Slashdot Log In
Webcasters and Record Industry Both Appeal Royalty Ruling
Posted by
michael
on Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:15 PM
from the play-it-by-ear dept.
from the play-it-by-ear dept.
jonesvery writes: "Both Webcasters and record companies are appealing the proposed royalty structure suggested by an arbitration panel, according to this LA Times story. It should surprise no one that the Webcasters feel that the proposed royalties are absurdly high, while the record companies wants them to be higher -- at levels set in independent deals negotiated between the RIAA and a couple of dozen companies. The fact that many of the companies that made these independent deals with the RIAA couldn't make enough money to both pay the royalties and stay in business doesn't seem to worry the record companies much. Funny, that..." We did an earlier story about the royalty ruling. The internet radio community seems to be just a bit upset about the whole thing.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good Info... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.di.fm/sos.php [www.di.fm]
Re:Good Info... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/ [saveinternetradio.org]
Re:Good Info... (Score:2)
enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
The fee is $1.40 per thousand listeners for Internet-only stations, and 70 cents per thousand listeners for over-the-air stations that simultaneously broadcast online.
How would the record companies enforce such a payment structure? It seems to me that would be no method of counting the listeners that couldn't possibly be altered by the webcasters especially with all the different webcasting programs out there. Does anyone have a clue how the Record Companies were planning to accurately count listeners?
Re:enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
The fee is $1.40 per thousand listeners for Internet-only stations, and 70 cents per thousand listeners for over-the-air stations that simultaneously broadcast online.
How would the record companies enforce such a payment structure? It seems to me that would be no method of counting the listeners that couldn't possibly be altered by the webcasters especially with all the different webcasting programs out there. Does anyone have a clue how the Record Companies were planning to accurately count listeners?
FOr non-commercial stations, I don't know how they would accurately count it. For commercial stations, it would be easy, the station would do it for them. The station is going to keep an accurate count of listeners (or even an inflated count) because that is what they use to price and sell advertising time. So if they keep these stats already, that is what the recording industry will use to charge them.
Parent
Re:enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
>count listeners?
Probably by purchasing legislation which mandates that every personal computer in the free world can run only hardware and software designed/purchased/approved by the record cartels. With that amount of control, figuring out how many people are listening to which internet radio station doesn't seem such a daunting task...
Shaun
Parent
Re:enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:enforcement (Score:2, Interesting)
The internet community can take this as facing the inevitable or as a challenge. Id prefer the later. There are many listeners out there or this wouldnt be an issue. What if the independant small broadcasters all started gearing themselves towards only braodcasting non-riaa artists and original content?
Ive been attempting to get a grass roots effort like his off the ground for years, unforntunately I dont have the talent to do the code needed myself, and I dont have the money to hire people to do it, but this is what Im looking for..
1) Shared playlists between independent stations, basically play the same game the riaa does, if one station plays "Joes Garage Band" they arent likely to gain much following but if 20 stations do....this doesnt imply that all stations should have the same genres but those that do can share artists. The same goes for cross promoting of content.
2) Produce original content, talk shows, live guests, game shows, radio drama, whatever will bring in people and get attention.
3) A Centralized real time channel listing for all participating stations.
4) An open sourced client and server that can be modified and customized via a plugin type method.
There is alot more to it, but right now its just a pipe dream that I have had for many years. Ive had a business plan (yes there is a revenue model) finished for quite a while, but have had it dismissed by investors with comments like "its really cool but its star trek...just not possible" even though its totally researched and documented. Frankly I dont know where to take it. Im looking at source forge but am up for any suggestions.
I really think the only hope for the future of streaming media is a united front but so far everyone I have talked to is looking for "cornering the market" or building their own conglomerate, is there any hope for folks that just want to share and communicate? I really think the best way to fight the RIAA is to not fight them at all but play the game the same way they do. The internet is still the greatest equalizer of all current forms of media. One person with determination and a good idea can create something that is just as competative and just as compelling as anything a big company with a wad of cash can do, and many people working together can do that 100 fold.
