have any reason to believe any money actually is given to artists?

  71. Torrent? by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

    Surely you could just prerecord and upload it as a torrent.

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    1. Re:Torrent? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Surely you could just prerecord and upload it as a torrent."

      Not quite the same...you might as well 'podcast' if you're doing that.

      The live streaming thing is more analogous to the radio of the airwaves...something nice about that, just being able to tune in at any time.

      While I don't care for commercials, there are some radio personalities, at least in the past, that actually are fun to listen to during small breaks between songs.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  72. The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, by Tikkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the more potential working business models will slip through your fingers.

    Innovation is made possible by lowering barriers to entry, not raising them.

  73. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you've noticed, but 99% of commercial music sucks, too. It just has better marketing.

    There are many possible ways for music to suck. Commercial music is rarely noisy, off-pitch, or otherwise painful to listen to, as is bad indie music. Bad commercial music is just stupid, but is well-produced. If you want background music, it's just fine. Indie music can be great, but commercial music is more reliably passable.

  74. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    No. You also have to dance, dance.

  75. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

    A Few Years back I started an artist supported internet radio station. It was actually pretty cool- I programmed an interface to allow any indie artist to sign up, upload tracks. I'd review them, and add them to my lineup if they were good (Good being high enough quality to include in the stream, I wasn't terribly picky).

    Anyhow, it was really cool and started to get popular. And best of all, I had permission from all the real copyright holders, with no need for much leg work.

    Anyway, the server running it died, and I never got around to fixing it. It was fun while it lasted, but it was a full time job. The site for the station is still up- dead and unused: Fredrickville Radio.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  76. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Try going someplace like Somafm.com where they aggregate GOOD indie music.
    It's free, but I pay them every month and have been listening for over 6 years.

    They're going to die because of this, and it's the only place where I can find this caliber of music with a high degree of variety.

    This is a HORRIBLE outcome for internet radio. Artists go to small stations and *ask* the stations to play their music. Suddenly this distribution channel is gone. This is just the big guys locking down art and culture even more. I'm losing my favorite (award winning) radio station, and I'm pissed.

    --
    -
  77. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by CodeShark · · Score: 2, Informative

    Music is not melody? Where'd you come up with that line of BS? Check Wikipedia's definition, for example. The first paragraph of their
    Entry on the subject states that:

    Music is an art form whose medium is sound organized in time. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek (mousike), "(art) of the Muses".

    Me, I have trouble calling large parts of the techno and of rap stuff on the radio anything other than junk because they are specifically not very "musical sounding", aka having melody, harmony, articulation, timbre, texture, etc.
    '
    Course, it might also be that the "art of the muses" was supposed to INSPIRE, not degrade.

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  78. Streamer P2P by RecursiveGreen · · Score: 1

    I've never used this, but it seems applicable to what you're looking for:

    http://www.streamerp2p.com/

    (Added bonus, the same guy created a really addictive Asteroids clone on LSD named "Spheres of Chaos")

    --
    my UID was ten away from being an ambigram. . . :'(
    1. Re:Streamer P2P by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Very cool link...thank you.

      ONly problem I see with it, is the lack of anonymity...but, maybe that will come later.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Streamer P2P by MattFatt · · Score: 1

      Nice link! I just read through the website, the approach looks good for managing load, but it doesn't offer much for anonymous broadcasting. That said, the same approach using the bit torrent idea of breaking up the broadcast/rebroadcast into small disparate chunks would solve both problems.

  79. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    Somafm has a budget of ~$30k/month. They will be fine, paying quite a bit less than they do now. It is the truly small broadcasters that will die, not broadcasters like somafm with its many thousands of listeners at any time.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  80. This is part of what makes ./ by PotatoHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You really do need to deal.

    And you've been here a while too. I see your posts, from time to time and that's actually something given all the users we've got passing through now.

    If there is a gaffe, it's corrected in the comments and that's just how the site is. We've got at least as many users not reading the article, hosing up the summary, not reading the comments, making ASSumptions and god knows what else!

    There is kind of an unspoken agreement that the object of interest is the interest, not the meta-surrounding it and ./ Don't get me wrong, we like meta --look at my contribution this morning!

