Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples
CNet reports on a new money battle brewing between those who generate music and those who profit from selling it on the Net. "Songwriters, composers, and music publishers are making preparations to one day collect performance fees from Apple and other e-tailers for not just traditional music downloads but for downloads of films and TV shows as well. Those downloads contain music after all. These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples. ... Apparently, the music industry can't obtain the fees through negotiations. They have begun lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would require anyone who sells a download to pay a performance fee..."
for advertising their product for free.... um, pretty much EVERY other industry in the world would like their products advertised for free, and if someone did that for them they certainly wouldn't sue over it.
Monstar L
Dig a grave for this dead industry.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
No comment otherwise; they know who I am, and I'm next !!
Man, this makes SOOOOOOOO angry. Someone should write a song about this.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I'm sure if I presented a thesis saying that my new form of business model required passing laws in Congress requiring people to give me money at the mere mention of my product, I'd be laughed out of school.
And yet, this seems to be turning into a reality?
Maybe what we need isn't just a government that has its hands off of business, we need businesses to keep their hands off the government too.
They really want to shoot themselves in the foot, don't they?
Amendment XXVIII - Strike the following: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Times not to exceed 14 years to Authors, or 25 years for Inventors, the limited Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The actual time limits can be debated, but they need to be set in the constitution, not left to a congress that can be bribed with corporate donations.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The clue-by-four meme died sometime in the late '90s. Methinks it's time to dust it off and start applying it to some heads.
Not a typewriter
if it were not for the possibility that they'll just buy a few more congress critters and subsidize themselves I'd say we let the industry go ahead and commit ritual suicide and finally be done with the RIAA and friends once and for all.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The makers of the film or TV show had to pay for the song in the first place. The label was already paid for the use and can't extract money again from the redistributor.
If this goes through, I will finally get to fulfill my lifelong dream of charging companies to interview me.
Were it not for the fact that it would cause iTunes to implode (fiscally speaking), I would suggest that Apple simply remove the 30 second streamsand sell everything based on title alone, or make them available "for a fee" that nobody would EVER pay. Let's see how well that works.
Of course, the other explanation for their request is that the music they're selling mostly sucks bad enough that exposing 30 seconds of it will kill the sale.
It's not working. What don't you get?
Your customers resent being treated like shit, and this little stunt won't do anything to change that.
It's a new entertainment world, and you're dying, but don't even know it.
P.S.
I should probably explain: I think "Right" needs to be changed to "Privilege" for the simple reason that rights are timeless. They are an innate quality of being human and never expire. Therefore a limited-term copyright is not a right, but merely a privilege extended by the ruling government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It would be interesting if Apple did a test where they removed samples from say from the top 1000 songs, then provided 30 second samples for say 50 and calculated how much the 30 second sample actually generated in sales revenue.
The samples on iTunes allow people to figure out if they want to legally buy a song that actually generates revenue for the artists. If I can't sample what I'm deciding to buy, chances are I'd most likely go straight to limewire and get it that way, because these songs are non refundable.
All ASCAP seem to be doing here is encouraging more piracy, most people are generally happy to pay for media if its easy to obtain and its not a difficult process that you have to jump through endless micro payments, confusing license agreements and rights managment that is unreliable. iTunes is making it easy for artists to make revenue off the internet but that is just not enough it seems for those greedy bastards.
So sick of them.
So lets see here, if I'm not going to listen to the song for free via YouTube, the radio, downloading it off TPB, or now a 30 second sample, how am I to judge the song? Really, the songs I buy off iTunes are in general the ones I've listened to via other means.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"We make 9.1 cents off a song sale and that means a whole lot of pennies have to add up before it becomes a bunch of money," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters' Guild of America. "Yesterday, I received a check for 2 cents. I'm not kidding.
Who in the hell has Rick's other 7.1 cents?
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
+1 Insightful & way overdue.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Make that triple-dip.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yes, but the problem is this... who is it that can add an amendment to the constitution? Damn, it's the same congress that can be bribed with corporate donations...
Good luck. The first hurdle in creating an amendment to the Constitution is that it has to be passed by a 2/3 majority of Congress. If the **AA's can get over %50 to pass the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, then they can easily get over %33 to stall an amendment.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
The actual time limits can be debated, but they need to be set in the constitution, not left to a congress that can be bribed with corporate donations.
And what body would you propose should do the setting in the constitution?
Are the artists really for this? or is someone as ASCAP just being a douche?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll give them a free 30 second preview of the body part they can kiss. (Limited time only, restrictions apply, one per customer.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Short story even shorter: It's a beautiful metaphor for the major labels. They want to destroy music by filling the market with generic crap, and they want to enslave us by forcing us to pay them for it.
Idiots. This sort of nonsense is working out so well for RIAA i guess they want in on the ( sinking ) boat too. Next they will want a part of our tax dollars since most of us have ears and might listen to a non-licensed performance.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
These slippery slopes to vices happen all the time. I know lots of folks who would never/rarely drive drunk, but drive stoned all the time. Folks are so inured to breaking the marijuana laws (understandably) that they think nothing of driving stoned, but breaking alcohol laws still has some legitimacy behind it.
Ridiculous laws lead to disdain and apathy toward the legal system. You're just inuring consumers to the idea of "infringement" by making such ludicrous demands.
I agree its an issue, but something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country. Its not THAT critical.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Cat burglars. National archives.
UM, do you really want congress to set it in stone? because is could end up being 1000 years.
And congress is lied to bu corporation, and that ahs a much bigger influence the donations.
They get in front of congress and tell them theya re loosing sales, when they aren't, talk about the cost of downloading with 'adjusted' figures, and then lie about their legal tactics.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Everyone else says ASCAP should finally admit that an extra "S" that belongs in their acronym.
ASSCAP: American Society of Superfluous and Confused Arrogant Peons.
