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!

The New Webcasting Compromise

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the or-just-less-hampered dept.

News 128

arkham6 writes "According to a story on Yahoo, it appears that the RIAA and negotiators for webcasters have reached a tentative deal for reduced rates for 'small' webcasters. However, it appears now that the artists themselves are going to jump into the fray because the record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists."

cancel ×

128 comments

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

Weasel out of paying? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408301)

That's business for you.

YES COMRADE! UP WITH GNU, DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408440)

fp (-1)

u-238 (515248) | about 12 years ago | (#4408304)

dont u hate it when f@gg0t yuppis waste your time with gay posts like this?

first post schluts

so do i. but guess what?

I GOT FIRST POST!!!! BOOYA

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408316)

No you didn't... SUCKAH!

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408415)

You are a slow motherphucker. Next time, refrain from eating your boyfriend's ass for at least 20 seconds, and maybe you'll get a fp.

hahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408307)

yah down with music

eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408314)

"...the record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists." Next thing ya know microsoft will be able to kill off businesses in other countries that piss it off by, I don't know, selling mod chips? Oh, and the MPAA will get legistlation passed that restricts user rights.

Just a public gesture (-1)

slashuzer (580287) | about 12 years ago | (#4408315)

Fuck RIAA.

Paradigm Shift (5, Insightful)

claygate (531826) | about 12 years ago | (#4408318)

Artists and music pirates have long heralded the removal of the middleman from the music business. This paradigm shift will in effect allow the record companies to make more money and the artist the same amount. Until the artists have a method of promotion that does not require a record label they will always receive the short end of the stick. Maybe instead of $2million advances, a loan of $200,000 from a bank and some hardwork promoting your band as a day job, and playing at night for the band. Turn the band into your business and it might be successful. A few ands have taken that route and succeeded.

Re:Paradigm Shift (2, Informative)

leviramsey (248057) | about 12 years ago | (#4408357)

Turn the band into your business and it might be successful. A few ands have taken that route and succeeded.

Perhaps none moreso than Metallica (aka E/M Ventures and Creeping Death Music).

Gotta Say it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408422)

Metallica SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck Lars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Paradigm Shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408372)

You better be sure your band doesn't suck donkey dick if you try this. A lot of bands prefer the low risk path of signing on to a record label. They can do what they like, and if it turns out wrong, who cares.

Re:Paradigm Shift (2)

Elbereth (58257) | about 12 years ago | (#4408382)

And you can put to use that business degree your parents made you get!

Re:Paradigm Shift (2, Insightful)

Trollificus (253741) | about 12 years ago | (#4408391)

"Until the artists have a method of promotion that does not require a record label they will always receive the short end of the stick.

It's not just that. Promotion aside, the record company also pays for the studio time, recording equipment, etc. They pay for the tour bus, road crew and accomodations. They pretty much have you by the balls from stem to stern as far as money is concerned.

" Turn the band into your business and it might be successful.

Some of the most successful bands around have realized just this. A big-time band isn't just about music. It becomes such a machine that you need to treat it like one. Learn about business and you're one step ahead of the game.
The problem is, any business requires capital. Something most young bands do NOT have. They see the recording industry as a free ride to fame. Everything is paid for and setup for them. All they have to do is show up and record, right?
Or so they think.

"...a loan of $200,000 from a bank"

The loan idea sounds nice in theory, but what bank in their right mind would fund a band? The recording industry strikes gold with maybe one in every 20 bands they sign. Why would a bank take that kind of risk?

Re:Paradigm Shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408964)

The problem is, any business requires capital. Something most young bands do NOT have. They see the recording industry as a free ride to fame. Everything is paid for and setup for them. All they have to do is show up and record, right?
Or so they think.


Why does everything in the entertainment industry have to be a get-rich-quick scheme? How many average people here that went to college, earned a degree, and then started working expected some big time corporation to snap them up and throw seven-figures their way?? We don't. Most of us will live day after day for our entire lives making $50k-$75k/year, raise a family, and retire. There's nothing wrong with that kind of life. In fact, I'd say the average middle class person lives a much fuller life than the drug-addicted Hollywood whores who have millions of dollars but can't keep themselves out of jail. Nice image to portray to our children as role models huh? Why does the entertainment industry think they deserve anything more than the average Joe? Do I care if some actor isn't getting paid $20 million for their next movie or if Britney Spears is only making $15 million on this album? Should I feel sorry for the thug football player that is making $5 million a year getting arrested for beating his girlfriend because he's stressed out after a loss? We've let the entertainment industry balloon so far out of control that the difference between their lives and normal people's lives has become ridiculous. Why do they think NO ONE has any sympathy for their cause when most of the bands whose music is being "pirated" make millions of dollars a year and live a life of absolute luxury while blowing it all on drugs and bullshit? That's like the king complaining to the commoners that he had to cut back to 5 meals a day and only give a dowry of 2 million gold pieces for his daughter's wedding because YOU, the peasants, aren't working hard enough to supply him with taxes. Sorry about the rant folks, it's early and I'm tired of the entertainment industry. Yea, I know, don't watch it then. We need entertainment as a part of being a social human being, but we shouldn't promote the entertainers to god hood. How much was the average entertainer making 50-75 years ago? Probably much closer to what the average middle class person was taking home. I'm sure sports players weren't bringing in millions of dollars a year.

