×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Copyright Office Proposes Webcasting Regs

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the muzak-for-everyone dept.

Music 298

deadsquid writes: "Streaming to a desktop near you, the death knell of online radio stations. Continuing to pave the money trail the RIAA and others claim to be theirs and theirs alone, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel has released their ideas on what webcasters should pay to re-broadcast copyrighted material over the Internet. A good summary can be found at the Radio and Internet Newsletter, which provides an outline of what hoops net broadcasters must jump through, in addition to what they must pay. To say the rates are ridiculous is an understatement, and the amount of information required from the broadcaster to the copyright holder is ludicrous. The cost of bandwidth and delivery is already high enough, and this ruling, if upheld, kinda removes any hope of surmounting operating costs and continuing on. " Webcasters will have to report a great deal of information about their listeners according to the reporting requirements that the Copyright Office has proposed.

I thought I'd just summarize briefly for people who don't follow these issues:

Copyright law gives the record companies the right to prevent others from making copies of "their" music, except in certain cases where there is a "compulsory license" written into the law. In these cases, the record companies can't prevent anyone from using "their" music, but there is a mandatory fee that they must get paid. This "compulsory license" scheme was meant to keep the music industry from taking over the radio industry by simply refusing to license their music to certain radio stations (ones that didn't play ball, naturally). The U.S. Copyright Office sets the fees and revises them occasionally.

So the same idea was applied to webcasting music. In theory, this keeps the record companies from eliminating all-but-one or all-but-a-couple of the webcasters - anyone can webcast, you just have to pay the fee. However, if the record industry has too much influence over the process, they might try things like getting "compulsory license" fees set very high, or making sure that the record-keeping requirements are so onerous that it's impossible to comply with them.

In effect, this eliminates the "compulsory license" - because it's economically infeasible to comply with it. Webcasters can still seek individual licenses from the record companies, but this gets back to the original problem - the record companies have no obligation to make life easy for the nascent webcaster.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

298 comments

Great :^) (2)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041344)

This is just the impetus Gnutella, Morpheus, Kazaa, and friends need to add anonymous peer-to-peer streaming support :^)

Re:Great :^) (2, Interesting)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041447)

I'm sorry to say this, as I like the idea of file sharing programs as much as the next guy, but they are usually used without any license at all and are illegal. The RIAA rips off both musicians and their fans, but pirating their music off these programs still rips off the musicians and is just plain wrong.

What we need is a system that rips off neither the musicians nor the fans, not one that promotes illegal activity (yes, there are rightful uses for file sharing programs, but usually they are for illegal music and software and movies, as can be seen by watching incoming searches).

Re:Great :^) (4, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041549)

What we need is a system that rips off neither the musicians nor the fans, not one that promotes illegal activity...


Well, maybe... or perhaps we need to redefine what "ripping off" means wrt "intellectual property".


I assert that the advent of cheap PCs on the the Internet changes what "natural rights" people ought to have. I believe that rights can and sometimes should change in response to changes in technology -- the Internet's great gift to humanity is that it makes data sharing as easy as speaking; that advantage outweighs the content producer's disadvantage of having to find a new business model to adapt.


Specifically, people ought to be able to copy any data they want at any time, as long as they are not benefitting commercially from that copying. As for the artists, I think systems like OpenCulture [openculture.org] or FairTunes [fairtunes.com] may be the best answer to their problems.

Re:Great :^) (2)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041503)

Stealing music is NOT a solution. It makes you just as immoral as they are. There ARE solutions. Try www.ampcast.com The more they tighten the screws the more they should be ignored. If enough people ignored them they'll dry up and float away. If not, screw their product! As an individual you CAN go elsewhere...

Re:Great :^) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041515)

Haven't you heard? Stuff wants to be free, man!

Re:Great :^) (0, Flamebait)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041536)

This isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement. If you don't know the difference then look it up. The two aren't even close.

Max

Re:Great :^) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041548)

Yeah, but both are against the law.

Re:Great :^) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041562)

Of course, you're not going to read this because you're one of those elitist assholes who refuse to read AC comments.

In conclusion, sir, you are gay.

Sad News - Goatse.cx guy DEAD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041345)

I just heard the sad news on BBC radio. Web entreprenuer/pioneer goatse.cx guy was found dead in his home this morning. Even if you never admired
his work [slashdot.org], you can appreciate what he did for the 'last frontier' of the internet.

Reports are that he died from complications resulting from \"*S\". Truly a internet icon. He will be
missed :(

This troll was reposted from the troll library without permission of the original author. If you object to this post, or if you wish to add your troll to the troll library, please reply to this message.

ha! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041346)

fp!

eff pee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041347)

eff pee!

As if this is anything new (0)

Sir Homer (549339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041354)

The content holders will try to get every last cent they "rightfuly own". I doubt most of the minor broadcasters will even pay attension to this.

Lets not forget (2)

cr@ckwhore (165454) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041359)

Lets not forget that radio was the ultimate source of creation of the RIAA. I'm sick of hearing about this crap. Streaming audio, and other forms of audio delivery over the internet, is the future of broadcasting. The quality isn't too bad now, and is going to get better over time as the technology improves, just as radio did in its distant past. I'm finally convinced that the RIAA is nothing but a roadblock on the highway of progress.

