Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Broadcasters Appeal Royalty Ruling 156

Posted by michael from the good-to-the-last-note dept.
tanveer1979 pointed out this story, but his summary of it wasn't much good. :) According to Reuters and Kurthanson.com, broadcasters (regular radio stations, not webcasters) are appealing a year-old ruling which would require them to make the same royalty payments for webcasting that webcast-only stations have to make. They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty payments to apply only to internet services which allow one to pick what music one receives - if the listener is force-fed a stream, like regular radio, Congress didn't intend for the royalty payments to apply.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadcasters Appeal Royalty Ruling More

Broadcasters Appeal Royalty Ruling

Comments Filter:
  • I always thought that this particular law was garbage but, it passed anyway.

    But, the radio broadcasters arguement to try to get out of it is so lame even I am not impressed.

    • since when does a law not have to be garbage to get passed...the broadcasters want to make more money so they fight the law, the labels want to make more money so they lobbiedbribed it into existence.
    • i am actually very impressed... the 'force fed' idea of music distribution is what the RIAA likes and will support. i however don't believe that they intended the law just for 'pick your own' online radio stations, rather online radio stations with no transmitter counterpart.
      • How is this different from a streaming net radio station, I get what they stream or I try another station. I can also make requests via a realtime device similar in function to a phone, again, how is this different from radio ?
    • The broadcasting and recording industries have both stopped giving us any music worth listening to, and now are trying to push congress in opposite directions. It's a shame congress listens to either of them. If Clear channel, and the big recording labels end up destroying each other, it might be a victory for music fans. Boycott the recording industry. [dontbuycds.org]and Boycott Clear Channel. [partytown.com]

  • good luck........ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dciman ( 106457 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:01PM (#3903219) Journal
    I wish these guys the best. But I seriously doubt they have much chance of changing the ruling. I fear the RIAA and big business has too strong a hold on the key parties in congress for them to be able to make much head way. It is really sad that the RIAA seeks to have such a strangle hold on every possible outlet for media. Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!
    • Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!

      yea, so they can get noticed, make it big, be signed to a record deal and then have their music restricted....

      • I appreciate your cynicism, but I fail to see any connection between me buying a CD from a local band, and them signing a record label contract. In fact, if enough people buy music direct from the band, say over some vast public data network, perhaps bands won't need major labels at all. Hey look, there is a data network right here.
        • That's a big if, given that people who could /buy/ music off a data network could probably also find lots of /free/ music, legit or no, off another data network, which may or may not be just as good, but will in any event consume time "trying" that could have been spent "buying". Plus, some people might not want to buy if they get no "extras" like artwork, et al.
          • I've found most of the indy bands I've bought CD's from still go the extra mile to get album art and inserts. They might be shoddy quality, but there almost always there. Sometimes damn cool too.

    • Re:good luck........ (Score:3, Interesting)

      by afidel ( 530433 )
      Well since Clearchannel seems to always get what they want when it comes to congress and they are against the fees I would guess that it will be a tough battle. Since there is popular support for killing the fees it may happen as we are aproaching an election cycle and a combination of big $ from clearchannel and popular setiment are both things congresscritters look for at that time.
    • "The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the five major labels, said it hoped the radio stations would lose their appeal."

      Some stranglehold.
    • umm, not to be fussy, but I would like to point out that an appeal is usually heard before the JUDICIAL branch, and the only time the RIAA is going to be able to "lobby" is when their legal team is on the floor.

      Personally, I believe that they might just get it thrown out, as selective enforcement, but the issue is really what the "intent" of the law was. The danger of my "stealing" a song from streaming audio is about the same as my stealing it off the radio.

      I'd love to see the lawyers say something like this: "It doesn't matter whether they _could_ copy it from our stream, because they are FAR more likely to copy it from kazaa" and watch the RIAA's head explode.
      • The danger of my "stealing" a song from streaming audio is about the same as my stealing it off the radio.

        The likelyhood, or the dificulty may be the same, but the danger certainly is not. If you record the song from a digital stream you have a same generation copy that you can distribute ad infinitum with no loss of quality.

        Nobody really cares if you tape the radio and share the tapes with your friends. They do care if you make perfect copies and share them with the world on the Internet.
        • If your argument is that a stream, any stream, provides its listeners with a perfect copy of music being played over it, you are wrong.

          MP3, RA & WMA are lossy to begin with. The lower the bit-rate, the less they sound like the original.

          - A 256K stream might approach the quality of the original CD...

          - A 128k stream might approach the quality of hearing that CD on FM radio.

          - Most webcasters are using 56k streams or less - roughly the same as AM Stereo. Why? They want to reach as many listeners as possible, given the limits of their connection to the Internet (not to mention the limitations of the Internet itself.)

          You might make a perfect digital copy of the stream, but the stream is not a perfect digital transmission of the music it's transmitting.

