Slashdot Mirror
Licensing Problem Silences Internet Radio Stations
SEWilco writes "Hundreds of Internet radio stations that use SWCast.net for services have been affected by a shutdown triggered by SoundExchange, who claim lack of payment of royalty fees. Apparently SoundExchange has a new president, and this might be a factor in acting on several years of missing payments. In the meantime, SWCast radio stations suffer after paying to legally broadcast."
Silences is an anagram for licenses. That's all I have. But I found that more interesting than TFS.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Traditionally, if you have trouble paying something, you pay to a reliable registered third party until things are cleared up.
Wow. SWCast's "President" looks like an emo 17-year-old teen who just pulled a suit jacket out of a laundry hamper.
I'm surprised he's not wearing a fedora, too.
Unfortunately, I don't think things bode well for SWCast members.... The post by the CEO was lots of words about his wonderful past and very little substance about addressing the take down notice by SoundExchange. The SWCast CEO failed to refute any of their claims or provide any reassurance that their service would be up soon (note that this may be on the advice of his lawyers, but he doesn't even mention that he is working with his lawyers to resolve it ASAP)
He doesn't even apologize to customers for the disruption.
In the meantime, SWCast radio stations suffer after paying to legally broadcast.
Well, I'm sorry, suckers, but that's what you get. If there's one lesson that New Media needs to get mercilessly beaten into its collective brain, it's that you do not attempt to play ball with Old Media. If anyone expected to get anything but fucked, shame on them.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Apparently SoundExchange has a new president, and this might be a factor in acting on several years of missing payments. In the meantime, SWCast radio stations suffer after paying to legally broadcast.
No, they weren't paying to legally broadcast. Yes they were paying SWCast, but since SWCast wasn't paying their fees, they had no license, and as such they shouldn't have been telling their clients everything is ok.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Within the last hour or so, it appears that the swcast.net web site has completely been taken down, and people that attempt to log on to swcast.net are now directed to the SOundexchange web site.
So, if you don't pay the ransom to the RIAA they hijack your website? And they have the nerve to call other people pirates?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
when RIAA was going after Pandora, I remember reading about sound exchange, on how they collect royalty irregardless whether they have any rights to collect the royalty at all. Sound exchange claims they hold in escrow money collected for artist they do not have right to collect for. I feel that for that alone they should be sued to the ground for restraint of trade. They are interposing them selves on behalf of third parties that never wanted them to interpose in the first place.
Somebody has to be making a buck, and that somebody usually needs the government to threaten people in order to make it happen.
I understand that people need to make money, but didn't the Internet pretty much make this kind of thing obsolete? Face it, folks, it's a brave new world, and no matter how much you'd like to, you CAN NOT CONTROL THE INFORMATION YOU PRODUCE. You can try, and you might even succeed enough to get people thrown into the rape-rooms of federal prison, but you're never going to stop "illegal" distribution of copyrighted material, so deal with it and change your strategy to match the REALITY of the world you ACTUALLY live in rather than relying on the state to use violence against people who didn't file the right paperwork and/or pay the right people.
Have you SEEN his pic? Good grief! http://www.swcast.net/
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
So, I'm curious: Is there any organization that does direct label->broadcaster agreements (or acting as a clearinghouse for those sorts of agreements)? I believe (though IANAL) that a direct contract between a label & a broadcaster for a given netcasting rate would bypass the need to pay SoundExchange (since you wouldn't be relying on the compulsory license). Is there any organization doing that sort of contract work out in the wild net?
From the SoundExchange posting: "We’re sorry that SWCast chose not to comply with the law, and we hope SWCast fans will find another (legal) provider by which to enjoy the tracks we all love. Meanwhile, we’ll be holding down the fort here..."
Holding down the fort? Excuse me? Are these guys actually invoking a metaphor of isolation and danger? Please. These guys have been sitting on their butts and drinking cappuccinos, or something. Why should it take six years to notice that SWcast.net has not been paying?