Will somebody please move these retards out of the way, so we can finally move along?

Re:Lets not forget (3, Insightful)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041437)

Unfortunately, it is difficult for the end user to do so, since it isn't their work being ripped off. The artists must stand strong and united and say, "Hey! We made that music, and we don't like how you are restricting it! Why don't we just go and start our own association, one that doesn't put silly restrictions on things and prevent us from getting the fair end of the deal! It's time for the RIAA to stop taking advantage of us, the musicians, and our fans!"

Re:Lets not forget (1)

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041458)

The RIAA likes things just the way they are - they are making large piles of money. Time and time again we see people saying "but MP3s make me buy more!" - the RIAA doesn't care if they do. They're working on the principle of if it ain't broke don't fix it. It might be the future of broadcasting but the (very effective and strongly lobbied) opposition will only stop when they have worked out how to control internet distribution. It is a roadblock, but it will be removed as soon as they or someone else invents an effective means of controlling access. Don't look forward to that day too much, it will come with plenty of SPAM I bet.

Re:Lets not forget (4, Interesting)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041555)

The very concept of an R&D department for a company is odd; "Let's spend money so as to make our current products and procedures obsolete, and then have to spend more money changing the equipment and retraining the employees."

But it never ceases to amaze me the gaping difference between companies like Intel and even Microsoft, whose existence practically centers around the obsolecence of their old products, and the member companies of the RIAA, who not only aren't interested in R&D but rather employ a large and expensive workforce, their lawyers, to try and maintain the technological status quo. An Anti-R&D, you might call it.

Move along without them (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041509)

I have setup a MS streaming audio server at my house, so I can listen to a radio station in Michigan where ever I am. You just plug in a radio to the audio in port, then use Real audio or MS streaming server to stream it out to your work computer or laptop whereever you are in the world.

BMI and stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041361)

Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.

As for:

cost of bandwidth and delivery is already high enough, and this ruling, if upheld, kinda removes any hope of surmounting operating costs and continuing on.

Who cares about the high cost of bandwidth and delivery? It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.

Re:BMI and stuff (2, Insightful)

xonker (29382) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041400)

Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.

Yes, they should have to pay the same fees that radio stations do -- but to make them jump through hoops that radio broadcasters do not have to jump through -- including logging each user, every song/program and such is ridiculous.

It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.

Yes, this is very true. Still, there's no excuse for the restrictions that they're trying to impose on Internet broadcasters.

Radio stations only have to provide playlist information a few days a year (used to mete out royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI to artists) -- they do not have to provide information about every single song they play and they are certainly not responsible for reporting who might be listening to the stations.

These guys are going to be some of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes...

Re:BMI and stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041452)

I think it's because webcasting is digital that it is easier to provide full logs of connections and playlists that makes them easy targets.

Radio stations can simply point to a map and say that they are broadcasting to a general area with ratings stating how many listeners there are at any one time. Very vague and based on statistics (not that that's a bad thing). They simply can't be as accurate as the record companies want them to be.

Webcasters, OTOH, can be. They can simply forward the day's logs to the appropriate people with the flick of a button. They can provide accurate and detailed information about what is being played, who is listening, where they are listening from, and how many are listening at any given moment. It isn't difficult in the least to provide this information, and it isn't outrageous to ask for it, IMO.

The web is a worldwide medium, so comparing a webcaster's reach to a radio station's reach doesn't do it justice. I think this is the discrepancy the FCC is trying to remediate with these regulations.

Re:BMI and stuff (2, Informative)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041451)

ASCAP and BMI collect royalties for music writers, not record companies.

Radio stations pay these royalties. However, radio stations do not pay these RIAA fees that they are trying to collect from webcasters.

GABE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041366)

It's been a while since I last posted. The Mtn. Dew is running out, but it's been great drinking it while it lasted. Thanks again, Gabe.

-Your apartment-mate, Mark

You could also listen to independent stations (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041372)

there are stations that play only music from non-major label sources. you just have to look around for them. i like BeOSRadio [beosradio.com] myself, but that's 'cause i'm Be biased. :)

Re:You could also listen to independent stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041508)

Yeah, great link (though the 24k one didn't work). Thx. I guess you're Be-ased. :)

There's also http://www.linuxradio.info , the same thing for Linux -- but note that they just started, so they still need more content.

For me it is ok, I dig their selection, specially a russian "no1hing".

I have no relation to them.

Screw' em I'll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041377)

just listen to talk radio.

BLING BLING (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041378)

I gotz da skillz to make da Benjaminz, dawg. Da Benjaminz pay da billz, yo.

W3RD UP SLUTMUFFINS!!!!

MSFT vs. Slashdot irony (0, Offtopic)

benjaminbishop (245276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041384)

I saw this [uga.edu] a couple of days ago. Can you spot the irony?

Re:MSFT vs. Slashdot irony (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041423)

Better publish it .png or .gif format.

