Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Almighty Buck

Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It 123

Pontifex minimus writes "Music royalty collection group SoundExchange has offered an olive branch to small webcasters. They are willing to delay the exorbitant new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board until 2010 for small webcasters in hopes that they can keep Congress from passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Larger outfits, like Live365 and Pandora would not be affected and would have to pay the new rates. '"Although the rates revised by the CRB are fair and based on the value of music in the marketplace, there's a sense in the music community and in Congress that small webcasters need more time to develop their businesses," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange.' SaveNetRadio rejected SoundExchange's offer, saying that it 'throws large webcasters under the bus.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Small Webcasters Offered a Rate Break, Reject It

Comments Filter:
  • Like that is going to happen?
    • by bobo mahoney ( 1098593 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:28PM (#19231773) Homepage
      You don't think they have the best intersts of the small guy in mind? I thought that all the big corp's had a softspot in their heart for the little guys. I also think that the sky is a beautiful shade of green.
    • Erhm - who cares (Score:4, Insightful)

      by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) * <passthecrackpipeNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @12:57AM (#19232251)
      Seriously - they want to charge Radio stations for royalties? great, let them. They want to price Internet radio into oblivion? Great, let them. Radio, whatever the transmission medium, is advertisement. Both for the ads in between the music, as well as for the music itself. The knock-on effect effect of these moves will be disastrous for the music industry in the longer term. They will get what they deserve - music sales will be further down, and the RIAA crpwd will be looking for a new job. Like, how to charge people for the air they breathe
      • I know! Let's suck all the oxygen out of the air and charge world governments on a "per breath" basis. No, they might be hostile to that, their constituants wouldn't like it. I know! Let's get all the nitrogen instead, and every time someone tries to grow a plant, we can charge them 500 bucks!

        How many people know about nitrogen? A hell of a lot less than about oxygen! Genius! Pure Genius!
      • by Mike89 ( 1006497 )

        . Radio, whatever the transmission medium, is advertisement.

        Bzzt, Wrong. Mod parent down -1, doesn't know what he's talking about.

        The streaming radio station I listen to the most is idobi [idobi.com], and they do NOT have ads. The only "ad" I ever hear is a short 30 second soundbyte explaining about SaveNetRadio, and how they won't be able to continue operating unless they pay the new fees.

        they want to charge Radio stations for royalties? great, let them

        They already do. They want to UP the fees.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Radio, whatever the transmission medium, is advertisement.

          The streaming radio station I listen to the most is idobi, and they do NOT have ads.

          Maybe you should read the whole post before you respond. The OP specifically said that the music itself was an advertisement, and that was the main point of the post. Make it too hard for people to hear new music, and they will stop buying new music. At least, that's the theory.

          I suspect that the sanctioned (i.e. big end of town) outlets -- big webcasters, regular radio stations, etc -- will continue to pay whatever fees are asked of them, and the only ones to feel this will be the smaller webcasters an

      • You got some things right, but I think you're too optimisttic. Here's the plan:

        1. Price Internet radio into oblivion.
        2. Negotiate a deal for your wholly-owned-subsidiary Internet radio.
        3. Cackle gleefully as you enjoy iron control of another medium.
        4. Profit!

        No missing steps, although #3 is optional.
      • you overlook a major thing about it- the RIAA will blame piracy for the losses
    • this is nothing more than a leveraged attempt by the RIAA (aka soundexchange) to split small net station support from larger net stations. it shows the RIAA is concerned congress will step in. they are hoping to fracture support among constituents. keep in mind: soundexchange is collecting royalties for all performances on the net. even artists that are not under contract by anyone represented by the RIAA. The RIAA has legal authority over a compulsory license that covers all recorded music. SoundExchange
  • When will they learn?

    Oh wait, they won't.

    Better join RIAA now.
  • they know (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @10:21PM (#19231321) Journal
    they know it is really bad for internet radio and this is nothing more than a smoke screen- to convince some people that they are actually trying to be fair which is absolute nonsense. if they wanted to be fair they wouldnt have done this to internet radio or started this garbage against "radio" radio either. now lets hope that they actually destroy themselves in the attempt.
    • Retroactive rates (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Raptoer ( 984438 )
      Even worse, this article doesn't mention if the retroactive rates still apply to the original date, making the delay pointless. So who knows, the delay may be a trick.
    • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @12:22AM (#19232081) Homepage Journal

