Beta
×

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 Publishes Final Webcasting Rates

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the officialdom-strikes-again dept.

Music 394

Ghaleon writes: "The Copyright Office just released the final rates for webcasting. Looks like the rates are lower than the CARP recomendations, though I'm no webcaster so I'm not sure if these rates are good or not ..." nbrimhall points to a bit more at soma fm as well. Update: 06/20 21:54 GMT by M : See our last story for background information. The final rates are nothing to cheer about: most webcasters will not be able to afford them. Update: 06/21 03:13 GMT by T : An anonymous reader points out the continuing coverage at kurthanson.com, including reactions from Reps. Boucher and Inslee.

cancel ×

394 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

JJAnon (180699) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739929)

fp

Death Rays (-1)

Cryptopotamus (460702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740072)

Shadows. Eclipse.
"What is that?" asked Fenn.
"L. Ron's fleet has taken orbit. We should get ready," Mary said softly.

Suck it down! (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739931)

I'm back in business!

Get it in you!

First post!

Hook In Mouth (-1)

The Lyrics Guy (539223) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739938)

Megadeth - Hook In Mouth

A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes.
A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies.
A little man with a big eraser, changing history
Procedures that he's programmed to, all he hears and sees.

Altering the facts and figures, events and every issue.
Make a person disappear, and no one will ever miss you.

Rewrites every story, every poem that ever was.
Eliminates incompetence, and those who break the laws.
Follow the instructions of the New Ways' Evil Book of Rules.
Replacing rights with wrongs, the files and records in the schools.

You say you've got the answers, well who asked you anyway?
Ever think maybe it was meant to be this way?
Don't try to fool us, we know the worst is yet to come.
I believe my kingdom will come.

Chorus:
F is for fighting, R is for red,
Ancestors' blood in battles they've shed.
E, we elect them, E, we eject them,
In the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
D, for your dying, O, your overture,
M, they will cover your grave with manure.
This spells out freedom, it means nothing to me,
As long as there's a P.M.R.C.

F is for fighting, R is for red,
Ancestors' blood in battles they've shed.
E, we elect them, E, we eject them,
In the land of the free and the home of the brave.
D, for your dying, O, your overture,
M is for money and you know what that cures.
This spells out freedom, it means nothing to me,
As long as there's a P.M.R.C.

[repeat chorus]

Put your hand right up my shirt,
Pull the strings that make me work,
Jaws will part, words fall out,
like a fish with hook in mouth.

Rewrites every story, every poem that ever was.
Eliminates incompetence, and those who break the laws.
Follow the instructions of the New Ways' Evil Book of Rules.
Replacing rights with wrongs, the files and records in the schools.

I'm not a fish
I'm a man

Hell Yeah! (-1)

Metrollica (552191) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739988)

Post more songs like this!

I like to smoke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3739942)

the mad crippie. You know, the ganja, Aunt Mary, cheeba cheeba, sens bud, Auntie M.

yup.... (-1, Offtopic)

kahn (549547) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739943)

not 1st?

Slow Down Cowboy! (-1)

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (537317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739945)

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 2 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

We get signal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3739948)

Main screen turn on

Bye-bye (3, Informative)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739958)

Bye-bye Groove Salad [somafm.com] , it's been nice knowing you!

Rates... (3, Insightful)

Twintop (579924) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739966)

From the looks of it, the copyright office wants to make damn sure they get a chunk upfront instead of as a service grows. They don't seem to optimistic this area then, do they?

damn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3739968)

too bad we didn't act quicker and kill this one early

http://www.tomthemovie.com [tomthemovie.com]

A Personal Problem (-1)

Metrollica (552191) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739975)

Hi. I'm twenty five years old, and up until two weeks ago, I was a virgin. Too many celibacy had worn my self-esteem down to the point where I was finally willing to pay for sex. I'll spare you the details of the event, as this is not what I am writing about.

After having completed the act, the prostitute whose services I had rented immediately exclaimed that something had felt weird. With no particular ceremony, she grabbed my now-flaccid member and subjected it to an intense examination, while biting her thumbnail in consternation.

After a brief period, she informed me that my penis was deformed, in her professional opinion. I had spent my entire life without ever seeing another man urinate, so I was not aware that the output usually emits from the end of the head, not the underside, where mine does.

I'd like to know if I should seek the advice of a doctor or plastic surgeon? Is this the sort of thing that can, or even should be corrected? I've lived with it for twenty five years, and it hasn't bothered me. Is there really any reason to worry about this?

webcasting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3739977)

-- was going to start webcasting, BUT, my forte and interest is talk/politics/news. Good for two reasons now it seems, one, much lower bitrate needed, cheaper and more streams, and no copyright fees! hehehehehe

good luck music broadcasters, go indies and free radio!

Re:webcasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740006)

This may be true now, but judging from the general trend of everything media-related, I'm sure that eventually some major corporation will lobby congress to place a tax on ANY web streaming.

