Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Music Media

Internet Radio Day of Silence 200

headless_ringmaster writes "TechTV's ScreenSavers today aired their interview with Wolf FM's Steve Wolf on the CARP bill and how it'll destroy Internet Radio. The Internet Radio Day of Silence is a day of protest for Internet Radio stations to get the word out on the issue. This has been talked about on /. before, but it's very nice to see a significant television/media company like TechTV use their broadcasting advantage to help the little guys, especially when they're up against monied interests." May 1 is Labor Day throughout most of the world except the U.S.; a good choice for internet radio stations to try to get out their message.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Radio Day of Silence

Comments Filter:
  • Err (Score:3, Funny)

    by PlaysWithMatches ( 531546 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @01:59AM (#3441162) Homepage

    The Internet Radio Day of Silence is a day of protest for Internet Radio stations to get the word out on the issue.

    Wait, you get the word out with silence? :) </lameness>

    • Re:Err (Score:2, Informative)

      by Vinnster ( 572111 )
      Me tuning in: Ethel, Where'd I put that darned hearing aid? I can't quite tell what they're all saying... The message seems a bit quiet....
      20 out of every 1 person in the world are dyslexic
    • Re:Err (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jonathunder ( 105885 )
      I know you're being funny--and thought it was incongruous as well.

      But according to the article "Some webcasters plan to go entirely silent, while others plan to replace their music streams with periods of silence interspersed with public service announcements on the subject. (Some webcasters also plan to broadcast or direct listeners to an all-day talk show on the issues produced by WOLF FM's Steve Wolf.)"
    • Yes, yes you do. Why? Because people like TechTV, Slashdot, ZDNet, and Wired will cover it.
    • Shouldn't that be <lameness /> :-)
    • Well whenever I check the World Service on BBC's website I get "This programme can not be broadcast over the web due to copyright restrictions" - so they might as well have silence!
  • Listen to your favorite radio stations on May-Day. For a VERY long time the DeeJays could not say the words "may day" together such as "Its may-day." Thats a fall back to those old radio days, - where you have to have station recognition every so often, etc. Who knows - but get on the radio waves tomorrow and just yell "ITS MAY-DAY! MAY-DAY!"
  • That the lawmakers HEAR the silence....
  • Pertinent Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by gvonk ( 107719 ) <slashdot.garrettvonk@com> on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:04AM (#3441186) Homepage
    Basically, it's good to see mainstream coverage for this story.

    Net Radio Fears Heard in Congress []
    Yahoo writeup showing that we just might make a difference.

    USAToday Coverage!!! Suave!!! []

    Most importantly, A sample letter [] to your congressman.

    Of course, all courtesy of SOMAFM, my favorite internet radio group. []

    My fave is Groove Salad [] (128k pls feed)
    • ...There's also The Enemy [].

      This site is replete with RIAA whining about the fact that webcasters are "orchestrating a campaign of misinformation" about the fees. There's also proposed fees themselves and the RIAA's rebuttal to common arguments made in letters to editors...
    • Basically, it's good to see mainstream coverage for this story.
      This makes me wonder who owns TechTV and how long can they continue to do anything that bites at the huge media conclomerates. I really appreciate their efforts and I hope they can continue to carry these sort of opinions so freely, but it saddens me that it seems *odd* that they can get away with any negative press against a large organization. It's a bad sign of our times when there is only one or a few major outlets (with convenient exposure to the public at large) which will say anything negative about large corporations and/or their ??AA organizations.

      Over the past few hundred years, we've shifted from control by the church, to control by an elected government, to (soon to be) control by the black-hearted mega-conglomerates.