Okay, this is ridiculous. Apple is giving them free advertising. Providing the pipeline and distribution network for the advertising... And selling their product for them at a profit for the company. Now they want Apple to pay for them to be able to advertise the recording studio's product that they're trying to sell...
What part of this makes sense to anyone except greedy lawyers and CEO's? The sheer amount of gall is amazing. Do they really expect Apple to bend over and say 'thank you sir may I have another?' I'm pretty sure they now how to tell them where to stick it.
I just farted to the tune of "enter sandman" and people overheard. When should I expect Lars Ulrich or the RIAA to come collect their royalties? I think I have some more in the tank for repeat performances on their heads. It was Taco Bell night, afterall.
today is spelling optional day.
...of the music industry bullshit. It's really frustrating that companies that depend on obsolescence to earn money can put up a nasty fight just because they have the means ($) for it.
(1) You don't need Congress to amend the Constitution. The States can propose amendments. (2) It's not that hard to get a majority to recommend an amendment. You just need to get in power 51 senators and 51% of the House to pass the bill. Easy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It's not a performance if I ...
Play your CD
Hear your Song on the Radio
Look at your album jacket
It's a performance if:
You come to my house and play,
Hold a concert
Play on a street corner or a subway
Everyone in the chain of production needs to quit pretending that somehow, each time that CD is played, they have put in a personal appearance. // rant off
Performance as defined above is the method the bulk of working musicians actually make money. The RIAA just doesn't want to admit it.
What would be nice, is if somebody in the US could propose amending the Constitution to prevent private business from making profits by gaming Congress and regulators, and force them to make money by innovating and working hard instead.
Make laws to make regulatory capture by private business (especially those with failing business models) difficult or impossible, and make any law produced from private business' attempts to scam favourable laws, unconstitutional.
IANAL, but if such a thing could be done, then it would set a nice precedent to stop IP cartels and extortion outfits (RIAA, et al) from running amok elsewhere in the world too.
Oops. That's 67 Senators and 66.7% of the House. Still not that hard.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think former California assemblyman Mike Duvall would nominate his lobbyist friend. Apparently she's got quite a body and wears panties the size of an eye patch!
You do need a 2/3rds majority vote of BOTH halves of congress...
That's all I have to say on the topic.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
This is ASCAP we're talking about.... they've been shaking down restaurants with Jukeboxes and clubs who have live bands for years. Even if said bands are all-original indie acts, they threaten the owners with compliance issues.
I use to run a club.
And before that, I did investigative work for ASCAP, until I just felt too dirty to continue.
What amazes me is how many "groups" representing recording artists there are. It's ludicrous. First you've got to please RIAA, which claims it's doing it to protect the artists, then you've got the publishing companies that will nail your ass if you print any of the lyrics, then you've got ASCAP, which also represents the artists. No wonder the industry is sinking.
What's going to happen at the end of the day is that Apple and other online music services are going to make their own damned labels, woo over artists, maybe even start doing their own A&R, and either start selling their own stuff at a discount or start hiking the prices for all RIAA/ASCAP/who-the-fuck-ever, and when someone comes at them with a complaint about anti-competitive behavior, they can always point at demands like this "Hey, these guys effectively demanded we raise prices".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
>>>something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country
What?!?!? Copyrights already ARE part of the Constitution dimwit. Where the hell do you think the phrase "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" came from???
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Here's how I see this conversation going.
ASCAP> Give us lots of money!
Apple> You're already getting lots of money.
ASCAP> We want *more* money!
Apple> No.
ASCAP> We *demand* more money!
Apple> No.
ASCAP> If you don't give us more money, we'll take our music off your service!
Apple> No you won't, and we both know it.
ASCAP> WAAAAH GIVE US MORE MONEY
C'mon. If they wanted the extra fees so bad, they'd take their music off. Obviously they don't - they just want the government to step in when their own demands for money fell flat.
Why don't they make their own music distributor? Oh, that's right, because that takes work, and they don't want to do work. They just want free money.
I feel so sorry for them.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
As evil as record labels are, they are certainly the responsible party for fulfilling their contracts with artists. Go to court and demand that they pay the same kind of penalties that they demand from file sharers. Let them go out of business or price iTunes downloads out of most teenager's budgets and independent musicians may have a chance.
From the article:
"(On iTunes) you can stream radio, and you can preview (tracks), things that we should be getting paid performance income for."
Yes, asking for money for 30 second clips is ridiculous, but asking for royalties on Internet radio stations that Apple isn't even hosting is just nuts. Apple should just remove the radio feature from iTunes altogether - that's part of the problem solved.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
>>>UM, do you really want congress to set it in stone? because it could end up being 1000 years.
I doubt that. There'd be a general outcry by people like us, and the amendment would never get past the state legislatures. I trust that Congress would not be so stupid as to pick any number higher than the original author's lifespan (i.e. 100), for fear of pissing-off the voters and losing the next election.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I wouldn't really use the stoned ver. drunk driving analogy.
The affects of Marijuana on some people is extremely different from alcohol.
I have many times gone to very important meetings extremely stoned and nobody has ever known.
Hell i just did a stent of Jury duty in federal court, showed up after a good wake and bake, not one person noticed.
I'm not saying its smart ever to drive under the influence but I wouldn't account for someone's passive dismissal of a law simply because it's illegalness is considered illigetment. It's actually one of the beauties of Marijuana itself, its effects reach a max where you no longer can get any higher and then can be minimized real quick like, like eating something or someone running up to you screaming about a critical harddrive failure on a main database in the middle of the day! Try that with alcohol.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/411/
Fear the penguin.
As Apple drops previews for tracks that charge. They won against NBC by pulling their entire video collection - what makes the music industry think they won't pull previews? It's only gonna hurt their sales. These guys are apparently living in some other reality.
If I can't hear a preview, I guess I just won't buy the song!
I'm deaf anyway.