Just because you'd be using your own content, shouldn't you have to pay a tax because you're taking listeners away from other commercial broad/web-casters, thus costing them money? It's just not fair!

This is already hitting us... (3, Informative)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739979)

Tag's Trance Trip [tagstrance.com] , one of my favorite internet radio stations of all time, just went down.

We'll probably see a lot more stations go down. Underground internet radio and offshore stations will be all that's left.

Re:This is already hitting us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740015)

Ya, ttt was good :/

I suppose digitally-imported will follow soon :(

Re:This is already hitting us... (3, Interesting)

NaDrew (561847) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740126)

Tag was actually crying as he thanked all his friends and supporters before shutting it down.
I just don't understand companies that try so hard to persecute their best customers. This is so sad.

Re:This is already hitting us... (1)

KeyserDK (301544) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740292)

I was listening too, was pretty sad he was so down :/.

What's with the complaints? (2, Insightful)

LowneWulf (210110) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739985)

Rather surprized that Soma's complaining about being on equal footing with radio. Wasn't the whole basis of complaint about this thing that webcasters were being forced to pay MORE than radio transmissions?

While it is sad that they can't afford it, why do they deserve better rates than a traditional radio station?

Re:What's with the complaints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740018)

They don't you fucking moron. Normal radio stations DO NOT pay these fees for over the air broadcasts. Therefore for Soma to be on an equal footing these fees should be ZERO.

Re:What's with the complaints? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740021)

For one thing, their access to a given area is less exclusive. There's only so much space on the FM band, therefore a station on the band doesn't have to compete globally and is likely to realize more profit per-song than an Internet radio station. Also, many (the majority of?) Internet radio stations are non-commercial streams, whereas typical radio is mostly commercial and therefore can better afford payments.

Re:What's with the complaints? (5, Insightful)

baka_boy (171146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740048)

Traditional radio stations pay the rates and fees that they do, at least in part, because they are given slices of the "public" radio bandwidth by the FCC for their broadcasts.

The biggest problem with the new rate structure is that completely non-commercial, amateur Internet broadcasts, which are entirely *legal* (unlike their radio equivalents) will be *effectively* prohibited by the fees, tracking requirements, and back royalties enforced by the FCC.

Today we see another fine example of the federal government becoming the enforcement arm for major corporate interests. This new fee system was not made to benefit consumers, or to protect the innovative world of Internet audio broadcast, but to answer the fears of the RIAA.

Big conglomerates already own something like 80% of the radio stations in this country, and this new set of regulations will give them all the bargaining chips in snapping up any popular Internet stations. So much for finding new, interesting music on the 'net...it'll be Top 40 for everyone, from here on out.

Re:What's with the complaints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740147)

Traditional radio stations pay the rates and fees that they do, at least in part, because they are given slices of the "public" radio bandwidth by the FCC for their broadcasts.

That has nothing to do with it. Why would they have to pay the RIAA to use public airwaves? They already pay licensing fees for the airwaves.

The difference (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740085)

The difference between Internet radio and traditional radio is as the difference between just about anything on the Internet and the traditional way: barrier to entry. The costs of starting up a traditional radio startion fall into the millions and millions of dollars. The cost of starting an Internet radio startion? Well, it depends on the number of listners you want to start with (bandwith usage) but could start being as little as a few hundred a month for a commercial job, or even less if you can run one off a cable modem.

This new per-performance rate, while low and on-par with traditional radio, effectivly kills all the small, independant internet radio startions out there. Sure, huge commerical ones will continue unemcumbered, but the small time ones that played all that hard-to-fnd music will now be gone, unable to pay these fees. In other words, big money has won out again, and the small independant radio station is one again a thing of the past.

Re:What's with the complaints? (5, Insightful)

grytpype (53367) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740286)

In addition to the other good followups that have been posted, another difference between broadcast and Internet radio is that an Internet station cannot possibly serve as many listeners as a broadcast station.

The more listeners the Internet station has, the greater its bandwidth costs -- whereas with a broadcast station, more listeners in the broadcast area do not mean higher costs. That means advertisers would be willing to buy advertising on broadcast radio, giving them an income stream that Internet radio will never have, and that can be used to pay royalties.

I do think it's absurd that a 500-listener Internet station has to pay the same per-song royalty as a broadcast station that could cover an area with millions of potential listeners.

This is just another example of the media Goliaths destroying everything they don't already control.

To the Online radio Stations (2, Insightful)

Kasmiur (464127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739987)

Here is some lube. Its been nice knowing you. We will missing you.

oh no. (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 12 years ago | (#3739996)

You mean the 'independent' webcaster is gonna go away?

There is a silver lining (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3739997)

While it is unfortunate that the smaller webcasters we have come to enjoy are going under, it will make more room in terms of bandwidth for the larger stations (the ones better able to afford the type of resources necessary to provide a reasonable listening experience.) Additionally, the larger stations are more likely to comply with the rules, which will mean that artists will finally see some revenue from MP3s on the Internet. Bonuses such as concert ticket giveaways that were formerly not seen on Internet radio may soon become commonplace as well. Unlike with regular radio, one broadcaster can have many different broadcasts with different genres, bringing us more variety than we were formerly accustomed to. So it's less about killing off alternatives than it is about promoting quality through letting the market decide.