    • oddly, radio free virgin is mentioned in the Wired article. I would assume that radio free virgin, being part of Virgin Megastores, would be an RIAA parter? Although the installer for it is a hoot and a half, and I give them mad kudos for it ("The Radio Free Virgin Player likes puppies, long walks in the rain, and getting saved in a temporary directory of your hard drive." is just one example).
  • by Anonymous Coward
    but you can't hear what I have to say about it.
  • Radio Free Burrito (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Da Schmiz ( 300867 ) <slashdot @ p r y> on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:06AM (#3441195) Homepage
    Wil Wheaton []'s net radio station, the Radio Free Burrito [], will be observing this day of silence as well.

    In fact, it will be observing a number of days of silence... quite a number so far.

    BTW: Props to michael for the Simon & Garfunkel reference too.

    • Perhaps its late....

      But I don't see the S&G reference????

      • by Anonymous Coward
        from the hello-darkness-my-old-friend dept.

        and particularly apt would be the closing line "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sounds of silence"
  • by nebby ( 11637 )
    The article says that radio broadcasters will be charged on a per listener per song basis. Is this how normal radio stations are charged? If not, it seems a bit unfair. Hell, even if they are charged that way, it's pretty tough to estimate how many listeners their are to a normal station anyway.

    Seems like the same logical fallicy in "per-click" advertising payment models.
    • well (Score:3, Insightful)

      by martissimo ( 515886 )
      i could understand some sort of logical fee arrangement but they are asking internet broadcaster to pay double the rate of terrestrial based radio stations.

      i would imagine if they tried to charge these fees of thoose land based stations there would be a huge fit (and many of them out of business shortly)... but since it's the internet the RIAA has to be "tough"
    • Normal radio stations aren't charged per listener, simply because you can't count listeners. I'm not sure about fancy satellite radio and stuff like that, though.

      At least per-click advertising is better than "maybe people will click, but we have no way of knowing."

      • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)

        by martissimo ( 515886 )
        Normal radio stations aren't charged per listener, simply because you can't count listeners. I'm not sure about fancy satellite radio and stuff like that, though.

        incorrect. taken from this article (and many others if you Google a bit) []

        Goldsmith's dream could be short-lived, however. On Feb. 20, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), a body appointed by the U.S. Copyright Office, ruled that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Internet radio stations must pay the record labels a fee of 0.14 cents per song, per listener. Traditional radio stations would pay 0.07 cents per song, per listener

        they do pay fees, just half that of whats being asked of internet radio
        • Not quite right (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ouija147 ( 467204 )

          HISTORICAL NOTE : Over-the-air radio stations have historically had to pay royalties to composers (in total, about 3% of revenues, via ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC), but not to the record companies or artists, as Congress felt that those parties benefitted sufficiently from the promotional value of radio airplay.

          They will not pay this fee. If they did then payments to the RIAA from broadcasters would total $3.3 BILLION and this is even ignoring ignoring overnight.
        • Internet radio stations must pay the record labels a fee of 0.14 cents per song, per listener. Traditional radio stations would pay 0.07 cents per song, per listener

          they do pay fees, just half that of whats being asked of internet radio

          No, the $.0014 rate is for internet-only broadcasters, and the $.0007 rate is for internet rebroadcasts by a traditional radio station. There will continue to be no royalty to recording companies for analog broadcasts.

          Benjamin Coates
    • Here at WHRW in Binghamton we pay ASCAP and BMI a flat annual fee. There's no way of telling how many people are listening at any given time with a traditional FM broadcast, although we guesstimate at any given moment we have about 1,500 listeners.
    • The article says that radio broadcasters will be charged on a per listener per song basis. Is this how normal radio stations are charged?

      Normal radio stations don't pay the recording companies anything. (there is some history of recording companies paying the radio stations to play certain songs, since it's so good for album sales) They do pay some royalties to people like songwriters and composers (i think?) and I believe many or most online radio stations pay these royalties as well, and that they are reasonable.

      That's the whole reason for this uproar; Congress and the RIAA decided that the RIAA was somehow entitled to a cut from digital broadcasts, and then the CARP decided that the cut should be, um, more than the pie.

