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 Rejects CARP Recommendations

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the pay-the-piper dept.

Music 153

dave-fu writes "This just in: webcasters can breathe a sigh of relief as common sense and good taste has won out over stuffed suits and greased pockets--CARP has been rejected. If you weren't aware of it, CARP would have imposed exorbitant fees on webcasters, effectively killing webcasting radiostations, or at least preventing them from playing all (American) copyrighted music." See our previous story, or, or read through the Copyright Office page linked above for background information. I wouldn't rejoice just yet - while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low. There will still be royalty rates set by the Copyright Office, and the final rates may not be anything to cheer about.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Primary Post (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558737)

for the clit.

Haiku! (-1, Troll)

Haiku_troll (580701) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558949)

Webcasting survives
First strike by RIAA
Rosen vows revenge

On the Welsh "language": (-1, Offtopic)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559049)

I found the following quote at rs/wales/wales.htm :

"In 1847 a Commission of Enquiry into the state of education in Wales was set up - by three monoglot Englishmen! They concluded that: "The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people. It is not easy to over-estimate its evil effects.' In 1866 The Times newspaper concluded that the Welsh language was 'the curse of Wales'".

I believe the Welsh language has incredbile trolling potential for the following reasons :

  • It's spoken by foreigners (by definition, non-Americans)
  • Most 'Merkins would be clueless about the issue
  • The Welsh are such a tiny minority that they will be quite rabid on the subject. (Unfortunatly, you won't have outsiders adopting Welsh, so we benefit from the adage "there's no fanatic like a convert".)
  • Other than the Czechs and Finnish, (who are a much larger group, hence harder to bait) Welsh has the most glaring deficit of vowels and proper spelling.
  • We can foment English - Wales flamewars and then sit back and watch the fun.
  • The Welsh have an actual, legitmate historical grievence with the English. Unlike many of the other targets of opportunity on slashdot.
  • and let's not forget that annoying little bastard Mr. Mxyzptlk !

Oooh boy, first! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558741)

Yay for me!

Re:Oooh boy, first! (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558770)

Guess what you didn't get, AC Fuckwad ?
I am the master of FP and proud member of the CLIT. You are an AC queer. Do you understand ?

Re:Oooh boy, first! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558840)

I claim this post for the honorable Velupillai Pirapaharan.
He'd know how to deal with this CARP problem.

Albert Einstein: A Jewish Myth (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558746)

Albert Einstein: A Jewish Myth

One of the statements of Adolf Hitler most often quoted by the Jewish
media is the following from Mein Kampf, I:10:

"The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big
lie than to a small one."

Of course, Hitler is quoted out of context in an attempt to portray
this statement as Hitler's own, personal philosophy or strategy. But
if we read this selection in context, we find that he is speaking of
the Jews who had ruined his country, and he is trying to explain how
the German people fell victim to Jewish lies. In fact, Herr Hitler
even tells us what this great lie is that duped the German people into
being controlled by the Jews. He continues:

"Those who know best this truth about the possibilities of the
application of untruth and defamation, however, were at all times the
Jews; for their entire existence is built on one single great lie,
namely, that here one had to deal with a religious brotherhood, while
in fact one has to deal with a race - what a race! As such they have
been nailed down forever, in an eternally correct sentence of
fundamental truth, by one of the greatest minds of mankind; he called
them 'the great masters of lying.' He who does not realize this or
does not want to believe this will never be able to help truth to
victory in this world."

Hitler here was referring to Arthur Schopenhauer, the eminent 19th
century German philosopher who was outspoken regarding the true nature
of Jews. We do not need to rely upon the opinions of German
philosophers and political leaders regarding this character trait of
the Jews, for Jesus Christ has said of the Jews,

"You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your
father you wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and
he has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When
he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, because he is a liar, and the
father of it" (John 8:44 AST).

Furthermore, the New Testament warns us not to listen to "Judaizing
myths" (Titus 1:14). But Jewish myths are exactly what destroyed
Germany and what have destroyed America today. Herr Hitler may have
been correct in what he felt was the greatest Jewish lie, but there
are many, many more which have had a damning effect on the white race.
One of the greatest is certainly the lie of the Hebrew Masoretic Text
and the removal of the Greek Septuagint from the hands of white
Christians, but each Jewish myth stings with the same poisonous venom.
One of the great Jewish myths of the 20th century is Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars as a rare genius who
drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. As such, he is
made an idol to young people and his very name has become synonymous
with genius. The truth, however, is very different. The reality is
that Einstein was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
shoelaces; he contributed nothing original to the field of quantum
mechanics or any other science, but on the contrary he stole the ideas
of other men and the Jewish media made him a hero.

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his
only brilliance lies in his ability to plagiarize and steal other
people's ideas, passing them off as his own.

Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this
story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education
that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the
age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he
left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper
of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein
failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This
exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a
lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering
school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still
could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to
the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend)
at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third
class, which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called groundbreaking papers of
1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only
elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing
at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not
quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical
documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely

He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while
continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without
success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the Jewish myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of
university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or
any of the things normally associated with an academic setting,
Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the
field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published
in 1905. Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat,
including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to
believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the
blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an
admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of
26 without any real education. However, a simpler explanation exists:
he stole the ideas and plagiarized the papers.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source
of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by
Einstein's worshippers as totally new and completely different, each
of which would change the landscape of science. These four papers
dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:

1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of
relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to
Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein
called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come
in 1915). This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics
and was based upon two premises: 1) in the absence of acceleration,
the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and 2) since the
speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the
time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose
frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an
observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same
place. This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as
one's velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower
velocities where time would pass faster.

This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis
for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being
originally Einstein's. First of all, the idea that the speed of light
was a constant and was independent of the motion of its source was not
Einstein's at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James
Maxwell. Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first
proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature. He wrote an article to
this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His
ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and
the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of
light was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this
piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before
Einstein wrote his paper.