      Sound Exchange will also forbid free and lower cost competition, regardless of artist and publisher intention [slashdot.org]. They will collect their little fees from everyone, in violation of Creative Commons terms. Those who want their royalties will have to join them, which makes it look like they have the artist's endorsement. Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees. In other words, the RIAA monopoly on music distribution will be extended into the future against the will of artists and the public. There is no technical justification for this, it's pure corruption.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mindwar23 ( 964732 )

        The statutory license does not exclude directly negotiated licensing deals as I understand it. No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else. In other words services are free to use Creative Commons licensed material or material under any other license or agreement. If a service exclusively uses such material, it certainly seems that they would be exempt from SoundExchange fees and reporting. If only some of their

        • If only some of their content falls into this royalty-free category, then what's to stop them from excluding that portion from their SoundExchange reporting?

          As I understand it, SoundExchange won't license anything to you unless you pay them royalties on everything you play, regardless of origin. If that is the case then you could indeed play 100% CC-licenced media without worrying about royalities, but you'd have to pay full royalties on everything if you wanted to mix in non-CC media.

        • No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else.

          So, is that why there's already a nominal fee radio stations must pay composers? It seems this right of yours has already been circumvented and is about to be circumvented yet again. It's difficult to understand because it makes no sense.

          • If the radio station made direct agreements with every composer that they play and pay those composers directly, why would the station have to pay anyone else for the composition? They choose not to make arrangements directly with every single song-writer because it is much less expensive to just pay the fees to ASCAP/BMI/whoever.
      • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @02:43AM (#19232761) Journal
        "Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees"

        Ok, that's really a raw deal. If SE can just start collecing fees on their behalf without the artists consent, and thereby force the artist's consent, they don't really have a right to the fees. (moral right, i mean, legal rights are screwy)

        If the artists are getting fees subtracted, they're already getting screwed, blatantly. In addition to the unspoken usurpation issue.

        I mean, imagine this conversation with a coworker,
        "Oh, hey, I picked up your paycheck for you."
        "Um.. thanks..That explains why it wasn't there when I went to pick it up."
        "No problem. Here's what's left after my 'picking up fee'"
        • fuck sound exchange- they are trying to take royalties on my music that is played on internet radio- that I have full knowledge is being played and approve of. Speaking as an independent musician one day I hope people see that the music industry conglomerates not only don't have the best interest of consumers in mind but us artists as well.
        • And that's only for major artists -- minor artists get playtime but never see the royalties. Sound Exchange never bothers to pass the royalties on, but still collects them.
      • by jte ( 707188 )
        Title 17 of the United States Code...

        (3) Licenses for transmissions by interactive services. --

        (C) Notwithstanding the grant of an exclusive or nonexclusive license of the right of public performance under section 106(6), an interactive service may not publicly perform a sound recording unless a license has been granted for the public performance of any copyrighted musical work contained in the sound recording: Provided, That such license to publicly perform the copyrighted musical work may be granted
    • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @12:43AM (#19232185)
      This is a case of scorpion and frog. You know, the scorpion needed to cross the river. He asks the frog to carry him. Frog says no, 'cause you'll kill me. Scorpion says 'why would I do that? I'd drown. Let's be friends. Frog gets halfway across, scorpion stings him. As they both die, frog asks why. Scorpion says 'because I'm a scorpion, this is what I do'.

          The global music media corporations know that all the fighting new technology and RIAA extortion is not in their best interest. But they can't help it. It's what they do. They're on auto-pilot self-destruct. They're smart guys, they know this. They just can't do anything about it.

            Their entire perspective is based on the not-unrealistic assumption that they are the focal point of the best music in the world. The best groups, the most talented artists have and will continue to come to them in order to distribute the recordings. They don't believe that anyone interested in a musical career would not come to them, on their terms. That's the key to their entire 'take it or leave it' approach. Because they honestly believe that no one will leave it.

            What may happen is a transformation of media from a centralized distribution to a scattered and disorganized collection of xenophobic subcultures who aren't interested in sharing their music or media works. Should this happen, the media corporations most likely won't notice it. They sell primarily to young people and the percentage of people who are young is rapidly growing. So their market is growing. The fact that their sales of CDs are stagnant is truly amazing. Most likely, it's not true.