      Benjamin Coates
  • So they're going to show those morons behind the bribes that are behind the bill who's boss by ceasing broadcasts for the day...that'll show 'em!

    Actually...since this stupid bill will make payments retroactive, a day of silence could save these internet radio companies quite a bit of money!!! Even better though, it could end up eventually costing the RIAA a little bit of money...and that's better than it costing them nothing...
    • It could cost the RIAA a lot more. Imagine if this extended to a 'day of silence' involving not buying music CDs for just one day - people have been put out of business like this before.

      Yes, the RIAA is trying to do what the government does all the time: collect some more taxes and hope we don't notice. It's a pity they are picking on a crowd with very little money (unlike the Govnmt who pick on salary earners) - basically it does look like they are forcing us (the public) to use 'accepted' channels to get music from. Can anyone see pirate Internet radio stations on the horizen?

      • Re:This Can't Fail (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bobKali ( 240342 )
        The problem I see with not buying CDs for a day is that similar to not buying gasoline for a day, the vast majority of people are merely delaying their purchaces, so at the end of the month, the sales figures will be the same as they would have been otherwise. (though the companies would have the use of customer money for one less day than they would have had otherwise, and though nationwide this could be a noticable amount, the effects are also spread out over the entire nation/world/whatever so.....)

        I wonder if it's possible to run an internet radio station on top of freenet, and if this could infuse some more interest into Freenet's development. Untracable pirate radio, and rather than the music industry getting their traditional ASCAP and BMI fees, they could be looking at getting nothing for being greedy and unreasonable.
  • by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:08AM (#3441205)
    From what I understand, according to this bill/law/whatever, you're supposed to pay a fee o RIAA for the songs you're playing PER listener. Which makes up for a killer amount of money if you look at stations like DIGITALLY IMPORTED. What I don't understand is, are you supposed to pay a fee to RIAA, even though you're playing music from INDEPENDENT LABELS ONLY ?

    I'm asking this because I've been vising the homepages of some internet radio stations that do not depend on RIAA as the "content provider" of their music, but rather play music created by indepandant artists. Yet, all of them seem to be worried about this law. Anyone cares to elaborate ?
    • It's like MS. They make you pay protection money per computer, even if that computer doesn't have any MS software on it. If you don't pay said protection money, they you have to face their audit. I'm thinking the RIAA has a similar thing going.

      Do you really want to trace down the legal history of every song you ever play? What if one of those independant artists once signed a contract that they no longer think applies since the label dropped them like a hot potato? Do you really have the reseouces to do that sort of background check on everything you play, or are you just taking the word of the artist?

      I'm not in this industry, so I may be wrong, but I think it's something like that.
      • It's like MS. They make you pay protection money per computer, even if that computer doesn't have any MS software on it. If you don't pay said protection money, they you have to face their audit.
        <VOICE TYPE="italian">Nice set of computers you have here.. it would be a shame if something happened to them.. like a BSA audit.</VOICE>
  • A good history of the May 1st Labor Day and why it takes place in September for those of us in the states is here []. I hope this day of silence brings attention to the CARP bill and copyright stupidity in general.
  • by X-os ( 470015 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:10AM (#3441214) Homepage
    Recently in my school newspaper, there was an article detailing how laws such as the DMCA and other copyright "protection" laws have been making our campus radio station doubt whether it can continue it's online broadcast. We were informed that we would need to buy new hardware and software to monitor what songs were being played and how often, as well as how frequentlty they were aired. They also said that due to certain legislation we would not be able to play whole albums on the air, or multiple songs by the same artist. All in all it was said that we would need to pay back fees (royalties? i'm not sure) somewhere to the tune of $4000, just to keep our internet broadcast up.

    i don't know about you, but i think this is a bunch of crap and is limiting the expression of our student body as well as keeping us from using new technology. (being that we're a well known Tech/ Engineering school, you might expect us to do stuff like this.)