Currently iTunes doesn't differentiate between independent and RIAA affiliated artists maybe they should and explain the difference.
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Or just enough guns and people to put a different congress in play.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Times not to exceed 14 years to Authors, or 25 years for Inventors, the limited Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I'd argue that patent protection should have a more limited period than copyright. If you invent the next super computer system, that is something we want in the public domain so we can all benefit from it after a period of time.
On the other hand, if someone writes a murder mystery, who the heck cares? Someone else can write another murder mystery. No one has ever died because they didn't get to watch "Miami Vice", as opposed to not being able to get a anti-retroviral drug.
Fact is, it's almost impossible to get an amendment. If you study your history class, you'll notice that big problems could go on for decades before an amendment was passed. It's both a bug and a feature.
And the funny thing is that at least ASCAP is, or at least was historically, a good guy. They were created to ensure that artists didn't get ripped off by huge corporations. For example, Little Richard had his songs used in movies and commercials and TV shows without his permission and without compensation. A great example is Disney's Donald Duck dancing around singing about having "a girl named Daisy; you know she drives me crazy!"
So the ASCAP enforcement of performance payment went into place to ensure that companies like Disney, who made a mint on artist content, had to pay for it. The idea that they're using it now to try to get additional profit from people who are trying to decide whether to buy a song is just ridiculous.
The CB App. What's your 20?
My roommate had an album on iTunes. It sucked but it was up there. He would get a cut of every purchase of any song, and he'd also get a cut when someone listened to the 30 second preview. Mind you, it was like 0.2 cents each time, but it wasn't nothing either.
30 second preview amounts to an ad. Without this ad, much fewer customers would buy songs. Hence it follows that it is Apple who should be charging here, not ASCAP.
I hear you - I really do - but if marijuana were legal and regulated, but driving stoned were prohibited, I bet we'd have more stoners but fewer stoned drivers on the street. Make respectable laws and people will respect them.
Where did i say they were not part of it? I said they shouldn't be.
I only posted one line, it shouldn't have been that hard to read and understand it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
because it's illegalness is considered illigetment.
KEEP SMOKING you get funnier and funnier!
Typical stoner LOL.
Why bother
Mind-numbing copyright reminds me of the movie: Brazil. The wikipedia page does not do it justice. The bureaucratic stupidity of the film transfers well onto present day copyright laws. As copyright becomes more and more convoluted I hope it really does begin to impact a large majority of citizens, and their representatives. The only way the madness will stop is if some senators kid is slapped around with this inanity.
Shh.
Is this not an obvious attempt to erode Fair Use?
The Purpose of these samples is to both promote the sales of these tracks and to help the consumer make an informed decision regarding the purchase.
The "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is small enough that it is in not a reasonable substitution for the whole product.
The "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is generally going to be positive, allowing countless people a chance to sample the music to find out if it's something they'd be interested in, when there would have been little chance of them making a blind purchase.
This country is in such need of copyright reform... Actually, I take that back. We need to regress from our previous "reforms".
...something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country. Its not THAT critical.
It already is part of that foundation. commodore64_love's amendment would edit one line of the Constitution, not add new ones.
Woah, hold on here. The real story here doesn't have anything to do with 30-second sound samples. Artists and publishers want to be paid royalties on songs used in downloaded movies and TV shows. TV networks have to pay, so should Amazon, Hulu and Apple. This is a huge issue for composers that make their living from scoring TV shows. As viewers migrate away from TV to online viewing/downloads, that will decimate an extremely important revenue stream for working composers.
I agree though that paying for 30-second samples goes too far and that should be taken off the table. I would like to see a reference for where the reporter got that information. No artist or publishing company I know wants that nor is lobbying for it. Sounds like Apple spin, to me.
I'm going to tell ASCAP that every time they lobby Congress, I'm not going to kick a puppy.
They'll stop lobbying within the week.
Well, we've tried having it not set in stone. End result: Copyright only gets longer.
ASCAP doesn't understand. Without getting a chance to hear a sample of the song I would not bother buying it in most cases. They make sales through samples. Idiots.
for the animals to be "soothed" and there is someone other than you in the barn then you have to get a license for the performance.
Mmmmmmmmmooooooooo! Baaaaaaaaaaa! Meow.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5581353.ece
If ASCRAP wants to charge Apple a "perfomance fee" for every 30 sec song sample , Apple should turn around and charge them promotional advertising fee AND bandwidth costs for providing that sample to a potential customer.
Is lobbying congress to use the power of legislation to ensure that your market will generate income forever the new American Way?
I own a store and have to pay the extortion to ASSMUNCH, and it pisses me off. I am FORCED to PAY to provide their artists exposure by playing the radio (which already paid the extortion) which in turn benefits ASSMUNCH by facilitating album and concert sales. What a racket - truly double dipping. I would like a streaming audio service that guarantees no ASSMUNCH material - my customers certainly would not stop coming in because of that. I hope Apple can contribute to the demise of what I feel are Rico-statute-violating organizations.
Hey, I've got a song called "ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples".
Thay can't say that. ...and the whole goddamn song is only 29s long.
I wrote that, it's in the chorus.
man, this is a legal minefield.
Yes, but the problem is this... who is it that can add an amendment to the constitution? Damn, it's the same congress that can be bribed with corporate donations...
Congress is made of men. (I'm speaking English here, let me run with it.) If they are not doing the will of the people, the people are not using enough boxes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, i realize that.
But beyond that i don't think it should be in there in the first place, i don't personally acknowledge amendments 11+ as being valid. Its 1-10 only.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Taking their case to Congress
Apparently, the music industry can't obtain the fees through negotiations. They have begun lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would require anyone who sells a download to pay a performance fee, according to David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers Association."
Lobbying = bribing, so these guys will probably get their moneys' worth from the whores they pay for.
Watch the teeth, senator.
Why not?