          -HubCity
          (I have many streams at www.altrok.com [altrok.com] courtesy Live365, whom I'll be paying to keep them running; if you believe they transmit perfect copies of the music I'm playing, you need your hearing checked badly.)
        • And what if you just record a regular radio broadcast digitaly?
        • But interestingly, digital radio is now a reality. So if you tape off that? or even better, record to your PC and blow it onto a CD? Hmm, guess they've not really thought about that! :-)

          Grab.
      • It's lucky that the Judicial branch is well known to be fully impartial, and would never vote along party lines. If they did that, they'd have the power to annoint their own preferred president.
    • >>Which of course means one thing...support your local independent music scene!!!

      Yes, and go see their live shows. There are plenty of good bands out there that don't have contracts with the majors. Go see them. I think the RIAA has really shot their self in the foot. The independents will start making some money now.

    • Re:good luck........ (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Saxerman ( 253676 )
      It is really sad that the RIAA seeks to have such a strangle hold on every possible outlet for media.

      I think the hypocrisy of the RIAA is even more sad. From the Reuters article: "Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses," said Steven Marks, a senior vice president at the RIAA.

      Gosh, that's funny. That's exactly what I RIAA to do too. Stop spending time and money on legislation to protect your profit and come up with a product and price scheme that people actually want to pay.

  • Cue Nelson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PinkStainlessTail ( 469560 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:01PM (#3903223) Homepage
    and broadcast giants like Clear Channel Communications Inc. would be on the hook for 70 cents for each song played to an audience of 1,000 listeners.

    Would this be a textbook example of an "unintended consequence?"

  • I hope they lose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CableModemSniper ( 556285 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .odlapacnagol.> on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:06PM (#3903257) Homepage Journal
    On the one hand the law makes life difficult for teh webcasters so maybe the law itslef needs to be looked at. But if IRL radio stations get special treatment just because they happen to be IRL radio stations, thats just wrong. Suck it up and take your lumps like everybuddy else. Hopefully the stations will begin to realize how dangerous the RIAA is when it starts cutting into their profits. The more infighting the better.

    • small broadcasters... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by simpl3x ( 238301 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:11PM (#3903303)
      unfortunately, this law pretty much kills local/college/independent webcasting, and leaves the the crap from regular radio with a monopoly. the web could provide some really interesting stuff down the road, particularly with wireless capabilities in cell phones. stream'n web broadcasts through your web enabled phone, mmm!

      and clear channel is not exactly a pussycat!
    • so, if you want to be a net broadcaster, have a tiny little radio broadcast, even if it's over walkie-talkie, and follow into "duty free" webcasting. seriously, the thing about being "force fed" is entirely correct, I don't think it is right for the royalties to apply to streams like this, even from non-radio webcasters, which act for all intents and purposes like radio broadcasts. if they want these stupid royalties, keep them to the "play on demand" type downloads, not music streams.

    • Re:I hope they lose (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WEFUNK ( 471506 )
      While we're hoping for things, I hope they BOTH lose and that consumers and independent webcasters and artists win. Actually, I also hope they both WIN, but only on the points that benefit consumers.

      Unlikely I know, but when you have big money (Music) against big money (Radio) things start to get interesting and not so clear cut. Both sides will invest a lot of money to offer up compeling arguments for their side and against the other side. This is the ideal time for the little guy to come in and offer the wisdom of Solomon, selectively using the arguments of both parties to point out a rational compromise that benefits the end user and appeals to common sense.

      Just a dream? Maybe. But there is a finite likelihood that a judge or lawmakers will propose a compromise. Since we agree with some of the arguments from both sides, why not lobby to ensure that the compromise is split to the consumers benefit? Also, this approach provides the politician or judge attractive rationale to justify what might otherwise be an arbitrary solution.

  • I hope the ability to "save" isn't the only point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dave_mcmillen ( 250780 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:09PM (#3903282)
    From the article (Reuters): "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal." [emphasis added]

    If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.

    Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.

    But here's hoping the broadcasters win. It would be great news for webcasters: just eliminate choice, the way God intended, and you're allowed to broadcast over the Web for free!

    • It's still easier to use Streambox Ripper to grab the link and record the stream, rather than the audio. That way you get a copy that is exactly as good as the one that got streamed.

      There's currently no way to prevent stream rippers from saving songs. Even with a lot of fancy Javascript hiding the stream's URL, you can get it through a packet sniff of the http request.

    • Hobbling the competition is the point (Score:4, Informative)

      by FaithAndReason ( 112179 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:56PM (#3903643)
      Way back in 1995, the NAB and RIAA already began to realize that the Internet might be a threat to their established business. (Hey, they may be greedy, but they're not stupid!) So, they did what you might expect an established American business to do: they bought a law to protect themselves against competition, the DPRA (cool - another 4-letter acronym to hate!)
      According the NAB's own words in the linked "summary" posting, p.4:

      The impetus for the legislation was concerns of the recording industry that certain emerging businesses enabled by developing digital transmission technologies might provide music transmissions of such nature and quality as would displace record sales.

