Webcasters Have To Pay 146
penguinradio writes "News.com is reporting that the Copyright office is going to require webcasters to pay fees for the songs they choose to play over the net. This has been a grey area of law for some time, but now it seems that this decision will move the case into the courts (where both sides were hesitant to enter for fear of losing the case)." Basically, this means that radio stations have to be pay an additional fee to broadcast over the Internet, as well as their current payment for "on-air" broadcasting.
Re: (Score:1)
next thing you know.. (Score:2)
Re:Question? (Score:2)
Yeah, I can see why you're angry and frightened.
What about freely available music? (Score:1)
For example, there is a collection of over 10,000 Commodore 64 SID tunes [c64.org] available, all of which have been given to the C64 community by their authors. If I decide to set up a stream which contains this music, should I have to pay to the RIAA?
And before the argument comes up: yes, there are some covers included, but 99% of the music is original.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Re:So much for legal Pirate radio... (Score:3)
The question you should be asking yourself is: how much freedom can they take from you before you will stop obeying them?
i'm with you (Score:1)
selfish, cynical, unhappy capitalism will again prevail, with its proponents screaming "we TOLD you the alternatives don't work!" after burning down the alternatives themselves.
call me mr. lenin if you like, mr. mccarthy, but i don't think namecalling is particularly effective.
i guess you like your culture dumn and pointless.
man if top 90% of all musicians (success-wise) retired, the QUALITY would go up a thousandfold. do you disagree with that?
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
my idea: retire (Score:1)
writing music, sure, it's work, but it's not unpleasant work. there's little else i'd RATHER do. if you don't like doing it for free, by all means, stop. we don't need ANY MORE "professional" musicians. they all suck donkey balls.
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
Re:Real Shame (Score:1)
Perhaps this is for the better. If the fees are actually imposed, it will at least weed out stations who are too concerned with money to stand up for their own rights.
Re:Artists? (Score:2)
grey areas... (Score:1)
I really don't want to go about bash all the record companies, since they can provide useful servies to artists... likewise, they can abuse their power. From the radio end of things, the copyright law is law, and they do know the rules. Moralistically, I don't really think there a real issue here, it's just become the record companies vs. the radio conglomerate. Both make crap-loads of cash (aka way the hell more than me), and both really have very little to complain about in the grand scheme of things... I'll just sit back and watch this one... again, I hope it remains sane...
Why bother? (Score:1)
I'm sure broadcasters are sucking it up for all its worth in advertising though. It probably sounds pretty nice to say to advertiser 'x' that they have 5,000 local listeners and 200,000 net connections. But it still remains that they can't target the listeners like websites with banner ads can.
Are there any companies out there that are advertising on a radio station simply to get national coverage?
My company has recently dived into local radio advertisements and they really didn't generate that much business. Certainly not enough to cover the ad bill.
I saw this coming (Score:1)
I'm still trying to figure out the fine line between advertising and a chargeable service. It would seem that record companies blus this edge.
Here cometh the tax man. . . (Score:1)
I can see where web-only broadcasters should have to pay royaltys and copyright fees, but it is ridiculous to make a radio station (in the traditional sense) pay twice for broadcasting the same material.
It's a strange corporate mindset... (Score:1)
..that actively discourages advertising of their product.
That's what mass broadcasting of music by radio stations (web or traditional) is : Advertising.
We've all been out and purchased tracks that we heard on the radio : radio promotes music.
Do billboard companies pay their advertisers to put up their billboards? No, its the other way around. So why should radio stations pay to advertise the products of record companies while charging "advertisers" premium-rates for product advertising space?
I tell ya, it's a weird world we live in.
Isn't the tax for on air for FCC freq assignment? (Score:2)
I am glad that the FCC does this! Wouldn't it really stink if you are flying from Chicago to Atlanta, and some hick country music station decides to squeeze out a few more watts from their transmitter causing their signal to bleed into the Air-traffic controller's freq. or worse yet, to skew an ILS approach? That is what the FCC is for.
However, can I conclude that the same will hold true for the internet equiv? Is the FCC going to ensure that a radio station's packets do not perform a DOS on some remote network?