Killing the Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I miss something?
Wouldn't you want to partner with those who are distributing your product to ensure your revenue is generated? If you price your product too high you cease to get ANY revenue at all. Period.
What is going on? Why is the RIAA hellbent on staying in the 20th century? Seriously
Have we ever seen any industry at any other time do the same thing?
Re:Killing the Business (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Killing the Business (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think that this is obvious: The RIAA wants unshared control of the music industry. Are they opposed to downloading songs? Not at all -- witness PressPlay and such. They are of course opposed to anyone else having a say in downloading songs.
I imagine it's something similar here. They like Internet streaming but don't like the idea of small, free stations providing it. They can set the rates high enough to drive out every competitor. Don't be surprised in a year or two if you see RIAA-supported "Internet radio", wherein the major labels make sweatheart deals with one another to get around the exorbiant fees they'll charge every else.
Once more, with feeling, from Cosmo of Sneakers:
Parent
Re:Killing the Business (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember back when the internet was openned to the general public? The digital village they called it, the information superhighway they said.
Then came the e-commerce companies, the advertisers and suddenly the library and town square of our "Digital Village" became a strip mall subserviant to the big corporations. Now search engines, the once friend of the web surfer have sold out and become effectivly billboards on demand, spewing forth links bought and paid for by these companies(google being the exception for now). The number of free sites with information of any real interest or value have gone away, become pay sites or in many cases were bought out by large media companies long ago and became one more revenue stream (or loss write-off) for those companies. Is this all FUD or doom and gloom, no, not at all, there are economic rules in effect in this world and I believe that in the beginning, we as a "Digital village" were lied too. Instead of the free availablity of information our leaders envisioned only 6 years ago, we are quickly becoming the targets of a business model that shackles us to subscription fees for content that is in many cases is not original and in almost all cases was free until very recently. The more disturbing thing though is that rather then having a choice of content or rather unlimited original content, the media companies that so desire the revenue from subscription services choose the content that we have the option of seeing and in the case of the news networks especially limit that content(anybody notice that Routers would seem to be the only agency with journalists in the field? And anybody notice that every news site runs pretty much the same stories, virtually to the word anymore?)
Now to the RIAA. of course the RIAA and it's member companies want to put web radio out of business. Traditional radio makes money for them in roylaties. With traditial radio the music industry controlled the hits. The music industry controlled the stars. The music industry doesn't want to give up that control. The industry wants to put a credit card swipe on your CD player and charge you every time you listen to the cookie cutter band of the week's latest CD. Thats how they make money, well it probably isn't, but that's how they want to make money. The industry has shareholders, probably many of us by way of money markets and 401(k) accounts, that they need to keep happyand then there are all those other costs.
Fact is, they aren't going to change anytime soon. even if every regular reader of
Re:Killing the Business (Score:2, Interesting)
That, and guess what? The RIAA can use this to threaten legal action against anyone who broadcasts music online.
So there's your answer. Manipulation of an already corrupted legal system to tighten their fist around everyone and everything. That's why they are doing this.
Re:Killing the Business (Score:2)
Wouldn't that put them in a precarious legal position? Shut out the competition then open up your own shop? Wouldn't that invalidate their arguments?
Re:Killing the Business (Score:2)
True, it wouldn't make much sense to price Webcasters out of business. As you point out, even a small amount of revenue is better than none at all...
...unless the major labels were planning on introducing their own webcasting plans. Then those other webcasters become not revenue, but competition.
Admittedly this is just speculation at this point. However it does make a lot of sense, especially when one considers how the RIAA has gone after P2P programs. The RIAA wants to be in exclusive control over all music distributed over the Internet. In its eyes, a webcaster is little better than Napster since it is something that it cannot control, and thus not profit off of.