    oh well thats just my 2 cents.
  • Save Internet Radio (Score:5, Informative)

    by geekgreg ( 545135 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:24AM (#3441259) Homepage
    Save Internet Radio [] is a great website, there's lots of information on the bills that are threatening internet radio, and what you can do to help stop them from passing legislation.
    • Save Internet Radio is a great website, there's lots of information on the bills that are threatening internet radio, and what you can do to help stop them from passing legislation.
      Now if they had a section for non-US based listeners it would be useful to me. I searched a lot but I'm not able to e-mail 'my' congres member as I'm lucky enough not to own one (aren't they expensive anyway?).
      • On the marathon, they are suggesting non-US listeners find the zip code of a US based internet radio station you listen to, contact the congress member in that district, and tell them that the CARP reccomendation will destroy a small business in their district.

        Benjamin Coates
  • so i guess ill be doing my part
  • Say what? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now... how gives a fuck about Internet radio. Isn't that just a waste of bandwidth?
  • Simple: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:35AM (#3441296) Journal
    Internet broadcasters stations should be subject to the same royalties and restrictions as any other broadcaster. At lest those that are not from the FCC, since no public airwaves are used here. If a radio station has to pay $1000 for an album to be able to play it any time they want in a public forum, then Inet broadcasters should have the same fee.

    I think artists/performers/producers do have a right to control their artistic and intellectual property. I don't think the politicians should keep passing bad laws based on information gleened from over-paid lobbyests.
    • But many of these stations are going to be charged this fee even when many of the artists it playes are not invovled or helped or controled by the RIAA.
  • The statutory royalty rate for Internet simulcasts of FM radio broadcasts is only half that of Internet-only broadcasts. So couldn't any web station cut their royalties in half by spending $34.95 (plus shipping) to buy a micro-FM transmitter []? Why not?
    • Well there are probably major FCC isues involved. I am sure this loophole only applies to FCC Licensed stations (its not cheap to be licensed)
      • Yeah, you have to be licenced, not just broadcasting on FM to get the lower rate, not that the half-off rate is anywhere near reasonable anyway.

        Benjamin Coates
        • I don't see the requirement that you have to be a licensed broadcaster anywhere in the DMCA. It does say:
          ...the term `broadcast station' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);

          which turns out [] to be:

          Broadcasting: The term ''broadcasting'' means the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations.

          Nothing about licenses in there. Nothing at all.

          This isn't to say the royalty rates aren't obscene, just that it seems to me an interesting loophole exists.

          Of course, IANAL. And I didn't do an exhaustive investigation. Do you have information to the contrary, where it says that only licensed broadcasters would recieve the reduced rate? If so, would you share it? Thanks.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    How many times do we have to go through this ... SPELLING is EASY.

    It's spelt CRAP ... CRAP ... not CARP.

  • WHRW, Binghamton (Score:5, Informative)

    by mstyne ( 133363 ) <> on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @02:37AM (#3441307) Homepage Journal
    As General Manager of a small college radio station [], here in Binghamton, NY I know a lot of people outside of our listening area depend on our RealAudio feed to get alternative news, music, and opinions. While it might piss them off that we're participating in the Internet Radio Day of Silence, it might make them angry enough to get involved. We have cut our feed and will be running Public Service Announcements on the air to get the word out. It's unfortunate that if CARP's decision goes through, we'll have to pull our Internet Feed. Small stations like ours (broadcast or just Internet) can't afford the high royalties. We already pay ASCAP and BMI, shouldn't that be enough!?

    [shameless plug]
    Don't let that stop you from tuning in *after* May 1st though!!
    [/shameless plug]
    • You pay ASCAP and BMI rates based on listenership in your broadcast area right? Would you be willing to include the population of the Internet in this calculation? Why not? Why not jack up the rate card for your advertisers $.05 to pay the cost of reaching a larger audience? Isn't it worth it for them?
  • I wonder how long it will be before the dinosaurs' (RIAA and NAB) abusive grasping for control at all costs will attract the asteroid that wipes it out?