Another question: Isn't the internet in the USA primarily funded in the private sector? Is the government putting any substantial amount of money into the citizen's internet service?
Just my two pennies this afternoon.
---
if the radio people lose (Score:2)
Maybe instead of playing less songs to make room for more ads, they'll do less of the "xx.x fm...your ONLY new rock/alternative/whatever station"...or maybe they'll stop wasting the 15 minutes every hour they spend telling us about their commercial-free-14-song-blocks?
Cripes, I hate radio stations these days.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Re:It doesn't seem clear (Score:1)
It's all about the Man trying to keep the internet down!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:3)
I'm not sure the DMCA so much changes the rules, as it applies the old rules to the new, digital, age.
On-air radio stations are not technically "exempt" from paying the record companies for anything more than buying the album. On-air radio stations don't have to pay the the copyright holders (almost always the record companies) anything because they do not copy the copyrighted work. The fees on-air radio stations pay to ASCAP and BMI are for performance of the copyrighted works.
Unfortunately, the only way internet radio stations can perform a copyrighted work is to transmit a copy to every computer "listening" to the work. A perfect, digital copy that you can retain and play as many times as you want, at your leisure. It is the copying done by internet radio stations, which is not done by on-air radio stations, that make internet radio stations liable to record companies.
Further, from the viewpoint of the record companies, play of a record by an on-air radio station serves only to stimulate album sales. Very, very few people record songs off of the radio instead of buying the album.
The relationship between internet radio and album sales is much more complex. Some people will listen to an internet radio broadcast and then purchase the album. However, others will simply retain the mp3 (or other digital format) file to play at their leisure. This relationship will be come much more problematic as portable, auto, and home MP3 players become more common.
Re:Artists? (Score:2)
Of cource, even if you play all independent or live music, my guess is that you will end up having to pay the RIAA, or go to court. I can smell the DMCA from here.
--
*sigh* oh well (Score:2)
This is pretty depressing for me. I was talking with the systems administrators at my school the other day, and they were talking to me about how they were going to run a streaming audio station from the school's T-1, kind of like a school radio station (this is a high school, btw.). However, they had decided against doing it, because of the legal "grey area" that existed there. I was really looking forward to some decision that was more or less the opposite of this. They taught a class for the last two weeks of school last year that was on the history of modern music. They had a very eclectic collection of music, and I rather enjoyed the course, and the music in particular.
It's really too bad about this, but I guess streaming music can be recorded on the recieving end, and the record companies/artists should be paid for that kind of use. Its just so damn depressing. There's no way that a school radio station can start now, my school's tech department is already overbudget for the year :-(.
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:1)
I think the difference is as follows.
First, the "technical" difference, or the legal distinction I suspecct Congress and the courts will make. Assume you turn on an old fashioned "on-air" radio and listen to a song. You do nothing else. Then you turn the radio off. Is the information -- a copy of the information -- still in the radio? No. Can you listen to the broadcast again (i.e., without it being re-broadcast)? No.
Now assume you listen to an internet radio broadcast. You do nothing else. Then you turn your computer off. Is the information -- a copy of the information -- still on your hard drive? Most likely, yes. Could you listen to it again? Most likely, yes.
Secondly, and what I find interesting, is that everyone who disagrees with what I have to say simply ignores my statistical and economic argument. The simple truth is that very, very few people do, in fact: (a) record songs off of the radio to listen to repeatedly at their convenience; and, most importantly (b) as a result decide not to buy the cd.
In contrast, I strongly suspect that the concern of Congress, as expressed in the DMCA, and the Courts will be that many more people who listen to internet radio broadcasts will retain a copy of the music to listen to at their convenience without paying the copyright holder. Why? Because the copy, even if lossy and not perfect, is much better, and it is easier to do. They just did.
Re:How are the fees for normal broadcast? (Score:1)
i.e. if my friends and I pool cds and run a little AM station I dont have to pay licence fees for the music? (forget about the FCC for now, or forever
Fire Jon Katz. Hire Neal Stephenson. (make this your sig too)
Re:some clarification (Score:3)
Question? (Score:3)
Example: I and my band record our music in my home studio. We then buy CDRs and a good quality CD printer (they aren't that expensive) for the labels on the CD and print out CD covers for the jewel case. We make our music available for download off the net, or available on CDR for a small fee (less than standard priced CDs). Now it would be unimaginable for the RIAA to come to us and say, "You have to pay us a fee because you aren't using us as a distribution method." But the way I see things going right now, I fear that it won't be long before this happens. Are people really going to let that happen? Or is my paranoia getting the best of me?
