I appreciate the heads up on these music resources. I will definately check them out. (One of the benefits of taking part in discussions at Slashdot is I actually learn something from time-to-time from the people I converse with).
Forgive me for resorting to analogies, but it's like someone is threatening to take apples away from us, and you're saying "I don't like apples anyway. And besides, you can have an oragne, or a banana" and you've given me plenty of compelling reasons to try bananas, but I'd like to keep apples around as well.
I am all for Creative Commons/GPL/Copyleft/whatever-the-creator-desires style licenses. I use and support FOSS software, financially and by using and extolling the virtues of FOSS to other users. I use it at work, and the company paid to support it. It represents freedom and choice, two things I value highly.
To me, what Bill and Rebecca - the proprieters of my faverite station - have done is similar. After years of working for big corporate interests (which is where the radio jobs are in the US) they took a chance on a new medium and started their own station. And they said to their visitors/listeners you can use what we have to offer for free, not crippled or encumbered, just listen to our high-quaility streams and if you think this is a thing of value, that you want to keep around, support us. They've been around for years. Listeners upload/rate/comment on songs, participate in forums, and vote on potential additions to the playlist. They pay royalties to BMI/ASCAP for artists and they've paid the Performance Royalty for years, so they're "good citizens." And because they pay these royalties, artists benefit from their efforts as well. Listeners purchase more music, usually from an artist they hadn't heard before. Many of these artists are independent, and they benefit from the exposure a successful station not beholden to the RIAA can give them.
To me what they have done is very similar to a successful FOSS project. So there's freedom. I hope others are inspired to go this route, rather than the throw commercials, pop-ups, banner ads or what ever at their visitors route. That's choice.
You have exposed me to sources of of music I haven't explored yet, and for that I thank you. I hope we will all have freedom and choice in the future.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly understand why you feel the way you do much better now.
I tend to be really picky about word usage and sweeping generalizations, so I apologize for dismissing your point about there being more to "Internet radio" than the stations people like myself are advocating for. Yes, this issue specifically affects US stations who play music, as well as those of us (many not in the US) who enjoy listening to them.
Since we are discussing legislation that affects US-based Internet stations that play music, I am going to shorten that for the duration of the post to "affected stations."
You've asked me to show you how these fees will kill affected stations that are open to playing alternative music, as defined by you. I can not do that. I have no idea what music, and therefore what affected station, might appeal to you.
There may not be one right now. And it may be true that even the independent, listener supported station I like plays a lot of the same artists I could hear on commercial radio. But the fact is, prior to these new rates, a station like that could exist. I happen to like that business model and, who knows, maybe one day some kid will start a station in his basement that will appeal to you. That station is threatened by the proposed rates as well.
Let's do some quick math. The rates for 2006 are.0008 per performance, which is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener. The station I like played roughly 350 songs over the last 24 hours period. I have no idea how many people are listening at any given hour, but to support themselves and pay their overhead, I would assume it would be in the thousands. They state on their website the number of "active users" (which I assume to be registered users who are logged in to their web site) for this week is 5,871, and the number of "guest users" in the last 24 hours is 19,270. Can we suppose the number is 5,000 listeners per hour? I don't think it's out of line.
In that case, these royalties would cost the station $1,400.00 US per day, or $511,000.00 per year. That is a heavy burden to place on an independently run small business that makes a lot of people all over the world happy enough to voluntarily send them money to keep them around.
I concede it is possible a station may be able to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every song they play. I am not so sure it is possible for a station to draw on a large enough catalog to appeal to enough listeners to sustain themselves as either a non-profit, listener-supported or commercial entity, while negotiating one-on-one with each rights holder, unless they happen to be part of a large corporation like Clear Channel, who can afford to operate their streams at a loss in an effort to keep people who listen to them on their commutes tuned in while at work.
Where is the revenue going to come from to pay these fees you are negotiating separately?
You will need either donations from listeners or advertising revenue. Both require a large listenership, which means a large enough catalog of music to appeal to enough people to pay for itself. Oh, and you need to pay all of your operating costs too.
If you know of an example of a station that is doing this - and I mean the part about negotiating individual deals with the copyright holder of every song they play - I'd like to hear about it.