            I encourage people to gradually disassociate themselves from the products of the global media corporations. Yes, it is true that you will miss great music. You will suffer the occasional social embarrassment of not knowing (actually not knowing, not pretending to not know) who the latest stars are. I'm not going to claim that it's worth it or a self-righteous thing to do. I'm just suggesting, all the celebrity media, let it slide away. There are other things more important. Concentrate on them instead.
    • They won't destroy themselves. We have to do it for them. Let's show people who the real pirates are. One way is to demand that the law be enforced to its full extent, to victimize as many as possible. Only then is there a chance they will wake up and finish them off. Otherwise this will drag on forever. Sue me!
      • you really want to kill em- I could volunteer my music copyrights and we could get others as well to be searched for on RIAA systems as "illegal copies" by any hacker that wants to break in and do it- according to their own rules (or proposed therof) this would be legal so long as we give full permission- to hack and raid their systems under their noses with blatant disregard of their privacy rights or data protection.
  • "Pound sand up your ass"?
  • Translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @10:38PM (#19231445)
    "Nice Internet radio station ya got here. Maybe we'll take a smaller cut from youse ... to start with. Right, Rocko?"
    • you misspelled "extortion."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bigpat ( 158134 )
      I was thinking of modding you Insightful, but I think +5 Funny is appropriate enough.

      Insightful, because you hit the nail right on the head. The small Internet broadcasters aren't going to take a deal that would make it uneconomical for them to grow bigger later on. The prospect of just scraping by with no hope of future growth is not a good deal for them.

      This sounds very much like the mafia letting someone get into the business on the condition that they don't move into bigger territory later on.
    • by sbate ( 916441 )
      The name would be Rocco not Rocko Rocko incedentally is underlined in red like incedentally is in my spell checker which I am ignoring because you misspled Rocco in your silly quote. Bah!
  • by joe_adk ( 589355 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @10:43PM (#19231479) Homepage
    This is probably a stupid suggestion for many reasons but:

    What if, in order to release a single, studios (et al) had to give up broadcast rights to that song. Anyone who obtains a legitimate copy of the song can broadcast it whenever and however he/she likes, be that internet, radio or birthday party. The label/artist/whomever still controls all rights to sell/distribute the song, and the rest of the songs on the album that aren't marked as singles.
    I know this clashes with the "make money from every angle" that the industry wants, but it seems like a reasonable trade (to me).
    • by ricree ( 969643 )
      Sounds great for people who buy singles, but why in the heck would the companies ever want to do that? It's not like it helps them the established companies in any way. Half of the problem with these new regulations is that they try to force all music to obey one set of guidelines, regardless the people who make the music. On the other hand, this might be a good way for up and coming labels to establish themselves and encourage wider distribution. But either way, this sort of thing certainly shouldn't b
      • by joe_adk ( 589355 )
        But it wouldn't be forced. If they don't like it, don't release singles. If you want to broadcast your song over my (as a taxpayer) airwaves, you have released it into the æther freeing it of the bonds of... where was I going with this...
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      That sounds great, but should it be a LAW? Any law that forces someone to give away their work (ie: no direct monetary gain) is screwy, no matter the terms.

      If the recording industry was even close to sane, something very much like that would probably happen. Radio stations could play certain songs for free, but would have to pay to play others. The promoter picks the free songs... Albums would contain more than 1 good song, and people would actually like entire CDs again. They'd be willing to purchase
    • I've got a better way of doing it -- just make it clear that anything that's broadcast over the public's RF spectrum, goes into the public domain. Forever. Period.

      If you want to retain control of your content, you can't blow it all over the place. You need to keep it on your own network, and only distribute it to people who have entered into agreements with you, saying that they'll respect your IP. Transmit it to people who don't want it or haven't entered into agreements with you, and they can do what they
  • Or I would suggest simply boycotting these idiotic record industry people. But of course, the little guys need to put food on the table for their families, so this makes this non workable.
    • by damista ( 1020989 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:29PM (#19231779)
      Sorry but I don't go out and buy music, so somebody else has food on the table. If I buy something then I do that with my own interest in mind and nobody elses (unless it is charitable). If the music industry wants me to buy their stuff, then they should stop selling CDs with root kits, CDs that don't work in half the players, music files that will only run on one platform and they should stop telling me that I am a potential criminal because I am asking for these things. Until they do, they won't see a cent from me and I used to spend a grand or more a year on CDs. If me not buying music means that somebody will starve, then so be it.