    Bottom line is the site is not devalued for this kind of editing gaffe. We use ./ as a rolling point of discussion and as a loose community where lots of good ideas abound, along with a lot of shit too. The shit to signal ratio varies, but is usually tolerable at best.

    So then, harping on the editorial quality seen on the front page here is theraputic, but futile --as is my post, quite likely!

    And if people use ./ the way it is meant to be used, they find your comment and realize that there is actually some value to vetting what they see on the front page. Call it a healthy reminder that we need to do a bit of digging ourselves. I like it that way actually.

    Cheers and greets! Haven't exchanged words with you in a while.

  81. The latest version is still $500, not $25,000. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are correct, but the amounts don't seem to change. This is apparently the correct information, from the Proceedings page of the Copyright and Royalty Board (CRB). The link titled "Notice of agreement 74 FR 9293 March 3, 2009" is a PDF file: PDF. See page 9303 of the U.S. Federal Registry:

    4. Minimum Annual Fees

    (a) In General. For each year from 2006-2015, an Eligible Small Webcaster shall pay annual minimum fees as follows:

    (1) $500 for electing Microcasters, which shall constitute the only royalty payable hereunder by an electing Microcaster, except that an electing Microcaster also shall pay a $100 annual fee (the ''Proxy Fee'') to SoundExchange for the reporting waiver discussed in Section 6(a), and the provisions of Section 5(d) shall apply;

    (2) $2,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters other than electing Microcasters that had Gross Revenues during the prior year of not more than $50,000 and reasonably expect Gross Revenues of not more than $50,000 during the applicable year; or

    (3) $5,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters that had Gross Revenues during the prior year of more than $50,000 or reasonably expect Gross Revenues to exceed $50,000 during the applicable year. (b) The amounts specified in Section 4(a) shall be paid by January 31 of each year. (c) All minimum fees (but not the Proxy Fee for the reporting waiver for Microcasters) shall be fully creditable toward royalties due for the year for which such amounts are paid, but not any other year.

    1. Re:The latest version is still $500, not $25,000. by mclarkcdt · · Score: 1

      There are many different limits put into place, based on how many hours of music you webcast per month, how much income (not profit) you make, how much your expenses are. The deal/agreement reached this week covers larger entities that are not able to be covered under the agreements reached earlier this year. The March 3, 2009 Federal Register agreement only covers small webcasters, and microcasters (a category so tiny I sincerely doubt anyone would use that option, as it leaves you open to huge payments if you regularly exceed 2 listeners at once.) I am one of the webcasters (ChristmasMusic247.com) mentioned in the footnote of page 9294 of the March 3, 2009 Federal Register; I know what I'm talking about. IANAL.

  82. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

    Music is rythm, not melody.

    Except this is not actually true.

  83. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    One internet station's solution -- royalty-free AND not-crud:

    http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf

    I think what will happen is that there will suddenly be a much sharper demarcation between independent/royalty-free and chain/royalty stations, and that the lack of overlap will harm the traditional stations and their artists (since a whole segment of listeners will be lost to them), but will be all to the benefit of the royalty-free stations AND the artists they are thereby promoting.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  84. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A pile driver has rhythm, but it is not music, It is noise. Same for Techo/Trance...mostly noise.

  85. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Britney Spears' latest album sold a million copies (as of 1/2009). You and I may think her music sucks, but clearly enough people disagree to keep her in the studio and/or on tour.

    99% of music sucks to everybody. Hell, that's the case for movies, TV... even food. The difference is, that everybody's 1% is different from everybody else's.

  86. Creative Commons only Internet Radio by zenasprime · · Score: 1

    So long as the license dose not forbid it, internet radio stations that play only music licensed using the Creative Commons are exempt from these fees. I gave sound exchange a call and was able to talk to a representative at length about such things.

    So all is not lost for the little guys.

    1. Re:Creative Commons only Internet Radio by zenasprime · · Score: 1

      Oh and I forgot to mention that according to the representative, music that is licensed using Creative Commons for such things, will not be collected upon so long as the internet radio station reporting their playlists do not include those CC tracks as collectable.