Oh wait, they say they have been "reaching out" to SWcast.net. Oh, if ONLY they have not been sipping their delicate beverages, then they could have reached a little bit further, or maybe gotten off their butts sooner.
They're lame.
I keep hearing the word license used more and more to copyrighted works. I remember it beginning with software, which was a word that we distinguished as applying to the executable binaries, not the source code. This distinction remained for a long time, justifying the contractual relationship with using software that does not apply to reading books. Now, we hear licensing all the time to copyrighted works. This is creating an image that the owner of the copyright can unilaterally create a contractual relationship tied to what happens after the works are copied. In the context of music, is it justifiable to refer to these fees as a form of licensing? Should we be pushing back on the use of the term "licensing"?
Open Standards Portal
nobody should be playing ball w/soundexchange. it's a racket, pure and simple. 40,000 internet radio stations were silenced overnight when these new broadcasting fees, abetted congress, aimed only at and deliberately hobbling internet radio, kicked in a decade ago.
no station is "thriving" today despite claims by se to the contrary, unless they use streaming as a loss leader for other profitable ventures.
between soundexchange and now data caps what could have been a new, exciting and truly democratic broadcasting medium where anyone could stream content to anywhere, has been throttled to near asphyxiation.
internet broadcasters should simply shut down and walk away until congress and the music industry realize that the promotional value of streaming - like ota broadcasting - far outweighs any limited fees that accrue from performance royalties.
- js.
"Pop" music is as ephemeral as a mayfly -- top 10 today and forgotten tomorrow. Listen instead to classical music. While recent performances might be under copyright, the music itself is no longer protected. By "classical music", I mean not only Bach and Beethoven but also music that was popular 50-100 years ago and is still popular. Streaming broadcasts of such music over the Internet do not seem impacted by the contention between SWCast.net and SoundExchange.
By the way, see what I have to say about current copyright laws at the top of [http://www.rossde.com/music.html].
Thank you for visiting SWCast Network
We are experiencing technical difficulties at this time. Please be patient as we work to resolve the problem.
They must be getting hammered.
The reason that SoundExchange exists is because Old Media lobbied congress to make New Media prohibitively expensive. SoundExchange is the gatekeeper preventing New Media from having the impact it would otherwise, while the same restrictions don't apply to Old Media.
Yes, after all p2pnet is the RELIABLE SOURCE when it comes to people who don't believe in IP copyright.
Basically your linked "story" says that because SoundExchange doesn't have contact information for a bunch of marginal little know and little played "artists", they are somehow evil?
If you are an "artist" and you are seeking your payments, perhaps YOU should contact SoundExchange with your here-to unknown contact info?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I just started a small online radio station using Icecast. I'm broadcasting all local, unsigned rock bands in my area. This way, I don't have to pay any protection^W royalty fees to the RIAA and friends. It also helps nurture my local music scene. =)
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Internet broadcasters will just keep splitting into smaller an smaller groups, getting less attention and harder to track and regulate. Many local bands and singers are not members of these groups and the payout to the labels and recording organizations. The royalties paid in by broadcasters do not go to these bands and its just a waste. As long as some basic rules are followed and the site does not make a profit, there is no reason why broadcasters should be paying these fees.
Don't steal, and things like this won't happen. I know "I don't want to pay for it, so I'll take it without paying" is the Slashdot mantra, but seriously.
-1 unconventional
Is OK, Bra...KAPA is still playing. Mahalo
I take it that the SoundExchange "jurisdiction" does not extend past U. S. borders?
Webcasters: I can recommend several good low-end VPS providers with terabyte+ bandwidth limits that are not located in the "United States of Getting All Up In Yo Pocket".
Or you can check out lowendbox.
KryKey is a free broadcasting service located outside the USA - 320K streaming, unlimited listeners, live talk, multiple libraries, dj 2 listener talk, plug in external sound source for live shows, flash based, and more
"catfish". they are bottom feeders, sucking the dregs out of a failed business model. and i'm off to find a good russian ambient radio station.