As far as the retroactive royalty fees go, I hate to disagree with you, but while I think it will cause some chaos, I also think that it will be fought tooth and nail, and I don't think the RIAA is going to come out on top of this one.
I'm sure a lot of Internet broadcasters are hoping that is the case. Watch for appeals to come from the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Digial Media Association on behalf of the big media companies. They are the only ones with the resources to fight this. Whether their appeals are successful, and whether they will benefit smaller, independent stations, remains to be seen.
I hate to point you back to the link in the summery, but the rates are right at the top, including those for 2006. The Copyright Royalty Board fully intends to collect these royalties, and are well within their mandate to do so. If your station played copyrighted works in 2006, you will pay royalty fees for the use of that material (although the fees may ultimately be reduced, as they were in 2002. Scroll down to the bottom of Kurt's page for coverage of that go-around).
'm rather wondering why you think this would require us to turn our back on the last hundred years of culture.
This was in response to the notion that this will somehow be of benefit to independent artists.
First of all, this royalty is collected on all performances, even those of works by non-RIAA artists. The RIAA lobbied hard for these rates, and are licking their chops at the prospect of collecting them, but don't make the mistake of thinking fees will not be collected for all songs played, even those of "independent artist." The "sound recording copyright owner" is entitled to compensation, and anyone can apply to Sound Exchange for their cut, just like Sony or EMI or whomever. The only problem is the allocation of these royalty payments is based on aggregate totals from the industry as a whole, meaning all those Clear Channel stations that stream their FM broadcasts skew the numbers in favour of established artists. The independent artist is unlikely to see any money, even if they are getting airplay on stations not so beholden to the RIAA marketing machine.
So why don't Internet broadcasters play only "free music," licensed through Creative Commons or something?
Many do, and some even get a few listeners I'm sure. But there are other costs associated with running a radio stations, including the cost of maintaining your music catalog (even if you don't "pay" for the music, you need to acquire it, sift through it to separate the good from the bad, store it etc.), bandwidth costs, on-air talent, the cost of maintaining a website that offers features that will attract listeners, BMI/ASCAP royalties (still gotta pay those, don't forget) and sundry costs incurred by any small business. Attracting a listener base sufficient to offset these costs while exclusively playing independently produced, Creative Commons licensed, music by artists nobody has heard of is a heavy lift. Not saying it can't happen in the long run, but I don't see independently run Internet radio stations with no other source of revenue surviving long enough to make this a reality.
But the 'big media' companies who stream their FM broadcast will be subject to these fees too, so what's the problem?
Frankly, they will probably lose money as well. That doesn't mean they won't use Internet streams as a "loss leader," to get people who listen to them on their commute to tune in while the're at work, all the while bombarding them with on-air commercials, ads on their website and compiling marketing data that can be sold to offset some of these costs.
I know, and I appreciate what you are saying. The sad thing is the very stations threatened by this - the independent, in some cases commercial-free ones that play an eclectic mix and take chances - are the ones that would encourage that next great independent artist, and give him a conduit to potential fans.
It's very hard to build a listener base. Most people are just not prepared to pretend the music they grew up listening to (and probably still love) didn't happen.
The Clear Channel stations have access to other revenue sources. They can afford to pay the Royalties for their Internet streams, and watch the little guys go down. Once they have the same strangle-hold on Internet radio as they do on terrestrial radio, you won't be able to tell the two apart.
That's great, and I am all for supporting independant artitsts. and encouraging them to explore new avenues for reaching their fans, hopefully without the involvement of the "big five." But are we just supposed to turn our back on the last - I don't know - hundred years of our popular culture and pretend it doesn't exist? All the music, movies and television currently under the stewardship of big media companies suddenly off limits?
Remember, terrestrial stations are not subject to this royalty fee, it is targeted directly at Internet streams, it is charged on a per track/per listener basis and, sorry to correct you but is retroactive to the beginning of 2006. Stations with large listenerships will be receiving a bill in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's royalty fees.
Meanwhile, it is business as usual for the FM staions, who will continue to play RIAA music the independant Internet staion can no longer afford. And people will continue to listen to them, because we like the Beatles, and the Who and lot's of other stuff that is controlled by the big media companies. That's what i don't get about these "boycott the RIAA" type comments. Some people just think everything is crap, so they won't care if stations die. The just want to stick it to someone. Others might be willing to give it up out of idealism, and I respect that. But if you love music you don't want to give any of it up.
