This in itself needs to be taken to court. Every single artist I've spoken to is furious that someone is extorting money from webcasters on their behalf without asking.
This law was written with the same logic that spammers use to justify my inbox all day. "opt-out" is a crappy advertising model and it's a crappy law model.
I wish. Some people are trying to build them, but the scope of such a thing is... daunting to say the least.
What we're doing at IPM is entering every detail about every label, artist and album ever submitted in the last 4 years into a custom database and then from their sending waivers to all those contacts (copyright holders) which will be signed and returned.
The waivers will grant IPM immunity from the RIAA fees by giving legal proof that the copyright owner(s) and or distribution owner(s) agree to IPM playing their music without royalty. The waivers will also guarentee to the copyright owners that IPM won't go commercial and try making a profit off broadcasting their works.
A nice side effect of this project is there will be a really neat database of all kinds of non-RIAA music. It will hardly be all-encompassing, but it's a start.
Since you asked, I'll bite.
In Perpetual Motion
http://www.ipmradio.com
non commercial. We're all here for the music - and the beer.
As for the actual quality of the content - There's some duds, of course, but the vast majority of the stuff submitted to the show is high quality. There's an awful lot of small artist run labels now a days, and theyre putting our some good music as well as keeping themselves up to date and informed on the new methods of getting the music to the masses who would otherwise never hear it.
As I've stated elsewhere, the law makes it difficult even if one doesnt play RIAA artists. As a station, I have to prove that any works I broadcast are covered by waivers signed by the copyright owner. It's a major administrative undertaking.
So I suppose if you really want to support indie / rogue radio stations, offer to come by and help type.;)
The RIAA didn't split us in two. There was ALWAYS two camps on the VOW list. The Register article, while slightly dramatic in presentation, only scratches the surface of the internal workings.
Many of us recieved email and telephone calls threatening us when we didn't just go along with whatever certain members of the group said or did. It was a bad situation from the get go.
I have never had a problem. There are thousands, literally, and thats just in the electronic/gothic/industrial genres. Once you establish yourself as friendly to these artists and labels, they will find you and come to you. also contrary to what some people say, the music is often really good.
Indie / small friendly label music is all my station has played since 2000, before that being a 50/50 mix involving better known acts in the same genres.
The downside is the paperwork I (and fellow indie stations) will now have to do in order to prove that we have permission from each and every copyright holder. There's a few thousand man hours of typing here. It'll be one hell of a database when it's done though.
I am a local webcaster and I say the bill is worthless unless you happen to fit into the tiny financial segment of webcasters that were in on the top secret meetings.
I departed the VOW list about three weeks ago just after it became clear to me that the hobbyists, educational and other non-coms (who make up the majority of webcasters in the world) were being used only as pawns and publicity, and not being considered or represented in any deal making processes.
Am I bitter? absolutely. I and every webcaster I know have spent the entire summer writing letters, faxes and making phone calls to every aide in every congressional office and media outlet and begging our listeneres, friends and family to do the same to support every new idea the VOW turkeys came up with, only to have it shoved back in our face as a waste of time when the next big idea came along.
At the end of it all, we (hobbyists, edu's and non comms) weren't represented even slightly and it came to light the through all the effort, the back room deal was going on the entire time.
These small commercial guys and have will argue that the fees for hobbyists are cheap. "Oh, you can afford a couple thousand dollars in retros and $500 or a $1000 a year" - No we can't. Most hobbyisyts are getting by only on free broadcast sites and help from friends who have spare bandwidth.
To sum up, I don't play Britney Spears, and I am certainly not helping foot the bill for her next boob job.
Hardly. This negotiation was going on in the background the entire time the majority of webcasters were up in arms making waves in the public eyes.
Unfortunately for the majority of webcasters (hobbyists), the resulting deal does not directly benefit them at all. (educational webcasters are also left in the dark.)
Under the law, Yes. You have to pay the RIAA to stream your own music. AND it's up to you to proove to them that you are the one who made your music and are therefor entitled to your cut of the royalties from you streaming and listening to your music. However, you will only get a per centage of that $500 IF anything.
Supposedly - and this is the avenue I have put my efforts into - if one has waivers from all copyright holders of all material one is streaming, royalty payments can be waived. I have to save up some money and pay an entertainment attourney to verify this. It will be the ONLY way my own show (which broadcasts only indie artists and indie labels works) can continue legally.
I don't work at burger king as one poster commented above, but I also cannot afford to pay for brittany's next boob job either.
Slashdot Mirror
This in itself needs to be taken to court. Every single artist I've spoken to is furious that someone is extorting money from webcasters on their behalf without asking.
This law was written with the same logic that spammers use to justify my inbox all day. "opt-out" is a crappy advertising model and it's a crappy law model.