      This little gem of a quote is part of the NAB's appeal document! The NAB/RIAA does not even attempt to hide the fact that the purpose of the DPRA was specifically to target select-and-download services and prop up "no-choice" broadcasting.

      Unfortunately for them, the US Copyright Office refused to play along, and decided that all Internet streams would be charged similarly. So, they're understandably upset that the law they bought and paid for isn't protecting them as well as they'd like. (Some days, even a CongressCritter is a lousy investment...)

      Unfortunately for the rest of us, the law was clearly intended to exempt them from royalties, so they'll probably get a "clarification" buried deep within the next huge steaming pile of legislation regarding the Office of Homeland Security or whatever.

      As to those who have posted "hey, Congress won't do that -- it will make it way too obvious that they're supporting the fat cats in the RIAA!": what color is the sky in the world where you live (and how can I get there?)
      • Unfortunately for them, the US Copyright Office refused to play along, and decided that all Internet streams would be charged similarly. So, they're understandably upset that the law they bought and paid for isn't protecting them as well as they'd like.

        Hardly the first example of winding up "hoist by their own petard" when lobbying for/buying a law.
    • "the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary"

      And what's the bitrate on the stream? 64K or less? No MP3 collector would ever bother saving a crappy 64K MP3 of a song they wanted to keep. It would sound better taping off the radio. I know there's a few 128K Shoutcast stations out there, and someday 128K and higher might be the norm but not anytime soon.

      I don't think any Internet music law could be completely fair unless it took into account bitrates to distinguish between high quality (good enough for archiving) and low quality (for previewing and sampling) streams.
    • If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.

      As opposed to the technical challenges involved in dropping a Cassette in your tapedeck and pushing "record"?

  • If they lose, well, that goes without saying what would be bad about that.

    But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.

    At the moment, they've been lumped in with traditional stations that simulcast, in a kind of middle ground.

    If this goes through, it could split that middle ground, sending the traditional stations back to where they used to be (a good thing), but send the webcasters further into the perverbial abyss of royalty payments.
    • But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.

      Maybe not. The like of Live356 streams (of which I have a crappy one [slashdot.org] {plug plug plug}) would also be off the hook, since those streams are like "traditional" radio (i.e. I pick the setlist, not the listener).

      Or at least that's how I've read it, which certainly doesn't mean its true.

  • not only the money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billybobSDK ( 586720 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:10PM (#3903291)
    Money is not only the only issue here. A big portion of the law requires radio stations to keep an unreasonable amount of records regarding the number of listeners at any given time, all kinds of information about the song. This alone would crush the independent (college etc.) radio stations that simply cannot afford to implement the infrastructure. What is happening is that independent stations will forced out of the market, while the big boys who can afford the equipment will serve to further homogenize American music.

    • Re:not only the money (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kasperd ( 592156 )
      keep an unreasonable amount of records regarding the number of listeners

      I wouldn't claim to know the law in question, so I don't know if it applies to radio on the net as well as radio on the air. But obviously generating such records for radio on the air is practically impossible, while it would be fairly easy to get reasonable estimates for radio casted over the net.
      • Actually it is not impossible to generate those records for RF broadcasters. For many years they have been required to keep station logs. One of the things they log is every song played.

        In the old days, when my father ran a radio station, they would simply write down the artist and song on the log sheet as they cued the record. Oh, and the records were provided free of charge by the music companies as part of the service. These days the music comes in electronic form and is logged just as it would be for an internet broadcaster.

        Those logs are then used to calculate how much money the station needs to pay the music service. If I remember correctly the pricing wasn't the same for all songs. Certain songs ("hits") cost the station more but that is ok because the theory is that the more hits you play the more listeners you have. The more listeners you have the more advertising you sell and the better the bottom line.

        This is one reason that college stations and the like don't play popular music. The stuff they play doesn't get much airplay so it's supposed to be cheap or free.

        At least that's the way I remember it, and I do know that generating the records has become easier.

        • Re:not only the money (Score:3, Interesting)

          by autechre ( 121980 )

          Non-profit radio stations (such as college radio) pay a set fee to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC every year for the right to broadcast works by their artists. AFAIK, BMI is the only one which requires you to submit log sheets (randomly selected 3 days' worth, once a year).

          Almost all college radio stations submit at least their weekly top 30 songs to the College Music Journal, because if you're not listed in there, labels and distributors (for very small labels) are far less likely to send you music (and posters, and Weezer pocket protectors, and...).

          The parent post is correct: it's mainly the logging requirements that will be the issue. Crap like requiring a "unique identifier" and the listener's time zone means that you can't have a directory like shoutcast where people just click on the streams and listen; you've got to get them to fill out forms at your site EVERY TIME. This is terrible, and wrong; even if we're going with the "pay per listener per song" crud, as long as I dutifully keep track of the time period each listener tuned in, I shouldn't have to say anything else. That's a strain on the listener and the station, and an invasion of the listener's privacy.