    I can only hope that it is soon so that the mice (developers of new media and distribution technologies) can attain their rightful ascendancy.

    Internet radio threatens the monopoly of the National Association of Broadcasters because no FCC license is required for IP-casting. After all, there is no "common property" (spectrum) occupied when the broadcaster has to pay for the bandwidth it consumes.

    Internet radio also threatens the monopoly position of the RIAA because IP-casters can provide airtime to anyone who can provide them an MP3. Indie music can live large on the 'net and the labels DON'T like that one little bit. This may be the motivation for the extortionate royalties awarded by the CRAP^H^H^HARP.

    Despite what the article says, the RIAA knew that they had exactly ZERO chance of getting the .4 cents per song that they "sought". They asked for that much and hoped for half that because they knew that even one-half of what they asked for would crush the upstart industry.

    A new entertainment industry segment has been temporarily destroyed by the entrenched powers. I say temporarily because, given the quality of the music being pushed^H^H^H^H^H^Hpromoted by the RIAA, it won't be long before the ranks of the indies include everyone worth listening to.

    Starve the dinosaurs, support IP-casting!
    • I'd like to see Microsoft and the RIAA pissed off at each other. I'd say they deserve each other. It would be interesting to see them pick on someone their own size for a change because this abusive bullying of the little guys is getting old.
  • We all know how well the 'silence' strategy works []!

    Sorry guys, ;-)
  • SomaFM (Score:3, Informative)

    by saveth ( 416302 ) <cww@denterpr[ ] ['ise' in gap]> on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @03:11AM (#3441380)
    It's May 1. And, SomaFM [] is still broadcasting.

    I don't know if they're supporting the Day of Silence, but every 30 minutes, a short advertisement comes on the air. It always says something to effect of "The RIAA is trying to exercise its control over internet radio. Stop them before you can't hear your favourite artists, again." And, the ad is right. Forcing fees on already underfunded radio stations is terrible for the future of music.

    Some of the lesser-known ambient music artists, for example, *ONLY* have their music played on SomaFM. What happens when SomaFM can't afford to keep their station anymore? I call it a tragedy. Call it whatever you want. Either way, it sucks. For us and for them.

    Groove Salad. []
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I don't see the difference between the two that would justify such a gap in the royalty fees. How can FM be seen as promotionally benificial to record companies, but Internet Radio isn't? What's the freaking difference? Are they worried about people recording the streams? Umm..have these people ever heard of tape players? Seems to me the average person would know how to tape off their stereos much easier than figuring out how to record the stream off of realplayer or winamp.
    • Totally agree....

      Just because the d/a conversion (my soundcard) happens in my place instead of theirs (FM radio) doesn't make it any different. It's a really poor excuse for the application of the DMCA.

      I think the quality of FM is even better than that of 128kb streams. If one would do an a/d on an FM stream they would have pretty much the same thing as the digital stream if not better. And I've never recorded anything of internet radio, I don't even know how to do it.

      There are tons of artists and songs that I've "discovered" through internet radio wheras I hardly ever "discover" anything through FM radio because all they ever play is the same old chart shit. But I guess the RIAA et all want me to listen to and buy chart shit.
  • 20 members of the House, sent a letter last week to Librarian James H. Billington, who's approval is ultimately necessary to begin charging the fees CARP recommended. de x.asp

    My friends, please make note if any of these members of the house represent your state, and please remember this the next time you vote.

    Oh yeah, vote dammit!

    • Amen. Patsy Mink (HI) penned the first letter [] of this type that I know of (on March 13th), by the way.