These fees will result in the loss of independant Internet stations, and we will all be poorer for it.
i love RP and saw the notice on their website yesterday. someone pointed me to it weeks ago and i listen to it *alot* id hate to see them shut down over this:/
Please support them, if you haven't already done so. If these rates stand, they are retroactive to back to the beginning of 2006. Radio Paradise will receive a bill for last year that is in the six figures.
Huh? Are you going for a world record for the least logical non-sequitur here? Since when did placing the government in charge of collecting revenue automatically lead to censorship?
Did you, as a creative artist who is critical of the current administration, want to be collecting some of that revenue?
Would a U.S.-based company (like my favorite, Radio Paradise) not still be required to pay it, even if their servers were in Canada? Bill & Rebecca would have to leave their country (not that we would'nt welcome them up here).
I'll check out David Kilgour's site. And thanks for the discussion.
I am sure my opinions are coloured by my distaste for the legislation in question, and you have obviously arrived at yours after much thought. My fear with legislation like this is exactly that it will be used (abused) by the RCMP for things like investigating the Air India bombing. For goodness sake, if they can't investigate a 20+ year-old cold case without violating the Charter (my opinion again, and I don't really know what I'm talking about I suppose), then I fear for our democracy.
But I didn't lose any family members on that plane, either. Maybe I would feel differently if I had.
a large portion of those Liberals voted for it when it became law, and were a part of the government that wrote it.
They also voted for that law to expire after five years. What arguments has Stephen Harper put forward that have convinced you that new legislation to extend the law is necessary? Why do you think it is the role of opposition to support the government in this new initiative?
Voting against your own former government's legislation purely to be contrarian while silencing the voices of others exemplifies what is wrong with popular politics.
You seem to be really stuck on this. They were not voting against their own legislation; they were voting against a Conservative motion to extend something that was not intended to be permanent.
You have no idea what Dion's motivation was to oppose this Conservative motion. You ascribe it to "playing politics" and being "contrarian." Okay. Were you as hard on Stephen Harper in 2005 when he tried to bring down the government by attempting to block the Liberals from passing their budget?
Or is "playing politics" ok when it's directed at the Liberals?
And as for "silencing the voices of others," which was the original point I was replying to, I do not see this as "undemocratic." The MPs are in the position they are in because of the effort, support and donations of their party's supporters. If they don't like being compelled to vote a particular way on certain issues, they are free to do their own fund raising and campaigning as an independent. If you don't like Dion telling his MPs how to vote, you are free to not support him in the next election.
The Liberals voted against a Conservative motion to extend a law that was a direct response to a specific incident, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, for that reason, was supposed to expire after five years. You may be right, the Liberals may have strictly political motives for reaching the (IMO) correct decision. I wasn't debating the merits of the motion, or how they arrived at their stance, with you.
I don't recall the question of whether or not to extend this law coming up in the last election. Maybe it was there, in among all the muck slinging. If Dion said last week he would support a Conservative motion to extend it, then flip-flopped, you might have an argument with him. If you intended to vote for him but he flip-flopped, write him a letter telling him why he (or your local Liberal) won't be getting your vote in the next election. I suspect he wasn't going to anyway.
Does Stephen Harper let his MPs vote their conscience on every issue? He may. I don't know. If he does, I guess you'd better get to know your MP real well. To know where he/she stands on every issue. And your MLA, city councilors, parks board members, school board members...
I used a poor example to make my point. I was attempting to comment on your statement that the Liberal party forcing their members to vote along party lines is undemocratic.
I don't have a problem with the leader of the party instructing their members how to vote, and sanctioning members who don't toe the line. It is a leader's job to lead and - on key issues - the party needs to take a position and enforce it so the voter knows how to vote. If you want a free spirit as an MP, vote for an independent. Chuck Cadman was a great example of what can be accomplished even if your party abandons you. He polled his constituents to determine whether or not to support the 2005 budget.
I also don't have a problem with a member of a party taking a principled stand and defying the leader. They should just be willing to accept the consequence, up to having to sit as an independent. If they have views that differ from the official party position, they should make that clear to potential constituents during their campaigns, so people who may be voting based on party affiliation can be aware of issues where their candidate might vote contrary to the party position.
I don't think this is undemocratic. The voter makes his or her choice on election day, often based on which party the person they are voting for belongs to. I would be very unhappy if my MP decided to go renegade and do something completely contrary to what I expected of him when I voted for him. Then again, maybe I feel that way because of who my MP is.
Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.
Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, or this one.
(Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).
Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives played politics on this, and I dislike it about both of them, but for the Liberals to force their members to vote in this way is undemocratic in my opinion.
Sometimes it is necessary to protect minorities from the will of the majority. That is why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Whats with that phrase, 'get on peoples chimes'. Im seeing it everywhere since about two weeks ago. Is this some sort of guerrilla doorbell marketting campagne?
I don't know. I tried squirting it on to Google, but the links just pointed back here...
Actually, you are expected to watch ads; you are not required to do so
Isn't that what I said:
you are expected to watch the advertisements of the sponsors who paid for those "free" programmes in exchange for watching them.
You are also expected to pay for the items you take from the store. That doesn't mean it is not possible to walk out the door with them without paying.
It's free for me to watch it over the public airwaves
Not sure which definition of "free" you're working off this morning, but you are expected to watch the advertisements of the sponsors who paid for those "free" programmes in exchange for watching them. The industry has been very clear on this point: if you don't watch the ads, you are stealing.
If you are required to do anything in exchange for watching the programme, it isn't "free."
So, what would be an appropriate response to knowing that someone has just tried to use your software illegally? Simply deleting the program?
Isn't that like catching me trying to steal your wallet and merely going "bad person, go away" and taking your wallet back?
So what would be an appropriate response from me to you when you try to steal my wallet? Does anything go? If I caught you going through my jacket pockets as I returned from the men's room, could I kill you? Maybe in a wild west cowyboy move. But in 2007?
Hell, jaywalkers really piss me off. So I should just, like, go all Grand Theft Auto on them and mow them down cause they were, like, jaywalking, right?
I didn't bother to check their site, but I'll take you at your word. The article linked to in the summary (from Networkworld, whoever the hell they are) said they were a "law firm," and claimed to be quoting an Associated Press story. The Miami Herald calls them a "Miami education consulting firm." ESPN agrees, as do most of the other sites I just checked. Of course, most of those are just re-publishing the AP story, without checking it for accuracy.
I guess the lesson here is don't take everything you read as gospel, regardless of whether you read it on Wikipedia, or CNN, or in your local newspaper. Check out the facts, cause they probably didn't bother.
They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself.
You do know he is not suing Wikipedia, right? He tracked the IP of the person who posted the allegedly libelous comments in Wikipedia to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. He is suing them, probably hoping they will tell him which of their employees he should be suing instead.
I wouldn't be surprised to find it as a catch phrase of a character in some upcoming comedy movie or other commercial venture and that it's being sprayed over multiple net forums to build hype (astroturfing).
Thanks. I was going to squirt it on to Google to find out what it meant, but you did it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure a lot of Internet broadcasters are hoping that is the case. Watch for appeals to come from the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Digial Media Association on behalf of the big media companies. They are the only ones with the resources to fight this. Whether their appeals are successful, and whether they will benefit smaller, independent stations, remains to be seen.
I hate to point you back to the link in the summery, but the rates are right at the top, including those for 2006. The Copyright Royalty Board fully intends to collect these royalties, and are well within their mandate to do so. If your station played copyrighted works in 2006, you will pay royalty fees for the use of that material (although the fees may ultimately be reduced, as they were in 2002. Scroll down to the bottom of Kurt's page for coverage of that go-around).
This was in response to the notion that this will somehow be of benefit to independent artists.
First of all, this royalty is collected on all performances, even those of works by non-RIAA artists. The RIAA lobbied hard for these rates, and are licking their chops at the prospect of collecting them, but don't make the mistake of thinking fees will not be collected for all songs played, even those of "independent artist." The "sound recording copyright owner" is entitled to compensation, and anyone can apply to Sound Exchange for their cut, just like Sony or EMI or whomever. The only problem is the allocation of these royalty payments is based on aggregate totals from the industry as a whole, meaning all those Clear Channel stations that stream their FM broadcasts skew the numbers in favour of established artists. The independent artist is unlikely to see any money, even if they are getting airplay on stations not so beholden to the RIAA marketing machine.
So why don't Internet broadcasters play only "free music," licensed through Creative Commons or something?