A way to promote and share (4, Informative)

epeus (84683) | about 12 years ago | (#4408589)

Over at mediAgora [mediagora.com] the details of just such a promotion and payment system are under discussion.

Ummm, were you trying to say something? (3, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | about 12 years ago | (#4408832)

Who needs the RIAA to promote their band? The artists want more not less and don't think they need you at all. An aquantiance has made the point [adequacy.net] better than I can, and this little deal is no different from others offered before. Among the outrages:

Retroactive Fuck:Under the regime, small webcasters will be required to pay artists and record companies a percentage of their revenue, sources said. The deal includes language that will make it retroactive until 1998, the year set by Congress as a cutoff for payment, and will allow webcasters to pay the earlier rates in installments. Wow, my friend is on the installment plan for broadcasting over the web, no RIAA music involved either!

Money goes to RIAA for the usual "promotion deductions" Although artists rights groups appear to have no problem with a deal that helps small webcasters, a union official expressed concern about language that could allow the record companies to avoid paying artists their share of the royalty directly. The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.

All and all the same old shit, but it won't last. As if there were only a need for five recording companies and four broadcasters in the world. Anything the RIAA can agree to is just another screw to all in order to keep their artificial monopoly on selling popular culture alive. 802.11b and similar will eliminate the RIAA racket, bring money back to artists and music to the masses. With government out of future broadcasting, your days are numbered, pig.

Re:Ummm, were you trying to say something? (2, Interesting)

Deth_Master (598324) | about 12 years ago | (#4409138)

This is the heart of the issue. We are not listening to what the RIAA wants us to listen to. Pop culture will eventually die. Perhaps that will eventually produce a generally more diverse populous.
Image the changes: fashon would be based on a different idol (instead of britney spears, n-sink, etc. not sure if that's better or not), the music industry would become much more diverse. The changes to culture would be huge. I wonder what the effect on things like MTV and VH1 would be....

Re:Paradigm Shift (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | about 12 years ago | (#4409246)

"Until the artists have a method of promotion that does not require a record label they will always receive the short end of the stick."

You mean like the Internet?

The truth of the matter is that artists do have a method of promotion in front of them, and there are even some taking advantage of services like mp3.com [mp3.com] (which while not a good venue for royalties, still at least provides exposure) and FightCloud [fightcloud.com] (previously mentioned on Slashdot; $5 CDs with 50% of the profits going to the artists).

But that just doesn't compete with a multi-billion dollar hype machine, for the obvious reason that money makes stuff happen. Heck, even the artists on FightCloud seem to be looking at hooking up with a label, at least based on what was said during the interview mentioned in the Slashdot article awhile back.

However, nothing's stopping independent artists from undercutting RIAA prices over the Internet. A group of independent artists can band together and offer to allow their music to be streamed for free. Anyone with a server can give away mp3s. The opportunities are there -- more people just need to take them.

Re:Paradigm Shift (2)

einer (459199) | about 12 years ago | (#4409607)

The artists only now (when their bottom lines were in trouble) 'jumped into the fray.' They're no better than the RIAA. Screw them both, let them die, enjoy the new sounds that don't have 'commercial appeal.'

Webcasters (2)

ucblockhead (63650) | about 12 years ago | (#4410168)

Banks generally aren't going to fund something so high risk. But what about the webcasters themselves? What if they went to artists, saying "We'll pay for you to record your album if you give us rights to webcast it"?

Re:Webcasters (3, Insightful)

susano_otter (123650) | about 12 years ago | (#4410252)

It's still not clear where the webcasters are supposed to get this magical money from. After all, they can't fund new albums unless they have some sort of revenue stream, right?

So: are they planning to charge for their 'casts? Are they planning to sell ads? Are they hoping for industry payola?

Charging for the 'cast probably won't work. Selling ads might work, if advertisers and websurfers weren't both in "once bitten, twice shy" mode about internet advertising. And if you're doing an end-run around the industry, payola is pretty much a non-option.

Artists may be OK (3, Informative)

tomasdore (222625) | about 12 years ago | (#4408322)

There's a slightly more positive take on the artists' financial share over at ye olde favorite, SomaFM [somafm.com] :
"More info as soon as we know more... we're trying to get the final wording on the bill, but we understand that the provisions (added at the last moment) that take money away from the artists were removed before the vote was approved."

Artists... (5, Funny)

jmv (93421) | about 12 years ago | (#4408325)

...record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists

The artists, they think that just because they're the ones that work hard to create that music, they're entitled to some part of the profits. Shame on them! They should make their effort in order to to help the poor guys from Sony/BMG/EMI/... so they can make a living. With all these music terrorists around, it's really hard being a major label.

Re:Artists... (1)

woodstok (17147) | about 12 years ago | (#4409221)

Baha, in these days of Britney Spears and N'sync do you seriously believe that? Its the companies that find the artists, give them lyrics and music and transport them around the world. All the artists have to do is not make a fool of themselves. This is the age of the new type of musicians.

RIAA involvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408332)

The big concern right now is if record companies are going to hand out free sandwiches.