      So according to their rep, Artist do not have to participate with Soundexchange involuntarily if they make reasonable assurances that those that do play their music in their streams do not report them as payable to SE.

  87. Hmm. by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.

    You're saying that the hundreds of illegal shoutcast radio stations and the like will vanish because it will still be illegal for them to run?

    1. Re:Hmm. by zenasprime · · Score: 1

      only if they are playing music not covered by independent contract... Stations that only play Creative Commons licensed music, for example, are still in the clear according to the SE rep I talked to on the phone today.

  88. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    This is where you epically fail. You don't understand it. If it is just noise with piledriver rythm then anybody would be able to make Techno that Techno lovers would like. But you can't, because you don't understand. Nobody would like your music because you can't distinguish bad Techno from awesome Techno, from a Techno perspective ofcourse ;) So obviously no pun intended.

    --
    Here be signatures
  89. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    Then you should realy listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ji50xcHL8E

    Skip to 1:00min, seriously ignore the intro, it's like the violence of a classical orchestra, but then Techno. At has a really dark, depressive and sad feeling to it. Always gives me chills down my spine.

    It's like Mozart goes Techno :)

    --
    Here be signatures
  90. When did music become so valuable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just not that valuable people!

  91. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Music is rhythm, not melody.

    Wrong.

  92. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    And here's an example of harmony and melody in techno -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tAdpNDCq4&feature=related
    listen that one from the beginning.

    --
    Here be signatures
  93. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    To be clear: I like techno.

    But it takes more than a kick, hat, snare, and occasional clap to make what most people call music.

    When is the last time you heard techno that didn't have some sort of melody in it? Even drum and bass has more than drums...

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  94. Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon? by spiralx · · Score: 1

    Or if you want a better example than the god-awful hardstyle that V!NCENT posted, try the concert Jeff Mills (perhaps the biggest name in techno) did with the Vancouver Philharmonic Orchestra:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wPbNf1jhzM

    Electronic music is a huge umbrella term, there's plenty of melodic stuff, and also a ton of stuff that's melodically simple but complex in terms of texture and rhythm. I find stuff like this inspiring though

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r45BFelcBw0

  95. 25k fee will create consortiums by lsatenstein · · Score: 0

    A few small broadcasters will find a way to have one feed, but create their own aliases to the one URL. Each will be known by its own offering, but the output will originate from one URL.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  96. They've got it all wrong by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Artists (read: labels) should pay internet radio to play their songs. A song is a commercial. Paying to listen to commercials is stupid in the extreme. Take a page from broadcast TV. They charge us in the form of making us watch/skip commercials. The content is free to the viewer. HBO is the other correct model. You pay to watch it, but they don't have commercials (beyond telling you about other content).

    That's the way it SHOULD be.

    Basic cable fucks us coming and going by charging us for content AND making us watch/skip commercials.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  97. Econ 101 for Fucktards like you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, is Soundexchange a government organization? No it isn't. Since it isn't it is a business and a business is capitalism, nothing to do with socialism or communism. Capitalism is grreed and greed is evil. As aresult captialism is evil. Socialism and communism both eliminate greed from the equation and fits with the USian founders' vision of "All are created equal."

  98. Interesting. Is the payment ever $25,000? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    So what is the answer? Is there really a $500 minimum payment, or is it sometimes $25,000?

    1. Re:Interesting. Is the payment ever $25,000? by mclarkcdt · · Score: 1

      It depends on the size of your commercial station. A microcaster has a $500 minimum payment; my station's minimum is $2,000; "big" stations have a $25,000 minimum. Other classes of webcasters (such as educational (college) or NPR) may have other minimums (or maximums).

  99. Slashdot has hosted many misleading stories. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Yes, I saw that in the information I posted in my comment.

    However, the Slashdot story gave the impression that small broadcasters would be put out of business. That was a lie, and certainly the person who wrote the story to which Slashdot linked knew it was a lie, in my opinion.

    Slashdot has hosted many misleading stories like that. I wonder if someone at Slashdot is paid to post stories.