Shouldn't "ASCAP" just be renamed "ASSHATS"?
If it's not that hard, I'm surprised we have so few of them...
WTF, not RIAA this time, instead it's ASCAP> WTF are they smoking?! Why does everyone have to have their hands out? Hey when some twits ringtone goes off are you going to find a way to charge for that "performance" too?! Man at some point these "content" folks are just going to get right out of control! Oh wait..... too late!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
While I will quickly agree that the music royalty system is convoluted as hell, ASCAP is somewhat different than the RIAA. The money that ASCAP collects goes to the people that actually write the music, not the ones that perform it. A comparison between ASCAP and what RIAA does is like apples and oranges. I am a performer/songwriter so have had to learn way more about this stuff than I wanted to. I don't agree with what ASCAP is trying to do is this case, but without them, the people who actually create the songs wouldn't have much motivation to write them. I'd suggest folks do a little reading on what ASCAP does and figure out how they are different from the RIAA.
Apple should stop providing samples, and watch revenues from music sales plummet.
Within a week or so, Apple will be providing samples again, and ASCAP won't dare to suggest again that Apple should stop providing the incentive for people to try music they might later purchase.
Shag iTunes from behind, hump Apple and Steve "blow" Jobs, jailbreak iphones with better firmware. Torrent an app for this and an app for that or just code an app yourself! How much longer do people have to be sucked in to such crap, No fun and tis not a rap!
All cows eat grass!
Another shit-eater trying to pick and choose his way through the constitution. This isn't the country for you. Maybe you should go back to your Jewish motherland and practice hypocritical methods on the Palestinians like everyone else there. I bet you're a fucking Jew too.
Sometimes when someone is hellbent on causing their own self-destruction, and they want your help, you should give it to them! So if ASCAP wants a law that requires anyone playing a 30-second sample of a song to pay a fee, then let them have it! All the law will do is hurt their sales, which is exactly what they deserve!
paintball
Good point. I guess that's why Congress is pushing government-run healthcare with a simple majority vote, even though Constitutionally it requires a 2/3rds amendment process to grant said power to the U.S.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if your going to use links using the words panties the size of an eyepatch at least give a link to the lobbiest such as http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1268268&session=2009
no panties in view on this page but
ETHICS COURSE COMPLETION DATE REGISTRATION DATE STATUS
11/12/2008 -------------------- 04/14/2009 ------------ Active
deserves some sort of appreciation of her erm dedicated lobbying.
I don't know... More and more the actual base-level production is handled by machines operated by very few people. Most of the economy is either providing services to other people, or coming up with ideas on how to make those machines and services better. (As well as entertaining the people.) The latter of those two is the more profitable, in the long run.
Basically, copyright has become the foundation of much of our economy, and the percentage of our economy it influences is getting greater and greater. Given that copyright/patents was one of the main points that caused the USA to revolt against England back in the day (there were several large areas where a colonial couldn't hold or use patent/copyright, but someone in England could... Also, things like the Stamp Act were copyright-related), it might well be important enough to be part of the very foundation of the country.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
I call distinction without a difference. Publishers in ASCAP and record labels in RIAA tend to have the same parent companies.
As a performing artist, I know all too well how ASCAP and BMI work. They are actually artist organizations (they don't represent the labels) that pay the artist directly for "performances" of their music. Any public performance of an ASCAP or BMI artist's music is supposed to be supplemented by payment, usually in the form of a contract between the venue and ASCAP/BMI. The money the venue pays to the organization goes into a pot - and then this money is distributed to the artists. Nice idea, in theory. The problem begins when one looks at how these organizations pay the artists. It is almost entirely based upon radio airplay, so the system doesn't work particularly well except for the big players in the game.
ASCAP is well-known in cities for cracking-down on places like coffee houses that have live music - they send in what are essentially thugs to scare the venue into paying what works out to be "protection money" to keep ASCAP from suing them in the event someone plays an ASCAP-artist song during an open mic or live music event. Rather than trying to come off on a more positive marketing angle of trying to help out the music business and the artist, which ASCAP could easily create a pretty compelling argument for, they instead use strongarm legal language and intimidation. I know many coffee houses who simply won't allow live music due to a scary visit from ASCAP or BMI thugs.
Much like the RIAA, these "artist" companies, due to their plainly nasty way of dealing with their clients and the public, are simply in the business of making money off other people's work. This is why I am not a member of any of these organizations and work hard to support venues who don't cave-in to the pressures these organizations place on them. Original live music, owned by the performer - that cannot be touched by these cads.
The Upper execs should be fired.
At.
>>>i don't personally acknowledge amendments 11+ as being valid. Its 1-10 only.
Oh you're one of *those* persons. Yeah I've met people like you when I belonged to the Libertarian Party. It's why I eventually quit, because they say ridiculous things like "amendments 11 and up are not valid". I can understand questioning if the Civil War amendments are valid, but not those amendments passed per the Constitution's established rules (3/4 vote of the Legislatures). Those amendments are legally binding.
Libertarians are good overall, but the party is dominated by a bunch of nutters that scare away voters (which means the LP will never win). Some of them think it's better to let people starve on the street, rather than have Food Stamp/Housing programs as a safety net. Others say income tax is not legal, even though the Constitution says it is. And still others claim the U.S. is not a government at all, but a British corporation?!?!? These are mentally challenged persons.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Also, what patents (should cover) are practical, while what is copyrighted (should) contribute to culture. And there's no "fair use" equivalent for patents, not that I'd know how such would be possible.
I guess that's why Congress is pushing government-run healthcare with a simple majority vote, even though Constitutionally it requires a 2/3rds amendment process to grant said power to the U.S.
If the Constitution said "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States", would publicly administered healthcare still be out of the question? In fact it does:
So if you're trying to use an enumerated-powers argument against the excesses introduced to U.S. copyright law over the past couple decades, I'd recommend choosing a different analogy.