      Sorry that may sound harsh but that's how it is. If my employer goes bust because nobody wants our services anymore, then I lose my job. Do you think there's people out there who say: "Let's go to these guys, cos their employees starve"? Not buying their products is the only way we can fight back and stand up for our rights.
  • by razpones ( 1077227 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:01PM (#19231597) Journal
    I mean there is music that is independent from corporations, is there a restriction to this music, like a tax or something that anyone has to pay to transmit either on the air or on line?, also what about music made in other countries that is not bought by American corporations?, this should be the way to do radio, just skip the music that is owned by the conglomerates and go to the source, the artists. Most bands are lame anyway, and even thought i do like some dj's and some hiphop i would give it up. I had hoped to put my own internet radio station but since i started hearing all this issues it made me wait and see what comes out of it, then i thought about air waves radio (ala pirate), but that is pretty hairy, so i think the way to go is find good free music and use that, with the consent of the artists i imagine.
    • by MP3Chuck ( 652277 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:45PM (#19231873) Homepage Journal
      I was going to write something up, but this comment [slashdot.org] on a previous discussion [slashdot.org] regarding SoundExchange seems accurate.
      • by i1984 ( 530580 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @03:46AM (#19233083)
        So what we need is a largely automatic system for generating direct, explicit, licenses between artists and broadcasters (aka Internet radio stations) so that a single artist can form hundreds or thousands of unique relationships with stations without spending years drafting contracts, and vice versa. It can't be an aggregation service in the SoundExchange sense because SoundExchange bans that, so it would have to instead create the documents to generate a direct contract and then facilitate the signing and exchange of those contract documents.

        Maybe it would work by allowing a broadcaster to search the site for artists that are willing to offer their music under certain terms, select those of interest, copy the broadcaster's specific information in to a form pre-filled with the terms, have the broadcaster digitally sign the contract (if I recall correctly Clinton signed a bill making a digital signature legally binding the same way as an old fashioned analog signature is binding) and then submit the contract to the artists who could log in and review the contract and sign it or not...or perhaps digitally sign all of them at once, or all of them with particular terms at once. Then once the contracts were signed a PDF would be generated and given to each party to print out and file.

        There would, of course, also be a mechanism for either party to amend the terms of the boiler plate contract, although doing so would flag the contract as one needing special attention.

        A clever extension of this would allow the artist to upload his/her music to the contract generation site so that as soon as the broadcaster signed the contract it could buy copies of the artists tracks and download them immediately.

        Creative Commons licenses sound good at first, but no actual signed contract explicitly changes hands. The above system would solve that problem without being an aggregator itself; it merely facilitates the two parties reaching an explicit signed agreement.

        Finally the good part: SoundExchange would have to keep track of all of these exceptions to the statutory licensing.
    • what you just said scares the SHIT out of riaa - the idea that bands will wake up to that fact they don't need them anymore due to the digital age.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by reverius ( 471142 )
        so what are we all waiting for?

        collectively, we should probably start to wake up [myindiradio.com].
      • yes and no- we artists don't need the RIAA but we need a good piece of centralization for people to find stuff, and preferably a membership "all you can eat" model of downloading (for non-commercial use only) with ability to sell non-downloadable merchandise (t-shirts, buttons, or whatever cool thing you can come up with like action figures, mp3 loaded and logo branded flash drives, etc.). the RIAA would be a good place to start to do it if they weren't greedy opportunistic fat lazy SOBs with no regard for
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mex ( 191941 )
      You can't go to the "source" anyway, because artists, once they sign up with the record labels, do not have control over their own songs.

      That's how screwed up the system is.
    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      You can make deals independently with the rights holders of the music you're playing, what SoundExchange are offering is a blanket license so you don't have to. Making such deals with more than a small handful of labels or independent artists is going to be a lot of work though, and the big record companies are only going to be willing to talk to the big guys. Since SoundExchange's fees are extortionate, noone is going to want to pay them, so what we'll see is that the bigger web radio companies will do dea
  • by ShooterNeo ( 555040 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:03PM (#19231607)
    So, if band X is played on an internet radio station, will the royalties from that performance actually GO to that band? Or vanish into the black hole of "soundexchange", with a pittance going to the actual creator of the song?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by HeroreV ( 869368 )
      If band X is played on an internet radio station, the radio must pay royalties to SoundExchange. If the owners of the song contact SE and pay them, they might get some of the money from the royalties. Since band X will probably not know about SoundExchange and probably not bother even if they do know, band Xes will probably benefit very very little.