          I plan on writing (Free) software to do whatever it takes to stay around (see my .sig!), but I sure hope it gets easier than what the RIAA has proposed.

  • What you guys are missing ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:14PM (#3903331) Homepage

    ... is that the radio stations' argument, that "Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs", if it prevails, would eliminate the payments not only for radio stations, but for net-only streaming services, as long as it's a stream where the program director or DJ, not the individual listener, chooses the songs to play. Nowhere are they saying that they deserve special rights because they have an FCC license to broadcast on the radio. It is the RIAA spokesman who is saying that the radio stations are seeking "special treatment".

    Given this, I don't understand the objections I'm seeing here.

    • I'd have to agree. If the broacasters are successful in this suit, and the basis of their case is that their music is sequential rather than random access, I don't see how the ruling couldn't apply to webcasters as well.

      It also occurs to me that the main issue with the royalty payments must be with the ability to record the stream, and the possibility that the stream is close to CD quality. From the beginning, I thought a solution would be to dilute the quality of the broadcast to radio quality (less than 96 kbits) or to deliver the content as 3WK [3wk.com] does, and deliver a high quality mono broadcast.

      Typically, I use webcasted music to be exposed to new bands and genres, and I don't see how the music industry could be opposed to that. Sheesh.

      mikegraham.net [mikegraham.net]

      • Re:What you guys are missing ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dr_LHA ( 30754 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @02:52PM (#3904076) Homepage
        Typically, I use webcasted music to be exposed to new bands and genres, and I don't see how the music industry could be opposed to that. Sheesh.

        Because at the moment webcasting represents a level playing field in terms of what gets played. This means that the big record companies (lets face it the RIAA are not looking after the interests of small indie labels - only the Sonys of this world) can't control what you listen to.

        The result is: You start buying stuff from small labels intent on quality and rewarding the artists. Sales on major labels go down. Anarchy and/or Communism ensues.
        • Seriously though this is what is such bullshit. I'm all for laws protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. But the law in question is not about that at all; it's about protecting a business model against competition. These freakin' armchair capitalists hide behind free market ideology to justify their actions, and yet they have the government step in to squash their competition.

    • Not so fast, Joe (Score:3, Informative)

      by JoeShmoe ( 90109 )
      No, what you are missing is that radio stations are saying that the NAB fees they are already paying should cover them regardless of the transition method (radio or Internet)...which makes sense.

      So in a sense, the radio stations say they don't want to be charged twice for the same thing. The FCC license only gives them permission to be on the air, it doesn't have anything to do with what they can play on the air. If it wasn't for the NAB, radio stations would be pretty bleak (probably just all talk shows).

      So webcasters are still screwed. Even if the radio stations succeed and get the precident set that stream-only radio-style webcasting doesn't get charged an additional fee...there is still the problem that webcasters can't join the NAB and pay a general royalty tax to gain a compulsary license.

      A silver lining this is not...

      - JoeShmoe

      .

    • No, the NAB wants special treatment for radio (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:55PM (#3903635) Homepage
      The National Association of Broadcasters is asking for special treatment for Internet transmissions by "FCC-licensed broadcast stations". In the NAB's words [nab.org]:
      • Summary of Argument:
        AM/FM streaming -- the Internet transmission by an FCC-licensed radio broadcaster of the program fare offered by such broadcaster pursuant to its FCC license -- constitutes a "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" within the meaning of Section 114(d)(1)(A) of the Copyright Act, and thereby is exempt from the limited performance right in sound recordings conferred by Section 106(6) of the Act.

        ...

        While there is thus no need to resort to legislative history, that legislative history nevertheless confirms the plain language construction of the "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" exemption, and demonstrates that Congress did not intend to impose sound recording public performance copyright liability upon FCC-licensed terrestrial broadcasters that simultaneously stream their radio programming to listeners via the Internet.

      So the NAB does want a special deal for FCC-licensed radio broadcasters. Internet-only webcasters would not benefit from this deal. Nor will they benefit if the NAB wins this lawsuit. Read the filing.
      • So the trick for a Webcaster would be to also be an "FCC-licensed radio broadcaster," which means all the college stations could Webcast. It also brings in the issue of what the minimum cost is to become FCC-licensed. Are there HAM licenses that allow for music broadcasts?
        • My thought exactly. The fee schedule for AM/FM stations is here [fcc.gov] (pdf, it's on page 66), and is based on the number of listeners. Seems like it'd be a reasonable workaround, if your "broadcast station" is in a low-population area so the cost would be low. The catch of course, is the expense of the broadcast equipment, and the application fee [fcc.gov].
          • Actually.. if you go non-commercial, you can pick up an Amateur Vanity License for $12.00, with no renewal fee required.

            At least, that's what I read on page 19 of your second link. Is there any requirement that if you have an Amateur License you actually have to be broadcasting on the radio waves? I think paying 12.00 to be exempt from the 'webcasting' fees requirement is probably a good deal.