      The congressfolk who signed the letter were (sorted by state):
      • AZ: Jeff Flake
      • CA: Anna Eshoo
      • CA: Michael Honda
      • CA: Tom Lantos
      • CA: Zoe Lofgren
      • FL: Corrine Brown
      • FL: Ander Crenshaw
      • IL: Lane Evans
      • UT: Chris Cannon
      • VA: Rick Boucher
      • VA: James Moran
      • WA: Brian Baird
      • WA: Norman Dicks
      • WA: Jennifer Dunn
      • WA: Doc Hastings
      • WA: Jay Inslee
      • WA: Rick Larsen
      • WA: George Nethercutt
      • WA: Adam Smith
      Unfortunately, there are two Tim Johnsons (one in the senate from South Dakota, one in the house from Illinois.) One of them signed the letter, and I don't know which one. Does anyone know?

      In any case, Inslee, Cannon, and Boucher wrote the letter, and the rest of 'em signed off on it. Sending any of these nice ladies and gentlemen $50 (come on, you can afford it) with a note explaining why will do more to protect net radio than a year's worth of slashdot stories.

      And, oh yeah, vote.
  • by Ilan Volow ( 539597 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @03:57AM (#3441488) Homepage
    What's to keep mimes from capturing the music stream, burning mp3's of it, and then sharing it on KaZaA? Until we can eliminate piracy of silence, I seriously doubt we'll get the record industry to shut up.
  • Awhile back, some friends and I were lamenting the obscene amount of "power" that Diz-nee and co. have. One of us piped up "why don't we just set up a pirate teevee station, place the transmitter on Indian land?"

    Could the govies/Disney pursue suit, should we be about six feet into Indian land and broadcasting Disney movies over free air?

    Just curious.

    (also, I could have SWORN that I saw said Screensavers interview a month ago)
  • by Jamie Zawinski ( 775 ) <> on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @04:04AM (#3441502) Homepage

    I took the DNA Lounge webcast and archives [] down for the day, as well as the audio portion of the video webcast. [] Well actually I replaced it with a synthesized voice explaining why there's no music. If you run your own webcast, I hope you'll do something similar, to help shake the listeners into action.

    I've written up an explanation [] of how the webcasting rules currently work, and how they will work if the CARP crap goes through. The whole situation is fairly egregious, and shafts the small operator far more than it will affect the major corporations who are able to play in the same sandbox as the Big Five who control 90%+ of the global entertainment industry.

    This is all about legislating the internet out of existence, to preserve their previous and now-obsolete business model.

    Under the new rules, if a webcast had only a single listener -- the webcaster -- he would be expected to pay $184/year for streaming music to himself!

  • Open source music (Score:3, Informative)

    by ( 547971 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @04:46AM (#3441582)
    What is the problem ? Why do slashdot users keep promoting commercial music and ignoring the free multimedia scene ( :-) ? Try which has a playlist of 9095 free mp3s. You can actually download the source code to most of the music (.mod, .xm etc.). Commercial netradios could also learn from it's advanced request and comment system.
  • Free Market (Score:2, Insightful)

    by seven89 ( 303868 )

    The situation might benefit from a truly free-market solution. Content producers, copyright holders, etc., should be able to set whatever terms they like, which potential users, broadcasters, etc., could accept or reject. In practice, this would mean going through clearinghouse type organizations. Stations would pick the clearinghouses they wish to deal with.

    The only real justification for the old system was the difficulties of detailed record-keeping in pre-computer era. Now that such fine points can be automated, there is no reason at all for governmental bodies to impose uniform fees and procedures on everyone.

    By the way, I don't believe that "the free market" is a universal solution to every situation, I just think it would work well in this particular situation.

  • I'm listening to the piece on TV right now. I like one particular quote "They say that we've got all these economic models that we're taking advantage of...What models? We're *losing* money on this...It's a labor of love."