This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to
conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be
explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by
relativity but they did not understand relativity. They had attempted
to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium
thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.

In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist George
FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing
radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment could be explained if,

"... the length of material bodies changes, according as they are
moving through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on the
square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light."

This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before Einstein's paper!

Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The Netherlands, proposed
the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout
the 1890's, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and
wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory
detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction. In
1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7
years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the
series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz.
They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the
time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of
light. In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding the
Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.

The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of
these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper that,

"... we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time
intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their
succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be
defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as
simple as possible."

Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize
the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term
'Special Theory of Relativity.' Everything else was plagiarized. Over
the next few years, Poincaré became one of the most important
lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of
his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein. Thus, while
Poincaré was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed
regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to
give much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early
physicists knew that he was a fraud.

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of
another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the
irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the
molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement
had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory
of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian
Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert
Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion
contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they
had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper
regarding Brownian motion.

The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a
third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed
by the famous equation E=mc^2. Einstein's biographers categorize this
as "his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this
idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper,
it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought
later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not
original with Einstein.

That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown
in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and
by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there
was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just
electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's
plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet
unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many
of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety
of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and
energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904
in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized
version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had
received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of

Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a
simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish
physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the
mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc^2 was the
logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it. Thus,
the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally, and most
importantly, Hasenörhl, confirmed Maxwell's work. It is ludicrous to
believe that Einstein developed this postulate, particularly in light
of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to
conduct the appropriate experiments.

In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the
scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this
theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree
(e.g., salts of radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By
saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic
scientific principles and that he was writing about a topic that he
did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht
remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible

The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the
foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the
photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of
electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of
light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein
myth because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his 1922
Nobel Prize.

But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max Planck who
deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point
for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in
finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the
photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by
Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the first to show
that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect
was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of
the light. This was an important breakthrough.

Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern
day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's
work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in
finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900
and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to
talking about one particular type of energy - light energy. But the
principles and equations governing the process in general had been
deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious
conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete
packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was

After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific
community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the
patent office until 1909 when it was arranged for him to take a
position at a school by World Jewry. Still, it was not until a 1919
newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety.

With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a
position where he could begin to use other people's work as his own
more openly. He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove
the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those
theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at
least take partial credit. In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and
express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently
developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity.
This was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he
would publish in 1915. But the mathematical work was not done by
Einstein - he was incapable of it. Instead, it was performed by the
mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical
principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop
a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics
used to describe relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity
to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and
their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they
pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913
based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann
to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the
conclusions were incorrect. It appears that Grossmann was not smart
enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look
elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his
correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its
publication that he, "...completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert
and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most
brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another
mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area
of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of
Relativity for Einstein.

Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to
believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions
regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their
thinking. However, the exact opposite is true. Einstein stole the
majority of his General Relativity work from these two men, the rest
being taken from Grossmann. Hilbert submitted for publication, a week
before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contained the
correct field equations of General Relativity. What this means is that
Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same
conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an
opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were
Jewish friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not
necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of
publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed,
delivered in the form of a lecture.

Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and
Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On
November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for
sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the
20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two
weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered
their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of
his. Therefore, this serves as incontrovertible proof that Einstein
quickly plagiarized the work and then presented it, hoping to beat
Hilbert to the punch. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began
to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised
him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert
made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but still he
delivered his work first.

Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many
problems with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We
know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper
is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is
the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.

That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of
the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community
all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria
declared that "before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz,
Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory
of relativity..."

However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The
Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead
they promoted the work of the Jew Albert Einstein. As we mentioned
earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in
plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should
bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse
of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was
observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the
General Theory of Relativity, and the Jewish-controlled media
immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero,
at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.

On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline
of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New theory of the
Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the
force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following
years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein
was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because
of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, Einstein received the Nobel
Prize for the work he had stolen in 1905 regarding the photoelectric

The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had
been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and
America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is
erroneously believed to be today. As such, he immediately began his
work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that
if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding
of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions
regarding political and social issues. This is exactly what World
Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering.
They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be
recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a
strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle
names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In
August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding
installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a
proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading
German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So the
Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he

The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved
either. This German's grandfather and great-grandfather had been
important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in
Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he

The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to
be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would
go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a
public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This
Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern
physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who
apparently could not understand it.

The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare
genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and
contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty
principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and
the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry. No, the
Jews did not want Heisenberg promoted as a genius because he would go
on to head the German atomic bomb project and serve prison time after
the war for his involvement with the Third Reich.

No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of white
Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and
even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and
evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work. Instead,
they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or
nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For
example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article
in which Einstein gave an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of
practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says,

"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe
that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to
drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for
instance-then, according to Einstein, you are wrong..."

Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he
had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time
theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb
and nuclear energy. But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919,
he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he
began his real purpose - evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and
World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all
of them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each
instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that
led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in
order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of
academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.

In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a
fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to
promote Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain
membership in a Commission of the League of Nations. In February of
1923, Einstein visits Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he
becomes a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New
Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist and
Zionistic activities to again embarrass himself scientifically by
criticizing the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Following a brief
illness, he resumes his Zionistic agenda, wanting an independent
Israel and at the same time a World Government.

In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although
he would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated
war against Germany and the creation of the atomic bomb, which he
thought was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the
request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an
American program to develop an atomic bomb to be used on Germany - not
Japan. Einstein would have no part in the actual construction of the
bomb, theoretical or practical, because he lacked the skills for

In December of 1946, Einstein rekindles his efforts for a World
Government, with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation.
This push continues through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein,
who had been instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, both
politically and economically, is offered the presidency of Israel. He
declines. In 1953, he spends his time attacking the McCarthy
Committee, and he supports Communists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer.
He encourages civil disobedience in response to the McCarthy trials.
Finally, on April 18, 1955, this filthy Jewish demagogue dies.

Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making stupid
statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and
exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to
promote the myth of this Super-Jew long after his death, and as more
and more of the men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and
more able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly. This brazen
lying has culminated in the Jew controlled Time magazine naming
Einstein "The Person of the Century" at the close of 1999. It may be
demonstrated that the Jewish lies have become more bold with the
passage of time because Einstein was never named "Man of the Year"
while he was alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is
named "Person of the Century."

Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the
"Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named "Man of
the Year" while he was still living by Time magazine, and according to
a December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen
over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived "nasty public relations
fallout" that would accompany that choice; yet in internet polling by
Time, Hitler finished third and was the top serious candidate. Still
the issue of Time magazine dedicated to Einstein, which has articles
by men with names like Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and
Rosenblatt, is interesting to read. For one, they found it necessary
to include an article rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious
choice, Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by Stephen
Hawking which purports to be a history of the theory of relativity. In
it, Hawking admits many of the things in this article, such as the
fact that Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity before
Einstein and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of
relativity long before Einstein. Hawking also writes,

"Einstein...was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in
Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich,
who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. ...
Einstein was horrified by this ... Most scientists, however, accepted
the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent
agreement with observations ... They are the basis of modern
developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the
foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the
past half-century."

This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all
of the modern developments that Hawking names, even through Einstein
was so stupid as to be vehemently against the most important idea of
modern science, just as he opposed Schrödinger's work in unified field
theory which was far ahead of its time. The same magazine admits that
"success eluded" Einstein in the field of explaining the
contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics. Today, these
contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but
Einstein, who proves himself to be one of the least intelligent of
20th century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory
or the unified field theory.

To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one of the most
ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully
pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and
the Jewish owners of Time magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give
the title to an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice
would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If they
wanted to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed the
landscape of 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be
William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the
transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and
computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and
watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible
advances in all fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms
of science today would be basically in the same place that they were
in the late 1940s.

However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William
Shockley because he spent the majority of his scientific career
demonstrating the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and
arguing for their sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the
Jews to financially destroy Shockley who founded the first company in
the Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews
hired away his entire staff and used them to start Fairchild
semiconductor, the company that today is known as Intel.

No the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time
be recognized, not the anti-Semite Henry Ford, not the great German
scientists who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles
Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and
certainly not William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists
and geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist,
Communist Albert Einstein who hated everything white.

After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race
and of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was
asked what he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans
after the war and said,

"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since
1870...Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected
Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful
intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. ... The
Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be
re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting..."

Fish (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558752)

Put a carp in their pockets. Works for me...

Oh CARP! I didn't get it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558761)

Oh well. Sixth psot?

h3h (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558774)


Re:h3h (-1)

Burritos (535298) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558834)

What exactly do you "HAX"? I'm real interested, as I have a friend who is an aspiring hacker but doesn't know what he should hack. He went and bought an issue of 2600 but they were of no help to him.

Yes! (4, Insightful)

gleffler (540281) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558779)

This is good, but like the article said, I think we need to continue campaigning to the LOC so that the royalty rates they DO set are reasonable. Nothing could kill off Internet radio like deathly royalties.

All I can say is... (5, Insightful)

Boulder Geek (137307) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558781)

Librarians are the true modern heros. Go hug one today.

Re:All I can say is... (1)

Nessak (9218) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559086)

We know that today the Librarian's rejected the clearly extreame CARP proposals. But now the LOC has 30 days (untill June 20th) to issue a new ruling. It might not be as bad, but I don't think it is going to do anything good for non-profit broadcasters. Wait untill June 20th to do your hugging....

Re:All I can say is... (1)

CptNoSkill (528594) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559232)

Yea right. that's what got me in this jain cell in the first place...

Re:All I can say is... (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559487)

Jains rock. []

Hug a librarian (3, Funny)

Jaeger (2722) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559357)

I will, but maybe that's just because my fiancée just got accepted into a masters of library science program.

And now that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558782)

...the CARP has gotten off the HOOK. The RIAA is hoping to catch a few suckers.

My Dog, My Dog! (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558802)

Please STOP fucking my Dog!

Re:My Dog, My Dog! (-1)

Burritos (535298) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558904)

I would like to stop, but she makes me feel really good. Also, my software based modem will not allow it. Hi. Do you like diapers? I like diapers.

Common Sense (5, Insightful)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558792)

Hopefully common sense will be used when setting rates. Internet broadcast requires more costs (in theory) then regular radio broadcasts.

With regular radio broadcasts, the number of listeners has no impact on your ability to deliver content (in this case, music). With internet broadcasts, the more users you have, you need to have more bandwidth to be able to serve them content at the same data rate. In some (most?) cases more bandwidth leads to more expenditure of $$$.

If the other expenses of internet radio stations are to be considered in setting of these royalty rates (which I think is BS in the first place, the RIAA is too damn greedy) I should hope they will use common sense and set them lower.

Re:Common Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559110)

Yeah, 100,000 Watt antennas don't cost a dollar more than 3 Watt antennas. oh wait, scratch that.

Re:Common Sense (3, Insightful)

jd142 (129673) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559459)

Yes, but oncce you have the 100,000 watt antennas, the cost of adding more users is shifted to the listener. It doesn't cost the radio station any more money to broadcast to 1,000 listeners, to 1,000,000 listeners, to 1,000,000,000 listeners, provided they all buy radios and can squeeze into the broadcast range.

Here's an interesting question though: what is the theoretical limit on the number of receivers that can receive a tv or radio broadcast? I suppose part of it would have to do with the number, size and density of the antennas closest to the tower. The density of antennas would have to be so dense that all transmissions would be absorbed.