To me there is no choice there, and affected stations who can not afford to pay the CRB rates will be gone, leaving the AOLs, the Clear Channels, the MSNs etc, as far as what is available out of the US.
But I don't live in the US, so why do I care?
Well, I don't know where you live or whether your country has ratified the WIPO treaty. Mine hasn't, but the US is hammering away at our politicians to bring our laws in line with theirs.
So maybe my answer to you is you should care about the stations you don't listen to being threatened, because one day someone might threaten the ones you do listen to.
Recording radioshows and TV via VCR are indeed not leagal.
The only reason you are allowed to do the later is due to court cases that found the supplier of VCRs is not liable for you breaking the law and recording copy right content.
Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use.
Recording programmes for the purposes of time-shifting qualifies as fair use in the United States according to this decision.
Yikes. Okay, a bit of history. In 1995, the United States (Congress? Help me out, neighbors) passed the "Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act" which basically said Internet radio stations had to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright for the actual performance of a song, in addition to the royalties they pay to the composer.
Organizations like BMI/ASCAP (which I believe are non-profit organizations) collect royalties on behalf of composers from terrestrial and Internet stations alike. SoundExchange (a for-profit business, I believe) was appointed buy the "government" to collect the performance royalties on behalf of copyright holders. These are collected from Internet stations only.
The rates are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, who recently announced rates would be collected on a number of songs played times the number of listeners basis, at a rate per "performance" that would drive most independant, non-corporate (for lack of a better label at this late hour) Internet stations out of business.
Here's a link that explains it a lot better than I have done.
You are correct, another company could offer to collect fees on behalf of copyright holders but keep in mind, that would have to be negotiated with all copyright holders whose songs you played. If only some of the music you played was covered by these agreements, you would still have to negotiate with all of the other record companies whose music you played.
It's a lot of work for someone who just wants to spin discs and make a modest living.
Assume I have 2 friends that are in bands and I decide to start an internet radio station that plays songs from only those two bands. I negotiate deals with both of those bands to be able to play their music for a certain price and I pay them. You're telling me that I still need to pay SoundExchange for something? Even though I never played any music that they control.
I believe you are correct. If you played their songs exclusively and you negotiated deals with them, you could opt out of making payments to SoundExchange. The trouble is, that becomes impracticable, even if you play independent bands exclusively. Especially if you are commercial-free, which I suspect you would be whether you like it or not, imagine having to play 24 hours of music seven days a week and offer enough variety to attract and keep listeners.
If you are running an Internet music station, chances are you'd like to spend your time finding, playing and listening to great music you love, rather than negotiating with representatives (ie. lawyers or - worse - people who have their heads up their ass but don't know it) from dozens or maybe hundreds of different labels in places all over the place to secure permission to play their songs in exchange for the fee you negotiate with them.
But you are correct. Technically, stations could opt out.
It seems that you and another poster discuss the issue as if only music is broadcast over the Internet (such as public affairs)
I find your reply odd. I don't recall myself or the other poster saying any such thing. We are commenting on an issue that specifically affects Internet stations that broadcast music. When public affairs programming is threatened with something like this, submit a story and we'll comment on it.
Perhaps that's just the American bias of/..
LOL!
Read back a couple weeks in my posting history to see what I think of people who use the term 'Americans' exclusively to refer to citizens of the United States.
For the record, I'm Canadian (go Canucks!) but - like others who have posted in this thread - greatly enjoy the freedom listening to music on commercial-free, listener-supported Internet radio represents.
You do not get to define the terms of a debate. You do not get to say "If you do not take a particular action that I like you to take, you have lost the ability to debate this without being a flaming hypocrite."
I agree. It's like people who say "if you don't vote you don't get to complain." What a load of crap. I pay taxes, so I'll comment on the actions of my elected officials regardless of whether I voted or not.
It seems that not only will stations have to pay more in the future, but they have to pay more for the past year or so. How is that legal?
The old rates expired in 2005. Stations continued to pay those rates knowing they would owe whatever the difference was between the old rates and the new rates once they were announced. The trouble is, the old rates were based on the station's revenue, while the new ones are based on the number of listeners times the number of songs played. And they represent a HUGE increase.