            The question is, does the Amateur Vanity qualify for the exemption the NAB is looking for?
    • Given this, I don't understand the objections I'm seeing here.

      Quick summary of RIAA/NAB position, "Give us a break, because we suck. Those other guys offerd you the ability to chose what you wanted and that hurt our sales, so we crushed them. Now let us further wreck the digital media by eliminating choice there too."

      What I'm missing is choice in the music I'm exposed to. It's not on the radio, and it's hard to find legitimatly from the internet these days. MP3.com is owned and other services have been shut down or are being poluted with crap. I have to go out of my way to hear anything but 40 year old recorded crap here in Baton Rouge. Oh yeah, NPR, the voice of the community is helping out. Thanks, Big Brother, your laws have set me free to chose between you and utter shit.

  • darned if you do, darned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:20PM (#3903368) Homepage Journal
    Well, here's an interesting catch-22.

    If CCU gets the rights to broadcast online without paying the fees, then it looks really bad for everyone involved because it'll look like congress and the big corps are all scratching eachother's backs. As well, the recording companies will raise more hell because they won't be getting all of the money they feel they deserve.

    If CCU doesn't get the rights to broadcast online without paying the fees, then CCU will raise all hell, because they already broadcast for minimal fees over radiowaves. Plus, having a media conglomerate mad at you isn't a good way to win elections, I think the politicians have found.

    This situation, if resolved, will be resolved totally behind closed doors I think, because short of repealing the law altogether, the only solution will leave everyone with egg on their faces.

    Just a really interesting catch-22 when laws aren't thought through completely.
    • At least it's not very likely.

      If you listen to the May 22'nd broadcast of the Diane Rehm show [wamu.org] (crappy RM format though), the recording industry's representative makes it very clear that the rates agreed upon will only be used as a base... and that they will be happy to lower rates (even possibly to nothing besides ASCAP/BMI)... for the webcasters who play the music they like, and want promoted.

      I'm sure CCU will get a sweetheart deal, and it wont really take a suspicious looking law to do it, just a lil handhsake with Rosen.

  • Biggest Winners (Score:3, Insightful)

    by faithfriends ( 592001 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:27PM (#3903427)
    Its ironic the biggest winner is generally keeping its mouth shut. The behemoth AOL Time Warner is keeping its mouth shut, it stands to be a huge winner on both sides of the battle. AOL will continue charging consumers and taking out of one pocket to pay the record companies in the other pocket. It gets to easily eliminate smaller competitors through "legislation" while consumers lose out in the end.

    Jeremy
    http://www.faithfriends.com [faithfriends.com]

  • This post (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is protected under the Digital Millemium Act 2002.
    It is illegal to moderate this post.

  • slogan (Score:3, Funny)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @01:32PM (#3903471) Homepage Journal
    I propose a new anti-royalty slogan: "In 1776 we fought to rid America of royalty. Let's not bring it back." It uses the two definitions of "royalty" to add humor to the message, which is that royalties are unamerican. Thoughts?
    • This does bring up an interesting point. Businesses insisting on royalties for everything under the sun are building up taxation without representation.

      And force-feeding thought through control of the media is somewhat akin to forcing Americans to house soldiers. Same kind of violation.

  • I still don't understand why RIAA is so anti-radio. Okay, I do understand that they try to protect the authors and collect fees, but without the radio (any form, radio, webcast, etc.) nobody will hear the music. I would not buy music that I haven't heard. Would you? If they want to profit, they must give up their law suits and let radio and webcasters play whatever they want. That's how people hear the music and then buy it. People tend to buy what they like, and I do not think that all the past law suits against radio stations made associations like RIAA and people behind it very popular. Tag's Trance [tagstrance.com] and other small webstations were closed as a result of their actions and that makes me want to stay away from buying music.


    P.S.: and if your music doesn't sell, well the problem is not with the people who listen or broadcast it.
    • People buy books they know little about, from authors they've never read. People go to see movies that they've never read reviews for. People preorder computer games (for much more than a music CD, generally) long before the games are complete and without ever seeing a demo...

      Music and television are, perhaps, the two major entertainment segments where people can almost always easily and so completely(*) "try before they buy", and that's only possible because the content creators get paid for the broadcast already (in the form of royalties, ad revenue, et al).

      (*) Compared to, say, demos, short test drives, a walking tour through a house... if you hear a song on a radio, you've heard the /complete/ song.

      • I do agree with you, but without hearing a complete song, would you buy a cd? This is a very good question, how much do you need to know about a CD in order to buy it? When I buy software, I usually make sure that it is worth it and I like to try it out first. I like FreeBSD, I tried it, enjoyed, and bought a subscription. With music its different, I don't think that I can buy a CD by listening only to one minute of one song. It doesn't work for me.
    • I still don't understand why RIAA is so anti-radio.
      If the RIAA could come up with some way to extract performance royalties because you let someone walk by on the sidewalk outside your home and hear you playing a CD on the stereo in your home, they would. After all, if someone outside your home can hear it, it's a 'public performance', and you have to pay more royalties.