Re:There is a silver lining (2)

jejones (115979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740135)

While it is unfortunate that the smaller webcasters we have come to enjoy are going under, it will make more room in terms of bandwidth for the larger stations (the ones better able to afford the type of resources necessary to provide a reasonable listening experience.)

To borrow a paraphrase from the Good Doctor (Asimov), that is much like unto the excrement of the male bovine. The larger stations that can afford the fees (and are those insane record keeping requirements still in place?) will be the ones that churn out the same mind-numbing bilge that commercial radio already provides.

Sigh. It was great while it lasted...

If your the RIAA the whole cloud is silver (1, Insightful)

mrbuttboy (460308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740159)

You must work for the recording industry.

Exactly in what way are the large stations kept out by the smaller stations? What "room in terms of bandwidth" is missing now?? Are you trying to say that all the smaller webcasters are keeping out the big companies by buying up all the bandwidth??

I guess lack of alternatives is GOOD for me because then I don't have to worry about what I like and I can just take what I am given. No more thinking required! Lucky me!

AP article (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740001)

It ain't karma whoring if you're AC:
(comment: the author thinks this is a victory for webcasters - he must listen to Clear Channel and think it's excellent)

Rates set for royalties on Internet music broadcasts

DAVID HO, Associated Press Writer Thursday, June 20, 2002

(06-20) 14:42 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

In a victory for Internet music broadcasters, the government on Thursday decided that songs delivered online will be charged royalty fees at a rate that is half of what was originally proposed by an arbitration panel.

Webcasters will be charged at a rate that amounts to 70 cents per song for each one thousand listeners, the U.S. Copyright Office announced on its Web site.

Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the Copyright Office, found that the original proposal that set a higher rate for Internet-only programs than the radio rate "was arbitrary and not supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett.

In May, Billington rejected a government panel's rate proposal -- up to $1.40 per song heard by one thousand listeners. That was double the rate for broadcasts sent out simultaneously on radio and the Internet.

"It's good news for a number of Internet webcasters who will now likely be able to stay on the air," P.J. McNealy, research director with the analyst firm, GartnerG2.

Opponents to Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The court could modify or set aside the decision if it finds the ruling was highly unreasonable.

Internet radio, either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers, is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at home.

Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener contributions. Many webcasters said the fees, which would be retroactive to 1998, would force them to shut down.

The record industry had sought higher royalties, saying more was needed to compensate artists and music labels for using their songs.

Webcasters, as well as over-the-air radio stations, already pay composers and music publishers royalties for the music they play, based typically on a percentage of their revenues.

But traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before lawmakers that they already were promoting the music.

After the recording industry failed to impose those new royalties on traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters -- and a 1998 law granted the industry its wish.

Naturally (3, Interesting)

martissimo (515886) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740004)

The RIAA in this article [com.com] , blasted the decision as too low

guess they just cant accept that a few webcasters might be able to come up with business model that actually allows them to survive.

Re:Naturally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740093)

nice, informative article....one thing really, really ticked me off and I've realized all along that webcaseters should have to pay some type of fee.

"There is a reason why we have the expression, 'I can get it for a song,'" said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the organization created by record labels to collect and distribute the Webcasting fees. "It is because we, as a culture, devalue artistic creation. This is just another example of that cultural discrimination."

you have to be kidding me...we have that expression because anyone can sing a song, and in singing it it doesn't cost them anything. Give me a break, this guy is a tool of the highest magnitude.

Still gonna knock most hobbyist webcasters out (4, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740005)

The Librarian established September 1, 2002, as the effective date of the rates. That does not mean that no royalties are due for webcasters' activities prior to September 1. Webcasters and others using the statutory licenses will have to pay royalties for all of their activities under the licenses since October 28, 1998.

So either cough up 10s of thousands of dollars to pay for your theft of copyrights for the last 4 years, or take your hobby into the toilet. Doesn't matter that you only had, say, 10 listeners at a time or that the stuff you play doesn't belong to RIAA labels or that you had 0 income related to your webcasting. You still owe.

Re:Still gonna knock most hobbyist webcasters out (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740108)

...or that the stuff you play doesn't belong to RIAA labels ...

What??? Surely this is wonrg... if I record a song and webcast it for free, I don't have to pay anyone anything. Same with any other music not on a label. Correct?

Re:Still gonna knock most hobbyist webcasters out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740228)

Nope.
You (the broadcaster) owe the RIAA money,
because they're protection the interests
and copyright of the musicians (you again).

For the service they're provided you
(the muscian), they'll only charge the
copyright to your song.

such a little they ask, and so much they give,
protecting you from all those evil pirates out
there.

Re:Still gonna knock most hobbyist webcasters out (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740277)

This sucks for Americans, but does this affect web casters based elsewhere? What are the laws in Canada or Europe?