Are the fees cumulative? (1)

mlsemon2 (413798) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041386)

Hi! I'm just wondering, are webcasting fees cumulative? That is, if the industry as a whole proposes 9% of the proceeds, and the MP3 guys want 2% (3% for MP3Pro), is that a total of 11-12% to stream MP3/MP3Pro? Or are the MP3 patent guys getting a cut of this deal and waiving their separate fee? Wow, talk about being nickel-and-dimed to death...

Next thing you know, Benjamin Franklin's estate will want an extra 5% of the fees for transferring the electrons across the Internet.

Civil Disobedience, anyone? (5, Insightful)

xee (128376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041391)

I'm enjoying this opportunity to get a near-first post to voice my opinion about a topic i hold very near and dear to my heart. It's right there next to my American pride, and my severe freedom-loving disorder.

I think we should not be *discouraged* by this rediculous legislation. The RIAA will continue to trampel our rights to speech and expression as long as they are able to go after every single offender of these new laws. Once we achieve a critical mass greater than their lawyers can handle, they will no longer have the ability to force this legislation onto us.

This strategy of disregard for the American Way will stand as long as there are enough sheep out there buying every product the RIAA supplies them with.

The RIAA is amazingly better than Microsoft at manipulating the public. Not only is the RIAA trampeling our rights with this legislation, but they are raising our children to appreciate tasteless music. Once the youth of America grows up with no taste or preference for music, movies, or art, they will have no cause to stand up for their rights. There will be no reason to fight for the right to broadcast the music they like simply because they will have been trained to not like any particular music. There will be no impetus for creative expression once there is no example of creative expression.

The RIAA must be boycotted on a large scale. Do not buy your children the newest pop-craze. Do not pay royaltees for what is explicitly allowed in the copyright law. Do not succumb to the legislation that seeks to revoke and repeal the rights granted to us by the framers of the constitution.

Since everyone is on the terrorist bandwagon, i'd like to point something out: legislation of this sort (including the DMCA et al) is perhaps more anti-American than any terrorist organization could ever hope to be. While the terrorists are trying to fuck up our system from the outside, corporate interest is SUCCESSFULLY fucking it up from the inside.

THE RIAA IS CAUSING MORE HARM TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE THAN ANY TERRORIST ORGANIZATION COULD EVER DREAM TO.

This all begs the question: if Osama bin Laden is so rich, why doesn't he just hire a few lobbyists. It seems to work pretty well for the RIAA, MPAA, and others.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone? (1)

xee (128376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041420)

Sorry this sounds like such a rant. I really wanted to get it done before everyone and their brother had a chance to troll this story.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041535)

And some pig fucker marked my post as a troll!!!! What's the world come to? First the RIAA attacks my rights, then a /. moderator attacks my opinions.

hahaha, just kidding.

happy hump day.

Btw, i didn't forget to click Post Anonymously this time. :D

Amen (1)

Sir Homer (549339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041431)

I thought Democrasy ment the people control the goverment, not money sucking corperations. I guess America isn't a realy democrasy, it's more of a Corpcrasy (look ma, I made up a new word).

Re:Amen (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041476)

I guess America isn't a realy democrasy, it's more of a Corpcrasy (look ma, I made up a new word).

Three, in fact. And a couple new grammatical structures. Congrats!

Re:Amen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041516)

dont forget to copyright it and register it as a trademark, royalties are big business

Boycotting RIAA is good, but not the final solutio (2, Insightful)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041479)

Unfortunately, boycotting the RIAA does not work. Every little bit helps out, but they still make huge amounts of money through the mindless drones that go out and buy their "popular" music. Instead, we need to write every politician, news agency, and music label and protest the obscene actions of the RIAA. Through millions of voices, we will be heard.

Also, I must be forced to disagree with your comparison of the RIAA with terrorists. Terrorists kill people. The RIAA tramples over their rights but does not kill them. If it killed them, they could no longer to afford to buy the RIAA's music, depriving them of profits. ;-)

Re:Boycotting RIAA is good, but not the final solu (1)

xee (128376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041517)

Hmm, you make a good point about the RIAA not killing anyone. BUT... their music is getting to the point... at times, i'd rather be dead than listening to the shit they produce. ;)

As an aside, and i hate to get all sarcastic here, but, when was the last time the people won over the corporate interest? Remember, we pay the taxes, but the corporations pay the congressmen.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041525)

How is this funny?

Yes. please someone whack that Jewess Rosen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041526)

As usual its the jews that lie at the heart of this issue. They stirred up the arabs so they struck,WTC style, at the state sponsors of Jew terrorism - the US.

Here You have a similar thing: Jews infliciting commercial terrorism and there needs to be a retaliatory strike against the Jew cancer lying in the heart of the US.



Hitlers real crime? He blew it...