Re:RIAA involvement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408453)

Knowing them, they'll probably serve Spam sandwiches.

middleman mania (5, Insightful)

Alien54 (180860) | about 12 years ago | (#4408335)

The deal came after an intense week of negotiations that was sparked by pressure from a key lawmaker who threatened legislation that would delay implementation of the payment.

The RIAA agreed to something because they still want "their" money

Although artists rights groups appear to have no problem with a deal that helps small webcasters, a union official expressed concern about language that could allow the record companies to avoid paying artists their share of the royalty directly. The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.

"Direct payment is crucial, and if the recording industry gets deductibility language, we need direct payment," said one artists rights advocate familiar with the negotiations.

Obviously they have gone back to their old reliable first choice of people to mess with, just to make sure they get their middle man piece of the pie.

I want to make life size voodoo dolls of these folks.

It's over? (3, Informative)

madumas (186398) | about 12 years ago | (#4408336)

According to their site, SomaFM [somafm.com] will resume broadcoast soon !! yay!
0.70$ per song per thousand listeners seems to be reasonable for small webcasters.

Re:It's over? (3, Interesting)

D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (609493) | about 12 years ago | (#4408464)

How do they know how many people are listening to a song? What if no single person listens to the whole song?

More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit Orgs (3, Informative)

jigokukoinu (549392) | about 12 years ago | (#4408338)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27474.html

They list some specifics that state if your revenues are less than 250k you have a specific rate' mhile 250k-500k is another tier.

Mhere exactly would non-profit orgs sit?

I need to learn to type and preview! (1, Funny)

jigokukoinu (549392) | about 12 years ago | (#4408344)

Whew, this Dvorak keyboard is killer on my spelling. ::grunt::

Re:More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408369)

remember that non-profits still make revenues just like private corporations. they are still charged by for-profit companies. they may not have to pay certain taxes to the government, but private corps can do all they want to non-profits.

Re:More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit O (1)

jigokukoinu (549392) | about 12 years ago | (#4408399)

Bleh. Af course they are referring to revenues, not profits! Ha. I knew it was too late to be posting.

Re:More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit O (2)

larien (5608) | about 12 years ago | (#4408543)

The rates are, IIRC, 10% of revenues or 7% of expenses, whichever is greater. Non-profit orgs will still pay the 7% of expenses; not sure how "revenue" is defined for this.

Re:More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit O (2)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 12 years ago | (#4409043)

The rates are, IIRC, 10% of revenues or 7% of expenses, whichever is greater. Non-profit orgs will still pay the 7% of expenses; not sure how "revenue" is defined for this.

Those are really basic buisness terms. Non-profit orgs still have "revenue" (money they take in) and "expenses" (money they pay out.)

A non-profit org who does more than just webcast would be well served to seperate the webcasting, though, unless there's allready a provision for that.

Re:More Specifics at The Register/Not-For-Profit O (2)

larien (5608) | about 12 years ago | (#4409082)

A non-profit org who does more than just webcast would be well served to seperate the webcasting
Yes, I thought something similar, and not just for non-profit orgs.

/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artists (4, Informative)

utahjazz (177190) | about 12 years ago | (#4408347)

Quoth Yahoo news: The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.

They're trying to deduct their expenses for setting up the royalty payment system, not avoid paying artisis altogether.

Yeah, OK, it's still evil.

-These are not the sig your looking for.

Re:/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artist (1)

Kindaian (577374) | about 12 years ago | (#4408408)

Of course...

And i will start to place in my invoice an item called "invoice payment/receivals system" and all my clients will have to pay it!

Good luck... if you keep any custommer... hmmm... slave...

Re:/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artist (4, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | about 12 years ago | (#4408409)

They're trying to deduct their expenses for setting up the royalty payment system, not avoid paying artisis altogether.

I'm sure the recording industry uses the same accountants as the MPAA member companies. The same accountants that figured out that Coming to America, Titanic, and hundreds of other movies never made a profit.

Hey, if these guys would get together with Enron's accountants, who declared they always made a profit, perhaps the truth would finally emerge???

The artists will never see a dime of this money.

Re:/. blurb RIGHT Shock... (2)

MosesJones (55544) | about 12 years ago | (#4408572)


Incommings $10 million. Expenses $10 million, royalties paid... zero.

If they get to charge this overhead what is to stop this overhead becomming huge ?

Re:/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artist (2)

octalgirl (580949) | about 12 years ago | (#4408944)

The labels that the RIAA support already have all of the means and methods for collecting $$$ and distributing. That's what they do. Seems like another sneaky way to put some of their in-house expenses back onto the artists shoulders, where it least needs to be.

No company or organization (including the mob) has ever brought such a vision of sharks circling the injured as the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:/. blurb wrong. They're still paying the artist (2)

Observer (91365) | about 12 years ago | (#4408960)

The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for
setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.
<sarcasm>Something that it has not had up to now, presumably.</sarcasm>

Case it be 'dotted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408348)

Web royalty rate deal reached
Sun Oct 6, 7:10 PM ET
By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON (De Hollywood Repo'ter) --- Negotsiato's fo' de reco'd companies and webcasters reached some deal Sunday on some royalty payment scheme fo' beat streamed upside de Internet dat carves out some lowa' rate fo' small webcasters, sources close t'de negotsiashuns said.