Many do, and some even get a few listeners I'm sure. But there are other costs associated with running a radio stations, including the cost of maintaining your music catalog (even if you don't "pay" for the music, you need to acquire it, sift through it to separate the good from the bad, store it etc.), bandwidth costs, on-air talent, the cost of maintaining a website that offers features that will attract listeners, BMI/ASCAP royalties (still gotta pay those, don't forget) and sundry costs incurred by any small business. Attracting a listener base sufficient to offset these costs while exclusively playing independently produced, Creative Commons licensed, music by artists nobody has heard of is a heavy lift. Not saying it can't happen in the long run, but I don't see independently run Internet radio stations with no other source of revenue surviving long enough to make this a reality.
But the 'big media' companies who stream their FM broadcast will be subject to these fees too, so what's the problem?
Frankly, they will probably lose money as well. That doesn't mean they won't use Internet streams as a "loss leader," to get people who listen to them on their commute to tune in while the're at work, all the while bombarding them with on-air commercials, ads on their website and compiling marketing data that can be sold to offset some of these costs.
The small, independent station can
I know, and I appreciate what you are saying. The sad thing is the very stations threatened by this - the independent, in some cases commercial-free ones that play an eclectic mix and take chances - are the ones that would encourage that next great independent artist, and give him a conduit to potential fans.
It's very hard to build a listener base. Most people are just not prepared to pretend the music they grew up listening to (and probably still love) didn't happen.
The Clear Channel stations have access to other revenue sources. They can afford to pay the Royalties for their Internet streams, and watch the little guys go down. Once they have the same strangle-hold on Internet radio as they do on terrestrial radio, you won't be able to tell the two apart.
That's great, and I am all for supporting independant artitsts. and encouraging them to explore new avenues for reaching their fans, hopefully without the involvement of the "big five." But are we just supposed to turn our back on the last - I don't know - hundred years of our popular culture and pretend it doesn't exist? All the music, movies and television currently under the stewardship of big media companies suddenly off limits?
Remember, terrestrial stations are not subject to this royalty fee, it is targeted directly at Internet streams, it is charged on a per track/per listener basis and, sorry to correct you but is retroactive to the beginning of 2006. Stations with large listenerships will be receiving a bill in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's royalty fees.
Meanwhile, it is business as usual for the FM staions, who will continue to play RIAA music the independant Internet staion can no longer afford. And people will continue to listen to them, because we like the Beatles, and the Who and lot's of other stuff that is controlled by the big media companies. That's what i don't get about these "boycott the RIAA" type comments. Some people just think everything is crap, so they won't care if stations die. The just want to stick it to someone. Others might be willing to give it up out of idealism, and I respect that. But if you love music you don't want to give any of it up.
These fees will result in the loss of independant Internet stations, and we will all be poorer for it.
Please support them, if you haven't already done so. If these rates stand, they are retroactive to back to the beginning of 2006. Radio Paradise will receive a bill for last year that is in the six figures.
Did you, as a creative artist who is critical of the current administration, want to be collecting some of that revenue?
Would a U.S.-based company (like my favorite, Radio Paradise) not still be required to pay it, even if their servers were in Canada? Bill & Rebecca would have to leave their country (not that we would'nt welcome them up here).
Actually, it was a joke. If I was trolling, I would have used my "troll account."
The shift key seems to be sticking on your keyboard. I'm guessing Slashdot isn't the only site you've visited today.
Sounds like someone needs to switch to decaf.
The usual coercion and strong-arm tactics should do the trick.
I thought it was "wiiiiiiii"
I'll check out David Kilgour's site. And thanks for the discussion.
I am sure my opinions are coloured by my distaste for the legislation in question, and you have obviously arrived at yours after much thought. My fear with legislation like this is exactly that it will be used (abused) by the RCMP for things like investigating the Air India bombing. For goodness sake, if they can't investigate a 20+ year-old cold case without violating the Charter (my opinion again, and I don't really know what I'm talking about I suppose), then I fear for our democracy.
But I didn't lose any family members on that plane, either. Maybe I would feel differently if I had.
They also voted for that law to expire after five years. What arguments has Stephen Harper put forward that have convinced you that new legislation to extend the law is necessary? Why do you think it is the role of opposition to support the government in this new initiative?
You seem to be really stuck on this. They were not voting against their own legislation; they were voting against a Conservative motion to extend something that was not intended to be permanent.
You have no idea what Dion's motivation was to oppose this Conservative motion. You ascribe it to "playing politics" and being "contrarian." Okay. Were you as hard on Stephen Harper in 2005 when he tried to bring down the government by attempting to block the Liberals from passing their budget?