As usual, Americans think that because something happended in the USA it affects the whole world.

bankrupting on-air as well as webcasters (3, Informative)

pjones (10800) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740012)

this ruling includes a retroactive charge going back to October 28, 1998 that is due in full by October 20, 2002. so if you were webcasting or simulcasting since 1998 (or before) you OWE for 4 years IMMEDIATELY!
since the rates are relatively unchanged (completely unchanged for non-commercial), you are out of business because you racked up a debt unknowingly for those 4 years.
if you are a non-commercial station, college or community, you may have to shutdown both castings and give up.

How will they know? (3, Interesting)

Buran (150348) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740051)

I've listened to the occasional Net music stream, but never served one. But I wonder -- how are they going to know if you've run a Net music service on your personal connection? Business DSL? etc.? It seems like this is a "don't ask, don't tell" situation.

Re:How will they know? (1)

cshor (111947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740283)

I've listened to the occasional Net music stream, but never served one. But I wonder -- how are they going to know if you've run a Net music service on your personal connection? Business DSL? etc.? It seems like this is a "don't ask, don't tell" situation.

Probably the same way they know if you're running a warez FTP server or doing anything else they don't like. If you keep it small, they probably won't notice, but as it grows, more and more people will hear about it, and then they'll hear about it. And then you'll get a letter in the mail from them..

Re:bankrupting on-air as well as webcasters (2)

ryanwright (450832) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740211)

What happens when the industry files liens against and takes the homes and property of webcasters because they can't afford to pay? Assuming an individual shuts his station down now, can they do this to "recoup their lost revenue"?? If so, I'd take up arms.

Re:bankrupting on-air as well as webcasters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740234)

"takes the home & property?" I don't think so! Watch how fast that home equity credit line gets maxed out--followed by a quick trip to Vegas(can we say "laundered"?)

Re:bankrupting on-air as well as webcasters (1)

erik_flannestad (472078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740340)

>if you are a non-commercial station, college or community, you may have to shutdown both castings and give up.

As far as I can tell, any non-commercial station that gets money from CPB (most of them) doesn't have to pay.

Am I right in this?

I'm surprised they're this low... (2, Interesting)

l33t-gu3lph1t3 (567059) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740014)

Considering how corrupt the current broadcast radio industry is, I'm surprised that online broadcasters are able to license any song to broadcast, whenever they want. With conventional radio, stations play what the labels pay them to play. I can really see these new guidelines thinning out the more amateurish broadcasters, and leaving the more polished, better set-up ones intact. Personally, I wouldn't mind having some sort of radio subscription service for my favourite anime stations...

It's a sad day (0)

WellHungYungWun (580730) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740031)

You have to love every time someone finds out that something is free and people enjoy it so "they" decide, "lets tax the hell out of it." (ie Tobacco Products, Liquor, Imports.) I agree with most people that the only source of webcast will be the big boys that have other means of financial backing, or underground sources who don't really care.

its about control, which leads to the riaa makin $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740032)

They don't want stations like Tag's Trance Trip to be able to broadcast because the station isn't playing what the RIAA wants you to hear. If you only hear artists that are signed on their labels, then you only know of those artists and will buy only those cds. What, you can't win by playing fair? PHUCK YOU RIAA!

This is great news. (4, Interesting)

EpochVII (212896) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740035)

And heres why: only unsigned bands will be able to get on U.S. net radio stations. Seriously, fark the RIAA. The other good news is all the streams with copyrighted music will be overseas, either hosted there or run by foreigners, it doesnt really matter. Either way more people will be looking overseas to give the finger to the U.S.

This really does make me sad, though. Hopefully this will jumpstart artists to move to more independent labels.

Re:This is great news. (3, Interesting)

H310iSe (249662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740160)

...this makes me so f...angry. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? So my question is, is the partent post true? can broadcasts simple go offshore (from America) and continue to broadcast for free? What If I stream a channel to an offshore site, can they then distribute it (basically an offshore co-location, um, without the co.) If I run a shoutcast server from my DSL line in the states, will they come and sue me?

OK, now other than working around this utterly stupid law, what else can we do? Maybe if they try to drag a thousand internet radio broadcasters to court to demand payment it would make such a stink that they'd back off? We know the RIAA hates bad publicity.

Other alternatives? How about private internet radio 'clubs' where you have to be a member to listen? Does that exempt them (I know bars don't have to pay RIAA (yet) when they play a song, nor do dance clubs). Other than civil disobediance and lobbying what can we do?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Re:This is great news. (2)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740249)

"What If I stream a channel to an offshore site, can they then distribute it (basically an offshore co-location, um, without the co.) If I run a shoutcast server from my DSL line in the states, will they come and sue me?"

What they'd do is label you a pirate, and then get your DSL account removed. I think that's what happened to Film88.com, but if somebody has more insight into what'd happen I'm all ears.

I am curious what'd happen if you co-located a server with music on it ready to stream, and then paid for your bandwidth in advance. They may be able to send you to jail, but they can't shut down the server... at least that makes sense with the limited knowledge I have right now.