I hope these guys win their lawsuit. I know I've been entertained listening to Shoutcasts that have played obscure stuff I've never heard on the radio before.
Re:Killing the Business (Score:2)
The nice thing for the RIAA is that the members already own 90% or so of popular music. RIAA members will be playing their own music so the costs for *their* streaming will be next to nothing b/c it will simply "net out" between them. The indy stations which promote a diverse set of indy music (I like to code to Somafm.com) from a diverse set of labels would not only have prohibitive fees, but prohibitive paperwork. Any fees will place the indy streamer at a competitive disadvantage.
Who's killing what (Score:2)
Some observations:
The RIAA does payola to get the manufacutred 'hit' music air.
The RIAA doesn't give a damn about independent minded station, so long as they pay the royalties, to them of course
The internet comes along and viola, listeners can actually select what they want to listen to, give immediate feedback to stations, and usurp control from the highly engineered controls the RIAA has spent decades putting in place, as the number of outlets mushrooms (remember for a moment how the Congress protected local TV stations in cable markets?)
The RIAA resists, makes it painful to broadcast over internet, download music listeners actually want, in effect trying to maintain control
Rather than find and develop talent, the RIAA, if not already, will probably develop computer generated 'hits', hire professional actors and dancers to just mouth the words and so on (it has actually been the case for decades that companies assemble writers, peformers and studio musicians for manufactured pop, now imagine it without the studio musicians and writers, just a fine tuned program)
Technology being as advanced as it is, home users or small groups of interested parties can manufacture thier own music and distribute, even sell MP3's, bypassing RIAA altogether
RIAA becomes less relevent if they lose control. As those who hold stake in such companies apply pressure to maintain profit and share value, the battle intensifies to maintain control, pushing legislation to cripple technology and make fair-use rights moot
Pundits and forum posters lament the seeming idiocy of the RIAA in the face of a new fronteer
Isn't this obvious? (Score:2)
Basically just another way to screw more money out of a new media outlet. WABC (New York AM station) had to stop streaming because they just streamed their live feed to the 'net, but got sued out of it because they didn't pay MORE MONEY for their Internet ads!
Do the advertisers for AM radio stations REALLY think that people on the Internet will pirate their ADs in digital format to spread them as MP3s!!!!!!
Hell is approaching Earth at a scary speed.
I already emailed my Congress Woman (Score:2)
Higher prices to inhibit streaming audio? (Score:2)
I think they're worried ppl will use streaming broadcasts to thwart copy restricted CD's, so they're limiting that to only the companies willing to shell out $$$ to play them.
I feel sorry for the people getting burned by this, but every time the RIAA makes another heavy handed attack on the internet, I feel like they're that much closer to being dissolved.
Re:Higher prices to inhibit streaming audio? (Score:2)
There are ways around that particular issue, of course, but I just wanted to mention that it's not as simple as that.
Maybe an automated thing? I dunno..
In any case, unless the RIAA requires what you suggest (that'd draw MORE heat I bet...), then they won't find that an adequate solution.
The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot. (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of allowing natural forces to broaden everyone's musical horizons, the RIAA is stifling it back to the 20th century model. If they keep being sucessful in court, the only way to fight them will be to turn music into a grass roots listener supported movement. This can only be done by enabling good musicians to run their own businesses to support themselves. This means being internet-savvy and moving away from standard CD-distribution. It means not signing the deal with the devil and trying to make it on your own with live performances and micropayment downloads.
Sites that facilitate this could act much like record lables in the promotional aspect - they would serve only to group together musicians of common genre. Instead of taking most of the artists' revenues away, they can charge a low, flat listing fee for each artist per month, which in quantity could still be quite profitable for the wise entrepreneur.
It comes down to the fact that 90% of everything is STILL crap, and only the top 10% of musicians will make any real money at it. But it will still be 100X more than what the current RIAA model allows. It will be the breadth of availability, not the quantity of each genre, which will improve.