Every company that sells music either download or physical media has an sample of music they sell. Why don't they go after other companies like Amazon or Bestbuy. This sampling is necessary to find out which song you want before buying it since so many song have very obscure titles.
This is just the greedy record companies being normally greedy.
And what body would you propose should do the setting in the constitution?
A convention called by three-fourths of the state legislatures to propose and ratify an amendment.
How long is it now? 100 years? Pretty soon I expect Disney will petition (read: bribe) Congress to extend it to 200 years, so they can protect their precious copyrights over ancient cartoons drawn in the 1920s. That's ridiculous. The men who drew those cartoons are dead and buried, and the copyright should have expired with them or shortly thereafter. Those cartoons should be public domain now so everyone can enjoy them, even the poor.
The only solution is to put the time-limit in the Constitution, that way it can not be altered by the corporations.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Easy, not that i dont agree with the concept of what the 5th offers, i just feel that 11+ were not worthy of an amendment. They may ( or not in some cases.. ) be valid things points, and put into law, but i dont feel they belong in the *constitution* itsself and adding them was abuse of the 5th.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What's going to happen at the end of the day is that Apple and other online music services are going to make their own damned labels
If Apple Inc. did that, the other Apple might complain.
When the country is founded on invention and the right to distribute ideas - it is THAT critical.
Without progress through invention and freedom of information we will not be able to compete with other nations. It is a balance of individual rights and societal rights - it is THAT critical.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
No because I can write a book over the weekend, take it to a printing shop, and have it in stores within 1-2 months. I can quickly reap the rewards of my effort, and 14 years is plenty of time for me to get rich off that book.
In contrast if I was working on a new battery technology, it takes time to develop it - usually 10 years - sometimes 20 years until it gets to market. Example - FM radio and TV took about 20 and 15 years before they finally hit store shelves... and even longer to turn a profit. So it's logical to make inventions have a far longer timespan for exclusive privileges.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This is a ridiculous endeavor on the part of ASCAP, but what is more ridiculous is the fact they want to force this through a law change by lobbying congress. It is as if a private party just uses its economic influence to change the rules of the game for its own benefit, and to the determent of the weaker group (not apple, but the consumers who do not have a lobby that is powerful as that of corporations). This system of "buy me a law" is clearly harmful to society since it enables those with more money to control those with less money, which goes directly against the ideals of democracy and equality.
It is a shame that congress today is bought and sold through corporate money, without regard to the interest of the populace they represent. This system must change so that it represents the interests of the people, and that can be achieved by banning lobbying (at least by private corporations), and by increasing the amount of political representation in congress, rather that just having a two party system, and that can be achieved by gaining seats in congress through the percentage of votes to any given party, rather than having a "win it all" system that id divided based on geography.
This is why the music industry is dieing. Instead of doing fair, rational and sane business... they eat themselves alive as they search for every penny.
You know, really good stores... treat their customers well. They toss in free things, they treat the customer like a fair person.
Apple is the saving grace of the entire music industry. Its not just itunes, its iPods, iphones, and macs themselves!
The RIAA is going to after the one entity that is trying to bring progress to a dead industry built on greed, corruption and casting couch rape sessions?
Attn: RIAA. Free previews, are free advertisements and the RIAA are a bunch of stupid assholes.
Itunes does not need the RIAA. In fact, itunes can completely replace the RIAA all together. Why have record labels at all? Itunes could be your record label. Sell directly to consumers just like iphone Apps.
Who really needs you any more RIAA? No one. SO BE NICE, and enjoy what you have now, rather than squeeze yourself out of existence by your own greed.
Frankly... go ahead and do it, fuck yourself to oblivion. We'll just buy stuff from the itunes/disney label which will feature all of the artists you lost.
Apple says ASCAP should pay for the cost 30-sec. song samples as advertising.
Im a troll because I disagree with you.
Yeah, good luck with that. I bet you couldn't get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree that grass is green.
Does Borders pay anything for the listening stations in their store every time someone samples an album? Why shouldn't Amazon pay the same fee Apple pays (they both have previews)? The television and radio stations pay for song use but why not demand a surcharge on radios so the music industry can tax both end of the chain. Way to go, ASCAP, you may be even more stoopid than the RIAA (doubtful but why give them a run for their money).
Both of those things are wrong, but people don't see them as being as bad as "driving under the influence".
Fuck these people. Damn dirty, no-good rotten, greedy, lifeless, soulless, talentless hack job bastards.
Even the Wallstreet/Banker CEO pricks must stand in awe and wonder on how this bunch of pricks can make an extra dollar.
These fleebswits need to get a clue. Perhaps if everyone stopped buying music entirely for a month, we could show them something. No, wouldn't work, too many would just go along with it...Alas, "You can't fix stupid!".
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get the entire country or even better world to not buy any music for a few days in protest of the RIAA / ASCAP / Record Labels BS NAZI tactics? Any other business that pulled this BS would be out of business in a second. Imagine walking into a car showroom and them saying "Ok, that'll be $20 to take a testdrive" or a clothing store to say "That'll be $2 to try that on"?
ASCAP go fuck yourself.
ASCAP sounds like an abusive monopoly to me. I think the best possible outcome would be for for Amazon to enter into an expensive antitrust legal battle in which ASCAP eventually gets broken into multiple units, while Amazon, the one-click patent abuser, goes bankrupt. Just my opinions.
O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?
Do you realize how many individual artists would immediately see their royalty checks evaporate if they get dropped by iTunes? And that when those songs disappear from iTunes, people will start downloading songs and albums? Discover indie artists? Go back to seeing music locally in bars and concert halls?
Apple has billions upon billions in the bank- plenty of cushioning to survive a momentary drop in revenue. Artists rely on that income stream to put bread on the table. I'd give ASCAP less than a week before they'd be back at the door begging iTunes to take them back, on account of the people camped out on their doorstep with pitchforks and torches.