      The good side is that internet radio will be killed off. The MAFIAA tells me that would be a good thing, and they are on the side of artists, so it must be true.
      • Nah, internet radio will not die, it will move off somewhere else where american don't really apply like say north korea... it's a big internet.
      • the basic idea for this though (i'm not defending them, they charge the artists to get their royalties, wtf? charing money to get money? just take it off the top), that then a distributor can use that music without having to directly contact the bands, the up shot of this is that if some band decides they don't like you they can't actually tell you (though i'm sure a court order would work) that they won't negotiate with you for royalties, you can always go to sound exchange and its still legal, this makes
        • by HeroreV ( 869368 )
          If that was there goal, wouldn't they make it optional? Making it a requirement to do things the way they specify makes me think they aren't trying to help artists or internet radio stations.
          • thats my point, the idea of having an independent body that allows for the artist to collect royalties without having to make deals with every single person/company that wants to play, and allow all of the stations/people/etc. that want to play someones music have a simple and effective way to deal with licensing is a good idea, it makes it simpler for both parties, but the way that its being handled makes it appear as a hinderence to both parties since they're strong arming both sides into giving them mone
  • Show me the money... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by helmespc ( 807573 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:04PM (#19231611)
    Where does the RIAA think the money is going to come from. Its not like web radio is making money hand over fist. Even the best web radio stations are struggling to survive under the current conditions, much less their future ridiculous rates.
    • by Matt Perry ( 793115 ) <perry.matt54@nospAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:59PM (#19231955)

      Where does the RIAA think the money is going to come from. Its not like web radio is making money hand over fist. Even the best web radio stations are struggling to survive under the current conditions, much less their future ridiculous rates.
      It's not about the money, it's about the market. Driving independent radio stations out of business is the entire reason for this mess in the first place. The mainstream music industry is desperately trying to retain control over not only their business model but their methods of marketing and promotion of their musical interests. They pretty much have over-the-air radio marketing only their products; however, online radio provides more choice and allows listeners to explore different genres and artists. Sites like Last.fm and Pandora present even more of a threat because they allow listeners to directly control what they are exposed to and direct their own musical exploration, unlike regular streaming radio which spoon feeds you whatever they have (not that I dislike anything somafm spoonfeeds me). All of this means you're probably going to be listening to music that's not from the major labels, or at least exposed to a lot of independent music. If you buy someone else's product then the big music industry thinks that they've "lost a sale."

      The barrier to entry for recording and publishing music is incredibly low right now. This means that the number of competitors to the big music industry is increasing at a very rapid rate. How does a company, or group of companies, compete when the market they have dominated suddenly has thousands and thousands of competitors with the ability to deliver their product just via the same methods as the big companies? Worse, how do you compete against those who are willing to create products and give them away? Smart companies will see the trend and will ask themselves, "how can I make this work for me?" The big music industry isn't sure how to compete and so they are fighting the trend and lashing out any way they can.
      • Excellent reading of the situation.
      • by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
        Other outfits, like CDBaby, seem quite able to compete... so if the **AA isn't sure what to do about these new market conditions, why not just copy CDBaby and the like?

        A: Because the **AA isn't happy with just a fair cut of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie, and don't want ANYONE else to have a piece.

    • by syousef ( 465911 )
      Where does the RIAA think the money is going to come from. Its not like web radio is making money hand over fist. Even the best web radio stations are struggling to survive under the current conditions, much less their future ridiculous rates.

      They don't. They intend instead to kill off independent and small web radio stations, and therefore to maintain their monopoly. This isn't obvious to you?
  • by pjr.cc ( 760528 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:11PM (#19231659)
    How does SoundExchange force people to pay royalties?

    There was an article some time ago that ALL internet radio stations, regardless of content, had to pay SE on a per-song basis. I really don't understand how they have the power or the right to do something like that?

    For example if I setup a radio station that played only freely-available, royalty-less music. How does SE get away with charging me money to play said music? Is the RIAA that powerful that they can manage to dictate legislation that way? have i missed something obvious?

    What I would be curious to know is, if I wrote a computer program that generated random music (lets ignore the technical feasibility of that and assume its possible) and make a radio station that played that (and only that) could SE force me to pay them royalties? If that is the case, how is that even in the most bizarre parallel universe either fair or just?

    Perhaps even a simpler argument was if i were an artist and ran an internet radio station solely playing my own music, can SE force me to pay them royalties? It just seems really stupid to me...

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think the RIAA, and SoundExchange, would claim that they are representing YOU (or your computer), as a music creator, and collecting royalties on YOUR behalf.
      • by Skreems ( 598317 )

        I think the RIAA, and SoundExchange, would claim that they are representing YOU (or your computer), as a music creator, and collecting royalties on YOUR behalf.
        I think SoundExchange wouldn't do a damn thing, since they're only legally bound to collect royalties in the case where no explicit license, such as royalty-free music, exists.
    • by shish ( 588640 )

      how is that even in the most bizarre parallel universe either fair or just?