When art combines with money, it can be a bad thing if not done right. When it is done right, it's a pleasure to make a living doing what you love.
--Mike
Why is the RIAA so shortsighted? (Score:2)
A + B = C (Score:3, Funny)
A. Net radio plays corporate music
B. People buy corporate music heard on net radio
C. Corporations make more money
Oh wait, that's silly math. Here's how the real world works:
W + Q = Z
W. Corporations charge net radio to play music. Net radio disappears.
Q. Corporations continue to rape musicians up-the-butt with a silver broomstick. Musicians walk kinda funny.
Z. Corporations whine when profits plummet, so they pull politico puppet strings to make tens of millions of Americans criminals and continue to consume corporate welfare and pass more laws to prop up their failed business models.
Re:A + B = C (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it wouldn't be too difficult for alternative radio stations to come together (via the Internet) to share non-corporate music. I have a radio station in my area that plays approximately 70% non-corporate. I'm sure the local musicians would love having their stuff heard nationwide/worldwide without being forced to go corporate.
Webcasting Royalties? (Score:5, Interesting)
The very idea of having to pay royalties for the songs I play through a web cast is outrageous. I run a shoutcast from my computer, the playlist is managed by my girlfriend. The bitrate is set much lower than cd quality, and is really mostly for her and her friends enjoyment. The thought that the RIAA wants to charge me for broadcasting sub-standard quality music that one could record just as easily from a radio, is absurd. Radio stations broadcast music for several reasons:
1. entertainment. This I would rank as the primary focus of radio stations... people want to be entertained, and the less it costs them, the better.
2. To promote the artists. Lets face it, without radio stations and music video channels, most people would never buy the albums from the local music store. We hear a song that we like, find out who its by, and buy the album. I don't believe I have ever heard of somebody going into a music store and picking a random album and buying it because they thought it looked interesting. The music industry just doesn't work that way.
Why should I have to pay the music industry to entertain there fans, and to promote there music? When was the last time you heard ANY company complain about free advertising?
I could see the headlines now: "Microsoft Sues small-town software company for promoting microsoft software." This doesn't make sense, and neither does royalties on webcasts. Forcing webcasters to pay a royalty on a webcast is like making them pay the RIAA to promote the RIAA's product.
There is no piracy involved in this. There is no music bootlegging, or recording and any such thing. If the webcast listeners want to record and distribute illegal copy's of 24kbs, 22.05kHz, Mono music, by all means, let them. But do not make the webcasters pay for this. We want to entertain, and we want to promote our favourite artists. This is all, and the only fee we should have to pay, is the fee to obtain legal copy's of the music to begin with. This would merely involve taking a trip to our local music store, and purchasing a copy of the artists album.
Re:Webcasting Royalties? (Score:3, Informative)
hey, guess what. it's called copyright. to make use of copyrighted material, you have to pay for it. bitrate quality, or no bitrate quality.
i work for a public radio station. we have a rather shitty transmitter. the sound is rather hissy. probably the equivalent of your shoutcast. should we forfeit on our royalty payments because of that? no, because it's the law, and we do what we have to do.
>1. entertainment.
>2. To promote the artists.
as much as we'd all like to believe that, 99% of radio is about stroking the announcer's ego and getting advertising/sponsorship sales.
for many artists, radio royalties are the only way they make any money. if your song gets played on a station that submits playlists to the royalty company, and you have submitted a claim, bingo! i know someone that actually made something like $30000 in radio royalties one year, but sales of the actual product were tiny.
>This would merely involve taking a trip to our >local music store, and purchasing a copy of the >artists album.
sorry, you've bought yourself a single person license which allows you to play your one copy only on one stereo at one time, and you may not make copies unless you are a licensed broadcaster - in that case you can make one 'ease of use' copy.