Re:Common Sense (2)

cnkeller (181482) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559141)

Hopefully common sense will be used when setting rates. Internet broadcast requires more costs (in theory) then regular radio broadcasts.

Hmmm....well, in theory, the costs of an FCC license and signal amplifiers, antennas, etc are pretty damn expensive as well. I'd be interested in a montly cost summary between the two if one existed. I have to believe that it's cheaper to run an Internet based station. Bandwidth isn't that expensive. Here in silicon valley, we're getting very competitive rates for full rate T1's (< $600) from Worldcom (are they bankrupt yet), Globix (are they bankrupt yet>), etc.

Hmmm, maybe I don't have a good bandwidth point...

Given the fact that anyone and everyone seems to have an internet radio station and that it takes some serious corporate money to deal with the FCC.....

Re:Common Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559257)

What's really intersting is that radio broadcast stations aren't required to pay royalties. This was settled long ago; apparently the station provides a form of advertisement for the record company and therefore creates a demand for their product. In return no royalties are required. It sure seems that the same would apply in an even larger sense for internet web castings.

Waitaminnit! (4, Funny)

grytpype (53367) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559160)

I read the Librarian of Congress's order, and it doesn't say WHY the CARP recommendation was rejected. Nor could I find a press release explaining the decision, although there might be one forthcoming.

You're all assuming that the LoC wants Internet radio to be free, or cheaper than CARP wanted, but that might not be the case! Maybe the LoC wants HIGHER royalty rates!

Re:Common Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559167)

That's why over 30% of internet radio is done using Chaincast - it's a P2P network. Check out, most (almost all) of their radio stations use it and according Arbitron they're big on the web.

What they would have required.... (5, Informative)

lemonhed (412041) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558805)

The requirements under CARP

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)

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

College radiostation's view (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558807)

This is an air of relief for our college radiostation, because for a long time Internet has been our primary broadcasting medium. We were getting ready to find ways to recover our outreach, if our Internet outlet was cut off by CARP's rates.

We don't get too wide of a listening audience (compared to your average commercial webcaster), but it's still important that Internet maintains a wide variety of webcasters.

Note the article says that the final decision is to be made on June 20, so it's not over yet. We have put up flyers and a notice on our web page about the rates, but it's been difficult to raise awareness to this issue: most people just don't care.

(sorry, anon at work..)

Re:College radiostation's view (3, Informative)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559096)

the whole thing is damn scary.... i work at WKDU in Philly. Drexel U college radio. we broadcast FM, but have also been webcasting for a few years. the requirements they wanted were financially impossible as well as technically. unlike crappy top 40 radio, we do not have a pre-pregrammed rotation of songs from a hard drive. we play records. many of the records are released by artists themselves and only 500 or 1,000 exist in the world. there is no way to send out the track data while the song is streaming when you play records. i would say over half of our DJs mostly play records. 90% of the reggae we have is from old 7"s, the dance DJs mix live during their sets, the punk DJs play CDs if the stuff is new, but our record library goes back to the 60s and is full of good vinyl. there is absolutately no way to digitize it.
the regualtions they were/are shooting for are totally targetted at mainstream commercial stations. i think in the process they wanted to take out all small, low budget internet only stations.
a few years ago we pondered ditching the music that is copywritten and therefore falls under this proposal. it's not really possible. a lot of indie music is registered, plus all it takes is one band doing one cover song to blow the whole thing. ARGH!
hopefully the revised deal will make more sense to non-commercial stations.

The Holocaust: A Jewish Myth (-1)

Burritos (535298) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558812)

The Holacaust was a story made up by Jews so we could feel sympathy for them. Jews control the media.

Per-song royalties won't be the problem (-1)

Anti-Microsoft Troll (577475) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558813)

Once Microsoft's next generation of Windows software locks out any media player except MS's. Then it'll require content providers to sell kidneys to pay for the licensing to encode in the MS format.

Then Microsoft will have a lot of money and a big pile of kidneys, and content providers will have no money and die of renal failure.

☻Not First Post but... First NIGGER (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558814)

First coon!!

Re:☻Not First Post but... First NIGGER (-1)

Burritos (535298) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558866)

YOU ARE SO LEET wow this is great

Come ooooon! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558819)

Shame, anything which is likely to remove americans from the airwaves is fantastic.

WTF!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558830)

Boba Fett is a Mexican??!?

WTF?? (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558889)

No you dumb motherfucker, Boba Fett is a Mayan.

Why is the government involved? (4, Insightful)

crow (16139) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558832)

Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?

It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them. If they want to charge royalty rates that effectively do the same thing, that's their bad business decision.

So why is the Copyright Office involved?

Re:Why is the government involved? (1)

doug_wyatt (532721) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558895)

Because the government steps in when technology disrupts previous mechanisms of copyright royalty payements, but the technology is deemed useful enough not to stifle. They did the same with radio, and there is a proposal from Verizon that they do it with _all_ content (music, movies) on the internet.

Re:Why is the government involved? (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559101)

wooo....I would certainly pay 10 bucks more to keep the corperates out of my face :-)

Re:Why is the government involved? (5, Informative)

Silverhammer (13644) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558956)

Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?

17 USC 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords []

Re:Why is the government involved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559335)

The government is already involved. Copyright is a government granted monopoly, so without the government stepping in, the copyright holder has nothing.

Copyright is not an unlimited monopoly; the copyright statute contains lots of of exceptions including fair use and compulsory licenses. For example if you want to make your own recording of a song someone else wrote, the copyright holder is required by law to grant you a license to do so.

Re:Why is the government involved? (2)

Rasvar (35511) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559347)

So why is the Copyright Office involved?

Uhhhhm, why wouldn't they be? Copyright is a governmental creation. It is part of the Constitution. Without this, there is no "Copyright." It is up to government, according to the Constitution, to set up the rules as to how copyright works. No government, no copyright.