I really don't fully understand how the currently entrenched companies think that every new distribution method that comes up has to be under their control, but it seems that "the law" backs them up in this. Why? Why do the controllers of the current method of distribution have to have control of all future developments for distribution? As an independant musician, this sort of thing just scares the hell out of me.
Come on people, the RIAA didn't invent music, and they sure as hell didn't invent the ability to enjoy music. So why should they always be in control of all distrobution methods?
Sorry, but this angers and frightens me like you would not believe.
Re:Thats a bit of questionable reasoning (Score:1)
It doesn't seem clear (Score:3)
Any thoughts? (Apart from the standard capitalist running dogs milking the pennies from the poorest, etc etc)
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Streaming Companies (Score:4)
Re:It doesn't seem clear (Score:1)
On-air radio stations don't have to pay the the copyright holders (almost always the record companies) anything because they do not copy the copyrighted work. The fees on-air radio stations pay to ASCAP and BMI are for performance of the copyrighted works.
Unfortunately, the only way internet radio stations can perform a copyrighted work is to transmit a copy to every computer "listening" to the work. A perfect, digital copy that you can retain and play as many times as you want, at your leisure. It is the copying done by internet radio stations, which is not done by on-air radio stations, that make internet radio stations liable to record companies.
Close but not quite (Score:1)
Free Internet (Score:2)
Expanded, but _measurable_ audience (Score:1)
However, one factor that distinguishes this from radio broadcast is that the audience can be accurately tracked (as opposed to fuzzy methods used to generate ratings for traditional radio). For starters, stations should lobby for reasonable stepping of fees based on such statistics...
Comment removed (Score:4)
some clarification (Score:5)
Now, with Internet broadcast we are still required to pay fees to the songwriters through ASCAP and BMI. But what is at dispute here is whether we now have to pay fees to the record labels as well. Of course, the RIAA says we should pay. They are trying desparately to convince Congress that Internet broadcast is not the same as airwave broadcast, since it is essentially "copying" digital data from one computer to another. NAB, the national association of broadcasters, is the most outspoken group against this legislation, unsurprisingly. Their stance is that Internet radio should fall under the same laws as broadcast radio.
The issue is not as black and white as both sides claim. What if I set up a server on the Internet to stream my favorite mp3's to all my friends, where they can save them on their computers. If I claim I am just an "Internet radio" station, then I have used a loophole to get around my blatant copyright infringement. I don't have a good answer for what should be done in cases like that. Comments?
Re:Personal broadcasting... (Score:1)
Re:Free Internet (Score:2)
Nope, socialism still doesn't work.
Sorry, Mr 'Lenin'
--
What's next? (Score:1)
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:1)
I suspect that this is starting to change as there are more broadband users... audio on a 56k is just ugly.. (and fills the link completely). So with more broadband, its possible it could be more viable now.
Re:Why bother? (Score:1)
When will they learn? (Score:1)
Re:Streaming requires no copying (Score:1)
Re:It doesn't seem clear (Score:1)
The FCC will never rule cyberspace (Score:1)
Now, that being said, let's use icecast as an example: you could use it to run a shoutcast stream for general use by the public (or an "internet radio station", if you prefer), or it can be used to listen to the music of your work computer at home. That's a bit too grey for me.
It could be argued that one could accomplish the same thing with pirate radio signals, but there are significant differences: pirate radio is tougher to set up, more expensive by far, and (most of all) REGULATED BY THE FCC.
No tcp port is regulated by the FCC, nor could it ever be. This is partly the now-taboo Napster debate over fair use, and partly the simple fact that the net is much too vast (and will continue to be more so) for any regulatory agency to enforce anything with any regularity (no pun intended).