Urban myth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740037)

This is an urban myth much like the Postal Service charging for e-mail.

Re:Urban myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740113)

What ARE you talking about?

Webcasters were hoping for a percentage rate (4, Insightful)

svferris (519966) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740039)

The problem with this rate is that it's still based on the number of songs the station broadcasts. Most webcasters were hoping for a rate based on a percentage of their revenue. But, this was rejected.

So, even with this reduced rate, we're still going to see almost all webcasters go out of business. It's even going to be hard for the big businesses. I work for a large internet radio company, and I was just told by our exec in charge of working with the RIAA that our rates would probably go up about $500,000-600,000/yr from our current rate. He said one reason is because even if a user skips a song, it still counts as a play.

For more info, I highly suggest checking out RAIN (Radio And Internet Newsletter) [kurthanson.com] .

Re:Webcasters were hoping for a percentage rate (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740162)

I made the client for Spinner, I guessed they would be paying about this much or more, I know when I was there this rate would have easily cost us about 250,000$/yr. Yike! Don't know where you are, but how many major internet radio companies are there?

The end result (5, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740046)

Well, the government has spoken, and the rates have been set, at a level high enough to kill webcasting as we know it. The RIAA must be cheering -- if they're not planning some sort of appeal to raise the rates even higher.

Personally, I think the RIAA has just finished the job of cutting its own throat.

Let's look at the facts: These rates apply to "commonly available" music, as a default royalty system. Webcasters are free to sign contracts with content performers and bypass these rates entirely. "But there's nothing good out there!" For now, perhaps.

Thing is, broadband is spreading like wildfire, as is the potential audience for webcasters, and more people will be edging to push their way into it. I'd expect to see underground webcasting stations pushing unknown bands grow common, and then some of them (both stations and bands) will grow increasingly popular. Meanwhile the bands pushed by the big labels (and big prices) will seem more and more stale.

The end result will be the decline and fall of the record companies, which will probably drag their signed artists down with them. Oh well.

Re:The end result (3, Interesting)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740250)

So let's get that alternative contract out there. SOMAFM, if you're reading, WRITE ONE and make it available to the labels you broadcast! This could become the default.

Grab shoutcast while you can... (1)

HeavensTrash (175514) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740052)

After this announcement, I'm curious if the RIAA is going to go after Shoutcast, citing the DMCA stating that it's a circumvention device.

Re:Grab shoutcast while you can... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740111)

Yeah, and then they're going to chop off your fingers and feed you to the space aliens. Dumbass

Re:Grab shoutcast while you can... (2)

grytpype (53367) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740222)

If don't understand the first goddamned thing about the subject, you shouldn't post.

Not all is lost (2, Interesting)

kaden (535652) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740053)

It is sad that stations like Digitally Imported [digitallyimported.com] are quite possibly going to become an endangered species. They brought me music I'd never have encountered on FM radio, or most likely have been lucky enough to find on file sharing services. However, many public radio stations that offer streaming audio will remain, such as WQXR FM [wqxr.com] will likely remain, as they already pay royalties. So it is at least almost guaranteed that there will be some free, non-commercial radio in the internet's future. Now if only we could get NPR to pony up the cash for a few public, all-trance stations :-)

RIAA/MPAA will burn themselves out, given a chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740062)

While I support the concept of payment for use of copyrighted materiel, it is important to have realistic ideas about what the market will bare.

Or is it? The whole purpose of this seems to be (from the POV of the RIAA) to stop webcasters completely. One can speculate as to why this is... loss of control (anyone can be a webcaster) or whatever, but that would not be useful. The effects of this lost battle are clear.

There is however one thing to remember... it can't last without the support of government. RIAA is engaged in illegal practices (think price fixing). It's members' customers are unhappy. Left to it's own devices it will collapse. IMHO, the consuming public would do well to work to keep government out of the dispute and then simply ignore the RIAA/MPAA. Do what you do, be ethical (don't steal) and they will burn themselves out.

Re:RIAA/MPAA will burn themselves out (1)

speedfreak_5 (546044) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740149)

"There is however one thing to remember... it can't last without the support of government."

As long as they can pay off enough representatives and government officials, they can get as much "support" as they need.

Sigh. (2, Interesting)

nostriluu (138310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740070)


I just paid somafm money last week. Not that I regret it, they are a terrific station that plays music I wouldn't hear elsewhere.

It just doesn't make any sense to have the internet, which creates a worldwide marketplace and communications medium, limited by the same old forces that want to create artificial economies of scarcity because they can't see past their "today's spreadsheet," prejudged view of the world. But they're succeeding, and they'll continue to dominate what we can see and do. It may create stability in some people's minds, but it's not natural.