Re:Yes. please someone whack that Jewess Rosen (1)

xee (128376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041544)

you are dumb.
your mind is numb.
go to hell
you antisemetic bum.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone? (1, Interesting)

gotscheme (246456) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041551)

Could we be more careful in making such strong assertions? Firstly, WHO's right to speech and expression is being trampled? Generally, artists make little or no profit. If you are saying that since radio stations will be more squeezed by this proposal, causing artists to go out of business, they already have. Since when is the American Way disregarded when the sheep (read: non-Slashdotters?) buy commercialized music, and since when does commercial media make the listeners' preferences tasteless? Look back on the history of music. Many of the songs we may cherish dearly today were commercial successes because of commercial backing. It's fine to boycott RIAA affiliated works, but you will probably punish the artists more than record companies. To say the RIAA is causing more harm to the "American Way of Life" than any terrorist organization is plain stupid. Music is a rather important element of life in the United States, but to many people does not make the core of their existence. Remember that most people only have time for the Top 40. They would rather be engaging in activities other than downloading music or listening to webcasts. I agree the corporate structure in the United States/abroad is getting too strong, and may result in a curtailing of freedoms, but let's remember that devices such as copyright laws, education, telecommunications infrastructure, highways, and the like come with restrictions so that they remain in place to maintain stability.

Re:Civil Disobedience, anyone? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041563)

Let's put the Asian spammers to work streaming music. ;)

ac

Absurd requirements (5, Informative)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041395)

Requirements

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
D) Date of Transmission
E) Time of Transmission
F) Time zone of origination of Transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound Recording Title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording Label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

Jeez. That's going to need new databases for radio stations.
At least I don't have to call in to ask what song they were just playing. I'll even get the UPC code and the album name and copyright owner information right there.


And a listener's log listing:
1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique User identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

I'm sure they put on the unique user identifier in there just in case someone actually implemented all the others to comply.

Re:Absurd requirements (2)

thumbtack (445103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041459)

This is still under consideration and the commnet period is still open on the conditions and infor gatered. The problem is you will find musicians back this as they want an accurate accounting which up to now has been done from sampling, which favors the "Big Name" musicians, but does nothing for the little guy..in fact he might get left out all together...

How About (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041396)

A Beowulf Cluster of these?

$500? (0)

Joe Jordan (453607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041398)

So in effect this means that to remain completely legal, every Shoutcast server streaming any copyrighted music will have to fork over a minimum of $500 a year to keep rockin their tunes? What about those with a mix of original creations and other copyrighted material? Do I get a discount if I stream Prodigy along with my friends original techno mixes?

More than that... (2)

Danse (1026) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041482)

500? That's the absolute minimum according to the rates they've proposed. If a station is simultaneously rebroadcasting via Internet an AM or FM broadcast, they pay $.07 per performance. I'm assuming this would be per song only, not per song, per user. That means if they play 10 songs an hour (seems about right, possibly a bit low) 365 days a year, they owe $6,132, plus 9% of that for the "Ephemeral License Fee", bringing the total to $6683.88. If they're not simultaneously rebroadcasting, then the cost doubles.

Seems fair ... (5, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041402)

And I'm sure that the labels will forward at least 0.000000000000001% of any Webcast fees to the artist. Hell, they earned it!

MOre Zeros?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041532)

I think it would have more zeros than that.

Remember when? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041404)

Hey, michael... remember that time in physics when you found out I fucked your sister? Dud, that was fucking hilarious!

Insane? (0)

Sir Homer (549339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041405)

Actually if I read right it is 9% of profits plus like 15 cents per song per user. Please prove me wrong...

What were the old fees? (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041407)

I remember that statutory licensing was set up a while ago; why is it being changed? What were the old fees? Or are those fees for something different?

Re:What were the old fees? (2)

thumbtack (445103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041432)

These are the old fees.. the recording industry and webcasters couldn't agree, so it went to abitration. The fees are retro active until 1998 when the law was passed and must be paid within 20 days of the approval of the rates. You're going to see a lot of Webcasters disappear faster than you can type /.

ma ana (1)

nickynicky9doors (550370) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041415)

Much of this shit has to do with the relative newness of the net and net culture. The net will produce it's own music libraries and as net music comes online and the culture supports it then, as a result of direct competition, the current recorded catalogue will be made more inexpensively available.

the record companies (1)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041418)

These record companies just keep getting worse and worse. The sad thing is, barely any artists actually get paid for their work anyway. The artist gets screwed over, as does the consumer, by associations like the RIAA, the middlemen who take all the money. It is preposterous that they keep doing this with unnatural laws and restrictions on the music that they didn't even create themselves, and I say that the artists should stand up to them once and for all and throw down the shackles of current music copyright law! They should take matters into their own hand, set up co-op type of organizations, and distribute music themselves! This way, artists that don't make much money at all now could make a lot more, and artists that do make a lot could make even more. Plus, prices could be lower since the RIAA isn't artificially keeping them high, and this helps the end-user as well! More musicians could actually make money off their work, whereas many at the moment are struggling to make a living.

Re:the record companies (2)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041483)

Uh, you mean like Ampcast? JavaMusic? and even (the now deteriorating) MP3.com? Or the thousands of indie labels and distributors like "Metropolis Records"? Yeah, I thought you did.