Copyrights vs Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Engineers have taken the time to create, patent and license technology to stream audio over the web. Now, copyright holders of the audio content are trying to price content so high that the use of the patented invention becomes infeasible.
I would think that copyright was never intended to be a weapon to strangle invention.
Just my $.02. Keep the change.
Re:Copyrights vs Patents (Score:2)
But just because some copyrighted material will require licensing and payment, that doesn't mean all streaming audio is affected. If I record a program, which I do every week, I can put it online and stream it, because I own the copyright, and the technology to do that exists. Just because we have a new medium (internet streaming) doesn't mean we throw out the existing laws on copyright.
Re:Copyrights vs Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not advocating trashing copyright. What I'm saying is that using copyright to choke off the technology is an abuse. Try comparing these figures:
From the article:
From BMI [bmi.com]:
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the RIAA wants atleast $0.70 per performance to 1000 listeners over the net. Meanwhile, they charge $0.12 for X listeners at the largest radio stations (where X is likely to be greater than 1000.) If this isn't abuse, I don't know what is.
Re:Copyrights vs Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, historically, it does mean exactly that. Then the laws are modified, pulled, twisted, reworked, and shoehorned so as to cover the new medium, but usually with new features.
Originally, performed music wasn't covered at all by copyright, which was assumed to cover only printed works.
Originally, mechanical reproduction of music wasn't covered (player pianoes, anyone?). Congress eventually invented the idea of a mandatory license.
Originally, one could not have made personal copies of over-the-air broadcasts. Then VCRs came along and the courts -- followed eventually by Congress -- carved out new space for personal copies.
The point I'm making is simple: Copyright law most certainly adapts to new technologirs. There is no a priori reason that previous models, like radio, should (or should not) be applied to Internet streaming.
Take a lesson from 1984: The most effective means of control, for a tyrant, is to convince people that the terrible system in place (a) will always be in place and, more crushingly, (b) has always been in place. Don't subscribe to the manufactured history of the RIAA.
Re:Copyrights vs Patents (Score:2)
Well, except that most streaming software is free for the client and pay for the server. Once the RIAA spends the next year or two cutting off server revenue. They'll be in a position to either write their own streaming software, or simply buy Real Networks for pennies.
hmmm... questions (Score:2, Insightful)
what if they "own" exactly zero percent of the content being webcast?
The CARP is out for revenge... (Score:3, Interesting)
$0.0022 / ( 60 / 4.5) = $0.000165
or
The people on the panel must have invested money at the height of the dot-com boom and figured it was payback time....
Too Many Directions (Score:2, Interesting)
ARGH!
We are dealing with numerous issues at the same time in situations like these, and we need to deal with each piece before we can really solve this situation.
Alright, I'm down off my soapbox. Just remember that there are reasons, even if we don't know them. The goverment doesn't just keep secrets to piss us off, and the RIAA doesn't want our money just so we can complain about it. The RIAA wants our money so it can be there to complain about in the years to come.
Here's why... (Score:2)
A Serious Question (Score:2)
SaveInternetRadio.org (Score:2, Interesting)
Good clearinghouse on the whole issue and links to your representatives. Speak out now or shut up later.
Could Webcasters... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't this make a great unintended consequence? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hello, Listeners! Tonight I'm playing an album by a very talented group you haven't heard of yet. They haven't signed a deal with the RIAA, so we can afford to play their music."
"Those of you who called in requests for Destiny's Child and N'Sync, sorry! We can't afford to play that shit anymore!"
-jcr
Here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it having a web page? Of course not. Regular radio stations have web pages, same as webcasters. So clearly the web page itself is not the key factor.
Is it being digital? I don't think so. Consider the new XM satellite radio systems as well as small regionalized experiments with digital radio transmissions. Yet these would seem to be considered closer to tranitional radio than webcasting.
Is it being interactive? This is a big issue for the record companies...but how much control is required before something is interactive? Almost every radio station lets you e-mail song requests. So then, if a "webcaster" used the same mechanism, and disable any form of direct control, wouldn't they fall under the same category as radio stations?
