Internet Radio's "Last Stand" 316
We've been discussing the plight of Internet radio for some time, as the Copyright Royalty Board imposed royalties that industry observers predicted would prove lethal to the nascent industry. We discussed Web radio's day of silence in protest, which won the industry a reprieve, and the futile efforts to find relief in Congress. Now it's looking as if the last act is indeed close. Death Metal Maniac sends along this Washington Post story with extensive quotes from Pandora CEO Tim Westergren, who said: "The moment we think this problem in Washington is not going to get solved, we have to pull the plug because all we're doing is wasting money... We're funded by venture capital. They're not going to chase a company whose business model has been broken." The article estimates that XM Satellite Radio will pay "about 1.6 cents per hour per listener when the new rates are fully adapted in 2010. By contrast, Web radio outlets will pay 2.91 cents per hour per listener." That's 70% of projected revenue for Pandora; smaller players estimate the hit at 100% to 300% of revenue.
Re:The day the music died (Score:5, Interesting)
Extreme capitalism stiffles faster innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
More arbitrary fees (Score:4, Interesting)
What if I'm the owner of an internet radio station that plays only music that has become public domain through the consent of the owner or the expiration of copyrights?
Or perhaps I only like to play songs by artists who sell their CD's for less than the industry standard. Say, $5 a CD. Will my fees be lessened?
The artists really need to get involved. Laws like this are taking away more revenue than they are generating. For example, last.fm will recommend a group based on what I've been listening to. More often than not, I will listen to more of that group's music. If I like it, I find out if they are coming to a venue nearby. I go to the show and buy merchandise, because I know that's the best way to get money into the right hands.
It's kind of what I imagine FM radio used to be, but we all know what happened to that.
Pirate Radio?? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, it seems that we need to try to take lessons maybe from the Pirate Radio stations of the past and present that operate on the fringe, or in areas untouchable by the powers that be.
Too bad we can't do some kind of distributable P2P type application, that would allow anyone to run streaming music/video into the ether....but, is untraceable as to origin. Some type of freenet type thing for streaming content. That way, anyone could set up a Pirate Internet Radio Station (PIRS ?).
Is anything like this possible I wonder?
Re:More arbitrary fees (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps I only like to play songs by artists who sell their CD's for less than the industry standard. Say, $5 a CD. Will my fees be lessened?"
The trouble is...if I recall correctly, somehow, they passed laws that anyone streaming content...is subject to SoundExchange fees...regardless of if you use RIAA or other content of providers that SE pays with the fees.
I was shocked....I might be wrong, but, I believe this was part of the law...
Re:Even satellite radio can't survive at their rat (Score:3, Interesting)
They obviously haven't worked out the model yet - traditional broadcasters don't pay nearly as much - in Australia the equivalent body takes less than 4% [apra.com.au].
SomaFM (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The day the music died (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pirate Radio?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because at this moment it's not [fragmentmusic.net] possible [mono211.com] to create [thinner.cc] free music [uran97.com]. We totally need a network for that sort of stuff, which will also somehow solve the problem of Internet radio dying.
Retarding progress of science and art again (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just yet another example of how the current copyright regime is prima facia unconstitutional.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Copyright is not a property right; copyright is an agreement between the public and authors & inventors creating a privilege [wikipedia.org] of limited exclusive right as incentive for dissemination of ideas because otherwise authors & inventors have only the choice of keeping their inventions secret or sharing them that the recipient does what he or she will with the information without limitation, which is the natural right [wikipedia.org] of the recipient.
Any mechanism of securing exclusive right to the author or inventor must meet two tests to be constitutional:
An attempt [nytimes.com] was made to test the absurdly long exclusive term against the "limited" requirement and that failed because any finite term is by definition limited.
The test that must now be made is against the requirement that copyright laws "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The burden of proof should be on demonstrating that the laws do promote the progress of science and the useful arts because copyright is a limitation on the rights of the public and therefore intrinsically a burden on society. In granting copyright society temporarily yields their natural right to a privilege offered authors & inventors, a privilege that may be revoked at any time. [uchicago.edu]
Current copyright laws do not pass the test of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts; they are a burden on innovation and have systematically retarded the progress of science and technology, strangling many significant innovations, once again with internet radio. Current copyright laws are therefore unconstitutional.
Honest question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pirate Radio?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked, more avant-garde music was exactly what the world needed. What, were you looking forward to Britney Spears' comeback single or something?
Re:Pirate Radio?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Trouble is...they way things stand as I understand it...even if you play ONLY indie, free music, you are still subject to SoundExchanges fees. I think they collect even for people not registered to them....the laws passed were pretty sweeping if I recall from older Slashdot discussions on this.
There's at least a 50-50 chance I'm wrong, but the way I remember those older /. discussions, you had to pay the set fees to SoundExchange unless you contacted the artist and set up a different license with them.
Whether or not the extra bit I'm remembering is correct, that's a horrible system.
Re:What it comes down to is GREED! (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing the point -- they aren't thinking in terms of "half of something is better than nothing" -- they're thinking in terms of stream rippers. They WANT internet radio to die.
Right aim, wrong motive... Streamed internet radio is ok on a pair of PC speakers... but hardly full quality like a good CD rip. Especially once it is put into a new format, and compressed even further. What is much more dangerous to the big labels is...UNSIGNED OR INDEPENDENT ARTISTS!
Internet radio can play anything and everything. No predefined time slots, no specific genres, and each listener can have something different. And if it is tagged and suggestion based like Pandora or LastFM, then it can suggest artists that don't make the labels any profit. This not only gets in the way of saturating the airwaves/tubes with the latest boy or girl band or whatever current one hit wonder is being milked, but unsigned artists are almost as bad as pirates. They take away money that belongs to the recording companies by selling music they don't get a cut of, and they have yet to think up a law that stops this happening.
If enough people start listening to internet radio stations, then the label is not needed. distribution is not a problem any more. the internet has wrecked that justification. Manufacturing CDs or vinyl, again not really essential. The one thing they have to justify their existence is promotion, and internet radio attacks that reason.
Re:If you like Pandora... (Score:2, Interesting)
By donating to pandora you're effectively donating to SoundExchange...
just a thought
(please don't mod me troll =) )
Re:Extreme capitalism stiffles faster innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
What we see in the US is not capitalism, it is corpratism, an unholy alliance between large corporations and the government. This is why you see laws created to make more profit for large companies, and bail outs from the government to large companies who lose a substation amount of capital due to bad business practices.
I do find this amusing. I grew up in the 80's and got my first dose of "how the world worked" then. The Ruskies are commie, the good guys are capitalist, and we've got the white hats so we know we're right.
Then I read up more on communism and find out that it's never really ever been tried. Sure, the Ruskies and Chicoms say they're running communism but they aren't. In fact, the ways that their systems diverge from communism are antithetical to the very nature of communism! The state is supposed to become unnecessary and wither away! I don't see any withering going on.
I read up some more and I see that our system ain't exactly capitalist either. The very nature of capitalism is supposed to rely on pure competition with inefficient and underperforming companies allowed to fail. Government intervention in the economy is a distortion! What do we have? We have businesses custom-writing laws to protect outdated business models, government is told not to put in price controls and things to help the workers but my God, won't someone think of the CEO's and provide a bail-out?
This disillusionment is just like growing up in the Church and finding out the whole point ain't Jesus and heaven but making money and molesting little boys.