This is so crazy (5, Interesting)

FakePlasticDubya (472427) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041419)

This is outrageous. I am the manager of a non-commercial station at a High School, and we just recently began netcasting. We already pay over $3000 a year in license fees to play music on the normal airwaves. Now we have to pay even more to play the same music over the internet? I don't understand, either we have a license to play it or not...

And anyway, how is it that we have to pay large fees to promote their music? We are non-commercial, we get nothing out of it! What is going on? A long time ago, there was the whole "Payola" scandal where the record companies paid stations to play certain records. Now it's the other way around? This is insane. We will have to stop netcasting because of this, and that makes me so angry.

Just an example (5, Informative)

baka_boy (171146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041421)

My old school had a campus radio station, and about 1200 students. Last I heard, they were considering an on-campus-only webcast of the radio broadcast (since the signal was to weak to reach many parts of campus, especially the many "basement" work and rec rooms). So, assuming even 10% listenership, and the cheapest licensing schedule (for non-CPB-funded "public" stations) their fees would look something like this:

120 "listeners" * 18hr./day programming * 12 "performances"/hr. * $0.02/"performance" ==> $518.40/day.

That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web.

Ain't (lobbyist-directed) beurocracy grand?

Re:Just an example (3, Insightful)

The Fanfan (264958) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041530)

You have your math wrong by 2 orders of magnitude. The proposed rate is 0.02c per performance, not $0.02 (that is 2c). So :

120 listeners * 18 hrs/day * 12 perfs/hr = 25920 perfs/day. = $5.184 /day.>br>

Not so outrageous. It still adds up to nearly $2.000 a year though...

What's really outrageous is the very idea of paying anything to the RIAA mob knowing where's the money actually goes. Beats me...

Do humanity a favor. Eat a RIAA lobbyist for breakfast.

Re:Just an example (0)

ZuG (13394) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041557)

Actually, according to my math, the original poster is right.

120 listeners * 18 hrs/day * 12 songs/hour * .02 dollars = $518.40.

Re:Just an example (1)

The Fanfan (264958) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041568)

Please fullt read my post and the CARP proposal. The fee is 0.02 cent, not $0.02. So, ok, granted, the math is indeed correct. It's the initial hypothesis which is not.

$140 for 1000 Internet users, per song? (1)

ratajik (57826) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041425)

Note that "per performance" means "per song/per listener." In other words, every time one person hears one song, that's a performance. If twelve people listen to your webcast of twelve songs, that's 144 performances (we'll do some more math later).

Oh wow, this is actually crazy. So if a normal radio station has 1000 people listing to a song, they pay .07 cents. If it's over the internet and it gets 1000 people listing to it, it costs $140!?!?!? If this stands, then it really does kill Internet Radio, or at least legit stations. Most of the music I listen to these days is over the Internet... guess this is yet one more example of a good thing the industry wants to kill off, fearing competition.

Technical impossibility. (4, Insightful)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041426)

And a listener's log listing: 1) The name of the service or entity

Straightforward, I guess.

2) The channel or program

Sure.

3) the date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)

User's time zone? This would require resolution of the country that they were in, at the least (see #7 for why this is impossible), and even then it would be insufficient for large coutries, like the US, Canada or Russia...

And how do you define logging in/logging out in a inherently stateless web? Will all streaming sites require cookies/login schemes?

4) the date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)

5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)

See above...

6) Unique User identifier

I think only MS and Real support this invasion of privacy. Does this therefore exclude other streaming formats like ogg and mp3? More money for MS and Real?

7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

Impossible to determine exactly. At best, reverse DNS lookup. But what if your reverse DNS resolves not to a country, but a gTLD? Do they expect a lookup of WHOIS data (usually inaccurate) to find out the country of a IP address?

In short, I see no way of getting most data the data without massive invasions of privacy and fundamental changes to software and Internet standards...

Re:Technical impossibility. (2)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041461)

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station id)
C) The type of program (Archived/Looped/Live)
D) Date of Transmission
E) Time of Transmission

OK, sure I guess.

F) Time zone of origination of Transmission

What about Akamai and other geographically distributed content delivery networks?

G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program

???

H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)

What about IP multicast?

I) Sound Recording Title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording Label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information


Why all this info? Would not J and/or O be sufficient? I assume the RIAA has a database with all the other info...

R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

Is there a set list of genres? Can I put "crap" for this field? :-)

Re:Technical impossibility. (1)

FakePlasticDubya (472427) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041495)

You could do a ARIN lookup on the IP address and determine the country of whomever owns that exact IP. However, this is all so much work and would require extensive changes to most(all) netcasting applications

Poor odds of surviving, anyway (2)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041427)

Regardless of the impact KaZaA has on CD sales, it pretty much puts web radio out of business, anyway. I can see why the RIAA wants it stamped out, and I'm sure that they'll find numerous ways to give web radio a little shove toward death, but it doesn't make any difference.

I used to know dozens of people who listened to streaming web radio. Then, I showed them Kazaa, or they picked it up elsewhere, and now they don't. I'm sure there are web radio fans who have very legitimate reasons for prefering web radio to p2p - Kazaa does support streaming .mp3 play, which it calls "previewing", something one of the previous posters mentioned - but there aren't enough of them to keep web radio in business.