    As an aside...I would presume that the best way to do this isn't to simply shut off all the broadcasts, but to change out the playlists for a single looping track with an awareness message about CARP.
  • Silly idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @09:26AM (#3442298)
    Who's brilliant idea was it not to broadcast for a day in protest? Internet radio stations are up and down so much that no one is likely to even question why. It's not like a major TV station like CNN going offline for 24 hours. Most people are going to just move on to the next net radio station or pop in a CD.

    What they SHOULD have done was to run a continuously looping 30-second spot telling everyone WHY their programming was interrupted and WHAT they wanted the listener to do.

    Congrats, you just wasted a day of valuable broadcast time.
    • Re:Silly idea (Score:2, Informative)

      by Greg Hewgill ( 618 )
      Believe it or not, some webcasters were actually smart enough to do that! Radio Paradise [], at least, has a bit that loops every few minutes explaining what's going on and how to help. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
  • A friend of mine and I are thinking of setting up an internet radio station (well, maybe "station" is too strong... we're talking about doing a weekly show that may be rebroadcasted throughout the week, but the idea of doing something like 3-4 hours of music a night has been tossed around) and we were wondering how some stations, especially stations that are working with indepenedant artists, are doing things.

    How do you guys work out the broadcast rights for songs from independant artists? Has anyone come up with a plan for handling those artists who become "successful" and sign a contract with a record label (in case said label comes to you and says "I don't care what you guys agreed on, you have to stop playing our artist's music")?

    Jay (=
  • Just wanted to say thanks for bringing the day of silence to my attention. I have changed my usual radio format on Live365 from techno to silence []. I have also included a few minute long, silent MP3s with various slogans on them such as "Save Internet Radio", etc... Hopefully this will help raise awareness as well.

  • I sent this email to my Representative today:

    I am writing this email to ask you to join twenty of your fellow Representatives in opposing the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel's recommendation for Internet radio stations. Rep. Boucher and nineteen others recently sent a letter to CARP expressing their displeasure with the plan. If the CARP recommendation is implemented, it will result in the elimination of hundreds of Internet radio stations because of outrageously high licesing fees. The ironic thing is that traditional radio stations don't have to pay any per-play fees. The CARP plan is targetted specifically at eliminating small and independent online stations.

    As an example, one radio station,, says that the licensing fees would equate to $9,000/month, which is double the station's income! Not only that, the royalties are retroactive to October 1998. For a popular independent webcaster that has had, say, an average audience of 1,000 listeners (fewer than a single small-market broadcast radio station) for the past three years, the bill for retroactive royalties would be $525,600, or a retroactive royalty rate of 500% to 1000% of their gross revenues to date.

    The CARP plan was lobbied by, of course, the Recording Industry Association of America. The RIAA's sole mission is to extort as much money as possile from honest citizens and to shut down any source of independent music. I urge you to take action and protect online radio. Thank you.

  • I am a news photog in Nashville, TN, and we have done a few stories about all of the internet radio things with Steve, but admittedly, we (the news station) never knew about Steve until we did a story about what it is like to get around a city with a seeing eye dog. The he said (in his usual sly way that is very Steve once you meet him), "oh, by the way, I run the second largest internet radio station from my apartment." Well, as news people, we just couldn't pass that one up.

    Needless to say, Steve is such a good conversationalist that we never really stuck to the subject with the eye dogs. We waffled about with internet radio and all sorts of other things. Eventually I made the story, but he really hooked us up on some interesting legislation and other things.

    He's hilarious. You need to donate to Wolf FM for one real reason alone. In the few times I met Steve, I have no doubt that he will tell the regulators like Frank Zappa told the PMRC that they can go kiss it if they try to take away his small, slightly over break-even station.

    Also, this legislation would probably take all of the pocket change that guys like Steve have to make internet radio. Therefore you get NO INDEPENDENT INTERNET RADIO REAL SOON. The song rights people are harassing them to get them out of the market, after they saw that XM did so well, and this is their next big thing. I'm betting they want subscription internet radio, and they think they can knock a few guys like Steve off of the air, and the market is basically theirs.