Please help metamoderate.
It would be amazing if not only Apple removed the 30-second song clips from those artists but, instead, started to charge them for the privilege of having a song preview.
That would be amazing. Bonus points if they were really naughty and only charged those artists affiliated to this entity - and we all know Apple is perfectly able to directly sabotage anyone who gets in their way (i.e. Palm Pre syncing with iTunes).
anyone notice how ASCAP is very similar to ASSHAT?
P.S.
I should probably explain: I think "Right" needs to be changed to "Privilege" for the simple reason that rights are timeless. They are an innate quality of being human and never expire. Therefore a limited-term copyright is not a right, but merely a privilege extended by the ruling government.
You are thinking of "natural" rights. Among others, there are also "civil" rights, which may or may not be particular applications of natural rights, but are created by positive law (an act of government) for a specific purpose - privileges. I would generalize that while most of the rights named in the Declaration are natural rights, the ones mentioned in the Constitution are civil rights.
I had a lot of trouble with the issues of copyright until I was reminded that I should not think of associated rights as Lockean natural rights, but as man-made rights designed for a limited purpose. This debate as well as many others has been confused by the idea that all rights are natural rights.
Prostitutes charge even if you only last 30 seconds, I know from experience :-(
Sounds like we should take one out of Obama's play book, the music industry is to big to fail, we need to bail them out. Also since your media music sales are going down, we will make a deal, bring in your playable, CD with case and album jack and we will give you $5 toward the purchase of a new Blu-ray Music DVD, slim case CD's do not qualify, must be playable, must have been owned by you for more than a year, can not be burned, can not be older than 9 years. You can only used the $5 toward a Blu-ray Music DVD, because hold more data.
"The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit."
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
No comment otherwise; they know who I am, and I'm next !!
Polls seem to indicate the current U.S. Congress tops the list.
It IS greed. There are successful businesses, and then there are businesses who care about naught but lining their and their shareholders' pockets with money. Time, time, time, and time again, history has shown that you can run a business that people like and make money, or you can be a greedy monster and make money. It works for some time, but will those businesses be around in 100 years? If you go around the world and look at some of the companies that HAVE been around for over a century (a lot of food companies have), you'll find that the workers there are typically treated well and are very happy.
It's the same as the old king analogy. As a king, you can rule with kindness or you can rule by fear. By kindness and you can have everything you want (and everything your prosperous country can produce) and will be remembered forever. By fear and you can have everything (only what your pitiful starving country can give you) and will be forgotten over the centuries. For some reason, a lot of leaders tend to choose the latter.
Apple should just add a pay-to-preview feature. When you click on the 30 second preview, a little box pops up, saying "Such and such artists requests that you pay them a small fee of 25 cents to preview this song. Would you like to pay?"
If such a thing occurred, it would be the biggest boom the indie music scene has ever seen.
Even so, How often do people listen to work over 14 years old. When it comes to music and movies, they stand well in the realm of the original copyright laws, which interestingly enough make no reference to fair use. - Not a copyright fan as it is now, but as it was.
It's obvious that these people are complete morons, they make the worst decisions all the time, why are we even bothering to get up in arms over news like this? It's become routine!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Does anyone else giggle like a small girl, think "ASS CAP" and imagine a bunch of executive buttplugs sitting in a meeting?
Seriously. ASCAP, RIAA, MPAA and BSA are just a bunch of thugs. Line 'em up against a wall, and shoot the fucking lot!
If they are not doing the will of the people, the people are not using enough boxes.
This is not news, and hasn't been for a long time.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
noone give me the shit that 'american system works' anymore. and noone feed me the bullshit that 'its like that everywhere in the world' either. it isnt. a lot of that corporate filth is cooked in america right on top of your head with the money they earn from you, legislated in your assembly with the reps your votes put there, and attempted to enforce on other countries in the world with your taxpayer money.
you, basically american citizens, who are the ones most suffering from this, are ironically the ones who are perpetrating this shit indirectly.
if you dont wake up and shake the lie that 'american dream' (what a fucking dream; you have similar chance of getting filthy rich just as the chance that a normal serf in A.D. 1000 had for becoming a noble through proving his valor in battle), they'll demand that you pay royalties for the lullaby you sing to your children next.
Read radical news here
Imagine if ASCAP lost. Then it would be legal to play 30-second clips royalty free. Suddenly they make no money from TV commercials. There's a lot at stake here.
What the hell is a right, natural or civil?
I really hate people bandying about the term "rights", when there is no definition of what they actually are. Yes, I've read my Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but they don't quite explain it in any REAL way. As far as I can see rights are a social construct, pure and simple. Rights are whatever you can convince other people that they are. There is no objective, empirical, or truly naturalistic definition for the term "rights". If there was, we'd have to find a historically universal example. Unless we're going to claim that "rights" are purely "normative", and then we run into the problem that they are complete baseless and subjective again...
That and "the Declaration" is completely non-legally binding. The Declaration of Independence has no bearing on our government, and the rights, as an aside, dictated in it are purely over simplified conjecture. Unless, of course, we're going to accept "god given" rights, in which case me and my fellow atheists, and non-Christians, scoff at you.
Sorry for the hostile tone... The term "rights" just pisses me off, since it is such an empty phrase, unless we completely accept social construction, and then they can be easily reconstructed at whim.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The "people" DID vote them in, each and everyone of them. Live with it, or vote and convince your fellow voters to vote for, someone else. I'm sick of people SCREAMING incoherently about their democratically elected government just because they, personally, didn't vote for this particular group of rats.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I see this tagged "fairuse". I can't honestly find an instance where there is fair use. I put up a youtube clip containing exactly 25.6 seconds of a copyrighted song. It got yanked because of a claim by Warner Music. If you look at the history of sampling, courts have decided that as few as 3 notes is considered copyright infringement. You can't even hum a song without it being considered infringement, which was decided in another court case. We have no rights.