Of course, the stations could have just gone dark when the old rates expired and waited to see if they could afford to continue to run their business after the CRB announced the new rates. I think that would have suited the big media cartels just fine.
You are not being asked to lobby in favour of just "the RIAA's clients." The "performance royalty" is collected for all songs played, regardless of whether the artist is signed with an RIAA-affiliated label or not. An Internet broadcaster's choice is to either pay royalties at the rates prescribed by the CRB to SoundExchange for each song played times the number of listeners, or to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holder of every song they play.
The rates are so onerous that they threated to make Internet radio unprofitable, and therefore only an option to big companies and terrestrial stations (who don't pay the "performance royalty" for their over-the-air broadcasts, btw) who have other income sources to subsidize the losses they will inevitably suffer from their Internet broadcasts.
So these rates threaten to put out of business the same Internet radio stations who would be likely to play those independent artists you (and a lot of others) enjoy supporting, further entrenching the RIAA-controlled stations and giving listeners fewer choices.
Bill Goldsmith of RadioParadise has a lot of material and links on his site detailing how the rates are applied and what they mean to independent, listener-supported, commercial-free stations like his.
You really should watch your double negatives. This probably sez exactly opposite what you intended.
The AC's post makes perfect sense. I don't think (s)he is the one who is confused about double negatives. You're "prolly" one of those people who also "sez" "I could care less."
Oh absolutely. Given that the conference was organized by the Free Software Foundation Europe - whose slogan, I note, is "Free As In Freedom" - of course they would assume he meant free in the nautical sense.
he just said free software, which only means software that is provided without charge. Sorry Bruce, I normally agree with everything you say, but not this time. The open source community has no right to redefine common English words.
Funny, when I look up the meaning of the word "free," I see many definitions:
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
1. Having political independence: "America . . . is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
2. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
4.
1. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.
2. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint: "Comment is free but facts are sacred" (Charles Prestwich Scott).
6. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
7.
1. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
2. Publicly supported: free education.
8.
1. Not occupied or used: a free locker.
2. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
9. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane.
10. Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank.
11. Taking undue liberties; forward or overfamiliar.
12. Liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
13. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
14. Chemistry & Physics.
1. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
2. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
3. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
4. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
5. Empty: a free space.
6. Unoccupied: a free energy level.
15. Nautical. Favorable: a free wind.
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
17. Linguistics.
1. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
2. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.
So I guess context is important.
In Bruce's example, the context was a conference organized by FSF Europe and the talk was on ""Free Software from Oracle." Which definition of "fee" do you think attendees of such a conference might consider relevant?
Yup. I was going to say she was lucky she didn't drop the bulb in the laundry room and damage an asbestos floor tile. Repairing that would have made the $2000.00 for the light bulb look like chump change.
Yeah, some of his language certainly suggested a less-than-detached point of view:
These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.
I wonder how the level of mercury in CFLs compares with that in a thermometer. If the woman had dropped a thermometer in her daughter's bedroom, would she not be in the same situation?
Better bulbs need to be developed, and there definitely needs to be a convenient and safe method for disposing of them so they don't end up in land fills, but changing the light bulbs in your house is still one of the easiest things you can do to reduce your "carbon footprint" (another 'buzz' word to hate) without making significant lifestyle changes.
Once again we see that every environmental action involves a trade-off of some kind.
What do you mean every enviromental action? There are always trade-offs in life. That lesson was driven home to me when I got in to photography at age 14. If you opened the aperture up to allow for a lower shutter speed, you decreased depth of field. Using a longer lens meant you needed more light. Using a slower shutter speed when more light is not available results in blurry photos.
You don't get something for nothing. I believe this may have something to do with the whole "every action results in an equal and opposite reaction" thing. And this applies to pretty much any action, environmental or not.
Last week I swear there was a "story" about a routine DISCOVERY order. ..
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition with less than 24 hours notice - and on a school day, no less - a "routine DISCOVERY order?"
Slashdot may be giving a lot of attention to these stories, but the corporate media is virtually ignoring them, or presenting them from the point of view of the recording industry. If you think the RIAA challenging the counter-claim is not news, fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us are not interested.