Or is "playing politics" ok when it's directed at the Liberals?
And as for "silencing the voices of others," which was the original point I was replying to, I do not see this as "undemocratic." The MPs are in the position they are in because of the effort, support and donations of their party's supporters. If they don't like being compelled to vote a particular way on certain issues, they are free to do their own fund raising and campaigning as an independent. If you don't like Dion telling his MPs how to vote, you are free to not support him in the next election.
That is democracy.
The Liberals voted against a Conservative motion to extend a law that was a direct response to a specific incident, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, for that reason, was supposed to expire after five years. You may be right, the Liberals may have strictly political motives for reaching the (IMO) correct decision. I wasn't debating the merits of the motion, or how they arrived at their stance, with you.
...
I don't recall the question of whether or not to extend this law coming up in the last election. Maybe it was there, in among all the muck slinging. If Dion said last week he would support a Conservative motion to extend it, then flip-flopped, you might have an argument with him. If you intended to vote for him but he flip-flopped, write him a letter telling him why he (or your local Liberal) won't be getting your vote in the next election. I suspect he wasn't going to anyway.
Does Stephen Harper let his MPs vote their conscience on every issue? He may. I don't know. If he does, I guess you'd better get to know your MP real well. To know where he/she stands on every issue. And your MLA, city councilors, parks board members, school board members
I used a poor example to make my point. I was attempting to comment on your statement that the Liberal party forcing their members to vote along party lines is undemocratic.
I don't have a problem with the leader of the party instructing their members how to vote, and sanctioning members who don't toe the line. It is a leader's job to lead and - on key issues - the party needs to take a position and enforce it so the voter knows how to vote. If you want a free spirit as an MP, vote for an independent. Chuck Cadman was a great example of what can be accomplished even if your party abandons you. He polled his constituents to determine whether or not to support the 2005 budget.
I also don't have a problem with a member of a party taking a principled stand and defying the leader. They should just be willing to accept the consequence, up to having to sit as an independent. If they have views that differ from the official party position, they should make that clear to potential constituents during their campaigns, so people who may be voting based on party affiliation can be aware of issues where their candidate might vote contrary to the party position.
I don't think this is undemocratic. The voter makes his or her choice on election day, often based on which party the person they are voting for belongs to. I would be very unhappy if my MP decided to go renegade and do something completely contrary to what I expected of him when I voted for him. Then again, maybe I feel that way because of who my MP is.
Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, or this one.
(Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).
Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.
Sometimes it is necessary to protect minorities from the will of the majority. That is why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I don't know. I tried squirting it on to Google, but the links just pointed back here
No car analogy is ever too bat-shit crazy 8^D
Good one!
And, from this one:
Is there a box I can un-check somewhere in the preferences so I don't have to look at messages that contain the phrase "oh noes?"
Isn't that what I said:
You are also expected to pay for the items you take from the store. That doesn't mean it is not possible to walk out the door with them without paying.
Not sure which definition of "free" you're working off this morning, but you are expected to watch the advertisements of the sponsors who paid for those "free" programmes in exchange for watching them. The industry has been very clear on this point: if you don't watch the ads, you are stealing.
If you are required to do anything in exchange for watching the programme, it isn't "free."
So what would be an appropriate response from me to you when you try to steal my wallet? Does anything go? If I caught you going through my jacket pockets as I returned from the men's room, could I kill you? Maybe in a wild west cowyboy move. But in 2007?
Hell, jaywalkers really piss me off. So I should just, like, go all Grand Theft Auto on them and mow them down cause they were, like, jaywalking, right?
Yeah, that'll fly.
I didn't bother to check their site, but I'll take you at your word. The article linked to in the summary (from Networkworld, whoever the hell they are) said they were a "law firm," and claimed to be quoting an Associated Press story. The Miami Herald calls them a "Miami education consulting firm." ESPN agrees, as do most of the other sites I just checked. Of course, most of those are just re-publishing the AP story, without checking it for accuracy.
I guess the lesson here is don't take everything you read as gospel, regardless of whether you read it on Wikipedia, or CNN, or in your local newspaper. Check out the facts, cause they probably didn't bother.
You do know he is not suing Wikipedia, right? He tracked the IP of the person who posted the allegedly libelous comments in Wikipedia to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. He is suing them, probably hoping they will tell him which of their employees he should be suing instead.
Thanks. I was going to squirt it on to Google to find out what it meant, but you did it for me.