De deal came afta' an intense week uh negotsiashuns dat wuz sparked by pressho' man fum some key lawmaka' who dreatened legislashun dat would delay implementashun uh de payment. Man!
While details uh de deal wuz sketchy Sunday, it appears dat da damn reco'd companies made several concessions dat would allow webcasters dat ain't part uh de big broadcast and Internet conglomerates t'pay some significantly lowa' rate, de sources said.

De two-year deal allows small webcasters t'pay some "rate significantly lowa' dan de one da damn Librarian uh Congress came down wid," one source knowledgeable about da damn talks said. Exactly how some "small webcaster" wuz defined wuz unclear Sunday. Slap mah fro!

While da damn groups made some deal, it still gots'ta win de approval uh Congress as de rate set by Librarian uh Congress James Billin'ton Jr. Ah be baaad... earlia' dis year be still legally bindin'. Havin' de deal distilled t'law also ensho' mans dat it gots'ta apply t'everyone.
Aldough artists rights groups appear t'have no problem wid some deal dat helps small webcasters, some union official 'espressed concern about language dat could allow de reco'd companies t'avoid payin' artists deir share uh de royalty directly. Slap mah fro! De language seems t'allow de reco'din' industry t'deduct da damn top 'espenses dat dey incur fo' settin' down and maintainin' de royalty payment regime.

"Direct payment be crucial, and if de reco'din' industry digs deductibility language, we need direct payment," said one artists rights advocate familiar wid de negotsiashuns.

Unda' de regime, small webcasters gots'ta be required t'pay artists and reco'd companies some puh'centage uh deir revenue, sources said. De deal includes language dat gots'ta make it retroactive until 1998, de year set by Congress as some cutoff fo' payment, and gots'ta allow webcasters t'pay de earlia' rates in installments.

Webcasters and reco'd industry and union officials wuz attemptin' t'translate da damn deal into legislative language dat would be acceptable t'de parties and lawmakers, most notably Rep. Jes hang loose, brud. F. James Sensenbrenna' Jr. Ah be baaad..., R-Wis., chairman uh de Crib Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites), and da damn panel's senio' Democrat, Rep. Jes hang loose, brud. Raz'tus Conyers uh Michigan. 'S coo', bro.

Negotsiato's in de raps had proceeded in an on-again, off-again fashion since Billin'ton set da damn rate in June, but dey wuz supuh'charged when Sensenbrenna' introduced legislashun two weeks ago dat would postpone implementashun uh de rate.
Unda' de rate set by Billin'ton, webcasters gots'ta t'pay copyright holders whut amounts t'70 cents puh' beat fo' each 1,000 listeners. De royalty be split 50-50 between artists and da damn reco'd labels.

NIGGA PLEASE. YAHOO AIN'T EVER GON' BE 'DOTTED. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408418)

Woo Hoo! (1)

MattCohn.com (555899) | about 12 years ago | (#4408349)

Alright, Mr. Johnson, here's your check.

Um, excuse me, this is for Zero dollers and zero cents.

Well, 15% of NO REVENUE. Figure it out.

This is putting my plans for a small personal non-profit webstream back from underground to legal. Also, I know many radio stations who multi-cast and don't get any revenue from THEIR stremes who will get to stop pointing those "Listen Live" links to http://www.sos.dj

Re:Woo Hoo! (1)

essell (446524) | about 12 years ago | (#4408384)

You are partially correct.

The exact payment system was a percetage of revenue *OR* expenses, whichever was higher. Of course, in my mind, this seems to leave the option open for webcasters to hide their expenses through "trade-out" deals with hosting companies, whereas they can show zero expense and zero profit.

let me get this straight (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408352)

I never really did figure out if this affected every single broadcaster. My question is if this affects people webcasting music that has nothing to do with RIAA and its multitude of labels? If I recorded myself playing and webcasted that along with some recordings of friends of mine, would I have to pay them the webcasting fees?

Re:let me get this straight (5, Funny)

Glytch (4881) | about 12 years ago | (#4408401)

Exactly! You'd just be depriving artists of proper advertising by not playing their music. That's just like theft, you music terrorist.

Re:let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408445)

If I recorded myself playing and webcasted that along with some recordings of friends of mine, would I have to pay them the webcasting fees?

If by "them" you mean the RIAA, then yes. I mean the only reason anyone would even listen to music is because they believe that it is high quality content. The only reason anyone even knows about high quality content is because of the RIAA. Without the hard work of the RIAA, we would all be stuck with lowest common denominator type content.

You wouldn't be trying to steal from them, now would you?

Re:let me get this straight (1)

lpret (570480) | about 12 years ago | (#4408534)

IANAL, but I think it was mentioned here a while ago that if you had direct consent from the artists, no webcasting fees were needed. That was discussed because of the idea of using unsigned bands who would rather get their name out. I know that I've been working on a station and just going to shows and talking to bands with this kind of idea. Good luck...

Re:let me get this straight (2)

naasking (94116) | about 12 years ago | (#4409165)

IANAL, but I think it was mentioned here a while ago that if you had direct consent from the artists, no webcasting fees were needed.