      Fairness is for dirty commies; in America, the law comes from capitalism :)

    • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @12:10AM (#19232015) Homepage
      There are two kinds of distinct creative work involved with music. The first is the music itself, i.e. the arrangement of notes and/or lyrics. The other is a sound recording of a particular performance of that music, e.g. a tape recording. Music has long been copyrightable, and usually this applied to the sheet music. A recording of a musician performing that music wasn't copyrightable in itself. Congress decided to grant copyrights for sound recordings in the 70's. However, they limited that copyright so that it didn't apply to the radio: a radio station was free to play a sound recording over the air, and pay royalties to the songwriter, but not to the performer. This is still the case, in fact. But much more recently, Congress decided to grant a copyright in the sound recording that applied to digital transmissions. This meant that now, unlike for terrestrial radio, things like Internet radio would have to pay a royalty not just to the songwriter, but also to the performer.

      As is the case for music, the royalty is under a statutory license. That is, rather than have everyone suffer the huge headaches and transactional costs of negotiating rights for each piece of music individually, everyone can pay a fee set forth by law and get a license automatically, regardless even of whether the copyright holder agrees. (Because his copyright doesn't apply to people who pay the statutory license; that's how the law is written) Everyone is free to make their own arrangements, but in practice few bother to do so since it is really a huge pain in the ass.

      The Copyright Office was empowered to perform certain administrative tasks related to this, and one thing that was done was to name designated agents to whom the statutory license royalty can be paid so that the payor will be in compliance with the law. Currently, the only one is SoundExchange.

      If you have a separate agreement with the relevant copyright holders, you don't need to pay SoundExchange. If you are playing a recording to which you are the copyright holder, or a recording which is in the public domain, you don't need to pay SoundExchange.

      Is the RIAA that powerful that they can manage to dictate legislation that way?

      Yes. The industries involved in copyright matters have been dictating legislation from the beginning of the 20th century on. This is nothing new.
      • by pjr.cc ( 760528 )

        If you have a separate agreement with the relevant copyright holders, you don't need to pay SoundExchange. If you are playing a recording to which you are the copyright holder, or a recording which is in the public domain, you don't need to pay SoundExchange.

        Ok, thats not too bad in that case... from reading the various articles about it all, it was sounding to me that any radio station playing any kind of music, under any type of license were forced to pay SE. Which to me sounds like EMC collecting a licensing fee for every piece of storage (and then passing that currency onto the real storage vendor if they ask for it) in the world based on the fact they are some licensing source storage (poor analogy i know, but hopefully that it makes some sence).

        Having

      • I'd suggest a correction: where you write

        This meant that now, unlike for terrestrial radio, things like Internet radio would have to pay a royalty not just to the songwriter, but also to the performer.

        performer should be replaced by publisher. The degree to which the publisher will share these revenues with the performers will be governed by the terms of the contract between the publisher and performer. With the record labels' track record (performance royalties from ITMS sales are still netted a percentag

    • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @12:31AM (#19232129) Homepage Journal

      No free alternatives are allowed. [slashdot.org] It is obvious that people would flock away from these fees if they could, so they won't be given the chance. This will be enforced the same way the current ban on terrestrial broadcast is enforced. Because internet broadcasts are not carried over a limited publicly owned spectrum, there is no technical justification for this system, it's purely anti-competitive - designed to perpetuate the RIAA member companies into the future when they would naturally die off.

      • by Eddi3 ( 1046882 )
        I would like you to take a look at the very first comment to your journal.

        Thanks,

        Eddie
        • by twitter ( 104583 )

          I would like you to take a look at the very first comment to your journal.

          I did, it's wrong.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      Perhaps even a simpler argument was if i were an artist and ran an internet radio station solely playing my own music, can SE force me to pay them royalties?

      Legally, they can't force you, but they will probably give it a good try. I'm sure their lawyers are busy coming up with wording for their letters that leaves the impression that you have no choice but to pay without actually stating that. Probably something along the lines of making threats that if you fail to pay this fee, you could be brought up on

  • Broadcast (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JackSpratts ( 660957 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @11:29PM (#19231777) Homepage

    they shouldn't be paying a penny more than the terrestrial stations, which has always been a simple composition mechanical.

    soundexchange's first round of performance royalties in june '02 killed some 40,000 bedroom broadcasters overnight.