It's been said so many times that the Internet is the bane of governmental regulation everywhere: a monolth that can't be controlled, or even tamed. Just as there will always be hate and porn and ooh...free speech...there will always be people on the net doing what they want with it. That includes playing their deathly annoying Jessica Simpson mp3s...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've got a thought - no, I lost it... (Score:1)
High Prices + Crappy Selection -> High Demand For An Alternative, Cheaper Source + Widespread Internet Access + Efficient File Compression For Sound (*.mp3) -> Booming Trade in MP3 -> Greater demand for High Capacity Drives -> More Supply of High Capacity Drives & Cheaper Prices!
So, in the end, the light side and the dark side of the force cancels eachother out.
petition and background (Score:2)
http://femmefatale.nu/dmca/freedom%20in%20webcasti ng3.htm [femmefatale.nu]
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:1)
If they enforce this ruling and make online radio stations pay, I'm guessing that all of my non-commercial anime radio stations I listen to are going to be wiped out. Its a niche market, nobody is going to fill it, or if they do, its gonna be the 'popular' anime. I'm sorry, but the day I hear the pokemon theme song on one of my stations is the day I actively try to summon the great Cthulu to eath the RIAA.
On the other hand, could this have been pushed by the regular brick & mortar radio stations? Setting up a station is expensive, and with only so much space on the dial, on-air radio stations are going to have an oligopoly for broadcasting. The internet changes that, all I need is a nice connection and I could make Radio-Dasunt, no hassles with the FCC or anyone else. Give me a nice server stuck anywhere in the world with the afore mentioned nice connection, let me stick a playlist on it and a script to make sure the software is always up, and I have made one heck of a cheap radio station. With another script, I could insert commercials (I'm guessing online retailers would be a big buyer). Sure, the mp3's would probably have to be legal, since I need a country with a nice enough web infrastructure, and that probably means there will be strict laws about this sort of thing, but I'm not paying a DJ, once everything is in MP3, I can store all the records/CDs anywhere I want, and I need little, if any, office space. My only operating expense is the broadband connection, the server, and the storage for the physical media, plus around an hour a day for previewing ads and running a script to randomly insert them into the playlist.
cat (Score:2)
once you start programming using cat, you never
go back
cat > t.c
#include
main(){printf("goodbye cruel world\n");}
Re:It doesn't seem clear (Score:1)
Re:petition and background (Score:1)
I Support This! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Low power transmitters (Score:1)
I am straying...back to my point...who will enforce these laws? The RIAA? Streaming movies: MPAA? If so, help us all.
I just wish there was a good Boston tea party that I could join from time to time.
---
Re:Well, do you hear ads on webcast radio? (Score:1)
Actually - I live in Ottawa Canada, and listen to 93X [93x.com] in Minnesota. As I often travel to Minnesota, I have gone to some of the restaurants and places that they have advertisements for.
I prefer the music on that station and love the fact that it can stream. It's also nice to be able to hear what the weather and driving conditions are like just prior to arriving - sometimes weather stations aren't good enough.
I'll admit that I've always wondered what the billing/charging/royalties arrangement was with streamed audio. I guess we know now... Interesting...
Radio won.... (Score:1)
Re:Close but not quite (Score:1)
Well, you're already using spreaming MP3, which is NOT a loss-less format, plus, you're using UDP, connectionless transfer, and at quite high tranfer speeds, which means many packets simply won't get there, so infact you do loose audio quality with streaming audio.
Now, if you were transfering .wav files via ftp, that would be loss-less as wav is a loss-less format and ftp transfers via TCP, which means you're actually end up getting every bit you were supposed to get.
Re:Isn't the tax for on air for FCC freq assignmen (Score:1)
If you mean the ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, those go to songwriters organizations that (theoretically) pay the musicians. The FCC sees not a dime of that money.
Then we pay another, 3rd party, company to measure our signal to ensure we aren't overmodding, overtransmitting, and such things. The FCC can slap us with a fine, if we overbroadcast, but they don't see our money in a regular form.
What you might be thinking of is the spectrum fee commercial stations play. They pay for a broadcast frequency to use, essentially. It's always the stations responsibility to control their transmissions.