We need to organize a nationwide, one-week "buyer's strike". For the whole week, nobody buys any online content, or CDs, or DVDs, or anything else. We repeat the strike, every month, until the content industries ask for legislation to a) protect the consumer's right to free previews and "fair use" snippets of any performance, and b) insure that 98% of the consumer purchase price for any content goes directly to the artists, not to the blood-sucking drug-addicted mobsters that run the business. I'd organize it myself, but I'm far too lazy, and I'd never make it through a whole week without porn anyway.
As silly as this ASCAP request is, we are not necessarily talking about the artists and record companies here. We are talking about the people who actually wrote or composed the songs here. So while asking for money for what essentially amounts to free advertising is fairly stupid, we are not talking about huge corporate conglomerations like the record companies here.
ASCAP's site
http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx
The 9.1 cents that is referred in the article is how much a songwriter is paid each time a song is sold (CD or digital), but he/she must share that with the publisher 50/50, and then if you co-wrote the song with others, you must share that 50% among the co-writers. So that's how Rick can get a check for 2 cents.
So the people who actually composed and wrote the songs are screwed even more than the performers even by the record companies.
More explanation of the royalties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties#Mechanical_royalties
How about letting people just preview the whole song and forget charging for a performance. At least that way people could discover new songs that they like easier and BUY them to listen to in the future. Retards..
I think you accidentally a word.
Unlike what seems like everyone who has posted a comment on this story thus far, I am a member of ASCAP. In fact, I'm a member both as an individual artist, and as a publisher (my publishing company represents exactly one artist - me). ASCAP stands for "American Society of Composers, Artists, and Producers". It charges no membership fees, but you must have at least one published song to be eligible for membership. The directors are elected from within the membership's ranks.
The problem with ASCAP is that its executives all have intimate ties to the legacy recording industry, and that they're pretty much totally unresponsive to input from those of us who don't have such ties. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no useful mechanism for ordinary members, like me, to affect ASCAP policymaking in any way, shape, or form. Our only power is to vote the bastards out of office - and the problem there is that, as with many other nominally non-profit organizations (I know that seems counterintuitive, but, in fact, ASCAP is chartered as a non-profit organization, which supports itself by charging its members a modest fee for collecting performance royalties on their behalf - a royalty on a royalty, if you will - and, if you are owed no royalties, you pay no fees), elections are essentially popularity contests. "Oh, I recognize that name!" is about as deeply as most ASCAP members think about who they vote for. So the board of directors is mostly dominated by producers, rather than songwriters, and the majority of them are themselves relics of a bygone era, who are, for the most part, digital dimwits, who think of the Internet as the vacuum cleaner that's sucking up all the income from the CDs that aren't selling any more.
The thing is that, from a songwriter's perspective, what ASCAP is chartered to do is essential to making a living. Not all successful songwriters are members of touring bands. Many of us aren't even (or are barely even) recording artists. Instead, there is a substantial population of members who write songs for other people to record, or write soundtrack music (i.e. - not the hits the TV studios license as theme songs, or background music, but the incidental music that sets the mood, or heightens the tension - music that most viewers don't consciously notice, because that's not its function, but that they would definitely miss, if it wasn't there), or commercial jingles, or even music for videogames. Those members of ASCAP need licensing income in order to pay the mortgage and buy groceries. Few of them are millionaires.
So, again, what ASCAP does (or, at least, what it's supposed to do) is not inherently evil. The problem is that its executive ranks are filled with unimaginitive dinosaurs. They're not focused on PR, or on pumping up members' sales numbers, because that's not their charter. Their charter is simple and straightforward: to see that their members get paid every time their recordings are performed in public. That those executives are shortsighted enough to try to squeeze Apple (or any other company) for royalties on 30-second samples does not invalidate the legitimacy of writers needing to get paid for their work, just as coders get paid for theirs. The difference is that coders tend to do "works for hire", so their employers own the code they write, whereas almost all ASCAP members are self-employed. If we don't get royalties, we starve.
Finally, note that Apple is making a pile of money on iTunes. Steve Jobs is not a selfless hero. He's a businessman who has developed a distribution system for music that insures that songwriters receive mechanical royalties (which is where that 9.1 cents comes in) on the sale of individual songs. Mechanical royalties are different from performance royalties. They are paid to songwriters when songs they have written are first sold to individual buyers - essentially, a one-time payment to the writer(s) on each song you, as consumers, purchase, whether in CD format, or as a digital download. ASCAP has nothing to do with colle
Check out my novel.
link to the lobbiest
Grammar/Spelling/Word Choice Nazi time.
The word you want is "lobbyist". Its root is the verb "to lobby", which lobbyists are known for doing, or the noun "lobby", where lobbyists are traditionally found.
(It may also mean an adherent of Lobbyism, but only with the initial capital.)
The word "lobbiest", is the superlative form of the adjective "lobby", meaning "having qualities similar to a lob"; "lobbiest" would thus mean "most similar to a lob". It is thus an adjective, which modifies a noun, and thus should not be used as the object of a preposition or the definite article.
To sum up for you tl;dr kids with the attention span of a gnat, it's spelled lobbyist.
On an unrelated note, do any other Grammar Nazis have tips for invading Comma Splice Russia? I've been having a bit of trouble there.
I am sure that Apple's license to the copyright that allows them to sell the songs covers this. Ascap is demanding money for a right that Apple has already paid for. I would love to see them sue Apple and lose and Pay several million in legal fees as the loser of a copyright claim.
Congress is made of men. ... If they are not doing the will of the people, the people are not using enough boxes.
[Emphasis mine.]
Genius!
We need to hire prostitutes to sleep with these Congressmen. The sex workers will whisper the sweet nothings of copyright reform into the ears of those who thought they were getting a free ride (in more ways than one).