    2010's next round will simply finish off the rest.

    - js.

  • was SaveNetRadio the voice of small internet radio stations worldwide?
  • I don't understand or try to understand the current business model of music royalty system, but as I see it, the current business model (or at least the logic) around music industry is arse backward to me.

    Shouldn't the music industry and artist PAY the over-the-air/internet radio station?

    current:
    1. make music
    2. charge broadcasters for pay-per-play royalty
    3. free marketing and advertising through broadcasters
    4. sell music license to listeners
    5. profit

    So in an essence, music industry is making profit over alr
  • Perhaps this is all common sense to everyone else, but I am just now seeing the business angle of this issue. I am a layman on this subject, so please regard all of the following as purely conjecture:

    Free/donation based internet stations play the same music advertising driven stations play, but without the annoyance of commercial interruption.

    Free/Donation based stations usually have the goal of generating just enough revenue to cover their expenses, while advertising driven stations hope to generate a prof
  • by rantingkitten ( 938138 ) <kitten&mirrorshades,org> on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @01:31AM (#19232415) Homepage
    Before I started my own darkwave radio station [mirrorshades.org] (plug!) via shoutcast, I ran my station off live365. They made it easy, offered a pretty decent rate, and for the price I paid they handled the royalty issues, I had a fairly certain guaranteed uptime, and playlist management was easy. In return all I had to do was make sure all my songs were precisely and accurately ID3 encoded -- so that live365 could host ads and links for the artists I was spinning.

    Sounds great for everyone, you ask me...I get to play music I love, people get to hear music they may never hear outside the drunken haze of a goth club, and the artists get free exposure, along with links and ads to their music if you wanted to buy it.

    I know this model works because I was (and am) a live365 subscriber for years, and have bought at least two dozen albums based solely on the music I heard on particular stations, music to which I would not otherwise have been exposed. In fact, rips of those albums are a large part of what I spin today on my own station.

    And as for that, today, with mirrorshades radio, I have artists sending me music asking to get put into rotation, and listeners, writing to tell me how great this track or that was and that they just grabbed it off iTunes. I know at least one guy who went to the VNV Nation concert here in Atlanta after hearing them on my station -- he'd never heard them before, and what's that mean for VNV Nation? A ticket sale they wouldn't have otherwise had, not to mention whatever swag he probably bought while he was there.

    Artists get increased exposure and sales. Listeners get music and choice. I (and my fellow broadcasters) get to play to whatever niche market we choose. Everyone gains, and no one loses, except for the RIAA, hawking their antiquated and outmoded business model.

    I've said it before but I'll say it again -- there ain't no Benjamens in the net radio trade. We broadcast for love of the music and artists enjoy the exposure. I was lucky enough to get free hosting for my stream, allowing me a great deal of versatility, but many small broadcasters turn to live365 and similar hosts for cheap, reliable broadcasts, for which they pay their dues and offer free advertising in exchange.

    If the majority of people who use live365 as their broadcast platform could afford the rates that soundexchange is demanding, they wouldn't be on live365 to begin with -- they'd have their own dedicated servers with no ads and listeners limited only by bandwidth. As is so often the case, the Big Guys are beating up on the only segment of the population that can't defend themselves.

    Stop treading on us, and let the music play.
  • I love the 80's (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Smight ( 1099639 )
    The problem is they stuck in the eighties. Back then The music industry caused suck a stink over "pirate" radio stations that the feds would just round up any unlicensed broadcasters and toss them in the clink.
    That was successful and in the music industry's mind all these internet radio stations are just a new version of pirate radio.
    The only flaw in their thinking is that while before they were hijacking the airwaves and breaking the FCC's laws, Now they are not breaking any laws and aren't hijacking an
    1. Where does this money go to?
    2. In how far is this reasonable to artists broadcasting their own works?
    I am starting to believe all these companies (mostly ran/supported/requested) by the RIAA/MPAA/... are there only to stiffle creativity and to push their products down my throat. Someone please correct me or are there really people trying to tell other artists to join or "something bad might happen with your creativity" ? Maybe ignorance is bliss.
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The money goes to Soundexchange, who pay artists and sound recording copyright owners for the public performance of their works to the extent that they are reported by webcasters, etc. This would not affect artists who are broadcasting their own music (unless they don't own their own master recordings and are broadcasting without the copyright owner's permission). If they own the masters they can do whatever they want with their recordings and no one can do anything about it.
  • I am not a US citizen or resident, so I don't have the option of calling my senator or representative. So instead, I have started sending emails to artists whose music I have purchased as a direct result of having heard it on internet radio from the US.