Why is it people feel they need to complain when a story they don't think is "worthy" appears on Slashdot? Are you paying by the bit or what? I scroll past plenty of articles I am not interested in. Sometimes, I even visit other sites.
In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations
You have a point, but I think the "repetitious use of 'the USA'" is a result of politicians and their representatives from "the USA" repeatedly and vocally criticizing Canadian law. From the article we're discussing:
In recent months, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has publicly called on Canada to introduce copyright reform, characterizing our laws as the weakest in the G7 (conveniently overlooking the fact that the G7 no longer exists and references to the G8, which includes Russia, would not be accurate), while U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn have written a public letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanding anti-camcording legislation.
I don't know what the "Japanese IP / copyright laws" are. I certainly don't hear their politicians commenting on ours, or saying our laws should fall in line with theirs.
Do you really have to ask? It will be the "enhanced" version of course. Lucas wants to pretend that the original versions never existed.
That's nothing. I could have sworn there was an article about a Macbook being "hacked" at a security convention on the front page, but now it's not there any more. Talk about revisionist history.
I was having a bit of fun with the ignorance displayed by the poster I was replying to. Many people (many of them Canadians) get their panties in a knot when Canada doesn't toe the US line, or Canadians are critical of US policy or US politicians. They like to use that term "Anti-American," which is pretty stupid as Canadians, like citizens of the United States, Mexico and even Colombia, are all Americans.
You sound like a proud American. Well so am I. I'm sorry there isn't a "convenient" word for citizens of your country to call themselves. Does that mean you just get to take American for your own? I don't think so.
You go right ahead and call yourself an American. I'll do the same.
i'm in this rock band [telus.net]. we are, as one local journalist stated, "startlingly unsuccessful". so, we record and release a compact disc. it's a run of 500 and we sell, maybe, ten (thanks mom!) and lose a tonne of money. this is not an unusual scenario.
but the kicker is this: we pay the levy on the blank cd's we use for our release. this means that some major-label canadian artist (ms. levign perhaps) is actually making money off of my band's record while my band is losing money.
Thanks for an insightful post. I've made the same argument here in the past, but the "I just wanna download songs to my heart's content" crowd think the levy is a good deal for them. Meanwhile, people who use blank media for purposes other than burning songs they didn't pay for on to CDs (I still can't believe people bother to do this) get screwed.
Thank you again for giving us a real world example of why the "levy" is idiotic.
If I want to knock someone off would I use a registered gun?
It's hard to say. People kill each other in the heat of passion, and don't necessarily think their actions through. One thing in favour of the Gun Registry is it gives law enforcement the heads up when responding to a domestic dispute that there may be a gun on the premises.
People use the "if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" argument all the time, but let me throw another cliche out there: if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. Or, if you're using your gun for hunting and keeping the coyotes away from your chickens, why not register it? I know, it's nobody's damn business, it's more bureaucracy, it's a pain in the ass... But I register my vehicle, I register to vote, I "register" with Revenue Canada when I take a job, I am obliged to take part in the census...
As far as privacy goes, keeping the fact that I own a gun secret is pretty low on the list.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the heads up on these music resources. I will definately check them out. (One of the benefits of taking part in discussions at Slashdot is I actually learn something from time-to-time from the people I converse with).
Forgive me for resorting to analogies, but it's like someone is threatening to take apples away from us, and you're saying "I don't like apples anyway. And besides, you can have an oragne, or a banana" and you've given me plenty of compelling reasons to try bananas, but I'd like to keep apples around as well.
I am all for Creative Commons/GPL/Copyleft/whatever-the-creator-desires style licenses. I use and support FOSS software, financially and by using and extolling the virtues of FOSS to other users. I use it at work, and the company paid to support it. It represents freedom and choice, two things I value highly.
To me, what Bill and Rebecca - the proprieters of my faverite station - have done is similar. After years of working for big corporate interests (which is where the radio jobs are in the US) they took a chance on a new medium and started their own station. And they said to their visitors/listeners you can use what we have to offer for free, not crippled or encumbered, just listen to our high-quaility streams and if you think this is a thing of value, that you want to keep around, support us. They've been around for years. Listeners upload/rate/comment on songs, participate in forums, and vote on potential additions to the playlist. They pay royalties to BMI/ASCAP for artists and they've paid the Performance Royalty for years, so they're "good citizens." And because they pay these royalties, artists benefit from their efforts as well. Listeners purchase more music, usually from an artist they hadn't heard before. Many of these artists are independent, and they benefit from the exposure a successful station not beholden to the RIAA can give them.
