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."
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."
Is this the end of [link to small station removed]?!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Does this only pertain to the US, or is it all over the world?
Pandora is starting to sound a lot like regular ClearChannel FM. Funny how that happens.
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
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
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."
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
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
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
Nobody makes music free, son.
SOMEONE stole it from my music empire.
And give me back those electrons you stole from my computer!
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.
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.
Digital Citizen
With double standards! Remind me again why streaming is any different from broadcasting over radio waves?
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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
The lyrics suck, and the sounds are often atrocious, but the beats are unfailingly catchy. Indie bands tend to eschew that.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
Wrong. EVERYTHING is under SoundExchange's jurisdiction. They have legal authority to collect fees for EVERYTHING, even artists not under the RIAA umbrella.
It's broader than that--90% of everything is crud
Music is rythm, not melody. And as a Techo lover I have to disagree with your statements.
Here be signatures
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.
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.
True, all you need to do is pump up the volume pump up the volume pump up the volume.
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
They don't have the right to collect fees from free/public domain music!
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!!!
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
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.
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!
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.
Fsck yes!
Mind the giant lasers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7Q4E66O7A
Here be signatures
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
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."
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.
Corruption is great isn't it.
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.
Anyone know a break down of where the money goes that they are collecting?
Surely you could just prerecord and upload it as a torrent.
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
the more potential working business models will slip through your fingers.
Innovation is made possible by lowering barriers to entry, not raising them.
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)
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.
No. You also have to dance, dance.
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
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.
-
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:
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...
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.
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.
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. . .
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!
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.
Blogging because I can...
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
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.
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.
Except this is not actually true.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Google Compulsory Licensing
And it's not in beta anymore, so be afraid!
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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!
So what is the answer? Is there really a $500 minimum payment, or is it sometimes $25,000?
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.