    In other words, Tech TV got it right in interviewing him. He's a great mouthpiece for internet radio. He makes one good leader for the movement.

    Please donate to Wolf FM. It gives us more Steve time, and I think this legislation is very, very important, because between the FCC and the corporates, there will be no independent radio anywhere.

  • by nyet ( 19118 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @12:56PM (#3443949) Homepage
    KCRW [] is observing the silence, which should be VERY good publicity, since they are a VERY big market in LA (for a public radio station) and get pretty good ratings during drive time hours.

    Here's [] the "To the Point" episode talking about it.
  • When i went to my favorite station: [] to listen at work.

    Techno gets me coding like a nutcase and it keeps me from having to buy the shove-it-down-your-gullet crap the big label DJs produce on CDs. They want $15-$20 for those remixes and that just plain sucks ass. The whole alternative music genre started because we were sick of the crapy top 40.

    I will never pay for D&B, house, progressive house, breakbeats, trance or any other mixed music unless it's $2-$5 for the cost of burning the CD to the DJ. If they take away digital radio I'll just get the mp3s. If they take away my internet I'll just go to raves with a tape recorder.
  • by pocketlint ( 152872 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2002 @01:14PM (#3444105) Homepage
    Fact: The per song per listener fee for every song an internet radio station plays is 0.14 cents.

    Fact: The RIAA is seeking 3 year's retroactive payments from each broadcasting radio station.

    Now let's do the math for my personal favorite internet radio station Digitally Imported []. Currently they peak at around 6000 listeners, so let's assume an average of 5000 listeners for a 24 hour period. Given the fact that the mainly play trance/house/eurodance music let's also assume that they can play about 6 songs per hour (at the extreme end of the lengths of said tracks). The total cost to the RIAA per year to run this station follows:

    total_fee = (number of listeners)(proposed fee)(songs per hour)(8760 hours per year)

    total_fee = (5000 listeners)($0.0014)(6 songs)(8760) = $367,920!!!

    Furthermore, take into account the retroactive payments. Assuming the station even started at 0 listeners 3 years ago and grew in a linear fashion (Gaining 1667 listeners per year) the total retroactive payments come to:

    retro_fee = ($73.58)(1667) + ($73.58)(3333) + ($73.58)(5000) = $735,800!!!

    As far as I know, almost all independant broadcasters cannot even afford the yearly fees, let alone this outrageous yearly fee. It's simple math that can't be argued with. When the guy who ran Digitally Imported needed donations to upgrade the server that streamed the music, he was lucky to receive $3,000 over 3 weeks.

    For the love of God, at least charge a lower rate or go to a profit percentage method of payment. Most webasters that I know of have no problem with these proposals, but they have been constantly rejected by the CARP commission.

    To cover these yearly costs if the stationed turned to a subscription-based system, that would require the listeners to pay $80.00 a year to listen to something that is basically being offered for free as a labor of love by the creator. Now consider that FM radio is free. That would drive more listeners to the crappy cookie-cutter top-10 wasteland that is FM brodcast radio. Whose thumb is held very prominently over this media outlet? The RIAA. Is it any wonder now why they're pushing for such high fees? Drive out the internet radio stations, drive more listeners to their crappy stations, possibly boost their revenue. It's important that we think about these issues when they arrise as the big ten of the media are basically trying to dictate to us what we should and should not be able to use to entertain ourselves. So please, speak out. Raise your voice. Be heard. [] Thank you for listening to my thoughts on this subject.

    For more information on this subject please tune into WolfFM []. They are holding an excellent all-day live information broadcast on the topic at hand.
  • Yes, us quirky and backwards Americans don't celebrate Labor Day on 1 May. Heck, we're so barbaric that we don't even go out to do the normal Labor Day traditions like smashing storefronts and burning cars on our Labor Day. How we got to where we are today is a total enigma.

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!