Let's be clear and say you need consent from the copyright owners, not the artists. If the artist has signed away his rights to material, he cannot grant you the right to webcast.

Re:let me get this straight (1)

trezor (555230) | about 12 years ago | (#4408552)

Lame, lame, lame yeah i know. And not that lame, anyway. If you haven't understood it yet. It doesn't matter who made the music, the point is that RIAA deserves revenue. To feed the starving artists ofcourse. Even if you should be streaming your own music, that merely a a technicality.

"All your base are belongs to us."
- RIAA representative

Re:let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408728)

Depends on who owns the copyright to the music. If you own the copyright then you can do whatever you bloody want. If you havent figured out between you and your friends who holds the copyright then you should.

The Screen Savers (2, Interesting)

NickMc2000 (614182) | about 12 years ago | (#4408361)

This story was on The Screen Savers tonight. For those that don't know, it is the number 1 tech show. They interviewed Steve Wolf of Wolf-FM. Heres a link to the site they gave out: http://www.saveinternetradio.net/

Re:The Screen Savers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408386)

Would you care to tickle my balls?

Re:The Screen Savers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408468)

Only if you're Morgan Webb.

Re:The Screen Savers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408555)

Though it is a good show, and probably is #1, I'm getting tired of people who think they know stuff about technology keep "sharing" their "knwoledge" they've heard from TSS.

They act as if that show is God, and that everything they say is true. Just because you watch TSS doesn't mean your technology inclined, I'd say just the opposite.

Re:The Screen Savers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409319)

Just because you watch TSS doesn't mean your technology inclined, I'd say just the opposite.

So you would say, "Just because your (sic) technology inclined, you watch TSS"?

Re:The Screen Savers (1)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | about 12 years ago | (#4410125)

TechTV: Comedy central for the tech elite.

And no, they don't try to be funny.

actually (2)

Wah (30840) | about 12 years ago | (#4410216)

given the ratings that tech TV garners, I'd say /. is the number 1 tech show.

ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408387)

but will they charge for webcasting this? [web229.net]

(warning, copyrighted material)

FIRST POST XP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408393)

This FIRST POST VERSION IS:

FIRST POST XP PROFESSIONAL WITH GOATSE EXPLORER 6.0!!!!!

Remember Slashdot does not support FIRST POST MILLENIUM OR FIRST POST 98 SECOND EDITION!

The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408397)

Do all the math you want the REAL stinger is the MINIMUM FEE!

$500 Minimum.

Even if you just play one song a year.

The $500 Minimum is what will kill Most small broadcasters.

Re:The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (-1, Troll)

D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (609493) | about 12 years ago | (#4408496)

That's what's so great about capitalism. You are free to get rich, buy the government, and erect barriers to entry in your industry. That way you don't have to work so hard at anything, but you can claim to be working. Then call anyone who thinks you don't work a communist and take their karma.

Re:The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (1)

brad-x (566807) | about 12 years ago | (#4408608)

Think of it this way, it's a good way to encourage broadcasters and artists to get together and promote new music. Internet broadcasts are getting ever more popular (I think I prefer them to my mp3 collection at this point), and people may realize that it's a great way to promote music without the need for a major label.

Major labels won't go away of course, but expanding the marketability of new artists using the Internet is certainly something to look forward to.

People often manage to back themselves into a corner or even ensure their obsolescence by trying to tighten their hold on a given market.

Re:The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (2)

quintessent (197518) | about 12 years ago | (#4409180)

"it's a good way to encourage broadcasters and artists to get together and promote new music"

Or rather, it's a good way to discourage it.

I better be pretty darn sure your music is going to be popular before I consider broadcasting it even once. A $500 minimum is a nice, ridiculous way of making sure the small guys only broadcast mainstream (i.e. RIAA sponsored) music.

Re:The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (2, Interesting)

NevDull (170554) | about 12 years ago | (#4409684)

Nice to see that we have a lot of Burger King employees chiming in on the issue.

If you can pay for the bandwidth necessary to stream to a number of people, you can pay a $500 minimum.

Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they're open.

Re:The REAL Killer, the $500 Minimum fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409997)

burgerking.swf [20megsfree.com]

Librarian: did he ever admit the bad data source? (5, Interesting)

geekotourist (80163) | about 12 years ago | (#4408420)

After the head librarian set the rates, it came out that the numbers he worked with [kurthanson.com] came from Yahoo, which set that rate to shut out small broadcasters. It is as if an economist setting some tax rates for, say, software, used numbers straight from Microsoft, even though Microsoft can do monopoly pricing. Or if the economist was testing the average price of toys, and measured prices only on November 26 and December 26 (both traditionally big sales days in the US). In other words, the foundation of his report- the Yahoo data- was unreliable.

Did he ever admit that his model relied on abnormal data? I've seen nothing that shows that he re-ran any of his financial models. A good researcher admits when a data source is retroactively found to be inaccurate- the librarian is so far not acting as such. He needs to redo his calculations based on multiple data sources.

but who really cares? (0, Offtopic)

NOiSEA (614540) | about 12 years ago | (#4408428)

if you arent a big guy your a small fry [sb5.com] . at least thats what i always say but anyway i heard the whole in the ozone layer is getting smaller. thats good.