I don't mean to plug Kazaa, I just felt I should be specific.

Re:Poor odds of surviving, anyway (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041457)

I listen to [http://www.3wk.com], good luck finding the majority of
their artists on Kazaa. You'll find a few, but the p2p is based on
popularity. Indie is by nature/definition *not* popular.

Time for Internet-friendly Music (2)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041429)

It's obviously time for an Internet-friendly Music company to start signing bands. Set up a server where all music from signed bands is available by paid subscription -- both as MP3's and streaming. There's enough hungry musicians out there that this must be possible.
-russ

Break the cycle! (1)

Dix (73628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041433)

The record companies are no longer necessary, but, to break the cycle of artists signing their rights away so that so that the listeners have to pay someone else for their music, WE must stop buying disks and just listening to internet radio and the the artists must stop signing and start publishing by internet.

How can we stop this? (1)

Let's Kiosk (410813) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041436)

Maybe I missed this in the official notice, but where is the public supposed to send comments?

Re:How can we stop this? (5, Informative)

Let's Kiosk (410813) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041471)

D'oh! I found it -- it was right at the top.

I loved this little requirement, though:

"ADDRESSES: An original and ten copies of any comment shall be delivered to: Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office, James Madison Building, Room LM-403, First and Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC; or mailed to: Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0977.

Whatever happened to triplicate?

SYMPATHY FOR THE KHARMAPUSSY! (-1, Troll)

KharmaPussy (560384) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041445)

Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste I've been around for a long, long year Stole many a man's soul and faith

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ Had his moment of doubt and pain Made damn sure that Pilate Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name (KharmaPUSSY!) But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the czar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank Held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name, oh yeah (KharmaPUSSY!)Ah, what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)

I watched with glee While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades For the gods they made
(whoo whoo) I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedys?" When after all It was you and me
(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)

Let me please introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)

Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah Oh Yeah (KharmaPUSSY!)
But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
(whoo whoo)(whoo whoo) (KharmaPUSSY!) ..........

Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah (KharmaPUSSY!)But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game (whoo whoo, whoo whoo) Just as every cop is a criminal And all the sinners saints As heads is tails Just call me KharmaPUSSY! 'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (NOT!) (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)

So if you meet me Have some courtesy Have some sympathy, and some taste (whoo whoo) Use all your well-learned politesse (whoo whoo) Or I'll lay your(woo woo) soul to waste,(whoo whoo), um yeah
(whoo whoo)

Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, (KharmaPUSSY!) um yeah (KharmaPUSSY!) But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down (whoo whoo)
(whoo whoo)............

Woo, who Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)........
Oh yeah!
(whoo, whoo)
(whoo whoo, whoo, whoo)

Tell me baby,(whoo whoo) what's my name
Tell me honey,(whoo whoo) can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, (whoo whoo) what's my name
I tell you one time, (whoo whoo) you're to blame

Oh, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who (whoo whoo)
Alright (whoo whoo)
Woo, whoo who(whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Oh, yeah (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh yeah, ah whats my name
(whoo whoo)
Tell me, baby, what's my name (whoo whoo)
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name (KharmaPUSSY!)

Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Oh, yeah!
Whoo whoo
Whoo whoo

Hey, I've got an idea... (1, Flamebait)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041448)

How about not r(e)broadcasting anything that you don't own or is from someone that's doesn't want you to rebroadcast it? You don't own it, it wasn't given to you, don't touch it. How hard is that? Terms of contract unacceptable? Go somewhere else, or nowhere else. It's your descision, make it a responsible one.

Re:Hey, I've got an idea... (1)

FakePlasticDubya (472427) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041485)

How about trying:

1) We purchase a CD at retail price
2) We then pay $3000 in licensing fees to play on non-commercial radio
3) We then will have to pay again to netcast it.

If I don't "own" it, what do I even have?

Re:Hey, I've got an idea... (3, Insightful)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041538)

How about not buying the CD and not broadcasting it? Someone forcing you to buy that cd? Someone forcing you to broadcast it? How is it that you don't even see the other choices? Just ignore them and their product! Find other sources (They ARE out there if you look) If we want them to change a huge grass root movement of listeners is the ONLY possible solution.

Think about it, why are you even rebroadcasting their product anyway. Because it attracts listeners? So what? If your non profit, then that's hardly necessary. There is all kinds of alternative material out there. Buying a cd and playing it over and over really is the lazy, feed the monster's way out. Because they KNOW you'll buy it is how they've gotten their power. Take the power away. Don't buy, don't broadcast. (Your only advertising for the evil that much more).

A semi-well known Christian Slater Movie (2, Insightful)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041467)

I think in 1990, Christian Slater starred in a movie called Pump Up The Volume, in which he portrayed "Happy Hardon Harry", an introverted geek-boy by day, but a sexually charged authority-fighting anarchistic pirate Radio personality by night.