I love hearing from unaware people (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559415)

"It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them"

It may not be very nice, but if I want to copy a friend's CD, I don't see why the government should stop me.

You see, Copyright isn't a natural right, it is done by legislative fiat. Thus, part of what you "give up" for copyright and DMCA protection is the government get to tell you how you can apply those right.

If you don't like it, then don't apply for the copyright. "Oh dear" you say, "Then I have no protection". Well yes, that's the point. If you want the FBI to be your copyright militia, then you have to play by their rules.

Remember, there is no RIGHT to a copyright.

Good, but... (3, Interesting)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558843)

As much as CARP sucks, there needs to be some form of payment for commercial internet radio stations to some degree. Otherwise this would give the internet radio stations and advantage over the normal stations. I don't see why they just couldn't use the same ASCAP/BMI stuff that they use for normal radio and apply it to internet radio also.

One thing that lots of the places seemed to bitch about was the tracking of the listeners. Now, I know that they wanted it to be retroactive to the DMCA and that's just stupid, but from say now on, what's the big deal? Can't a log parser do this in no time? Just track unique hosts or something like that. If they just needed numbers it should be a no brainer, even something like webalizer can give you those numbers if you set it up right.

Re:Good, but... (5, Informative)

akb (39826) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558936)

I don't see why they just couldn't use the same ASCAP/BMI stuff that they use for normal radio and apply it to internet radio also.

Web radio stations are already supposed to pay ASCAP/BMI, this is on top of and far more than those fees.

I wish people would take it upon themselves to be more informed before posting.

Re:Good, but... (1)

Mister Furious (413397) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558995)

Yeah. Traditional broadcasters don't have to pay these CARP type fees. For traditional broadcasters, the record labels consider airplay to be promotion, and therefore waive royalty fees. With webcasting they claim that it is distribution, and not broadcasting and that they therefore should recieve royalty payments. Unfortunately, the DMCA backs this up.

Re:Good, but... (2)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559151)

For traditional broadcasters, the record labels consider airplay to be promotion, and therefore waive royalty fees.

I worked for a radio station. No, the record labels do not waive royalty fees for traditional broadcasters. Traditional broadcasters are required to pay royalties to ASCAP/BMI which in turn gives some of that to the record companies and some to the songwriters They keep a log of what songs have been played and then pay a small (in cents) royalty everytime a song is played.

What CARP seeks to do is have a fee over and above that because users can capture the streams to a file and (theoretically) have a flawless reproduction of the original.

Re:Good, but... (2)

Rasvar (35511) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559402)

What CARP seeks to do is have a fee over and above that because users can capture the streams to a file and (theoretically) have a flawless reproduction of the original.

Unfortunately, CARP does not do anything to break out something for "non-flawless" broadcasts. I work on a four hour live streaming video show that uses music. We don't use full quality audio in the stream because of the video. However, we are still treated as if we are transmitting CD quality. No one could make a decent copy from the audio we send out. We don't mind paying a reasonable fee, like ASCAP/BMI/SESAC but CARP was horrid in both cost and reporting. Heck, ours is a totally donation funded show with no advertising. CARP would have been instant death for us. I am hoping for something a little more reasoned.

Re:Good, but... (4, Interesting)

sphix42 (144155) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558973)

>>there needs to be some form of payment for commercial internet radio stations to some degree. Otherwise this would give the internet radio stations and advantage over the normal stations

And how's that? I can't get internet radio in my car. I only listen to the radio at home for very specific programs (prairie home companion, car talk...).

I use internet radio when I'm buried in a building with bad reception and I have something specific I want to listen to (9/11 coverage) or when I am looking for a very specific genre.

Do air-wave radio stations track the number of listeners at any particular time? Not that I know of.

During Diane Rehm's show yesterday, the riaa said they would go lower on licensing costs if they 'liked' the radio station. Because of that comment, I now feel the riaa wants these high music tariffs so they can use them as payola. If you play music they like, they drop your costs (possibly to 0), but if they don't, you pay the way-to-much amount and are forced out of business.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander....if internet radio must pay fees, they must be equal to those paid my commercial stations _without_ enronaccounting (formerly known as payola).

Re:Good, but... (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559000)

The only thing I was saying about the tracking was that people made it sound that it would be next to impossible, that they would need extra staff to do it. I just didn't understand what was so hard about implementing the tracking. I think it's kinda silly, but I don't think it would be a burden for the internet station, as the logs should be taking care of most of it already.

Re:Good, but... (2)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559058)

I think that saying the commercial internet radio stations have an advantage over commercial radiative stations (assuming, for the moment, that the internet commercial stations aren't just divisions of a traditional, pump-out-radio-waves place) is not as obviously true as you may assume. They are related but fairly different enterprises.

Internet radio stations have lower equipment costs to broadcast, but their users have much higher equipment costs to listen (the cheapest computer you'll be able to use to listen to a net stream will probably set you back 250-350 american dollars, not to mention the cost of net access, and how much does a decent little am/fm thing cost? maybe 20 bucks?). Also, for a net radio station to reach and service the same number of potential users as a 100,000 watt radio tower (which could be in the tens to hundreds of thousands depending on where the tower is), I'm betting the bandwidth costs would far exceed the FCC frequency license... Staff costs would be about the same, as would things like office space.

So, basically, it's not a trivial thing to compare sound-broadcast-places that use different mediums of transmission, because each one has fundamentally different economic constraints.

With regard to tracking listeners, this is far less trivial than you would assume. A simple log parser isn't going to do it (... to the standard of precision they wanted, anyway). Hell, all of AOL shows up as coming from a handful of IPs in west virginia. NATing gateways are common, so that one IP could be a college kid in Nebraska or thirty people in a branch office in Texas or ...