      • Maybe we shouldn't put it past them. (Never underestimate your enemies...) However, I don't think we should be worried about this anytime soon. At least not in the U.S. From Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101: [cornell.edu]

        To perform or display a work "publicly" means -

        (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

        (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

        Playing a CD on your home stereo (especially in-doors) doesn't fit the criteria.

        -r
  • If I capture a song from the radio on my computer alla mp3 then webserv that, would I still be doing wrong?
    I mean come on, It was just given to everyone for free right off the radio.
    Yeah someone paid for the airtime so that everyone could have it for free, but I'm not understanding how the internet is effecting their business. They give everything away for free anyway. Yeah yeah, with pop up add type comercials you can't seem to get away from.
    These laws that are about controlling people are going to get this government in alot of trouble.

    I am ashamed of the country I live in. When it comes to ip. When a company with big money has more of a voice than the people who live in it, I call that proto-fashism.

    Even this Capitlist-Socalism that people like to hang on thier sleeves is a far far cry from Democrocy. What on earth was I taught schools. It's Time for a COUP! I'm sick of being controlled by the actions of a few idiots with golden parachutes.

    Down with the Fed's having more Control than the States. This country is obviously to big to control under one Government.

    nuff said.
    pestihl

  • So, assuming this appeal is accepted and you can webcast for free as long as you don't take playlists, what then happens to requests? Can a DJ take a request from a caller and play it over the air and simulcast it over the web? What about picklists on web sites (radio station has a list of their 40 "top" songs, pick and click to request it be played for the 3rd time this hour)?

    Welcome to the murk.

    I have to side against this appeal... if only because maybe then the radio broadcasters will fight for something vaguely resembling reasonable tariffs. In a purely self-centered way, it doesn't affect me since I don't listen to webcasts anyway. But, on the whole, I think that slapping down the RIAA and getting reasonable tariffs put into place is the Right Thing anyway.
    • Some radio stations will requests, then air the request just as the song shows up on the playlist.

      Not sure about all-request shows though.
    • Don't worry about requests. Requests don't exist. Playlists are developed by a radio station's program director (PD) well ahead of time, and it's the DJ's job to play the songs in order. Also, to speak when the script says to speak. Sure, DJ's will take requests. Odds are the song will be coming up soon anyway. At the very least, they can make up a name.

      There's one exception I'm aware of. KQRS in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, allows (or allowed) four requests per hour during the overnight. This is unusual, though: most stations completely automate the overnight shift.

      I've got a buddy who often works the Saturday, noon-6pm, and Sunday, 6am-noon, shifts at an outstate rock station. He'll voicetrack the midnight-6am shifts for the rest of the weekend.

      There's a way to tell if the station's being voicetracked. Listen to the weather report. If the DJ tells you the current temperature, it's live.

      As for the webcasting rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rates established are compulsory only in the abscence of another deal between the artist(s) and the webcaster. So, perhaps a group of independent artists could license their music at a cheaper rate. "Play songs by these artists, and we'll charge you less."
  • "Rather than seek special treatment from the courts, we encourage the broadcasters to work with the labels and artists as our industries transition into new businesses"

    Maybe the RIAA could work with us instead of trying to force everyone to bow to their authority. If they squeeze webcasters to death and put fair use in a straight jacket then they are forcing us to find our music elsewhere, like Open Audio [openmusicregistry.org] projects.

  • This might actually be helpful to some webcasters if they win. All of the web radio stations I've played with have been non-interactive, so if the broadcasters win this one it might apply to them as well.
  • Didn't the BBC get in trouble earlier this year by deciding to not carry some broadcast of some royal happening? I thought maybe this was the typical late slashdot news.
  • isn't that what SomaFM et al. do? You don't pick the songs on Groove Salad, for instance.
  • Can anyone detail for me exactly what the fees are today? I run a small station with a handful of loyal listeners and if the fees are very small, I'm not opposed to paying them.

    Who exactly gets the fees? Where do I send the money? And should I even bother with it when I only have a few listeners? Are there any other fees besides the .02 cents per song listed on this page [copyright.gov]?

    If I pay these fees can I pretty much stream any music I want to no matter what?
  • First, they made the customers the Evil ones.

    Now the radio stations that Advertise their product (payola notwithstanding) are also the Evil ones.

    I wonder who else is there to piss off... Artists have been raked over the coals already... I guess that leaves the shareholders of the media conglomerates.

    Look for large accounting scandals and dismal profit warnings...

    Seppuku is not viable business plan.