What about non-RIAA music? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740080)

I've been trying to work this one out - does this apply to EVERY webcasting station, or only those broadcasting music that the RIAA has its fingers in? Will stations that only play unamerican music survive? (pun intended)

INteresting Rates - existing fm stations pay more (2)

acomj (20611) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740097)

Internet radio is different than regular radio in that you know exactly how many listeners you have. It seems the rates are per song.. and they're the same for commercial and non-commercial..

And existing radio stations will pay more to replay their broadcasts too.

You Knew this was comming, most cd's tell you public performance is prohibited, now webcasting is officially public performance

Re:INteresting Rates - existing fm stations pay mo (2, Interesting)

Kizzle (555439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740184)

You Knew this was comming, most cd's tell you public performance is prohibited, now webcasting is officially public performance

Believe it or not internet radio stations pay licensing fee's just like regular radio.

How will this be enforced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740109)

Who will do the policing to enforce these fees?

A couple grey issues... (2)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740116)


Remixes: I'm a big fan of video game [vgmix.com] remixes [overclocked.org] , for instance. In cases like those, there's next to no legal issues involved, and there should be no charge. Similarly though, would other types of remixes be immune, even if they extensively used clips from existing songs?

Unusual selections: If a radio station had, for instance, old audio commercials, which although possibly copywritten, would generally raise no major issues over lost income for the owners, would those follow similar charges? How about theme songs, or approved short song clips?

On a related note, would station creators be responsible for metering just what was being played at all times, and to how many people? The sheer processor use and disk space required to keep such a log alone would bankrupt most online radio stations, I'd think.

Ryan Fenton

Re:A couple grey issues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740171)

Word to the wise: use of the horrific pseudoword "copywritten" makes a lot of people immediately discount anything else you have to say.

CopyRIGHTS have to do with RIGHTS. They have nothing to do with WRITING.

The word you're looking for is "copyrighted".

Re:A couple grey issues... (2)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740212)

Eek - you are correct. How annoying. I just tend not to associate the word "right" in any way with "copyright", subconsciously. I've corrected myself dozens of times when writing the word also, yet when I'm just stream-of-consciousness writting, it comes out as copywrite.

:^)

Ryan Fenton

Tag's Trance Trip off the air (5, Interesting)

djneko (50099) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740119)

Reposted from digitally imported's forums [di.fm]

I don't know how it will affect DI, but if anyone was listening to Tag's Trance Trip, he shut off just before 3pm Pacific Time.

He was in tears thanking everyone.

Last song on the air was "Days go by" by Dirty Vegas

The anarchy of the net can prevail though. As streams drop off the air (every shoutcast stream may be affected), we must trade the files via FTP and P2P networks if we are to stop the music cartels. Blank cds are cheap, hand out cds full of mp3s with information about what has been done to our beloved streams.

As the streams are shut off, open up the archives and distribute them. Show them how much worse it will get when they block off one avenue of our expression.

Our culture should not be locked away from us and sold back to us.
------------------

The ideas contained herein are free to republish by anyone not affiliated in any way shape or form with the RIAA and MPAA

Re:Tag's Trance Trip off the air (2)

bbk (33798) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740325)

"Our culture should not be locked away from us and sold back to us."

I think the RIAA and MPAA's entire scheme is making what they produce "our culture". The worst thing you can do is not want what they produce...

I haven't been able to talk with friends re: TV for the last 2 years, because I haven't bothered to hook it up. And, IMHO, I haven't missed anything.

BBK

protest (1)

lethalwp (583503) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740124)

i know there was already protest when ppl knew about the proposed rates

but now again, is there a way to protest?

Like making up a list of all big radios that are closed? (in fact, will there still be online? WITHOUT FSCKING SPAM-ADVERTS?)

Re:protest (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740269)

It can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If the EFF doesn't appeal I will ask for my donation back.

And this is the least bit suprising? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740127)

Tax what moves, and push out the little guy so that 'free speech' becomes a pay per use...

Nothing new..

Re:And this is the least bit suprising? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740190)

You can speak all you want.

Taking someone else's speech and playing it back without permission is a different thing entirely.

Make your own damned music. Nothing is stopping you.

I agree with the other poster. The RIAA is cutting its own throat here.

Farewell, Internet Radio. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740128)

You will be missed.

Ex Post Facto? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740131)

Section Nine, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

It was written 200+ years ago, but doesn't that hold true today?

Re:Ex Post Facto? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740156)

The actual law was passed years ago, with rates "to be determined later".

So, this does not apply.

Shipping ... (2)

halftrack (454203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740132)

... hasn't got much to do with broadcasting, but do as most shipping companies has done: flag out.

Civil disobedience (5, Interesting)

ryanwright (450832) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740173)

It's time for civil disobedience.

It's time for someone to setup a streaming radio app that works similar to P2P. Something that can't be shut down.

This is total bullshit. Commercial stations don't pay $500 per day. Why should Somafm?

I know the guy running Soma watches Slashdot. What can we do to help, short of giving in and paying these mobsters? I'll do what I can for you, but I'm not sure what to do aside from continuing to sign online petitions and send letters. I sent one to my rep in congress on this subject. Received a worthless form letter in reply that refused to take a position on either side. The punk.