And the FCC is not "for" making sure signals don't bleed into one another. Their job is to ensure the use and integrity of the communications spectrum - mostly, they're in charge of divvying up a limited resource. Unfortunately, they tend to go corporate.
after further review... (Score:1)
I'm starting to formulate some new ideas on this, like, really big companies can show us all how bad they can SUCK when they really feel like it... not that I'm bitter, its just that we seem to see money grubbing a bit too much anymore. Or perhaps its always been there, I'm just becoming more and more aware of it.
Either way, its sad.
Cest la vie, eh?
Re:How are the fees for normal broadcast? (Score:1)
Fees are based, essentially, on the size of the possible audience. Bigger market, higher fees. Non-commercials have a much lower flatrate fee. So, yes, Station A pays more - it's generally done as a yearly flat rate payment.
And, unfortunately, mixing in country music is likely to increase audience share. Creepy, but true.
Where do you draw the line? (Score:3)
What if I pick up the stream on my workstation at work? Is it only an "Internet Broadcast" if I share it with my friends? I can give my CD to a friend without violating the law. How is this different?
I wish the RIAA would concentrate their efforts on seeking restitution for commercial piracy that has actually occurred instead of trying to do an end-run on our civil liberties in advance of any violation of the law. They seem to hold the mistaken belief that, left to our own devices, we will all become criminals at the first opportunity.
I am innocent of bringing down the record industry until proven guilty!
Re:It doesn't seem clear (Score:1)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
They may be able to customize the stream depending on the listener location. The technology to do that isn't that extreme. Look up the IP address, look up the provider, switch to the appropriate ad stream at the right time. If not now, soon.
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:3)
The DMCA unfortunately changed the rules. Because 'net broadcasting using a Digital version of the source (even if weakened by mp3 encoding down to a 22/11 mono file), the DMCA allows the owner of the copyright on the work itself (e.g., the record label in 99.99% of all contracts, exceptions being labels like DGM) is due a royalty. This is a royalty they would NOT pay if they were broadcasting over the air only.
THAT's what radio stations are protesting (and lost) in this case -- having to pay a royalty in one medium (internet) they don't have to pay in another (FM/AM frequencies).
How are the fees for normal broadcast? (Score:2)
Furthermore, would a station pay less if they mixed in country music since that will decrease the number of listeners??
I am serious here, does anybody with knowledge of the industry have the answer??
So radio stations pay twice, huh? (Score:2)
All it is is a different transmission medium. Only idiots with nothing more to do will listen to the radio and the webcast at the same time.
So the radio station can reach worldwide on the Internet. BIG DEAL! A station with a transmitter on a high mountain will broadcast farther than an 'in city' radio station. Doesn't change the charges they each have to pay to play the same songs.
I can understand charges for Internet only radio, but not for good ol' FCC licensed broadcasters who simulcast.
Move the radio stations off shore.... Really heat up the debate. It's legal to broadcast anything you want via the Internet while offshore, but who pays when the signal 'strays' into US LAN-space, ISPs?
Sounds like a Microsoft 'pay twice' policy to me.
digress (Score:2)
It seems that people do not realize that things like this are going to hurt broadband access.
This will probably stop spinner.com from being a free service. It may eng up going subscription to make up the costs rather than more ads. Other services may follow suit. There is already talk about portols like yahoo going subscription too. For some of there services.
So after you pay for your ISP, and in some countries your phone connection, you'll have to pay to access any of the services on the internet through some sort of ASP. All thouse things you used to get for free you'll have to pay for. This is probably what they are going for. Lets face it on the internet advertising just does not work to make up the money. Many business that are relying on this as sole income are failing. Radios and TV it works cause usually they are charging a lot more money than banner ads. A typical banner ad is like 100000 impressions for 2 to 5 dollars where as 1 commercial during prime time will cost 1000000 (maybe not that much but if you are intelligent you'll get the point).
So what does this have to do with paying to broadcast over the internet. It will make it less viable a service. We all have radios (well most of us at least) so you'll use your radio or cable access to hear music when you want to.
I do , at work listen to netscape radio, but if they add more commericals or less channels or make it subscriptions I think I'll bruing a radio to work. They are cheep these days like 10 USD.....