    On an aside: Anyone know of a list of recording labels that do not belong to the RIAA?
  • I think the Slashdot community should start practicing a little bit of civil disobedience. Refuse to pay the fines, and broadcast over the web anyways. There are at least several thousand web radio services out there, if somebody wanted to enforce the law, they would have another DE-CSS or Gnutella on their hands.. They could try to shut down sites, but inevitably fail, and cause a huge uprising amongst the online community, and probably most of the offline as well. Any and all lawsuits involving money will eventually crumble, because it's hard to call a nerdy kid in his parent's basement an evil cybercriminal for simply playing back music. Also, good luck trying to get any money out of him.

    If you don't agree with the laws & regulations, don't abide by them. Take some risks. I mean, I'm not going around saying we should start torching the RIAA building with molotov cocktails or anything, but when stupid stuff like webcaster royalties comes up, complain about it and broadcast anyways.

    You guys need to get more guts. We've been fighting corporate radio with no-license pirate radio for years.. they send MARSHALS to bust those places, for god sakes! Saying you disagree with something is important, but you're not making any progress until you start being an activist, too. The big wigs that create things like webcaster royalties don't talk, they ACT. You need to start acting too, or they're just going to trample on your rights while you sit there saying "Well I don't agree with this.."

  • I work in the radio industry.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @02:32PM (#3903933)
    I used to work for "the evil empire (AKA Clear Channel)", at their Internet portal station Worldclassrock.com. They had intended to run all their net stations as regular radio stations with one single exception: the ability to click on the title and buy the record online. Seems to me that this would benefit the RIAA, not hurt it.
    At the time we ran about 12 different streams, only three of them approaching FM quality. Those three streams (64K Win Media, 64K Real G2, 96K Real G2) were constantly rebuffering even on big pipe broadband connections.
    I'll tell you this with certainty: making a good quality recording with real time streaming is almost impossible. There's simply too many interruptions to the stream! I think the reason downloading music files is so popular is that they don't happen in real time so the resultant file has time to become complete.
    Once again the RIAA has proven to the world how purely dumb they are.
    • Seems to me that this would benefit the RIAA, not hurt it.... I'll tell you this with certainty: making a good quality recording with real time streaming is almost impossible. ...Once again the RIAA has proven to the world how purely dumb they are.

      No, the RIAA/NAT will simply continue to make the internet look bad. That's why they are currently polluting the sharing networks, no? In this case they are asking for special treatment, because they suck no less, so that they will be the only providers of "internet music". They will make the new media suck like the old and laugh all the way to the bank as each broken stream and each advert played on the internet competes for bandwith that "pirates" use to get around them. Bogus! Not dumb, oppresive. Not creative, but effective. Sounds like the schoolyard bully to me.

    • Right now I'm listening to 128kbps MP3 streamed over ordinary cable broadband, thanks to Icecast, and I have never yet heard it skip at all. Do the math: 128 kilobits per second equals 16 kilobytes per second. That's really not all that much, to anyone who isn't on dialup. I don't know what your listeners were doing wrong, but I've played several of these at the same time with no ill effect.

  • Everyone knows the line has to be drawn somewhere, they just don't want to be on the outside of it. Maybe instead of trying to avoid paying royalties entirely, the should try and negotiate a lowering of the royalty to factor in the greater number of listeners.

  • a reply from nancy pelosi (Score:3, Informative)

    by petong ( 320755 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @02:38PM (#3903986)
    this is a reply I received from Nancy Pelosi after writing her regarding the CARP proposal:

    Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Digital
    Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the royalty fees for webcasters that
    were recommended by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). I
    appreciate hearing from you.

    As you know, on February 20, 2002, CARP released its recommended royalty
    fees for webcasters. The rate for Internet transmissions and for
    retransmission of a performance in an AM/FM radio broadcast was
    recommended to be set at $.14 per performance. On May 21, 2002, the
    Librarian of Congress issued an order rejecting the CARP recommendation,
    and on June 20, 2002 the Librarian of Congress set the rates at $.07 per
    performance. Rates for noncommercial broadcasters as well as the fee
    webcasters and broadcasters must pay for the making of ephemeral
    recordings were decreased from the CARP recommendation.

    When Congress passed DMCA, our intention was that artists and copyright
    holders be fairly paid for commercial uses of their work, while webcasters
    though the Internet would be able to provide competitive programming of
    value to consumers. Congress intended the statutory license process to be
    fair and efficient, so that the webcast industry could be free of legal
    uncertainty, grow quickly and pay creators increasing amounts as the
    industry developed.

    As these rates go into effect for webcasters, please be assured that I
    will be watching this issue carefully. Thank you again for taking the
    time to express your views on this important subject. I hope you will
    continue to communicate with me on matters of concern to you.