Re:Good, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559182)

The CARP requirements were much more onerous than you make them out to be.

Another naive comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559450)

"Otherwise this would give the internet radio stations and advantage over the normal stations"

Web stations already have the enormous handicap that you have to be in a fixed location to listen. Radio stations can be picked up by a $1 radio that you buy at a souvenier shop.

If you don't get the advantage that is, then you don't understand jack. no offense.

Shooting themselves in the perverbial foot... (4, Insightful)

MikeOttawa (551441) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558848)

The problem with regulating internet technolgies with legislation is that the technology required can be moved to any location.

If the United States makes it illegal/expensivie to operate an internet radio station, the radio station can simply move its servers to another location (lets say Canada or UK) where the regulation doesn't exist (yet). There is no visible effect on the service to the user, and the American government successfully alienates another new technology. In the mean time other contries will benefit from the short-sightedness of another.

In the end, you cannot continue to support an outmoded business model with legislation and regulation (if this worked in the past it certainly won't work in a "Global Economy").

Gen: The Zen of Gayness (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558853)

Gen Master Roblowme say:
"Cock in the hand is worth two in the ass."

This is VERY Good News (4, Informative)

floppy ears (470810) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558855)

The CARP fees were totally outrageious. Their purpose was (or, is) to destroy Internet radio. This would leave the major labels with virtually no competition to their radio monopoly.As an independent artist, it's good to hear at least some occasional good news.

Re:This is VERY Good News (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559041)

As an independent artist I would think you would want CARP. That way you could give internet stations your music for free or for whatever you want them to pay since it's your music, not the RIAA's. If anything this would be great for people like you, because internet stations would be starving for content (not being able to play RIAA music) and people like you could fill the void.

Did capitalism take a nap? (5, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558862)

while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low.

That made something click, here.

It seems to me that, rather than getting the producer and consumer together to negotiate a fair-market price, the RIAA lobbied to get the government to impose a price.

For how long has the music economy been socialist? Is our intolerance of the RIAA limited to its bullying and selfishness, or can it be extended to this attempt to corrupt the freedom of commerce itself?


Re:Did capitalism take a nap? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558984)

Well, by some analyes, they are meeting in restraint of trade to even have a RIAA. But clearly there is no willingness to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act on these big political donors.

Re:Did capitalism take a nap? (2)

bnenning (58349) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559226)

For how long has the music economy been socialist?

For quite a while. This is hardly their first attack on the free market. The DMCA and whatever the SSSCA is called this week are blatantly anti-capitalist; their primary goal is to use government guns to protect their outdated business models from new competitors.

Re:Did capitalism take a nap? (3, Insightful)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559380)

You miss a huge point here: if the music economy were truly capitalist, there would never have been independent internet radio because the RIAA could simply refuse to license their content. What is at issue here is compulsory licensing: the government requires that the RIAA license their content to anyone who wants to broadcast it, and they set the fee.

To reiterate: This is not the government propping up the RIAA with subsidies. If the RIAA had their way, there would be no fee at all, because they would only license content to their subsidiaries. The government steps in on behalf of independent broadcasters to force the RIAA to license to everyone, and they are arguing over how much the cost of that should be.

Re:Did capitalism take a nap? (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559465)

On the other hand, if our society was truly capitalist, maybe there wouldn't be copyright law in the first place. The existence of a law to provide (with varying degrees of success) a reward for the creation of new content is, when you think about it, more socialist than capitalist.

As pointed out in a previous discussion... (1)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558874)

...or maybe another location, but something to bear in mind. Yeah, when something is played on good ol' airwave radio, the songwriter is paid. But the labels aren't being paid by the stations when a song is played - rather, the labels are paying the stations for (effectively? you decide) promoting their music. I still haven't figured out why the RIAA thinks they should be paid for webcasters promoting music that may or may not be from RIAA-stable artists. They're not getting that out of airwave radio.

Re:As pointed out in a previous discussion... (4, Insightful)

terrymr (316118) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559098)

The difference is that when radio was getting started in the music playing business congress decided that it was a promotion tool for the record industry and exempted radio from paying royalties to the record labels.

However now that the record industry has it's lobbying worked out congress suddenly realised that internet radio is really about stealing from the record industry instead of promotion.

Good news indeed (2)

Our Man In Redmond (63094) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558883)

but definitely, this is just a lull in the skirmish. Time to reload and keep the pressure on for equitable royalties (equitable to the performers and to the webcasters).

What Next? (1)

Phred_Johnston (530218) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558888)

It appears from the order that over the next 30 days, the Libraian of Congress has the job of determining the licensing charges that will be the final descision.
Does anyone have an idea of what the counter proposal to the CARP recommendations will be?

Bad for indepent music (2)

crow (16139) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558896)

If the RIAA gets royalty rates that effectively shut down webcasts of music it controls, then that would be good news for anyone wanting to webcast independent or unsigned artists. Sure, you could set up an Internet radio station that only plays non-RIAA music, but you wouldn't get much attention with all the other stuff there.

Of course, if people start listening to non-RIAA stuff online, the RIAA will rethink their royalty system.

probably good for independant music (1)

pixel fairy (898) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559248)

indy music wont have any competition from the riaa bands. there will be a pretty clear dividing line here that may persuade some artists to not sign up with a corporate label if they otherwise would. if internet radio becomes a big oulet for music, these artists would not want to miss out on it.

of course as soon as that started happening, the RIAA would clammor for internet broadcasting licenses, audits of broadcasters a la BSA, and/or whatever else they do to destroy anyone that threatens thier monopoly. but that doesnt mean they will suceed.

NPR Coverage (4, Informative)

sphix42 (144155) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558906)

Diana Rehm covered this yesterday. There's an audio link here []

Same Rates as Broadcasters! (4, Interesting)

zentec (204030) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558913)

Webcasters want the same rates as normal broadcasters. That is, they pay a percentage of gross sales.