I wish. Some people are trying to build them, but the scope of such a thing is ... daunting to say the least.
What we're doing at IPM is entering every detail about every label, artist and album ever submitted in the last 4 years into a custom database and then from their sending waivers to all those contacts (copyright holders) which will be signed and returned.
The waivers will grant IPM immunity from the RIAA fees by giving legal proof that the copyright owner(s) and or distribution owner(s) agree to IPM playing their music without royalty. The waivers will also guarentee to the copyright owners that IPM won't go commercial and try making a profit off broadcasting their works.
A nice side effect of this project is there will be a really neat database of all kinds of non-RIAA music. It will hardly be all-encompassing, but it's a start.
IPM Radio (www.ipmradio.com)
AudioTek Live (www.detroitelectronica.com)
Murknet (www.murknet.com)
Actually, it would take all day for me to list them all. (everything from avante garde to zydeco is out there streaming from somewhere.)
We don't have the flashiest web sites or tens of thousands of listeners, but I assure you, non-RIAA music stations are out here.
Since you asked, I'll bite. In Perpetual Motion http://www.ipmradio.com non commercial. We're all here for the music - and the beer. As for the actual quality of the content - There's some duds, of course, but the vast majority of the stuff submitted to the show is high quality. There's an awful lot of small artist run labels now a days, and theyre putting our some good music as well as keeping themselves up to date and informed on the new methods of getting the music to the masses who would otherwise never hear it. As I've stated elsewhere, the law makes it difficult even if one doesnt play RIAA artists. As a station, I have to prove that any works I broadcast are covered by waivers signed by the copyright owner. It's a major administrative undertaking. So I suppose if you really want to support indie / rogue radio stations, offer to come by and help type. ;)
The RIAA didn't split us in two. There was ALWAYS two camps on the VOW list. The Register article, while slightly dramatic in presentation, only scratches the surface of the internal workings. Many of us recieved email and telephone calls threatening us when we didn't just go along with whatever certain members of the group said or did. It was a bad situation from the get go.
I have never had a problem. There are thousands, literally, and thats just in the electronic/gothic/industrial genres. Once you establish yourself as friendly to these artists and labels, they will find you and come to you. also contrary to what some people say, the music is often really good. Indie / small friendly label music is all my station has played since 2000, before that being a 50/50 mix involving better known acts in the same genres. The downside is the paperwork I (and fellow indie stations) will now have to do in order to prove that we have permission from each and every copyright holder. There's a few thousand man hours of typing here. It'll be one hell of a database when it's done though.
I am a local webcaster and I say the bill is worthless unless you happen to fit into the tiny financial segment of webcasters that were in on the top secret meetings. I departed the VOW list about three weeks ago just after it became clear to me that the hobbyists, educational and other non-coms (who make up the majority of webcasters in the world) were being used only as pawns and publicity, and not being considered or represented in any deal making processes. Am I bitter? absolutely. I and every webcaster I know have spent the entire summer writing letters, faxes and making phone calls to every aide in every congressional office and media outlet and begging our listeneres, friends and family to do the same to support every new idea the VOW turkeys came up with, only to have it shoved back in our face as a waste of time when the next big idea came along. At the end of it all, we (hobbyists, edu's and non comms) weren't represented even slightly and it came to light the through all the effort, the back room deal was going on the entire time. These small commercial guys and have will argue that the fees for hobbyists are cheap. "Oh, you can afford a couple thousand dollars in retros and $500 or a $1000 a year" - No we can't. Most hobbyisyts are getting by only on free broadcast sites and help from friends who have spare bandwidth. To sum up, I don't play Britney Spears, and I am certainly not helping foot the bill for her next boob job.
Hardly. This negotiation was going on in the background the entire time the majority of webcasters were up in arms making waves in the public eyes. Unfortunately for the majority of webcasters (hobbyists), the resulting deal does not directly benefit them at all. (educational webcasters are also left in the dark.)
If only it were financially feasible. I suspect the origins of the broadcast being within the US would supercede the server location, however...
Under the law, Yes. You have to pay the RIAA to stream your own music. AND it's up to you to proove to them that you are the one who made your music and are therefor entitled to your cut of the royalties from you streaming and listening to your music. However, you will only get a per centage of that $500 IF anything.
Supposedly - and this is the avenue I have put my efforts into - if one has waivers from all copyright holders of all material one is streaming, royalty payments can be waived. I have to save up some money and pay an entertainment attourney to verify this. It will be the ONLY way my own show (which broadcasts only indie artists and indie labels works) can continue legally.
I don't work at burger king as one poster commented above, but I also cannot afford to pay for brittany's next boob job either.
-///