My experiences with the new webcasting compromise (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408429)

It's been 3 days since I've been back on my feet after my anal correction surgery. The doctors told me they have corrected as much of the damage as they could. I think I will get used to having to wear diapers the rest of my life, things could be worse. At least I am still alive, and I can still breathe the fresh air, smell the blossoming flowers, and hear the chirps of courting birds on a spring day. Although my life is much different now, I have the willpower and confidence to move on.

My name is Rob Malda. I got anally feltched too hard.

I remember the night like it was yesterday. Another fun and energetic Saturday at the discotech in the gay corner of town. I was being my normal flamboyant social butterfly self and talking to all the local cuties. There were a lot of muscly guys there and I must tell you the scent of raw, homosexual energy at the discotec always made the hair on my neck (and other places) stand erect. But there was this one guy who really stood out in the crowd. I would later discover his name was Jamal. The first time I saw his glistening ebony skin at the discotec I knew I wanted him inside me. I've always been good at picking up guys so I walked in my sharp female way, swinging my ass at each step, until I was right in front of that sexy piece of chocolate cake. He had short, frizzy hair, teeth whiter than milk, and a friendly smile that was out of this world. Man, I wanted his dick in my ass so bad. But I had to keep my groove. I said to him in my well crafted lisping tone, "Hey sweetie, I've never your sweet ass in these parts before, want to join me for a drink?" He smiled and replied in a deep yet touching voice, "Heh heh, I sure would you little sex muffin"

This really hit it off from there, We talked and danced and flirted like schoolgirls. I found out he was from a town a few hundred miles away, visiting the big city for a little fun. He had muscles like you wouldn't believe, obviously worked out a lot, I felt like a little strawman compared to him (I'm fashionably slim). I was on top of the world, the envy of every boy at the place, a star. When we were resting from the thumping disco-house music, I asked Jamal if he wanted a bump of crystal meth. He gladly accepted, telling me that in the town where he came from it was hard to find good crystal. I took a bump myself. My nose is no stranger to this wonderful stuff! The energy from the crystal really made us move. His dancing skills were on par with mine (which are excellent, I have danced in a couple of small Broadway-style plays before). I was really getting hot and horny at this point though, I knew we had to find a quiet spot of our own.

We walked very quickly to the bathroom; I couldn't keep my hands off his lucious abs. We found an empty stall and stormed into it, it was a whirling hurricane of passion. The speed made us very energetic. We didn't make out for long before things became hot and heavy. I slipped my hand into his tight leather pants and grabbed his sweet man package. I was thinking at this point 'how did a firehose end up in here?'. Then I realized this was his cock. It was the longest, thickest anaconda of a cock I ever witnessed. I pulled down his pants, which was difficult because he was getting real hard, real fast. I don't even want to guess how long his penis was, at least 12 inches, maybe more. And it was so think I couldn't even grab around it all with one hand. His cock was sweaty and glistened. I wanted this black staff real bad. I pulled off my own pants and bent down. I stuck the head of his cock in my mouth but it was just too big. I licked the rim a bit but I knew what I REALLY wanted. I turned around and assumed the position I have assumed so many times before. Face down, ass up. That's the way we like to fuck. My anus was not prepared for this brutal thrashing however. I've always described the sensation of anal intercourse as taking a long, incredibly enjoyable shit. But this didn't feel right at all. The walls of my anus were ripping, "PLEASE! Be gentle! I'm just a little white boy" I screamed. Jamal, fueled by crystal meth, wouldn't stop though. He began pushing his black cock into me harder and harder. The pain and pleasure was out of this world. I could feel his huge testicles smacking the back of my ass. He was grunting and groaning like a real man. I could hear the sensuous sound of blood and shit being packed by his violent fucking. I was in immense pain but I didn't want it to stop. He must have fucked me for 45 minutes before it was over but finally he began to cum. He was screaming so loud, "OH OH OH OH OH MY GOD, YES YES YES, TAKE IT LIKE A MAN, TAKE IT LIEK A MAN, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! OH YEAH!" At that moment I felt a gallon of cum spray into my ass, and I could hear shit, blood, and semen squishing inside me. It was paradise.

After Jamal removed his penis from my ass the problems started. I realized I was bleeding a lot more than usual. It took a whole roll of toilet paper to clean it up. I got dressed and returned to the discotech to unwind before going home. As I was walking across the dancefloor I felt a sharp pain in my ass and lower stomach. I fell to the floor and started screaming, I was shaking and sweaty and pale. At that moment, a huge surge of watery shit spewed from my anus. It was mixed with blood and semen. I was crying and screaming and in pain. Everything started to go black and I vomited all over myself. I briefly remember someone pulling me out of my pile of feces, semen, blood, and vomit and on to a stretcher.

I awoke in a hospital bed. A doctor was there when I opened my eyes. He explained to me how I almost died and how my ass and lower intestine were permanently damaged not only from Jamal but also from years of vigorous fucking by multitudes of men. It was a shock but I knew it was my own fault, you cannot lead this sort of lifestyle and not face the consequences one day.