So, if an Internet radio station has sales of zero, then they pay zero. If they have gross sales of a million bucks, then they pay the same fee as broadcasters that have gross sales of 5 million dollars.

Re:Same Rates as Broadcasters! (1)

zentec (204030) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558934)

Uh, well...the same rate as if the Internet broadcasters made the same rate as normal OTA broadcasters.

You get the idea....

&9789; &9790; &9791; YOU ARE SO LEET &9677; wow th (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558914)

eatme YOU ARE SO LEET wow this is great !!

an accounting nigthmare (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558929)

Good thing this was rejected. It would have been an accounting impossibility.

I run a net-radio over UDP. Which means, I know how many packets I send out, but not how many are recieved by listeners, or even how many people are trying to listen (if someone changes the station, we may not be notified). Additionally, we can send to independent retransmission sites that relay it onto even more listeners. Commercial radio stations get reasonalby accurate statistics on listenership. We can't. How could we make a good-faith guess at our numbers?

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558932)

How do traditional radio stations track thier listners?

I assume they don't/can't. So why and what purpose does tracking internet users serve?

I assume someone will say they do it based on the radio stations "power" and the desity of the population, but I've been driving at night in Idaho and picked up radio stations from Denver, CO.

And how is this new XM radio paying royalties?

Internet radio (1)

jhughes (85890) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558960)

Where I live (the middle of no freaking where) I can get two radio stations. Therefore, Internet radio is a huge blessing to me. One of my favorite stations is an anime music one, so I listen to that constnatly. When this CARP stuff came to my attention it wa the first time I have ever written to a congressman.

I for one am glad that this got shot down and hopefully something more sensible comes up.

For the record: With internet radio I've tuned into a number of different anime shows and bought some DVDs and I am activly seeking out some of the shows dvds.
Without internet radio i'd never have had the ability to get exposed to hard to find music and therefore couldn't buy anything.

Re:Internet radio (1)

jhughes (85890) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558998)

>>seeking out some of the shows dvds.
that should be cds.

I kin typ, relly!

Good news... but (4, Interesting)

tezzery (549213) | more than 11 years ago | (#3558961)

This is definitely good news. At least it proves that the copyright office won't be easily swayed by the RIAA's demands. As far as the whole independent music thing goes, i believe it's a very good thing for independent music.. in the longrun that is. The bad thing is that if the approved rates are outrageous, the only stations that will be able to afford them are the ones backed by big companies such as and spinner.. etc. which is pretty much the same thing that happened to FM radio with monsters like clearchannel buying out all the small stations. They're the reason why there's 5 cookie-cutter station formats around the country. The good thing is that maybe this is a wake-up call to artists/labels and independent stations/media. Maybe it's finally time to move away from cookie-cutter programming and pay attention to independent labels and artists.. We've already made a big move with the Internet by overcoming the RIAA's monopoly with distributors, and college/internet stations have always done it to a certain extent.. True, at first listeners might not pay attention to it. But give it a few years.. This is only the beginning.

Re:Good news... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559106)

As a cautionary celebration, everyone should spend the rest of the day listening to nothing but net radio. Then again---maybe not ever go back to conventional radio, home of "kiss", "mix", "the fox", "the hawk","good times & great oldies", "---- country", and all those other generic formats of 300 songs each(if that many) that make every city's radio dial sound exactly the same

WHO GIVES A CARP? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3558986)

Move along people, nothing to CARP about.

i don't wanna live in a pay-per-view society (1)

eg0n (62511) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559032)

royalty rates of fractions of pennies ($.0014) as the CARP originally proposed is not the way that things should work. not that i have the answer as to how they should work, but i will not participate in pay-per-use/view media. just drop CD prices and let the public do the advertising for your sorry asses. the promotional value of a song that someone enjoys hearing for free is worth far more than $.0014.

Check for more info. (4, Interesting)

dave-fu (86011) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559037) [] is the homepage for the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN), a fine spot for up-to-date information on what's going on in the world of webcasting.
Found both of these links at WFMU [] , aka numero uno webcasting radio station in the world.
Gotta love the fact that the RIAA wants to see that webcasters pay fees on top of the ASCAP/BMI fees that "real" radio stations do without getting any of the payola.
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what the Librarian of Congress does in the next 30 days.

one of these days ... (1)

dlasley (221447) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559039)

... my wife is going to get really mad at me for all the CDs i buy after listening to Radio Paradise [] . i think this site has caused more havoc in my checking account than any other music-related stimulus since the advent of the CD player!

as several posters mentioned, we can't view this as a victory - not yet, probably not ever. the RAC has many fights ahead, and anyone who listens to internet radio should try to help: details here [] .

Mississippi Ghostse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559040)

A professor at the University of Mississippi is giving a
lecture on the supernatural. To get a feel for his
audience, he asks: "How many people here believe in
ghostses?" About 90 students raise their hands.

"Well, that's a good start. Out of those of you who
believe in ghostses, do any of you think you've ever seen
a ghostse?" About 40 students raise their hands.

"That's really good. Has anyone here ever talked to a
ghostse?" 15 students raise their hands.

"That's great. Has anyone here ever touched a ghostse?" 3
students raise their hands.

"That's fantastic. But let me ask you one question
further... Have any of you ever made love to a ghostse?"
One student way in the back raises his hand.

The professor is astonished and says, "Son, all the
years I've been giving this lecture, no one has ever
claimed to have slept with a ghostse. You've got to come
up here and tell us about your experience."

The redneck student replies with a nod and a grin, and
begins to make his way up to the podium. The professor
says, "Well, tell us what it's like to have sex with

The student replies, "Ghostse?!? From ah-way back there ah
thought yuh said "goatse."