*SPOILER WARNING*

The FCC was called in after Harry got a letter from a kid who claimed he wanted to commit suicide. Harry calls up the kid, and talks with him, but doesn't do anything to push the kid away from killing himself. So, immediately after the phone call, the kid puts a gun against his head and pulls the trigger.

So parents of this small suburban community get in an uproar about this Hardon Harry character as he begins to expose the plots of a principal who is attempting to make her school the number one school by expelling all students with too low grades. The more he discovers, the more intent that the principal and faculty, as well as the parents and FCC, are on shutting down this pirate radio show and putting Harry in jail.

Once he is caught though, he announces to the kids (who have decided that the suburban repression of will they've been filtered through isn't necessary and have revolted against it) to keep the air alive, and make it theirs. The final shot is with the sound of dozens upon dozens of kids with their own pirate radio stations, reclaiming the "air" as theirs, just as he is thrown into the paddy-wagon and taken away by the FCC-charged police.

See the similarities? A friend of mine sets up a webcast so that we can listen to him spin some records from time to time, occasionally, when he has friends over, they have "geek-out music" sessions, where we get a whole bunch of music and just play around with it, and let our friends listen to it. Why? Why not!

So where do we draw the line? This isn't at all publicly advertised, so how in god's name do they intend on regulating this? It's going to simply blow up into a couple billion people setting up their own webcasts... it's like me setting up an ftp server off my cable connection so that my friends can get ahold of my MP3s.

Next thing you know, the companies will be forcing people to sign release forms every time they buy a CD making them promise they will never play these CDs for their friends, or loan out your tapes, DJs will have to pay royalties every time they play a club or whatever. I'll have to be charged a $5 cover every time I want to go over to a friend's house and play with his records. Soon, police will be handing out Copywrite-infringement violation tickets at house parties because the people throwing the party didn't secure the rights to the CDs.

The companies are burying themselves. It's going to get to the point that you're going to buy a CD and you won't be able to listen to it anyways because you don't own the rights to the CD. Soon it's going to get to a point where nobody is going to buy CDs ever again because they can't do anything with it. So the music companies are looking at their own elimination. Good job. Keep up the good work.

Good Riddance, radio free rant. (5, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041472)

Fine. Let the RIAA price their crap right off of the web. The last thing I want competing with pictures of my three month old daughter is a no save copy of a Lars drum lick. This will, hopefully, leave the big five music publishers further in the past and encourage more people to sign with independent studios and publishers like MP3.com sought to be. Let them rule their litle airwave monopolies, let their listnership decline to zero and let them all perish, but keep that shit off the web.

Osking ludicrous (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041474)

A cancer-ray station (:-P) can't provide this kind of
information, why is it reasonable to expect a streaming station to.

ShoutCast. (1)

BenTheDewpendent (180527) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041484)

Lets all just start shout casting our MP3 collections. really piss someone off... we can all be internet broadcasters weather is be 2bit stream of 160kbs stream we can do it and prolly makes some waves when RIAA and company realize they cant do anything or much about it. put them against the world not lilguys vs the big bad RIAA.

Golden Egg (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041489)

I don't know

I have this half formed thought, something about the idiot need to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because they are such a glutton for goose.

Some companies can be such idiots.

The buggy-whip makers are in charge of the auto in (3, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041500)

It's happened: The buggy-whip makers have been put in charge of the auto industry. Piece by piece, at the bequest of the old-guard publishing industries, our courts and legislators are killing the Internet and the promise it held.

Since 9/11, so many people have been quoting George Orwell's 1984. So for this circumstance, I'll have to choose a different quote from the same work, and adapt it:

"If there is hope, it must come from South America and India". (Substitute for Orwell's proles)

Say goodbye to college webcasts.. (4, Insightful)

thumbtack (445103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041504)

This hits the college stations and non-profits the hardest. Where dwindling budgets and volunteer help is the norm, many will just say that's it and pull the plug....One college station I'm familiar with has an annual budget of $30,000 dollars, total. They struggle everyday just to get by, and saw the internet as a way they could save money over maintaining expensive transmitters.

Time to move the stations outside U.S. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041505)

The Internet was supposed to be about breaking down national borders. Just broadcast from places that the RIAA doesn't yet control. Probably best to pick the spots they will get to last.

Nobody dropped graven tablets down from Heaven saying the US of A would always be the best place to engage in commerce. Our economy is now a mix of mercentilism & socialism which means you are either a megacorp or a ward of the State. Time we faced facts and started thinking globally. If you insist on continuing to live here you can probably work out a way to launder the profits back in from your foreign shell corporation. ;)

Why not just plain old radio? (2)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041507)

With all this crap to deal with, why not just listen to the good old analog radio?

Or will the RIAA get the US govt to ban that as well (like the banning of analog TV broadcast after 2010 (??)) ?

ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041513)

Having their songs broadcasted is an advertisement. If the RIAA is foolish enough to force the broadcasters to play something else instead, they can go ahead.