So life goes on, I no longer frequent the discotec where I met Jamal and then collapsed spewing watery shit. I lead a much more relaxed, normal life now. I still talk to Jamal, even though he damaged me I will never forget that night. He is in love now with a boy in his hometown, and I wish him the best.


©2002 Anonymous Pancake [slashdot.org]

Who's going to think of The Artists? (5, Insightful)

Lux (49200) | about 12 years ago | (#4408431)

This makes me more than a little sick. Whenever they appear before Congress or talk to a journalist, the RIAA only talks about "The Artists" {rights, livelihood, right to compensation, insentive, ...} but the second the royalty pickings get a little too slim for the studio's tastes, the artsists are the first ones to take the pay cut.

Re:Who's going to think of The Artists? (2)

Catiline (186878) | about 12 years ago | (#4409152)

That would be because the RIAA wants "the Artist" to refer to the sound technician, recording producer, studio owner.... In other words, everyone involved in making a musical recording except the musician. After all, they are the recording artists, not performing artists.

Bah.

The worst thing about it is.... (0)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 12 years ago | (#4408497)

The worst thing about charging to webcast low quality audio is that noone charges physical radio stations except for the liscence to broadcast over FM/AM/etc. no matter what you do, you are screwed over by someone.

The whole concept is nonsense. (4, Interesting)

Beautyon (214567) | about 12 years ago | (#4408505)

We listen to online freeform radio from the USA every day. They have realtime updated playlists. Its simple to find information about the music being played, by a simple right click. We can then check out the t-shirts and CDs.

There should be no charge for streaming online from non commercial entities. Period. Anyone can start a station, and see thier trafic explode if they play good sets. This new tax will dampen down or cap the potential size of audiences, which for independent labels will be a very bad thing.

Anyway, how are they goning to police this?

Streaming is no different to file sharing; its just copying a very long number. There cannot be one law for streaming and no law for P2P filesharing; there should be the same unrestrictive constitutional guarantees [nyfairuse.org] for both.

Copyright is Haram. This means that you can put a server in a sharia country, securely tunnel into it and then stream from there. Unfortunately the cost of doing this wont be worth the hassle, much less the threat of having charges to a company in Iran showing up on your credit card bill!

Re:The whole concept is nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409007)

P2P laws are coming, my friend.

Re:The whole concept is nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409170)

"We must break them"
Dolf Lundgren to Rocky

may not work out at all (1)

g4dget (579145) | about 12 years ago | (#4408519)

With peer-to-peer webcasting, multicast, wireless webs, etc., nobody will be able to measure anything "per 1000 listeners". Kind of like real broadcasts. But because it's so ad hoc, statistical estimates won't work either.

It seems likely that the whole broadcast/record industry was a fleeting phenomenon. Why not just give up on charging for recordings altogether? Between charging for live performances (bring your digital recorder if you like), government sponsorship, private foundations, and donations, we should be able to get more than enough of a thriving musical and artistic culture. That's how music and art were paid for before the 20th century.

Or, in different words, if the choice comes down to Britney Spears or civil liberties, I'll choose civil liberties, thank you very much.

Re:may not work out at all (0)

D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (609493) | about 12 years ago | (#4408575)

if the choice comes down to Britney Spears or civil liberties, I'll choose civil liberties

No fucking shit. Barriers to entry into broadcast media serve no one except those who are already in the industry. This is art for god's sake. Competition doesn't create innovation and sure as fuck doesn't enhance inspiration.

Re:may not work out at all (5, Funny)

zwoelfk (586211) | about 12 years ago | (#4408676)

Well, I am only speaking for myself but...

If the choice comes down to Britney Spears' music or civil liberties, I'll choose civil liberties.

If the choice comes down to Britney Spears or civil liberties? Which civil liberties exactly would I have to give up?

Re:may not work out at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409032)

Let's say... Free speech. You can no longer speak freely on topics that interest you, but you do get to date Britney Spears. No brainer, right?

Whipped (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 12 years ago | (#4409134)

All of them. :)

Now that's... (2, Funny)

Mac Degger (576336) | about 12 years ago | (#4409186)

...just plain kinky!

thanks for ignoring me qjkx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408558)

Why not just have donations that are funneled to particular artists or the internet radio station? The "gift economy". End copyrights and licensing now.

RIAA Sues Radio Stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408564)

Funny semi-relevant article for those who don't read the Onion:

RIAA Sues Radio Stations [theonion.com]

RIAA Paradox... (2, Funny)

Ironpoint (463916) | about 12 years ago | (#4408776)


RIAA:
"We exist to collect the royalty money that pays for our existence"

Hopefully the RIAA will implode upon itself.

Bush's hypocrisy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408931)

Any thing george has said can be applied to the US itselves ...

The obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4408996)

Tell Saddam he gives up the weapons of mass destruction, we give him the RIAA. Fair's fair!

LOL (2)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 12 years ago | (#4409072)

And all this under the guise of "protecting the artists"!

And with the recent TV commercials with Spritney Bears and a bunch of pathetic "rap stars" informing the public that downloading music is stealing from them... Of course, there were no respectable artists appearing in those commercials.

disclaimer: don't get me wrong, I don't support music piracy at all, but I also don't believe the RIAA's silly notions that they're "protecting the artists".