To me what they have done is very similar to a successful FOSS project. So there's freedom. I hope others are inspired to go this route, rather than the throw commercials, pop-ups, banner ads or what ever at their visitors route. That's choice.
You have exposed me to sources of of music I haven't explored yet, and for that I thank you. I hope we will all have freedom and choice in the future.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly understand why you feel the way you do much better now.
.0008 per performance, which is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener. The station I like played roughly 350 songs over the last 24 hours period. I have no idea how many people are listening at any given hour, but to support themselves and pay their overhead, I would assume it would be in the thousands. They state on their website the number of "active users" (which I assume to be registered users who are logged in to their web site) for this week is 5,871, and the number of "guest users" in the last 24 hours is 19,270. Can we suppose the number is 5,000 listeners per hour? I don't think it's out of line.
I tend to be really picky about word usage and sweeping generalizations, so I apologize for dismissing your point about there being more to "Internet radio" than the stations people like myself are advocating for. Yes, this issue specifically affects US stations who play music, as well as those of us (many not in the US) who enjoy listening to them.
Since we are discussing legislation that affects US-based Internet stations that play music, I am going to shorten that for the duration of the post to "affected stations."
You've asked me to show you how these fees will kill affected stations that are open to playing alternative music, as defined by you. I can not do that. I have no idea what music, and therefore what affected station, might appeal to you.
There may not be one right now. And it may be true that even the independent, listener supported station I like plays a lot of the same artists I could hear on commercial radio. But the fact is, prior to these new rates, a station like that could exist. I happen to like that business model and, who knows, maybe one day some kid will start a station in his basement that will appeal to you. That station is threatened by the proposed rates as well.
Let's do some quick math. The rates for 2006 are
In that case, these royalties would cost the station $1,400.00 US per day, or $511,000.00 per year. That is a heavy burden to place on an independently run small business that makes a lot of people all over the world happy enough to voluntarily send them money to keep them around.
I concede it is possible a station may be able to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every song they play. I am not so sure it is possible for a station to draw on a large enough catalog to appeal to enough listeners to sustain themselves as either a non-profit, listener-supported or commercial entity, while negotiating one-on-one with each rights holder, unless they happen to be part of a large corporation like Clear Channel, who can afford to operate their streams at a loss in an effort to keep people who listen to them on their commutes tuned in while at work.
Where is the revenue going to come from to pay these fees you are negotiating separately?
You will need either donations from listeners or advertising revenue. Both require a large listenership, which means a large enough catalog of music to appeal to enough people to pay for itself. Oh, and you need to pay all of your operating costs too.
If you know of an example of a station that is doing this - and I mean the part about negotiating individual deals with the copyright holder of every song they play - I'd like to hear about it.
To me there is no choice there, and affected stations who can not afford to pay the CRB rates will be gone, leaving the AOLs, the Clear Channels, the MSNs etc, as far as what is available out of the US.
But I don't live in the US, so why do I care?
Well, I don't know where you live or whether your country has ratified the WIPO treaty. Mine hasn't, but the US is hammering away at our politicians to bring our laws in line with theirs.
So maybe my answer to you is you should care about the stations you don't listen to being threatened, because one day someone might threaten the ones you do listen to.
You seem to be partially correct. The court did rule in SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) that manufacturers of VCRs could not be held accountable for copyright infringement due to the actions of their customers.
But this was included in the ruling as well:
Recording programmes for the purposes of time-shifting qualifies as fair use in the United States according to this decision.
Yikes. Okay, a bit of history. In 1995, the United States (Congress? Help me out, neighbors) passed the "Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act" which basically said Internet radio stations had to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright for the actual performance of a song, in addition to the royalties they pay to the composer.
Organizations like BMI/ASCAP (which I believe are non-profit organizations) collect royalties on behalf of composers from terrestrial and Internet stations alike. SoundExchange (a for-profit business, I believe) was appointed buy the "government" to collect the performance royalties on behalf of copyright holders. These are collected from Internet stations only.