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Anyone know the answer to this? (Score:2)
...phil
I've got a thought - no, I lost it... (Score:2)
The reason the cost of living is so high these days is because guys like these people have been staying up late at night thinking of ways to extort money out of people. Heck, I don't blame them - it's their job. And they do it well. Of course, every penny paid for this kind of crap comes out of our pockets. I run a business. I know. If I get charged a fee to bring a product to a customer, that customer is going to pay for it. Otherwise I go out of business. So all those obscure patent agreements over the infamous Rambus and all the way down to the obscure fees charged for playing music end up coming out of our checkbooks every time we buy a product of any kind.
For example - I advertise on the radio. That's how the radio makes money and how I get my name out to the public. But suddenly the radio is faced with staggering fees out of the blue. What do they do? Come contract time, my advertising rates go up. How do I pay for it? By raising my own prices. So, a computer business is affected by this kind of thing - something with no obvious relationship with music. And it's not just me - other stores and industries will have to pay increasingly expensive advertising rates to cover this and they pass the buck on to their customers - you. Okay, it's fair that the music industry wants to see a return on their investment - but some of their tactics seems almost criminal...
That, my friends, is the science of trickle down economics - these guys make their victims pee their pants and it trickles down onto us...
Mike
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean... (Score:2)
--
Re:I like the idea (Score:2)
------------
CitizenC
My name is not 'nospam,' but 'citizenc'.
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:2)
Depends on the technology...mp3 broadcasts can be saved, but most technology out there saves incoming mp3 streams as .wavs, needing to be re-encoded (xmms, winamp). They don't save the raw mp3 form, only the decoded form. Regenerating an mp3 from the .wav that came from the decoding is likely to be lossy, just as an analog copy degrades the from original. And the user will also need to have a .wav editor to "clip" the song they want out of the stream...a bit too much work, IMHO, for the average listener.
RealPlayer and Windows Media don't even let you save the audio data directly at all, or if they do, it isn't in a non-proprietary format...and only on versions of the players you pay for (for which they now do or may later pay the RIAA for, depending on how the RIAA chooses to proceed next). When dealing with files that needed to be decrypted (esp in Windows Media's case), the decryption key needs to be used later to view the data again, and that may have expiration dates programmed into it or be locked to a particular machine so the file is non-transferable.
So no, its not really possible to get from current players an exact copy to keep just from "listening" to an on air broadcast...
Not to say that won't be possible in the future, but its not really there with current popular streaming clients like winamp/xmms or "free" realplay and windows media players.
Now one day when the technology changes, and mp3 players are able to recognize the end of a particular song in a stream and delimit it and store the mp3 as it received it and all that...
Yay!! (Score:2)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:So much for legal Pirate radio... (Score:3)
As for "legitimate" radio stations having to pay twice. Well, in effect they are operating two stations, one on the radio and one on the internet. If they use central recording, and feeds to play the same songs on multiple radio stations in different cities, do you think they end up paying only once for that (many stations and national shows like Top-40 work this way)? Is this going to affect big stations, most of whom are owned by the media conglomerates anyway? No. Is this going to hurt small community stations and college stations? Maybe. But again. They are effectively creating two broadcasts, so I don't see this as a problem.
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:2)
[TMB]
This doesn't really make sense (Score:3)
The article is not clear on the motives of the copyright office. Are they really worried about internet-only radio stations that currently don't pay BMI and ASCAP. Could this really just be a play for dominance by existing radio stations who seek to protect their dominant position. Having a radio station is expensive and radio is risk adverse. It seems that maybe they and the record companies are just protecting the status quo here...
Does this impact Shoutcast? (Score:2)
New Game (Score:2)
Broadcast fee
Streaming fee
Streaming Playback IP fee
Hardware fee
Media fee
Eyes fee
Bleeech!!!
Payola Payouts (Score:3)
humor for the clinically insane [mikegallay.com]
So much for legal Pirate radio... (Score:3)
How much freedom can they take from us before it becomes too much?
--brian
Well, do you hear ads on webcast radio? (Score:4)
Teh radio station is making money off the webcast, so obviously, the recording industry will want their share, too.