Why is web-radio so different? (3, Insightful)

gorjusborg (603799) | about 12 years ago | (#4409108)

I have a friend that works for a radio station near where I live. She is a DJ. She has explained to me on several different occasions that the record companies have liasons which pay the station to put certain songs on the air (this was called payola in back when there was no liason). The idea is that the record companies get advertising for their albums, with the assumption that people will buy them.

Why is on-air broacasting payed to play songs when wired broadcasters are forced to pay to play?

It seems to me that the same advertisement idea works for both.

Re:Liaison not Liason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409217)

I forgot how to spell this too, had to go to dictionary.com to remember how. :)

Re:Why is web-radio so different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4410067)


Simple. Because they aren't playing what the industry wants them to play, the industry wants to shut them down instead of rewarding them. And bankrupting is just a good a way as any.

I thought this was blatently obvious -- the cornerstone of any internet promotion of independant music is streaming radio (i.e. where someone can give you interesting stuff to listen to that you don't know about). If you remove that by bankrupting the providers, you have quite effectively crippled independant promotion of music.

The world revolves around money (1)

DewDude (537374) | about 12 years ago | (#4409207)

It's a simple case, the industry (entertainment industry, covers RIAA and MPAA) wants money, they found out that most of the american public buys into thier shit and will do what they say. Downloading MP3's is communism...ok Mr. RIAA, I won't download them anymore.

The fact is everything in this day in age is so fucking pre-processed it's not even funny. American Cheese lives up to it's name, it's fake and processed like America. It's all about image. Britney (Titney) Spears sells more CD's than 4 guys that know how to play music. Backstreet (Backdoor) Boys sell more cd's than a bunch of guys that are a real bad. It's all shit. The last CD I bought was the White Stripes because it had a decent sound and was like $7 at Circuit City (suck that RIAA, some albums aren't under YOUR control and price inflation). They've discovered they can put out pure shit, charge 20 bucks, and as long as the group "looks" good, it'll sell. Im sorry, I won't buy it. The bullshit in the media industry has to stop, we need to get more REAL bands and less cookie-cutter shit. I'm a "small" webcaster, I've sunk quite a bit of money on my stream, do I make any profit off it? no. there are no advertisements or anything on my website, it's pure fun and done for my love of broadcasting. I do have some RIAA controlled stuff, there's a lot of it, I also have some non-riaa stuff. and this can extend into movies as well, let's not get started on movies released by major movie studios......

those are my views, CD sales didn't slip till the RIAA started bitching and raised prices, now they want to say some 56K stream is hurting them, get your ears out of your ass.

This probably isn't realistic. . . (2, Insightful)

bass2496 (597243) | about 12 years ago | (#4409288)

But maybe we don't need music collection agencies for radio anymore. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that BMI, ASCAP, and the like are among the richest companies in the world. And what do they produce?

We have the technology today to pay the artists directly. And the cost of a system like that would probably be less than the extra charges that the collection companies add on for profit

As I said, it isn't very realistic. It is hard for little changes to come about in the music industry, forget about big ones like this. Just a little wishful thinking I guess...

RIAA, make up your mind. (3, Interesting)

tsg (262138) | about 12 years ago | (#4409303)

When the artists question you about their low royalty payments, you complain about having to pay independent promoters (aka "payola workaround") to get the songs on the radio thus getting exposure.

Now, here comes a bunch of people who want to play your songs, giving them as much if not more exposure, and you're trying to charge them for it?

Well, which is it?

Yeah, right (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4409387)

"Oh, yeah, we'll give you a discount. Let's see...(um, how much were we going to pay the artist? Ten cents?) OK, we'll give you a ten cent discount. How's that? (Sorry, artist, we can't 'afford' to pay you anything now.)"

Crucial word here is... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | about 12 years ago | (#4409470)

Weasel.

That pretty much describes the behaviour of the RIAA, except for the bits which are better described by skunk or snake. (specifically, a boa constrictor)

Re:Crucial word here is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4410014)

Homer: "Weaseling out is what seperates humans from the animals! Except for the weasels, of course".

How much will this really cost small webcasters? (3, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | about 12 years ago | (#4409821)

The article noted that the rate works out to 70 cents per song per 1000 listeners. Now, I have no idea how many people can actually connect to a given webcaster at the same time, but just to keep the math simple, I'll postulate 1000 listeners (and do a little rounding).

At an average of about 4 minutes per song, that's about 15 songs per hour, so that means (assuming I didn't drop a decimal somewhere):

1000 listeners costs the webcaster around $10/hour in royalties, or about $7500 per month.

100 listeners costs the webcaster around $1/hour in royalties, or about $750 per month.

10 listeners costs the webcaster around $0.10/hour in royalties, or about $75 per month.

That strikes me as being WAAAAY over what that many listeners can bring in revenue, considering that advertisers want to know that their ads are being seen/heard by a certain minimum number of listeners.

So I don't see how this is any great improvement over the previously-stipulated rate. It's kinda like telling someone who earns minimum wage that you'll reduce their fee to $1 million, because the previous $2 million fee wasn't affordable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?