The rates are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, who recently announced rates would be collected on a number of songs played times the number of listeners basis, at a rate per "performance" that would drive most independant, non-corporate (for lack of a better label at this late hour) Internet stations out of business.
Here's a link that explains it a lot better than I have done.
You are correct, another company could offer to collect fees on behalf of copyright holders but keep in mind, that would have to be negotiated with all copyright holders whose songs you played. If only some of the music you played was covered by these agreements, you would still have to negotiate with all of the other record companies whose music you played.
It's a lot of work for someone who just wants to spin discs and make a modest living.
not to mention Maher Arar
I believe you are correct. If you played their songs exclusively and you negotiated deals with them, you could opt out of making payments to SoundExchange. The trouble is, that becomes impracticable, even if you play independent bands exclusively. Especially if you are commercial-free, which I suspect you would be whether you like it or not, imagine having to play 24 hours of music seven days a week and offer enough variety to attract and keep listeners.
If you are running an Internet music station, chances are you'd like to spend your time finding, playing and listening to great music you love, rather than negotiating with representatives (ie. lawyers or - worse - people who have their heads up their ass but don't know it) from dozens or maybe hundreds of different labels in places all over the place to secure permission to play their songs in exchange for the fee you negotiate with them.
But you are correct. Technically, stations could opt out.
I find your reply odd. I don't recall myself or the other poster saying any such thing. We are commenting on an issue that specifically affects Internet stations that broadcast music. When public affairs programming is threatened with something like this, submit a story and we'll comment on it.
LOL!
Read back a couple weeks in my posting history to see what I think of people who use the term 'Americans' exclusively to refer to citizens of the United States.
For the record, I'm Canadian (go Canucks!) but - like others who have posted in this thread - greatly enjoy the freedom listening to music on commercial-free, listener-supported Internet radio represents.
Go here.
I agree. It's like people who say "if you don't vote you don't get to complain." What a load of crap. I pay taxes, so I'll comment on the actions of my elected officials regardless of whether I voted or not.
The old rates expired in 2005. Stations continued to pay those rates knowing they would owe whatever the difference was between the old rates and the new rates once they were announced. The trouble is, the old rates were based on the station's revenue, while the new ones are based on the number of listeners times the number of songs played. And they represent a HUGE increase.
Of course, the stations could have just gone dark when the old rates expired and waited to see if they could afford to continue to run their business after the CRB announced the new rates. I think that would have suited the big media cartels just fine.
You are not being asked to lobby in favour of just "the RIAA's clients." The "performance royalty" is collected for all songs played, regardless of whether the artist is signed with an RIAA-affiliated label or not. An Internet broadcaster's choice is to either pay royalties at the rates prescribed by the CRB to SoundExchange for each song played times the number of listeners, or to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holder of every song they play.
The rates are so onerous that they threated to make Internet radio unprofitable, and therefore only an option to big companies and terrestrial stations (who don't pay the "performance royalty" for their over-the-air broadcasts, btw) who have other income sources to subsidize the losses they will inevitably suffer from their Internet broadcasts.
So these rates threaten to put out of business the same Internet radio stations who would be likely to play those independent artists you (and a lot of others) enjoy supporting, further entrenching the RIAA-controlled stations and giving listeners fewer choices.
Bill Goldsmith of RadioParadise has a lot of material and links on his site detailing how the rates are applied and what they mean to independent, listener-supported, commercial-free stations like his.
The AC's post makes perfect sense. I don't think (s)he is the one who is confused about double negatives. You're "prolly" one of those people who also "sez" "I could care less."
Oh absolutely. Given that the conference was organized by the Free Software Foundation Europe - whose slogan, I note, is "Free As In Freedom" - of course they would assume he meant free in the nautical sense.
Funny, when I look up the meaning of the word "free," I see many definitions:
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
1. Having political independence: "America . . . is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
2. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
4.
1. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.
2. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint: "Comment is free but facts are sacred" (Charles Prestwich Scott).
6. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
7.
1. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
2. Publicly supported: free education.
8.