Is it the content delivery mechanism? Consider the hypothetical situation where my computer has an FM radio card. Clicking on a link tunes my radio card to a radio station playing the song I want. Now I'm doing something interactive, web-based, and on-demand...everything that would seem to point to it being a webcaster, but since the music is coming in over standard radio waves, is it?
All of this brings me to my idea...let's grow 802.11 wireless networks specifically for broadcasting music. We aren't webcasting, it's radio wave transmission...same as regular radio stations. The 802.11 spectrum is licensed by the FCC, same as regular radio station.
Then once we are all broadcasting music via radio waves in our localized region, let's join the NAB and pay the same low royalties as regular radio stations. Could they stop us? What could they use to draw a distinction between one form of radio wave carrying music and another?
- JoeShmoe
.
Who cares if Internet Radio goes out of business? (Score:3, Insightful)
As one industry website [saveinternetradio.org] points out,
The myth of the "perfect digital copy" is just that -- a myth. This should be the heart of the attack. The argument that current royalty rates would put Internet radio out of business is irrelevent if you accept the claim that Internet radio is threatening to put the recording industry (a much larger industry) out of business.On the other hand, try this on for size.
-
Find a reasonably good quality net broadcaster.
- Make a copy of a good song off of that net cast.
- Make a copy of that same song off of the radio
-
Play back an original CD of the sound, followed by the netcast, and then the radio copy.
-
notice which is the best, and which is the worst.
Although a 'perfect' copy of a CD is possible, it takes 300Kbits to do so. A 128Kbit MP3 is good, but I can tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 when played on my rommate's (MP3 CD capable) car stereo.Internet radion, on the other hand, rarely reaches those rates. looking at the Real audio's tuner page shows 3 station: [real.com]
KASR FM Radio [real.com] (sports) broadcasts at 20Kbits/second (I'd describe it as grotty)
Euromix Radio [real.com](" Pop to house, trance, techno and energy remixes from DJ Daizzy, ToolMix, Terry Tate and..") broadcasts at 32K bits/second. This is actually better quality than many netcasters, but you can definitely tell that it's a net cast. even with pure voice content in a language I can't understand. KASR radio [real.com] (specializing in classical music, and thus a good representative of the "high end" of the quality scale) broadcasts at 64Kbits/second. Decent quality, but -- at 6:30AM, on a Sunday -- they're at their audience limit. I can still hear the bite of audio compression (when I can reach them). --- In fact, they're not up to the quality of AM radio -- much less FM.
Going to their search listing for "Seattle", (where Real Audio is based) shows stations rangingr from 20K bps up to 96K for Groove Radio (split between audio and video). I actually found a listing for a Chicago station that claimed 256K/sec, but I couldn't get to them. (I'm guessing that they're also a video/audio mix).
When I worked at GlobalMedia.com (now defunct), we had people who could squeeze the last bit of quality out of a 64K audio stream... (some webcasters don't quite understand what the issues are for getting a decent quality webcast). Even so, the quality never stood up to broadcast radio -- much less the CD player on my computer going through my (25 year old) receiver.
-----
Once you debunk the 'perfect digital copy' myth, then you can get on to the question of what's a resonable royalty rate, as opposed to what would compensate the RIAA for their supposed loss of business.
Judges know when they've made a good ruling... (Score:3, Funny)
-Adam
royalty should depend on bandwidth (Score:3, Insightful)
Music industry: get a clue. Copyright violation is your enemy, but MP3 is your friend!
Sites distributing MP3s and similar reduced bandwidth/quality representations of the CD material should not be punished. The folks who claim they should get rewarded, rather than punished for promoting the material with low quality copies have a point.
If a major music label says "and we won't charge any royalties or enforce copyright on MP3 or other lower quality recordings because it *helps* our business move high quality digital product" it will be a gigantic PR and marketing victory with no downside to speak of.