    I don't buy music every day, but I do buy some, and almost all of it because I heard it on the internet and I liked it (...and then managed to find it for sale online without DRM, but that's a separate issue).

    I'd be willing to bet that a lot of small/in

  • Rather than using the "throwing X under the bus" analogy, I prefer this one:

    It's like going to a flea market, kicking everyone in the balls, and then buying a few moldy baseball cards from that one guy in the corner so you can claim you're a legitimate patron.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      It's like going to a flea market, kicking everyone in the balls, and then buying a few moldy baseball cards from that one guy in the corner so you can claim you're a legitimate patron.

      dad, have you been drinking again?
  • Just because someone offers you a deal doesn't mean it's fair. This is the RIAA's style. Look at all the people they sue for absurd amounts, many of whom are innocent, and then offer them a "deal" to pay some large sum to make them go away. "Almost extortion" is the name I would give it. This is no better. I feel like they are saying "we realize we don't deserve any of this, so what we are going to do is ask for a completely ridiculous amount, then offer a second, smaller (but equally unjustified) "dea
  • Not all "small webcasters" are businesses. Some of us actually do things for the love of music.

    http://zenapolae.com/ [zenapolae.com]
  • instead of femurs.

    It's still extortion. I hope it works. (I'm a podcaster. Podsafe music forever! Fuck the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI. Who needs them?)
  • Either go out of business, or quadruple the advertising time.

  • I am under the impression that if successfull, the RIAA will force most radio stations to be hosted offshore, following the Pirate Bay model.
  • by LordMyren ( 15499 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @11:33AM (#19237867) Homepage
    There is a fairly good $500 minimum rate for small non-commercial webcasters, which actually seems fairly reasonable to me. It covers near ~140,000 listening hours a year, which would give 1000 users 10 hours of listening per month. Another breakdown would be 140 listeners at 20 hours a week. Or, you have on average 384 listening hours per day. As a former college radio DJ and a current online radio addict, these numbers are fairly good, and definitely a great starting place, providing a somewhat reasonable flat rate capable of covering quite a large number of online webcasters.

    Does anyone know what payment royalties current webcasters must pay? For the all the crybabying and hubabaloo I've seen very little in terms of comparison. Please link me some rules!

    Of course, the real fucked up situation is the fact that we have to pay SoundExchange, the biggest scam organization on the planet. They were spun off from everyones favorite RIAA in 2000 as an independent entity responsible for collecting and distributing broadcast dues. But these fuckers will never give a dog damned dime to My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult, no matter how many times I play their discography. The money we pay them doesnt do jack shit for the authors and artists we play. I'd like to see their profit margins and executive salaries, so I can complete the trifecta and cackle myself to death. These guys are the worst of the worst, and should be aborted like a bad mistake. The fact that we pay mafioso organizations like this at all is just criminal. Frankly I'd much rather track down every artists I play and give them $5.
  • I can't stop laughing and cheering as I continue to watch American culture self-implode under the weight of its own arrogance and greed. Almost every decade, American has reinvented itself in a major way (the '70s, the '80s, and the '90s all had their own movements that cut across film, music, television, and even the slower-moving world of books). This decade I've been waiting for the 'Big New American Thing' and here it is, it's DRM. Watching the slow suffocation that comes from not realising that you owe
    • The periodica reinvention of American Culture is a form of evolution. And I think that is a good thing. DRM is a cancer. What have you got against American Culture? No more food fr you.
      • You may disagree with my opinion, but I assure you that I am dead serious about it. Is everybody who doesn't like your culture a troll? If you must know I find it for the most part empty and insanely materialistic, and I would be surprised if you don't feel exactly the same way. BTW the periodic reinvention *is* a good thing, but it's obviously taking a turn for the worse, because your entertainment industry is now reinventing itself as the Death Star.
        • I can't stop laughing and cheering as I continue to watch American culture self-implode under the weight of its own arrogance and greed. Almost every decade, American has reinvented itself in a major way (the '70s, the '80s, and the '90s all had their own movements that cut across film, music, television, and even the slower-moving world of books). This decade I've been waiting for the 'Big New American Thing' and here it is, it's DRM. Watching the slow suffocation that comes from not realising that you ow

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari

Working...