1. Not occupied or used: a free locker.
2. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
9. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane.
10. Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank.
11. Taking undue liberties; forward or overfamiliar.
12. Liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
13. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
14. Chemistry & Physics.
1. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
2. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
3. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
4. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
5. Empty: a free space.
6. Unoccupied: a free energy level.
15. Nautical. Favorable: a free wind.
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
17. Linguistics.
1. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
2. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.
So I guess context is important.
In Bruce's example, the context was a conference organized by FSF Europe and the talk was on ""Free Software from Oracle." Which definition of "fee" do you think attendees of such a conference might consider relevant?
Yup. I was going to say she was lucky she didn't drop the bulb in the laundry room and damage an asbestos floor tile. Repairing that would have made the $2000.00 for the light bulb look like chump change.
I wonder how the level of mercury in CFLs compares with that in a thermometer. If the woman had dropped a thermometer in her daughter's bedroom, would she not be in the same situation?
Better bulbs need to be developed, and there definitely needs to be a convenient and safe method for disposing of them so they don't end up in land fills, but changing the light bulbs in your house is still one of the easiest things you can do to reduce your "carbon footprint" (another 'buzz' word to hate) without making significant lifestyle changes.
What do you mean every enviromental action? There are always trade-offs in life. That lesson was driven home to me when I got in to photography at age 14. If you opened the aperture up to allow for a lower shutter speed, you decreased depth of field. Using a longer lens meant you needed more light. Using a slower shutter speed when more light is not available results in blurry photos.
You don't get something for nothing. I believe this may have something to do with the whole "every action results in an equal and opposite reaction" thing. And this applies to pretty much any action, environmental or not.
Too bad their record company doesn't.
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition with less than 24 hours notice - and on a school day, no less - a "routine DISCOVERY order?"
Slashdot may be giving a lot of attention to these stories, but the corporate media is virtually ignoring them, or presenting them from the point of view of the recording industry. If you think the RIAA challenging the counter-claim is not news, fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us are not interested.
Why is it people feel they need to complain when a story they don't think is "worthy" appears on Slashdot? Are you paying by the bit or what? I scroll past plenty of articles I am not interested in. Sometimes, I even visit other sites.
Out of the frying pan, in to the fire.
You have a point, but I think the "repetitious use of 'the USA'" is a result of politicians and their representatives from "the USA" repeatedly and vocally criticizing Canadian law. From the article we're discussing:
I don't know what the "Japanese IP / copyright laws" are. I certainly don't hear their politicians commenting on ours, or saying our laws should fall in line with theirs.
That's nothing. I could have sworn there was an article about a Macbook being "hacked" at a security convention on the front page, but now it's not there any more. Talk about revisionist history.
I was having a bit of fun with the ignorance displayed by the poster I was replying to. Many people (many of them Canadians) get their panties in a knot when Canada doesn't toe the US line, or Canadians are critical of US policy or US politicians. They like to use that term "Anti-American," which is pretty stupid as Canadians, like citizens of the United States, Mexico and even Colombia, are all Americans.
You sound like a proud American. Well so am I. I'm sorry there isn't a "convenient" word for citizens of your country to call themselves. Does that mean you just get to take American for your own? I don't think so.
You go right ahead and call yourself an American. I'll do the same.
And that continent so many USians confuse with their country might actually be the one Canadians call home.
Thanks for an insightful post. I've made the same argument here in the past, but the "I just wanna download songs to my heart's content" crowd think the levy is a good deal for them. Meanwhile, people who use blank media for purposes other than burning songs they didn't pay for on to CDs (I still can't believe people bother to do this) get screwed.
Thank you again for giving us a real world example of why the "levy" is idiotic.
It's hard to say. People kill each other in the heat of passion, and don't necessarily think their actions through. One thing in favour of the Gun Registry is it gives law enforcement the heads up when responding to a domestic dispute that there may be a gun on the premises.
People use the "if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" argument all the time, but let me throw another cliche out there: if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. Or, if you're using your gun for hunting and keeping the coyotes away from your chickens, why not register it? I know, it's nobody's damn business, it's more bureaucracy, it's a pain in the ass
As far as privacy goes, keeping the fact that I own a gun secret is pretty low on the list.