I have 1Mbps of upstream bandwidth. Maybe it's time to put my private 15GB MP3 collection up on the various P2P networks? So far, I don't let anyone but my family access it, but I'm thinking it's time to reconsider...

I know at least some of you bastards in the industry are reading this. Get a clue: The public won't stand for this greed. Swapping music on the Internet is only going to increase because of this. You people need to change your attitude, and fast - you can't prosecute us all.

Re:Civil disobedience (1)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740225)

Actually I'd wager that commercial stations probably do pay $500 per day; or at least they could from their commercial income.

Re:Civil disobedience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740270)

A few more suggestions:

(1)stream thru an offshore source---if it works for P2P and gambling, it can be used for streaming

(2)stream thru an anonimizer

Re:Civil disobedience (1, Flamebait)

cpeterso (19082) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740344)


Civil disobedience == "Laws are for other people. I'll just do what is convenient for me."

"A victory for internet radio" (1)

contrabassoon (532058) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740199)

Check this spin at CNN. Biased? Jeesh

http://money.cnn.com/2002/06/20/technology/inter ne t_radio.ap/index.htm

Re:"A victory for internet radio" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740285)

Remember the folks behind CNN include the likes of AOL-Time-Warner...need I say more regarding bias?

Whatever (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740200)

This is only going to prevent net stations from getting as big as their airwave counterparts. Like the futile war on (some) drugs, it will simply push fair users underground and off the industry's collective radars. Also, as some other posters mentioned, this could be a big break for music that isn't signed to a major label. Folks that rely on net streams to get music at work and school may have some good taste forced down their throats for once :)

Sideshow Bob Strikes Back (2)

Servo5678 (468237) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740218)

Why am I reminded of the episode of The Simpsons [snpp.com] where Sideshow Bob demands that Springfield abolish television, and the government caves in under threat and all of the broadcasters shut off their transmitters?

Brockman: [on air] And as my final newscast draws to a close, I'm reminded of a few of the events that brought me closer to you: the collapse of the Soviet Union, premium ice cream price wars, dogs that were mistakenly issued major credit cards, and others who weren't so lucky. And so, farewell. Uh, and don't forget to look for my new column in PC World magazine.

Sideshow Bob: Success! They're giving in. Blast! I should've made more demands. Some decent local marmalade for one. Oh well, next time.

Slashd0t is b0rkened!! (-1)

Anal Cocks (557998) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740227)

Slashd0t is b0rkened!! Teh INDEX SP1LL linx ar3 m1ss1gn!!!!111

not ignorance... (2, Informative)

OpenMind(tm) (129095) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740240)

..but conscience action. As seen in this snippet, they know they will be putting small operators out of business to make sure the RIAA gets what it wants:

Webcasters and broadcasters asked that the Librarian reject the CARP's approach and provide them with an option to pay a rate based on a percentage of their revenues, rather than a per-performance rate.

...

Finally, the CARP noted that because many webcasters are currently generating very little revenue, a percentage of revenue rate would require copyright owners to allow extensive use of their property with little or no compensation.


the only options (5, Informative)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740244)

1. stop playing riaa music. This will help independant artists (such as myself) alot, but will cause people to not hear the music they want to hear at first.

2. Don't host in the US, use overseas servers. The riaa will probably try and make their laws apply to other contries (stupid), but I doubt it will work on all countries.

Remember the golden age of pirate radio? (1)

.smoke (167893) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740248)

It wasn't that long ago, really... 70's, 80's or so? My favorite radio stations when I was a kid were pirate stations. Sure, sooner or later one would get shut down, but they'd just go underground for a few months and then pop up again somewhere else on the dial.

So screw the RIAA, don't pay them. The successful pirate stations did it by broadcasting from ships in international waters (think Radio Veronica and Radio Caroline in the North Sea). The same would work here - move it off-shore, out of reach of the RIAA and this misguided decision by the LoC.

And if you don't want to be considered a "pirate"? Just don't play the crap on the RIAA members' labels :) Find some cool-sounding independent bands eager for the publicity and pay them instead!

I'm probably just being overly idealistic though....

B*B,
-Smoke.

Re:Remember the golden age of pirate radio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3740358)

Don't play RIAA members' music. Sorry, they've got you covered there, too. Reference a recent interview with the operator of SOMA-FM regarding how he's having more and more trouble getting permission to play new electronica/dance stuff because the major labels are running around buying up all the independent recording companies. (You can bet your britches you're going to see them following the DEA going after the party promoters as well.)

What looks at first blush like a concession in the "interim" recording requirements ("estimating" 15 selections/hour) is actually a 20,000lb. bomb which establishes what all the incumbent Webcasters are liable for in back royalties to 1998--which will now be due as of this September.

So, shortly, we'll see all the pioneers in the field run out of business, to be replaced by a new set of stations which don't bear the retroactive burden. Most likely many of these will be set up by the major broadcasting chains and the major record labels themselves, flooding the Net with more of what *they* want us to listen to and buy. Get ready for All Britney, All the Time.