Such a policy would both contribute to the community of ideas *and* to the bottom line. Enforce copyright on CD quality reproductions vigorously, and give away the MP3s like business cards!
You will
You don't have to get agreement from the other labels. (They may be forced to follow, but the first label to do this will get a huge PR boost.)
Record labels: think! Read Drucker's Innovaton and Entrepreneurship. MP3s are your friend. Give 'em away, open-source-like. Hold the copyright but give away the right to low bandwidth copies.
Re:Webcasters have no ground here (Score:2)
Or better yet, don't pay it and find alternative content to broadcast -- content whose authors give you permission to play without a fee. There is plenty of good stuff [mp3.com] out there if you look.
Re:Not so fast there (Score:2)
Either that is not the case, or that is some seriously f*cked up shit.
Compulsary licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
The record industry has historically abused its monopoly power at every chance it had. It's happening today, it happened when radio stations first became common, and it happened when phonographs where first introduced. (Did you know that early phonographs could only be legally played on some phonograph players (those who paid the bribes to the copyright holders), and the records could never be loaned, sold, etc.)
The abuse was so bad that Congress made an exemption for phonographic copyrights, and phonographi copyrights alone. ANYONE can produce and sell a compilation CD of ANYTHING, and the copyright owner can't do anything to stop it as long as the compilation producer pays a modest compulsary licensing fee set by statute. Likewise radio stations and other commercial users can pay a compulsary licensing fee and tell the RIAA representative to get lost when they try to force the station to pay more, or change the presentation, or whatever.
On the one hand I'm surprised that the RIAA is trying this same shit once again. The public may not be aware of its sordid history, but the industry lawyers and regulators certainly are and there is absolutely no chance that compulsary licensing will be enacted for webcasts. The only question is the amount charged... and this proposal is *way* too high, and the burden to documenting individual users is far too high. In particular I remember that small college radio station example - the numbers were so high that I think it would be cheaper for the station to pay the compulsary licensing fee and distribute free CDs containing their entire playlist to every student than it would be to operate the webcast for a few weeks!
On the other hand, there's a libertarian born every second. Libertarian principles aren't bad, but most libertarians have a big blind spot when it comes to the fact that there are some "bad players" who have a CENTURY (or more) of demonstrated history abusing the rights of others whenever they have half a chance. Only the government is able to stop this abuse - individuals and smaller companies simply don't have the resources to fight them.
Parent
Webcasters and Record Industry Both Appeal Royalty (Score:3, Funny)
Right! America doesn't even have royalty.
Oh. Oh, I see...
Re:Compulsary licensing (Score:2, Informative)
The issue is that when one group of people controls the channels of distribution to a large extent, abuse becomes possible. Now, the claim to which you replied stated that historically, the recording industry has tried to control the distribution of its products entirely. Court decisions have been made about this issue before. In fact, even though I didn't make the music, nor do I have any rights to it, I can decide who gets to listen to it. I have to pay for that privilege, but it is mine nonetheless.
Now we get into the gray area. The deal does not say that the recording industry can prevent people from webcasting their music. However, if the price for that rebroadcasting is set too high, it essentially creates an impassable barrier; in effect, it makes it economically impossible (if hypothetically feasible) for webcasting to occur.
That's why it was claimed to be abusive. They control the music. They control the rights to the music. If you let them control the distribution of the music, too, you're giving them too much power.
Re:Compulsary licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, business is business. Any attempt at outside interference is communism. Hmm... wait a minute. What would the record companies be worth if the government wasn't granting little 95-year feifdoms over each sound recording? They'd be worth JACK SHIT.
The recording companies are a product of government fiat. On what grounds does the government grant these copyrights? To "promote useful arts and sciences". They're regulating what I can and can't do to help out a certain class of people. Sounds kind of socialist to me.
Parent