If the Congressmen aren't seduced into carrying out our will, then we'll also have dirt to use against them!
In a word: Idiots.
They wonder why their customers are going away in droves, and they are losing money? They can't adapt to the changing technology apparently, and when another company comes around and HELPS them, they try and torpedo them. They must be idiots. It is the only logical answer. I don't mean the kind you poke fun at for the occasional blunder. I am talking about the village kind that you feel really sorry for.
Here's a hypothesis, let's see if we can flesh this one out:
1: The peak of the Music Industry was in 1999, with approximate 16.4 billion dollars in sales of CD's alone. /directly/ affecting the amount spent on music.
2: It's less than half that now.
3: On-line Music sales have only made up for less than 3 billion dollars of the short fall.
4: The video Game industry has grown vastly in the last ten years. See below. It might even be
5: The Internet also provides competition for people's time and limited money.
6: Other minor factors in the loss of revenue seem to include unauthorized distribution of music, and the wide availability of "singles" via on-line stores that compete with traditional album sales.
Other thoughts:
1: There is a finite amount that people spend on Entertainment.
2: The Music Industry simply has a slice of the pie. It doesn't have a whole one to it's self.
Here's what seems to currently be happening to counter this problem:
1: The Music Industry (RIAA) view it as a problem in /only their/ part of the entertainment industry. They don't seem to be addressing the industry as a whole.
- In 1995, Guy Kawasaki gave a speech to a graduating class. I'm not going to repeat it, but see the link below. Specifically, see Number 8, about the Ice Cutters. A quick summary for the impatient is: If you don't embrace change, then it will happen without you. If that happens, you may find yourself quite lonely one day.
2: They think that if they can charge fees for items/services they didn't in the past, then they will make up for some of that lost revenue.
3: They seem to be distracting themselves by pursuing the symptoms of the illness, not the root cause. (Think: RIAA Lawsuits)
4: By pursuing the symptoms, they are diminishing the "good faith" value of their part of the industry, thus making their slice even smaller.
Ok, background's done.
Here's my thoughts:
If the Music Industry charges for things they haven't in the past, such as Boy Scout Campfire Songs, iTunes Previews, and Royalties on Fair Use items, they won't increase their share of the pie.
If they continue to pursue the "Bigger Stick" tactics they are using, they will continue to tarnish their reputation, and devalue their "brand."
People will probably not spend more money on Music as a whole now that there are different things competing for their dollars.
Additional cost/charges will make the final product more expensive to customers, therefore reducing both the value to them, and the amount they are able to purchase.
Your Thoughts?
- Dan Schnur
(No, not that one.)
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.ready.html
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/01/growth-of-gaming-in-2007-far-outpaces-movies-music.ars - Older, but insightful.
http://stuff.mit.edu/people/amlau/clarity/kawasaki.htm
Thanks for taking the time to express your point of view. Let me give you
our point of view. You may not agree, but you might find some background
helpful.
ASCAP is the only U.S. performing right organization owned and governed by
our 360,000 songwriters, composers and music publisher members. We
represent the public performance of their underlying musical compositions.
We don't sell music or have anything to do with labels. What we do is work
very hard to make sure our members are fairly compensated for the use of
their work in building businesses. Big, small and emerging businesses use
the compositions of songwriters and composers to establish and grow their
business. The 30 second clips you reference are sample performances used by
Apple to sell music. We agree they should be easily available to you to
make your selections, but their use results in the sale of millions of
downloads with millions of dollars going to Apple, not to songwriters.
Interestingly, Apple came to us and asked for a license to publicly perform
our members' music across all their uses, including those 30 second clips.
We are in a Federal Court now because we felt their offer was a fraction of
the value of the songwriter contributions. There are two sides to most all
arguments and we're willing to let a Federal Judge make the right
determination. Until then, why would you want to penalize the majority of
music creators and favor businesses using their work without fair payment?
The ASCAP EXPO Team
before you will have to pay a fee when a song get's stuck in your head.
ring ring ring ring bananaphone...
-
My guesss:
They don't want you to hear it. Rather, they'd prefer you purchase what they market to you, sight unseen.
It is much easier and cheaper to promote a handful of big acts (Britney, etc..) than it would be to try to promote thousands of artists effectively. Not to mention it is easier to lock those 5-6 'big acts' into contracts.
The ease of browsing music and the metadata being created is allowing people to explore and find a much wider variety of artists. Many of whom are probably not even associated with 'big record label X'.
Eh I've seen plenty of typos elsewhere. Stoners don't hold the monopoly on typos. Surprised you can find it so funny without being stoned - I didn't.
While just about all the claims made by David Renzer et. al. are pure bunk, I took special notice of the claims pertaining to iTunes and its ability to stream internet radio.
iTunes merely provides a way to index and "tune in" internet radio stations, but is not the originator of the content -- the internet radio station provides the content. Apple isn't even the "broadcaster" of the content, in the sense that once iTunes connects to the station's URL and gets a stream, the network traffic is going from the internet radio station to the listener; Apple's servers don't come into play, except perhaps as an indexing service. (One of the comments in TFA had a similar point, but the author made the mistake of calling Apple the broadcaster.)
You don't even need to use Apple's official list of indexed internet radio stations. Instead, you can simply enter a URL directly into iTunes.
The point I'm making is this: Doesn't the internet radio station already pay a performance royalty? According to this article, that's supposedly the case -- and additionally, there's also a publishing royalty that is paid for internet radio. That's inherently unfair, since traditional radio stations only pay the publishing royalty and not the performance royalty.
Seems as though Renzer and his pals want to double dip and demand performance royalties from Apple for streaming internet radio when they already obtain performance royalties from the actual radio stations themselves.
Partially because there's been a concerted effort over the past several decades to make people think it's uncivilized to even acknowledge the fourth box.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I was threatened with moderator abuse here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1375693&cid=29486519