Whatever happened to MBONE? (3, Interesting)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559048)

As an aside, whatever happened to the multicast backbone? I seem to recall that "they" were working on some kind of an IP-level packet redistribution service (my words) that would enable an application to tell its closest router "hey, I wanna listen to", and it'd then ask it's upstream router the same thing, etc., until it was able to get a copy of the stream routed to the requesting client.

Or something remotely like that.

Anyway, it seemed like a terrific idea, 'cause the content provider wouldn't have to server a thousand different, unique streams, all with the same content -- it'd just send a single stream to an MBone address, and anyone who wanted to receive it could ask for it.

I just did a quick check on it, and only found 6-year-old FAQs and such. Has it died? Has it been overcome by events with IPv6?

I ask 'cause it occurred to me that any webcaster broadcasting on mbone wouldn't be *able* to tell how many people were listening. A sort of end-run around some of CARP, as it were...

Re:Whatever happened to MBONE? (0, Offtopic)

KenFury (55827) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559171)

Someone should send that message up to 3 at least. I found it intersting and too many ppl browse at 3 to get past the auto 2 for karma

Re:Whatever happened to MBONE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559212)

MBONE used multicast which requires routers (and administration at the ISP's) capable of multicast.

Most ISP's just don't do it.

The alternatives out there are peer to peer networks like Chain Cast that are working ok.

Re:Whatever happened to MBONE? (3, Informative)

akb (39826) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559404)

The original MBONE's routing architecture wasn't scalable. More sophisticated routing schemes have been devised fairly recently but to my knowledge there are next to no ISPs that offer multicast connectivity to consumers.

Marshal Eubanks of Multicast Tech [] did an interview on cnet radio (go here [] and search for multicast) he was pretty optimistic about multicast being deployed. He gave the startling figure that 20% of broadband users had access to the multicast internet. I was shocked by this because I have scoured the 'net looking for a consumer isp that would offer it to consumers and haven't found anything. Anyone have any info?

Re:Whatever happened to MBONE? (2)

TheSync (5291) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559430)

Multicast keeps going. There are now many multicast connected IPV4 networks exchanging MBGP routes, but yes, very few networks multicast down to the end-user.

I've asked a few Internet2 people about multicast, and while the backbone certainly is, the "last mile" to users often is not.

I was recently working for a company that was delivering multicast webcasts from major streaming providers over satellite to ISPs. But most of us were laid off, I don't know what is going on now.

There are a few companies to help you get going with multicast such as Multicast Technologies [] . Also the GEANT [] network in Europe is multicast capable. And here is a list of active SDR [] listings, kind of a "tv guide" for multicast.

My evil plot (1)

WellHungYungWun (580730) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559050)

Now I can continue my evil plot to deliver subliminal messages to webcast listeners to buy M$ products. hee hee who who ha ha ha ha!!

We can rejoice! A victory for the Net Generation (1)

Discoteck (468081) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559051)

I did my part and wrote my senator and Representative asking them to not pass the CARP recommendations. I am happy that they came to their senses and rejected that awful proposal. Still it is something to think about that the government is becoming more aware of how information is exchanged on the net and working to pass FAIR and JUST laws to regulate it. I think this type of legislation will only take time to eventually be implemented.

A search on google for Internet Radio Returns 2,660,000 Hits [] . This is some indication of how popular Internet Radio is becoming. I tried to gather places on the Net whom have added the wonderful news to their site already, but it seems the only one I can find at the moment is the link given and this one Radio And Internet Newsletter [] .

I use carp all the time (1)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559075)

Man that sucks I use carp quite often. It really helps see my error on my cgi scripts. Oh wait.. What are you talking about?

Damn (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559374)

Hiroshima fans [] will be pissed that their team has been rejected!

Why is this backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559084)

Shouldnt the only people who are making money are the radio stations? I mean, to play them on the net is advertising, and the RIAA should be paying them to play the songs. Infact, the stations should charge .10 per play per song from the RIAA .. And just play whatever songs they want otherwise.. If the RIAA pays for certain songs to be played more, then they would of course get preference.. And then there are the Advertisements, since the Net is techincally larger, the advertisers should be paying the radio stations almost double for the net stations to play them.. The stations shouldnt have to pay ANYONE except their ISP for bandwidth.

Re:Why is this backwards? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3559261)

Could your ignorance of the broadcasting system get any worse? 1) The radio stations need to play the songs to get people to listen. Why? So they can show their current and future advertisers that they have the ears that make it worth while for them to pay the station money to run the ads. This ad money is what keeps the station alive. Ads pay for everything, employee salaries and song royalties. To the station, the ability to play a popular song is a need, a resource, and is worth paying for. 2) In fact the big music companies already routinely pay up front to have their latest songs played. But not all songs, just the new ones and only for a period of time.

It's a very complex and timeworn system. The only outrageous thing here was the disproportionate level of net broadcasting royalties compared to over the air. If the royalties were lowered to be the same as on-air. The broadcasters would be more than happy to pay them to increase their ears and so their ad revinue.

finally (0)

azadism (578262) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559126)

Wow, the little man finally won a round with the big corporate pirates. The fight is not over yet, but this appears to be a good sign. Keep on fightn

no (1, Redundant)

jacobm (68967) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559242)

Neither side was happy about the proposed fees. This announcement just means the stakes have been raised.

Copyright Office Rejects CARP Recommendations... (0)

Uri (51845) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559195)

...says "something smells fishy!"

Encouraging people into piracy... (2, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559401)

So if the RIAA forces these high royalties on internet radio stations, then there'll be less stations to listen to, less variety, so less people will be satisfied with the selection. Soooooo, that would just encourage more people to just download MP3s so they can listen to what they want...

Don't screw the customers, or the customers will screw you.

Newsbytes article (4, Interesting)

EReidJ (551124) | more than 11 years ago | (#3559423)

Here [] is a Newsbytes story on the ruling. A little bit more hard-news information about the decision and its likely impact.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?