I don't get it (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041540)

Why is broadcasting over the internet different from airwaves, and how do XM and and Sirius satellite radio sidestep these hurdles? It seems like conveneint interpretation or drafting of law to screw selective businesses. The RIAA is, IMHO, as much an evil monopoly (oligarchy, actually, but acting monopolistic, and worse) as Microsft, if not more so. This stinks worse than most of the government corruption I've ever read about.

Well, damn (0)

Burritos (535298) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041543)

I thought I found something better than Napster, something that wasn't illegal, and it still gave me an opportunity to listen to unsigned bands. But I guess all the RIAA cares about is making money, huh?

so, what's in it for the artist? (2)

matman (71405) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041547)

Maybe artists will realize that the record companies are preventing them from being heard. I personally tend to listen to net radio an hour a day at least... I listen to the on-air radio, well, when my alarm goes off. :) People who are into music, that make music, also tend to listen to music. If you alienate them, maybe they won't want to sign your contracts.

Mjy letter: http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041559)

To prosecute Napster, and other forms of peer-to-peer(p2p) is one thing. While greedy it is true that they are violating the law.


To pursue outrageous requirements for streaming radio-stations is vicious and uncalled for. Obviously no radio-broadcast station is required nor can give you much of the information you are seeking form a streaming station. Just because it is technically feasible to implement some of things (although certainly not economically, which may well be your goal) does not mean they should be. And to require disparate licensing fees when you would be partially compensated with the privileged information you seek is further evidence of a lack of good faith. How does a streaming station warrant different treatment, and in particular excessive fees, over a broadcast station?


I listen to 3WK, which is licensed and payes fees to ASCAP and BMI. They are legitimate, honest and provide a service incomparable to any broadcast service. They expose me and other listeners to artists on a variety of labels that would otherwise be unheard. Why do you seek to force the closure of an entity that provides your members and the community such a service?

Re:Mjy letter: http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041587)

Okay so upon further investigation 3WK
might be okay with tier seperate license,
but the point is still the same.

Letter I sent my station on campus (3, Informative)

bugg_superstar (73615) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041574)

disclaimer: i edited the letter a bit for length. yes, i am a dj at the station. no, i'm not pimping us in any way ;-)

So the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel released their recommendations for how radio stations should pay if they stream over the internet. the actual release is here (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/2002/67fr5761 .pdf). Of course, it's a tough read, so I'll sum it up for you guys, and provide relevant links at the bottom. These rules are *proposed*, and haven't gone into effect yet.

+per performance means "per song / per listener". That means every time one person hears one song, that's a performance. If 12 people listen to a webcast of 12 songs, that's 144 performances.

+epheremal recording means a backup copy of the same song to be used for streaming.

So according to these rules for webcasting, KBVR is a non-commercial broadcaster. We must pay $0.02 for every "performance". 9% of those performance fees will be added on as cost for an epheremal license fee.

So yeah....doesn't sound too bad, does it? Just wait...

Let's do a little math here. I'm assuming that 2.5% of the roughly 20,000 OSU students would listen to KBVR streaming over the internet. I don't even know the real number, so I'm just going to (hopefully) guess low. If any of you could give me better numbers, feel free.

500 listeners x 24 hours/day x 10 "performances" an hour x $0.02 per "performance" ===> $2400 A DAY. That comes out to roughly $875,000 A YEAR if we could webcast under the new rules.

For *each song* webcasted, KBVR would have to report the following information to the primary copyright holders (usually the record label, or to the individual band if you're cool like metallica and dr. dre):

A) The name of the service
B) The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID)
C) The type of program (archived/looped/live)
D) Date of transmission
E) Time of transmission
F) Time zone of origination of transmission
G) Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program
H) Duration of transmission (to nearest second)
I) Sound recording title
J) The ISRC code of the recording
K) The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track
L) Featured recording artist
M) Retail album title
N) The recording label
O) The UPC code of the retail album
P) The catalog number
Q) The copyright owner information
R) The musical genre of the channel or program (station format)

That's for EACH SONG WEBCASTED.

On top of that, we will have to provide the following information for *EVERY PERSON* who would listen to us over the internet:

1) The name of the service or entity
2) The channel or program
3) The date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone)
4) The date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone)
5) The time zone where the signal was received (user)
6) Unique user identifier
7) The country in which the user received the transmissions

These new proposed rules are pretty damn stupid. That's all I'm going to say.

Thanks for your time...

~steve

Off-Planet Data Haven? (1)

GuNgA-DiN (17556) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041585)

Screw the RIAA and everyone else!

So, how much would it cost to build and launch a satellite to function as an "off planet data haven"? You know -- a few hundred thousand terabytes of storage orbiting Earth! We could store MP3s, pr0n, DivX, and offer thousands of steams!!! Figure 500,000 users who chip in $100 each? That's $50,000,000 right there.

The Russians could help us launch it!

What about online/onair radio stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3041589)

What would people from OnAir radio stations, with the same (exactaly the same) content online have to say about this?

I think this is a load of BS. (hold the onions)

dyslexic (1)

swinginSwingler (161566) | more than 12 years ago | (#3041590)

When I read the name of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel I immediately put together it's acromyn, but slightly revised to my own fruedian interpetation... (Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel or CRAP)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...