CNN: Victory for Internet Radio (1)

unsinged int (561600) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740264)

That's what's on the front page of their site right now. Ironic isn't it? As we read that title, sites are shutting down.

Note this is only a maximum rate (5, Insightful)

HiKarma (531392) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740279)

It's important to note that these rates are the maximum a station would have to pay, which is why the RIAA thinks they are too low. After all, if you had a song, would you think $.0002 was sufficient payment for somebody to hear it?

But all players are free to negotiate any other terms, including lower terms, and including free for bands that want to get more play for their music and don't want the revenue.

This is a maximum because if they ask for more than the .07 or .02 cents, an internet radio station can just invoke the compulsory license and pay that lower amount.

Think this through again. The norm for copyright law is you can't perform somebody else's copyrighted work without permission. This ruling (common in the music industry but not elsewhere) says that you don't have to ask permission, you can just pay this fixed fee. If you go get permission you can arrange any fee both parties want. This ruling came down because people could not agree on fees.

In the end, this might mean that independent labels, which can now band together and declare lower fees for their music, dominate the airplay on internet radio stations. They might even declare free airplay for their stuff. This could mean independent labels begin to dominate the big labels on the internet.

Already projects like the Creative Commons are defining ways for works that want to allow free play to encode it right in the file.

Frankly, I don't think the government should be setting the price of music at all, however.

Its the terms that are the killer (2)

epeus (84683) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740284)

7 cents per hundred wouldbe fine if they could offer a sensible service like the old my.mp3.com, or a request show, but they can't.

Here are the terms of the licence [cornell.edu] , which have lots of vague clauses about DRM type stuff that look as if they were deliberately written to be only settleable in court at great cost:
(v) the transmitting entity cooperates to prevent, to the extent feasible without imposing substantial costs or burdens, a transmission recipient or any other person or entity from automatically scanning the transmitting entity's transmissions alone or together with transmissions by other transmitting entities in order to select a particular sound recording to be transmitted to the transmission recipient, except that the requirement of this clause shall not apply to a satellite digital audio service that is in operation, or that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, on or before July 31, 1998;
Is this an Anti-TiVo clause?

(vi) the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to cause or induce the making of a phonorecord by the transmission recipient, and if the technology used by the transmitting entity enables the transmitting entity to limit the making by the transmission recipient of phonorecords of the transmission directly in a digital format, the transmitting entity sets such technology to limit such making of phonorecords to the extent permitted by such technology;

viii) the transmitting entity accommodates and does not interfere with the transmission of technical measures that are widely used by sound recording copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works, and that are technically feasible of being transmitted by the transmitting entity without imposing substantial costs on the transmitting entity or resulting in perceptible aural or visual degradation of the digital signal, except that the requirement of this clause shall not apply to a satellite digital audio service that is in operation, or that is licensed under the authority of the Federal Communications Commission, on or before July 31, 1998, to the extent that such service has designed, developed, or made commitments to procure equipment or technology that is not compatible with such technical measures before such technical measures are widely adopted by sound recording copyright owners;

The logic of record companies of paying thousands to get airplay on the radio, but trying extract thousands for wireplay on the net escapes me still.
(cross-posted from my weblog [blogspot.com] )

CNN calls it a "victory" (4, Informative)

ryants (310088) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740294)

Over at CNN the headline is:
Netcasters win ruling

U.S. rules songs delivered online will be charged royalty fees at half that originally proposed.
Here's the link. [cnn.com]

Some victory... instead of cutting off both arms, you get to keep one. :(

What we need... (3, Funny)

joshwa (24288) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740315)

... is for Hilary Rosen to get a few pies in the face [bitstorm.org] . Where's the widespread Hacktivism when we need it?!?

GCL (2)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740322)

Someone mentioned the creation of a GCL or Gnu Content License not too long ago.

Does anyone think this would be a bad idea for recording artists to implement? Would consumers still pay for full albums on CD with all the extras or would they just swap freely without honoring the artists financially at all?

Any thoughts.

So what does USL owe? (2)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 12 years ago | (#3740352)

I've been listening to Under Sedation Live [undersedationlive.org] , a talk show. They have a toll free number, and do a three hour show every Saturday night. It's really good stuff - all talk and original material. They play music in the "breaks", but it could easily be switched to all "written authorization" stuff.

So... where does that leave them? $500, certainly, and I'd imagine that Live365 is about to go under, leaving them without a bandwidth provider. I'm thinking about offering to step in if they take care of the licensing.

A few questions - *can* they play music from, say, MP3.com, with authorization? (Heck, I play guitar and sing - if I walked into their studio, could I play an original composition without having them have to pay?) And second - what is their fee scale?

Y'know - it seems really stupid that they are charged for broadcasting their own material. Does this mean that CU-C-ME or Pow-Wow chats (or whatever they are nowadays - I haven't used Internet speech chat in many years) are now under this fee schedual? They are broadcasting voice... ??

--
Evan

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>