    Sincerely,

    Nancy Pelosi
    Member of Congress
  • Now that the big trend is radio stations simulcasting all over the world, I personally think that internet broadcasting should be seen as an extension of previously existing range. I worked for a 10-watt college radio station, and we recently went on the internet. Granted, our ASCAP/BMI fees were only $5,000 a year (roughly), since we were so small and educational, but our broadcast range is increased with internet broadcasting. 75 to 100 listeners can tune in over the internet, which, even on a small scale, increases our listenership. For larger commerical stations, they ought to have to pay some, too. They pay quite a bit in music licensing, but internet broadcasting allows them to extend their range. Therefore, they are reaching more of an audience, and are a more "powerful" station. I don't see the problem with it -- ASCAP/BMI really isn't that much to begin with, in the grand scheme of things.
  • They're arguing that Congress intended the royalty payments to apply only to internet services which allow one to pick what music one receives...

    If we're having a debate about what congress intended, as opposed to what the law actually says, then somebody did a p*ss poor job of writing the legislation. Golly, which moneyed interest could be behind such a poorly conceived bill's being voted through?

    ... - if the listener is force-fed a stream, like regular radio, Congress didn't intend for the royalty payments to apply.

    "Force-fed" -- unusually good word choice for slashdot. If we have too much choice about what we're getting, that's piracy -- PIRACY! If radio programmers get to steer the boat, though, stopping off only at Disney-owned resort islands along the way and keeping us from collecting any shells except from the sanctioned gift shops -- well, Welcome to the Love Boat, I'm Julie McCoy and I'll be your cruise director. It's piracy, see, if you try to steer the boat yourself...

    Man, do broadcast industries just not get the point-to-point mojo. These are companies that think the internet is just another distribution channel, and that advertizing Time Magazine on CNN's Web site is really happening "synergy." Hoo-boy, what a grand vision that is, huh?


  • I think RIAA got it wrong. They make money by selling the music, radio station advertise their products (songs), therefore RIAA should encourage the broadcast of the songs in every way. Moreover with declining quality of songs, I think that radiostations should charge artists for playing some songs. Come on guys, aren't you tired of listening to crap like "Its getting hot in here" or "H to the izzo"? The constantly try to shove some crap down our throats. Every time I turn my TV on to MTV or E! (happens once in a month, when I press a wrong button or browse through channels) I see rappers, and all the other pop-stars decked out in gold, driving brand new luxary cars and living in enormous houses. How do they get the money? They make money on CDs that are promoted by different media channels. It hurts, becuase it seems like they don't get enough and they want to sue the ones who provided them with popularity and wealth. Thanks,
    • I also have to take a second look when I check out MTV cribs. Supposedly...according to RIAA and some newspaper articles, all musicians are dirt poor and struggling to eat on the $.02 they get per CD. However Lil Bow Wow has a pimped out Mercedes C class with 20's and richie rich on the floor mat, and a house filled with crap bought on mad spending spree's. Then Master P (his dad?) rolls up in a Bentley. Truly though, I think that Antares (makers of the Auto-Tune, it can gently snap a voice into certain keys, or when abused it can often be mistaken for a vocoder) should start collecting fee's from the RIAA because Antares makes it possible for even Brandy to sound like she has a shred of talent. I can almost guarantee that 45 of the top 50 albums use Antares or similar hardware/software. I recently read an interview with BT (he produced N'Sync's "Pop!"), and he described how he went through literally a thousand differen't edits on their vocals. And J'Lo's music is 66% background singers. ARGG! I CAN'T TAKE IT. I'M GOING TO ESPLODE (the correct spelling of course, lol). Well, back on subject. Of course both airwave and net radio stations should pay royalties. Especially the webcasters, because all those people are out to do is make money and rape musicians intellectual property. If it weren't for organizations like the RIAA, who else would stick up for the little guy? ::puking puddles of sarcasm right now::
    • Radiostations do charge artists for playing songs. It's called "payola" and it's a huge fucking problem. Only WAY overproduced artists get any airplay, everybody else never makes back their advance and goes into debt, and nobody but listener-sponsored radio plays anything worth listening to. Instead of encouraging payola, you should speak out against it.
    • The rappers you see are nothing more then an image. What you don't see is the rapper of old, who sells just enough records and gets just enough to live on. And still works all week!
      You realize that for the ones that don't own their own label (which means that they keep a larger majority of the earnings and the earnings of other artists), all that crap is bought by three ways:1)Moregage (sp?) themselves silly, because you know their first album was a hit, so the money just going to keep coming. 2)They borrow it, like all that jewerly that you see celebs wear around town. All "borrowed" from one diamond store in Beverley Hills.3)The labels (aka the evil ones) provide it, and you had better be sure that they take it back after they no longer sell albums.....Hell for the classic example look at MC Hammer, or TLC or ...... I think the only "artist" that earned actual money was Alanis Morisate (sp, oh who cares), she negoicated with MP3.com to fund her turn and instead of money, she took stock in the company BEFORE it went public. And when it did,she made a cool couple of mill. And then had the gall to turn around and comdemn mp3s. .....Heres a last thought for you, if these "rappers" and other artists are making so much money...Why don't you see some 80's bands on Cribs, or 70's bands or Rappers that were a big hit a couple of years ago....hmmmmmmmm?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close