Of course, when you listen to a webcast from 2000 miles away, most ads aren't very useful. Gee, free hot dogs for the kiddies at a used car lot, I only have to drive 2000 miles to get them.
been like this for ages in sports broadcasts... (Score:2)
Re:some clarification (Score:2)
This is stupid. When are people going to stand up and say a company should perform for the people, not the owners and workers?
Effectivly we have two different versions of IP case law which are "colliding".
There is is the "special version" applied to computers and computer programs, which creates EULAs. Then there is the version which applies to music, books, films, etc. On one side we have people trying to extend the computer model, e.g. the CueCat and DVD messes familiar to slashdotters. On the hand we have people trying to say that broadcasting over the Internet should be no different from any other kind of broadcast.
Though the RIAA's veiwpoint may very well be stupid they can easily afford lawyers able to obscruate the issue so much that their ideas appear sensible...
Hehe (Score:2)
If it truly were a new and different world, most people would not be able to function in it, and until they can create new constructs to suit the new technology, they have to rely on baggage brought from the old world...
That's just human nature, I think.
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Streaming Companies (Score:2)
Using this definition any radio receiver creates a copy as part of its operation. Indeed anything more complex than a crystal set creates multiple copies.
The definitions being used for "copy" and "copying" are so loose as to be virtually meaningless.
simulcasting over the phone == extra license fees? (Score:2)
Ridiculous.
NOooO :'-( (Score:2)
Oh NO Please no! this means KNAC.com [knac.com] might go out of business. So sad.
I listen to them all the time. I was always afraid They would disappear leaving me with my overplayed MP3's and dead silence but now it might be true.
I am very against steaming companies because they appear to have retards in control. I used to listen to a station (who will remain nameless, WAAF [waaf.com]!) that was awesome till one stupid day there retards in charge said "Gee I have a great idea lets change our streaming provider to a Microsoft only company. That way we'll loose 50% of out listeners and piss off anybody who do not have media player. Sales will drop! what a great plan!" Well F* them >:-|
"Remember, who is the boss of you!"
I have to laugh (Score:2)
Now webcasts are to be charged to advertise somebodies product online... me thinks the record companies want sole webcast rights... Fat Free Radio [www.fatfreeradio] is a good example but it is hardly radio music.
Next is a micropayment charge for breathing in, then out... thats what implant chips are all about.
Live365 (Score:2)
http://www.cetan.com/live365-response.pdf [cetan.com]
I'm hoping that they'll stick to this policy
Re:What about? (Score:2)
Re:some clarification (Score:2)
And don't hand me that "digital format" crap. MP3's don't sound as good as a CD. Period. And photocopies don't look as good as the bound book. But we can't go around banning or overcharging either bookstores, copy machine makers, etc. just because someone might possibly in some way infringe on someone else's copyright. Attack the actual pirates.
Personal broadcasting... (Score:2)
Yeah Right (Score:2)
Internet: Some kid in the United States can use some ISP in the UK to upload his mp3's to a web page in Russia, all using a false name.
On top of all this, good luck busting some kid on DSL broadcasting his "Greatest 80's hits" to the world with IceCast.
This is nothing more than sabre raddling. Problem is, they are sabre raddling at a paper tiger, while an elephat is sneaking up behind them.
Artists? (Score:3)
If so, it's potentially justifiable, for the vast increase in availability of the artist's work.
If not, it's another unjustifiable move from "the man".
Anyone got any ideas?
Re:some clarification (Score:2)
And how are these sites going to afford their connections to the internet? How are they going to buy computers to create and host the sites? How are they going to pay for electricity for their servers? Heck, how are they going to pay the people to create the content?
TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you want to give your stuff away, that's fine for you. But it's highly likely that we're going to be paying for quality content on line eventually, unless someone comes up with a business model that works, as ad revenues on line are meager at best.
-jon
What about individual broadcasters? (Score:2)
Re:How are the fees for normal broadcast? (Score:2)
And if it's POTENTIAL audience, then either they're going to have to pull some magical figures out of someone's butt, or the potential audience is like - billions.
Streaming requires no copying (Score:2)
Second hello peopple can tape radio as well on their stereos.
What about? (Score:2)
I like the idea (Score:5)
tcd004
Tired of election coverage?
How about some UNCOVERAGE! [lostbrain.com]